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

I know that 2+2=4, but my friend is bad at maths and thinks 2+2=5, so I go along with it to not hurt my friend's feelings.

Oh, erm, now when I go to my friend's shop to buy two things that cost 2 quid each, my friend charges me a fiver.

Best be kind though, eh?

🙄

I agree. I think conceding on language is what got us into this mess in the first place. It's important that the language we use reflects reality. You cannot have effective safeguarding without clear language. Conceding on this is the reason children are being taught in school that it's possible to change sex, it's possible to be trapped in the wrong body, the reason for unnecessary medical procedures that don't address the root cause of distress. I think it's a step backwards and I am disappointed in JKR who as a thoughtful, extremely talented writer, knows the importance of words. Truth matters and words matter.

If you only consider the man in the room then you are ignoring how abusive he is, how sexist and disrespectful he is to woman with his demand we lie about what a woman is to keep him happy.

It is up to me to decide how to deal with each situation.
Not all gender confused men are abusive.
Some are just very confused.
And increasing the stress in the room to make a GC point helps nobody.

If you cannot see that
you need to get out more

Of course she can. And I can disagree with her if I want.

Of course you can criticise her. There has been lots of criticism of her on this thread and on twitter. Go for it, If she's true to her word she'd be the last to object to your right to do so. But don't expect to take anyone not already convinced of your point of view with you.

Nope. Respecting individuals is not the problem. Codifying fiction into law and obscuring proper data collection is what does harm to women, including those who identify as transgender.

i will always fight for people to freely express themselves. JKR has made it clear from her earliest statements starting either phrases like “dress how you want” that she holds to the same ideals.

I may not believe someone can change sex, but I absolutely will always respect an individual and their right to be themselves.

and we can criticise her for it.

I agree. JKR can say and feel what she feels.

Blimey. Sorry for the typos.

No it doesn’t. It ignores the impact on women of destroying our language. It tells abusive men that it is ok to demand women’s language and destruction of boundaries because they will get what they want. Giving in to abusers always ends up the same.

"she" has always been used satirically about men behaving in a female stereotypical fashion. The chant at football matches for men that dived to try and win a free kick/penalty has always been "she fell over".

This use of "she" to denigrate men is not the winning argument for routine use of cross-sex pronouns that you seem to think it is.

Satirical use or derogatory use of language is also not analogous to using wrong sex language and doesn’t support any such change.

there are only two sexes which leaves using wrong sex language for a person does render language meaningless.

If someone choose to use wrong sex language for gender identity purposes, the suggested comparators don’t support that choice. It is, of course, an individual choice but I don’t believe these examples support that choice.

It really isn't.

I did not say for the men.

I mean less stressful for ALL
and yes, there are times when an avoidance of conflict reduces stress all round.

Fudging pronouns to make life less stressful for men whilst not caring about the impact on women is what got us into this mess.

If fudging around the pronouns of a person makes a situation less stressful do it.

If using wrong pronouns makes a situation more stressful do not do it

The reality is that adults fudge language all the time to avoid conflict
that is what JKR does with her TiM friend

while also being livid about the institutional capture
and deliberate causing of distress to children done by the gender lobby

I think the point being missed is that calling a person you know is male "she", (and I've never seen anyone getting upset about calling a female "he"), is likely to become just as entrenched and accepted as "brother" and "auntie" for non blood relatives.

Language changes over time, "she" has always been used satirically about men behaving in a female stereotypical fashion. The chant at football matches for men that dived to try and win a free kick/penalty has always been "she fell over".

You cannot police language in respect of pronoun use.

I think the analogy with people referring to others as if they were brothers is missing the point that this term has been established for centuries to denote relationship status that is not only biological.

Same with aunt and uncle.

These have been well established relationship indicators that are not simply biological.

The correct analogy would be if those people demanded then to be fully treated as if they materially were brothers / aunt / uncle relative, not just as a special relationship category.

I do see your point but they would still call each other brothers after their nonsense claims were debunked.

The nonsense sex change claims have been debunked, we don't now need to police other people's language. Even if that were possible, which it isn't.

If a group started to argue that therefore all black men are literally brothers and - for example - are therefore all entitled to inheritance if one of them dies intestate, AND managed for any period of time to convince many of our major institutions that this was so, AND that anyone dissenting was a bigot and should probably be arrested, I would also feel that it was inadvisable to go about perpetuating the mass hysteria through continuing to refer to one another as, "brother".

Policing other women’s language by telling them they are not allowed to disagree with someone you mean?

@RapidOnsetGenderCritic see post above I forgot to tag you on.

Pretending that 'gender' means that we can control our sex is unhealthy and practising a dysfunctional relationship with our bodies.

I think you need to get straight in your argument whether you are protecting women from men pretending to be women or trans people from their own body dysmorphia.

Because faux concern for people with body dysmorphia does not strengthen the argument for women's rights, it just comes across as a bit desperate.

If you were concerned about body dysmorphia you would be campaigning for trans people to have earlier and better access to mental health care. You're not, your using it as an argument why people shouldn’t call someone they love by the pronouns that they would like to be called

I, and others, deciding that we would call somebody we care about, who asks us to, by the pronoun they prefer does not in any way prevent us from believing that person can't change sex.

Disagree, as I notice do most of the OPs on this thread.
JKR was simply indulging a friend. It's not a slippery slope. It's an act of kindness and courtesy which highlights the lie about 'toxicity on both sides of the debate'.
She is, and has always been, clear about sex, gender and women's rights and our right to single-sex spaces.