Can't believe I'm writing this, but disappointed in JK today

I wonder if her associate is that blonde guy who grifted money off GCs for FFS a few years back.

A tiny number of people being referred to as 'she' as a term of endearment in social situations does not destroy the meaning of the word or mean it ceases to refer to females. Dramatic nonsense.

A man is still a man.

I got the name wrong. Shock horror. Not the pronouns. I'm not usually that thick or blind.

@Imdunfer "You cannot police language in respect of pronoun use."

My son and his partner are trying to do just that. Other parents' experience says this is typical of gender identity adherents. They are trying to unilaterally redefine third person pronouns as referring to gender identity, not sex. This is for their own comfort, because they want trans people to be seen and affirmed as the gender identity they claim.

But changing language like that has a profound effect on other people.

Firstly, it means that parents have to go around effectively telling everyone they talk to that their son is their daughter, or that their daughter is their son. Similarly, a wife is told she must accept that she is in a lesbian relationship with her husband, who is now her wife. This is altering other people's identity, not just the trans identified person. I am the father of my son, and his newfound identity does not make a significant part of my identity to be the father of a daughter. This is an effect of compelled speech, to give me the choice of accepting a new imposed identity, or being vilified as a bigot.

Secondly, using gender identity language removes sex-based rights because they cannot be upheld if the language makes the sex category 'men' include some women and the sex category 'women' include some men. The sex-based rights have now been replaced by gender-based rights, and anyone can therefore claim women's rights by saying "my gender is that of a woman". This is the wholesale removal of women's ability to have any space of their own, and in some circumstances this matters a great deal.

So let's not police pronoun use. I can then call my son 'he' without him taking offence and refusing to talk to me – because pronoun use should not be policed. He can, if he wishes, make a case for me to call him 'she', but it will have to be convincing. Likewise, JKR can call her gay trans friend 'she' – because pronoun use should not be policed. I can, if I wish, make the case that this (repeated millions of times by kind people who don't want to upset their trans-identifying friends) has serious negative consequences, and that I would prefer pronoun usage to be sex-based. If JKR was listening to me, or other more eloquent people with a similar perspective, I believe she would at least consider whether she is being consistent and whether her standing up for some gender-based third person pronoun usage supports gender identity at the expense of physical reality.

Hmmm. I like the cut of your jib.

And the world continues to be round...

Better analogy:

I have a friend who thinks 2+2=5. I disagree and say that 2+2=4, even though it causes friction when splitting bills.

JKR's friend thinks that 2+2=5, but because JKR is made of money, she can afford to play along.

I think JKR is being daft, but I don't have the right to dictate how she interacts with her friends. The important thing is that I have the right to refuse to play along.

Humans can't change sex. It's an analogy about statements of truth.

I'm also responding to "I think you underestimate the ability of parents and other people to call people who they love "she" without believing that they have become a physical female."

If you were in touch with parents whose children are caught up in gender identity, you would find that many of them do get upset about calling their daughters 'he', just as I get upset about being expected to call my son 'she'. I cannot cope with the cognitive dissonance of calling him "she" when I was present at his birth when he was unambiguously observed by the four people present (mother, midwife, doctor, me) to be male. He has continued to be observably male throughout his life so far, and I doubt if he fools many people now that he's clean shaven and wearing a dress. Third person pronouns have always referred to sex throughout my reasonably long life, and only recently have I come across trans demands to change language, not via a natural evolution of usage, but through threats of social ostracism for "transphobia" and "bigotry".

And I do not have 'faux concern' about people with body dysmorphia. I have genuine concern about my son's future. I also have concerns about women losing their spaces to men claiming they have a right to be there. These are not mutually exclusive concerns. They are the natural outcome of observing what has happened societally during the ascent of gender identity ideology.

Humans can never and will never be reduced to aritthmetics. Such a self-defeating argument.

We are being expected to believe and accept 2 +2 =5. That's the entire point.

It's no more arguing for compelled speech than pointing out an error in maths.

Men can't be women.

2 +2 does not equal 5.

There's nothing more dangerous than an ideologue, OP.

I agree with you that JKR has done amazing things for women and children's rights. I just don't agree with her on using preferred pronouns.

In response to @Joliefolie

No, I said that the arguments I see here for agreeing with her use of preferred pronouns are 'what's the harm' and 'be kind' and we've all seen where that's led us. It's led us to men in women's sports, men taking women's awards, men in women's prisons and hospitals, bathrooms, changing rooms, children being lied to and gaslighted, children being socially transitioned, children being told they're in the wrong body, children getting puberty blockers, people getting irreversible surgery that leave them with long-term permanent health conditions, men in sex-specific support groups, men elected to women's positions, men demanding they are treated as a lesbian and wanting access to lesbian spaces etc.

I absolutely said the opposite. Read my posts on this thread, and others. I won’t tell other women how they should talk about their friends. I don’t feel that it’s out of bounds for discussion by others though.

JKR has taken the GC movement way beyond where it could have got to without her involvement. I'm sure we've all disagreed with her at some point - it would be bizarre if that were not the case. However, you say you know where her attitude leads.... Well, where? Where would the GC movement be now without her attitude? Seriously? She is not a leader, a deity etc. She is someone who has said, hey, I get that there is some nuance here when it comes to personal relations but I draw the line when it threatens people's rights and as I'm in a position to put some voice and money behind that line I feel bound to do so. I will not lie (her trans friend knows she doesn't think they have or could ever change sex), I will protect and nurture personal relationships that are important to me, I will push back at anyone - no matter where they sit in the debate - who tells me what I should or should not be doing and saying on this matter.

I think the analogy should be that JKR is saying '2+2=5 and don't police my speech'. It's not compelled speech to point out that 2+2 is actually 4.

This does not apply, if you were very happy to call 2+2=5 it still wouldn’t apply because we have a criminal code. But if your friend doesn’t run a shop and is suggesting they exchange you an Apple for 2 or 2 apples for 5 and you’re happy with that then there is no issue, I’m assuming you’re not a vulnerable person with learning delays or dementia? It’s only if you’re forced to accept 2+2=5 that there’s a problem.

Your insult to my integrity is noted.

I take into account the feelings of all in the room, even the cat.

It’s arguing for compelled speech. Anyone as absolutist as you is someone others should back away from.
if someone wants to be called something , anything, and their friend is happy to, doesn’t really matter what that something is. If someone wants to be called something, which is an inaccurate something, and others don’t want to but are forced to, that’s not ok. these two situations are different. Human beings should be able to distinguish.

The arguments I see here are 'what's the harm' and 'be kind'. We've been here before and know where it leads.

Do you really think JKR is bowing down to a man who demands she lies about what a woman is? Do you think women on here defending their right to choose when it comes to individual and personal contexts are just cowering in the face of abusive men? They are exercising their freedom to act on the understanding that human relations can never and will never be reduced to 1+1 = 2.