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

This.

Exactly this.

I don't mind calling people what they ask to be called, it doesn't cost me anything and there's no reason not to.

I do mind changes to policies on collection of accurate crime statistics, access to female only spaces and women's sports, sex based quotas being undermined and biological men in women's prisons, because that does cost us all something.

I think this is where the heart of the problem lies for me.

It helps to clarify things for me if I think about other situations where people are pretending or claiming to be something they are not. It is not perfectly reasonable to go along with it in any other situation. Whether it's a bank robber pretending to be a security guard, white people "identifying" as black, people being fraudelent about their age, someone claiming to havea disability they don't have, even someone with anorexia insisting they are fat or someone with Schizophrenia thinking they are Jesus – with varying degrees of understanding and tolerance, we do not actually as a society think it's perfectly reasonable to go along with any of these, and we understand that doing so can be damaging, either to the person themselves, or to someone else, and is not harmless at all.

And that's despite things like age, ethnicity and disability sometimes being a lot more difficult to prove/be sure of and actually being on a spectrum, unlike sex.

The idea that it's fine and harmless to go along with an untruthful "identity" claim to be polite is not normal for a reason - it's bad for social cohesion and the rights of various groups, for our sense of reality, for safeguarding, for mental health etc. It's ONLY with sex that this has been overridden, and IMO that's largely because of the way GI has force-teamed itself with homosexuality and made it seem as if tolerance of false identities is akin to tolerance of people being LGB, when that's a completely different thing with far fewer effects on anyone else.

Society is complex and there are many situations where we suspend disbelief and go along with a pretence, so I can see how this is sometimes a grey area. But seen in context, it's an anomaly to go along with an pander to a false identity only in the case of sex – and to me it has a strong whiff of misogyny.

Yes. This is it. We choose to do things that are perhaps unreasonable for those we love.

But in doing so, we still have to acknowledge what we are doing and not minimise it with platitudes of ‘respect’, ‘kind’ and ‘reasonable’ to position anyone pointing out the incoherency as being hateful in some way.

Yes it's not a reasonable ask, but we do things for people we love that are not reasonable sometimes.

My children make unreasonable demands of me all the time. Sometimes I do what they ask because I love them and I'm their mother. I think they're very aware they get away with unreasonable stuff because I love them and they would never dream of being so unreasonable with anyone else or expect some random stranger / their teacher / their peers to do the same.

Whereas trans ideology demands that everyone do this thereby undermining women's language and rights and also safeguarding for children. It's very different

“There's nothing wrong with saying that not all trans people are trying to actually 'be' the opposite sex. And that treating them socially as the sex they identify with is perfectly reasonable.”

It is an inconsistency to treat a person socially as being the opposite sex to that which they are. It is not actually reasonable to expect someone to do so, but for some people they will agree to do it.

Describing it as perfectly reasonable is dismissive of that inconsistency / incoherent position.

My earlier point in this thread is that it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that she has transwomen friends to whom she's deferential - she's always been explicit about that.

Wouldn't it make sense that part of the reason that she's especially sympathetic to them (aside from their not believing that they're really women) is that they're highly effeminate homosexual men? (or at least this one in particular.) It would certainly explain why she has very little time for heterosexual men who 'discovered' their identity in middle age for whom it's a clear sexual interest.

That isn't to say that you should be deferential to such men or find them sympathetic. It's not even to say that JKR shouldn't reconsider her use of opposite sex pronouns because it's bad for the cause. (That's why Helen Joyce stopped using them) But in any case there should be no surprise here - if you want to make that case it would be more honest to do so without couching it as a betrayal, or lapse in judgement.

I asked a psychotherapist I know wtf "female-coded energy" meant. She has replied: " "Female-coded energy" (often referred to as feminine energy) is a concept representing a set of archetypal, typically non-physical, characteristics associated with being, receptivity, and intuition. Rooted in Eastern philosophy (yin/yang) and Jungian psychology (anima), these traits are viewed as universal forces present in all people, regardless of gender. "

I think it was a mistake on JKR's part to use language most people wouldn't understand.

Plenty of trans people know they are not literally the opposite sex. They realise they are a separate category. Not better or worse but different. If they respect women's spaces and understand they should use either mixed or their own sex exclusive space. Or that they should campaign for a third space, then that's totally fine.

There's nothing wrong with saying that not all trans people are trying to actually 'be' the opposite sex. And that treating them socially as the sex they identify with is perfectly reasonable.

