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

@TransParentlyAnnoyed Menstruation isn't an illness. I did everything in PE bar swimming when I was menstruating. It's not helpful to teach children that periods mean they can't do physical activities, unless of course your child has Satan's cramps, in which case your child has my sympathy.

Naomi Campbell

Did you perhaps mean Ms Cunningham?

This is one reason why I don't take Rowling's approach. If I always use correctly sexed pronouns, then it's not a matter of liking or respecting anyone, or even about them being trans, but of me being truthful.

But I will not dictate to other women how they refer to their friends.

Some disappointing logical fallacies here on the part of JKR, interestingly mirroring some on here.

JKR confusing disagreement of opinion with being "dictated" to. Policing, purity spiral etc.

Why are these terms so misused in the GC debates, but not in the rest of politics/philosophy?

For example I agree with a lot of what Kemi Badenoch says but if I said "actually I disagreed with this particular comment she made and I wish she didn't say it like that" no one would pounce and accuse me of purity spiralling, dictating or policing her. We are allowed to agree with some ideas and disagree with others. Even if we agree with 95% of what someone says, it's OK, and even healthy, to disagree with the other 5%, courteously and with an explanation.

I think the whole concept of purity in a real life person is bonkers. It is those who shout down any disagreement who are treating JKR as a pure being never to be criticised.

Ironically it is JKR, here, who seems to resent any discussion on her comment as if she ought to be treated as "pure". She is saying there is a purity Spiral but no one is trying to cancel her for one comment. We are just criticising the comment itself.

We should be able to criticise a statement on its own merits regardless of who said it. Otherwise it is the Appeal to Authority logical fallacy "since JKR said it, it must be fine"

This. I think this is a good discussion on this thread, mostly.

Substack not substance... They really don't have substance.

I appreciate the conversation has moved on from the original post. After seeing the jkr post yesterday I have been thinking of the women (&men) who have lost family members including children because they believed that to use the wrong pronouns for their child would be unhelpful. I've especially been thinking about the women (&men) who have lost jobs, opportunity and awards because they didn't feel it was right to use the wrong pronouns. I don't care if your friend is a sweet gentle soul and why should I trust that you think he is? If one man who has "female coded" feelings is exempt then they all are. How else do we keep the AGP predators out, the opportunistic sports men or the nice sweet men who want to join the menopause groups? I have especially noticed the new onslaught against the "ultras" today. Those women that do stick to their principles. I've certainly noticed that the onslaught has come from those who are building an online personality, those that have a substance or that make money from the continued war. After the Sandie Peggie case I thought it was understood that the bottom line is none of them are afforded the use of she or her. After watching Naomi Campbell argue the point several times I thought we were passed that. Plenty of Beth Upton's supporters said what a lovely kind, gentle soul they were and I believe them. Anyway hold the line because of you don't then you have nothing left.

I agree with a lot of what she says about purity spirals as i said, but I also believe pronoun bollocks is a big part of the problem and people have the right to disagree and discuss it. It is inconsistent to she/her your own TIM friends but not other identical men.

comparable with forgetting someone's changed their name on marriage.

I'm autistic. Forgetting people's entire names is a day ending in Y for me, never mind remembering that a particular obvious female wants to be referred to as "he".

I work alongside people from other countries for whom English is a second, third, or fourth language. Some of them talk about inanimate objects as "he", particularly those from the Slavic nations.

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate the ableist and racist nature of trans ideology.

Because saying “is peter enjoying Peter’s new job” is clunky and would come across as confrontational. I don’t want that when chatting with my child. We have different views and I try to respect that.

I agree, there is a difference, @KTheGrey

Should you speak more than one language - German in particular springs to mind - the debate over pronouns may become less charged for you.

Meanwhile, there is a difference between trans people who are just cracking on with their lives and trans activists who fetishise the crossing of women’s - or indeed men’s - boundaries.

If she chooses to [use the pronouns] it's literally none of your business.

Hang on, JKR has literally gone on twitter to explain to the world why she uses she-her pronouns for her male friend. She's deliberately made her reasoning for this a subject for discussion and debate.

This isn't us invading her privacy, we are effectively accepting her invitation to consider her views on this matter and form an opinion on them.

Because I don't believe they're asking me to lie.

Asking me to lie would be asking me to agree that they were a woman. Or that they should enjoy the legal rights and protections women do.

Yes, YOU do.

If she chooses to do otherwise it's literally none of your business.

JK made it perfectly clear in her post that she doesn't believe her friend has changed sex, and neither do they.

What words she chooses to use to address that person is 100% her choice.

They’re all grown up. I use the wrong sex pronoun when talking to my grown up child about a friend: “is he enjoying his new job?” etc. It would be clunky and cause friction and the individual is a harmless lovely female. I would struggle to indulge a male.
When meeting in person there’s no need for pronouns.

Calling men ‘she’ destroys the meaning of the word ‘she’ - it ceases to refer to females. There is then no word to refer to females that way. Who benefits from that?

Calling them she is treating them as women in society.

No it isn't, it's calling them she. Not everything is that deep.

It is not a hard leap for them to turn around and say, well since you treat me like a woman in these ways I should be treated as one in all ways. And what argument do you really have to fall back on then?

They can say whatever they want, I will not treat them like a woman in the legal or biological sense, because they are not a woman. Nothing I call them out of politeness or kindness will change that.

Indeed, this is another purity spiral that the opposition is regularly (and with good reason) accused of.

Did I miss it in a fast-moving page, or did nobody yet point out JKR's responses to feedback some of which is similar to what has been said here?

https://nitter.poast.org/jk_rowling/status/2047259862472462346#m

Trying to dictate how other people express themselves provides a delicious opportunity to chide and correct and to demonstrate one's own purity and righteousness - as indeed you're currently demonstrating - but they achieve nothing except making the language police feel good about themselves.

https://nitter.poast.org/jk_rowling/status/2047232085111300193#m

Some gender critical people seem to think that demanding we all use correct sex pronouns will return the world to sanity. This is an attempt to make the tail wag the dog. You cannot fight linguistic prescription with more linguistic prescription, and no rights campaign can succeed if its adherents are more interested in creating a purity spiral than allowing the smallest space for nuance or for the complexities of human nature and feelings.

And we don't want to be like them.

Having been in that situation on a number of different friends, it is possible to maintain accuracy by not using wrong sex language. Names can be used wherever possible.

It is also very important that you speak to the child’s parent about it.

IMHO what really undermines the GC movement is saying 'they're all evil' I believe the overwhelming majority aren't out to stamp women under their massive stiletto heels. I also believe they can't use the facilities marked for women and that very few of them probably want to.

Why would you use then for your child’s friend? Why not use their name instead and not embed the lie?

I think there’s a tiny number of exceptions where I’d use wrong sex pronouns- a child’s good friend is one example.
it was the “feminine-coded energy” that shocked me.