”when people say the gender critical movement is a far right movement this is exactly what they are talking about. most left wing women came into this argument because we objected to our rights being eroded and our movement being diluted by deliberate muddying of legal language and compelled speech. however compelled speech is bad no matter who does it - I should be free to use whatever speech I want - and it doesn't matter whether its TRAs or GCs offended, neither should affect my right to free speech”

This is not about “far right”.

There is an inconsistency to arguing to regain women’s rights while also then contributing in ways to undermine defining those rights. It is correct though that it is an individual’s choice to use the language they want. Just as it should be acknowledged that we are all human and there may be inconsistencies in our views.

Which is fine if we acknowledge those inconsistencies. Meaning, if you treat a male person as if he is female in anyway and declare that it is respectful to use female language for him, have you considered whether you are undermining the definition of a woman or girl linguistically. We have seen direct evidence of how this has been harmful collectively and individually. Strip away all that emotional reasoning of ‘respect’ and what are you contributing to?

Is ‘far right’ to not consider it respectful to use female language to support a male person’s belief in their own subjective reality that is not material reality (ie to support a male in any way to believe he is a woman or girl?) ?

Yes. Because it doesn’t matter to me what you want to be called but it matters to you. However it doesn’t mean you can use female-only spaces.
If you want to be called an elephant, fine. Doesn’t mean you go in the elephant enclosure at the zoo.

Disagree, trans people simply existing isn't and has never been the problem. The problem comes with compelled speech, invasion of sex segregated spaces, incorrectly recorded crimes, etc. The problem is people denying science and insisting they've changed biological sex, or demanding access to services not made for them, or treating women like objects for their own pleasures and fetishes.

JKR has never been against trans people, just the ideology.

I dont see anything wrong.

She is respecting her friend's wishes to be treated as female but recognises that she was born as a he and is technically male ie has penis.

I was thinking about this this morning and I think there are similarities to the Chimamanda Ngozie Adichie thread. Yes, you can be disappointed but we should also accept we are human & we don't exist in a vacuum.

We all make compromises in our values and are inconsistent and a bit (massively in CNA's case) hypocritical on occasion in all sorts of areas of our lives because most of us are doing a constant calculation of risk and loss in our actions and take the best possible compromise (or sometimes we say fuck it and do what feels best for us and us alone - that's you, CNA, again).

JK is braver and infinately more influential than most of us here. She's shone so much light and there is no question of her strong and deeply held beliefs that you can't change sex and women deserve SS spaces. If her line in the sand extends to allowing a wrong pronoun in personal interactions with a friend, who is OP or me or anyone to say it's wrong?

Maybe OP is willing to burn close friendships and face work disciplinaries over pronouns; perhaps staying strong & true to her principles is more important her than other people's opinion/feelings and it's okay to make that choice too.

But don't write people off & condemn loudly for not being 100% aligned with the cause - there's no awards for the most correctly feministy feminist ever and we all have our own lives to lead & decisions to make and they're hard enough at times. Just do your best.

Well. I come at this from absolutely the opposite angle, but I agree with OP.

I think it’s hypocritical, either you believe trans people’s gender should be respected or you don’t. This “some and some” approach makes it plain firstly that you are fully aware how offensive it is when you misgender other people since you won’t do it to your own friend, it’s also setting yourself up as the arbiter of who are the “good” trans people, who pass sufficiently, or who have sufficient “female-coded energy” according to you (which I agree is a bullshit phrase). This is obviously not only very subjective, it also makes it plain you think respecting people’s pronouns is something you can use to either reward or punish them depending on how you feel about their behaviour. I would not want to be friends with someone who made respecting my identity conditional on my pleasing them. It also raises the question of why or how you think all the trans people that you think it is ok to misgender are different from your friend.

I’m also frankly uncomfortable when people use their minority friends as a shield against some of their more reactionary views, and I wonder if her friend is actually comfortable with this, or aware she is being used in this way, or whether she really does agree with JK’s views about her, or just avoiding the discussion for the sake of friendship. It’s particularly uncomfortable JK feels prepared to discuss her physical attributes on twitter, and I don’t actually feel that’s the act of a particularly kind or sensitive friend to announce to the world that you think your trans friend is clocky (even if you think it's true). I wonder if it has ever even occurred to JK to ask her friend if she is comfortable being used as a prop in her internet arguments in this way.

And if the friend is the trans person mentioned in the comments, I seriously doubt that is a person who uses men’s spaces, which makes me wonder if the woman who literally funded the campaign to exclude trans women from women’s spaces thinks that doesn’t apply to the trans people she cares about – perhaps she thinks there are exceptions for people with appropriate “female-coded energy”. Perhaps it hasn’t yet hit her that the trans people whose lives she has directly impacted are people exactly like her friend. And if the friend is a trans person who genuinely avoids using gendered spaces altogether, I wonder if JK is aware of how much they have to limit their life in order to achieve that, and if she thinks that’s okay. It does make me wonder how close friends these two actually are, and if the answer might be not very (which makes it even worse that JK thinks she can wheel her out as a prop whenever she pleases).

That said, it doesn’t enormously surprise me to find JK’s views are not internally consistent and are somewhat hypocritical, her views have always been rather wobbly in their fact and foundation and at odds with her own self-perception, so I’m not surprised to find there is a great deal of cognitive dissonance there.

I’m also interested to see what will be the result of JK finding herself on the receiving end of the vitriol of the GC movement for a change, perhaps she’ll start to realise the real nature of the movement she’s been supporting? Or perhaps the cognitive dissonance will hold.

I also share OP’s surprise that this opinion is not more widely supported here, as I have regularly seen the views OP promotes shared loudly on this board, and when I choose to use trans people’s preferred pronouns on this board, I without fail get corrected.

I wouldn't use wrong sex pronouns myself, but I don't get to make that decision for other people. It's okay to disagree on some aspects of this debate, we don't have to be a hivemind. I don't have any issue with what she's said.

I would probably say 'stereotypical female personality traits'.

My surprise is that I read it as implying that her friend's female-coded energy / stereotypical female personality traits (whatever you want to call it) make it easier for her to use female pronouns for her friend.

“I think we’re sort of back at the Ultras and Head Girls, aren’t we. I fully agree what she said is not massively helpful to the GC “cause” but I don’t like purity spirals of any kind. As pp said JKR isn’t going to care if people disapprove from any quarter. It’s not like she’s been walking on eggshells to appease the sensitivities of the trans lobby. So it’s the people who agree and disagree with this approach who are going to be pitted against each other, and that isn’t helpful either.”

It was due to come back to the ‘ultra’ discussion. Sadly I think we have to keep having it even though it feels regressive.

Ultimately though, it does mean that each time we have the discussion, people get clearer on what the issues are in using the demanded / expected language.

I agree with her. Her friend is not a woman, and doesn't claim to be a woman. It's OK to address people as they choose to be addressed, as long as it's accepted that doesn't change the fact that they're a man.

when people say the gender critical movement is a far right movement this is exactly what they are talking about. most left wing women came into this argument because we objected to our rights being eroded and our movement being diluted by deliberate muddying of legal language and compelled speech. however compelled speech is bad no matter who does it - I should be free to use whatever speech I want - and it doesn't matter whether its TRAs or GCs offended, neither should affect my right to free speech

This is a fair comment. But what do you call it then? The term used to be effeminate but that 1) has negative connotations, and 2) is still etymologically rooted to 'femina'. Some men, especially homosexual men, have an extremely pronounced degree of effeminacy from early childhood and that has historically, for a variety of reasons (some speculative), been correlated with their decision to transition. You have to call it something to note it even if you don't think it's valid reason for transition or indeed using opposite sex pronouns.

I haven’t read the thread, but she is upfront that she has not really changed position on the usage of pronouns. I agree that it is an inconsistency that she seems to reserve for her friends, but it has also been widely acknowledged that some people will do this.

What this tweet of hers has done has been to somewhat resurrect the ‘ultra’ discussion and the distancing of some people from what they consider ‘extreme’. But it is not extreme to use established language conventions to describe people and to not agree to change those for someone’s subjective reality that is not based on material reality.

I think the difference between now and when that derisory term ‘ultra’ was used for the first time comes down to Naomi Cunningham’s win in court to be able to use correct sex language for Upton. That was one of the hugely significant moments. Now I think there are fucking far more ‘ultras’ and this discussion about JK Rowling’s choices will not likely change people’s decision to use accurate language.

The discussion is always a good one to have and in doing so allows people to freely make their choices understanding the issues better.

It’s not the first time she’s done similar.

Exactly.