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

I don't think it is doing that at all. If anything it is explaining how gender ideology and gender identity theory arose in the first place. It arose because people couldn't distinguish between what was socially coded/expected of the sexes with the reality of an individual's character and traits. So people came to feel that if you express yourself in a way that society has coded as 'feminine' it must mean that your are female, and that if a woman expresses herself in a direct or confrontational manner, for example, she is male.

Pretending that such stereotypes or codes don't exist doesn't make them go away. Naming them for what they are makes things far clearer.

But in order to think clearly about something you have to understand, first of all, what the term means.

To my mind saying something is 'socially coded' is far more explanatory than simply using the word 'stereotype'. But then my degree and background was in sociology and philosophy ( and teaching).

If I asked you what you meant by a stereotype, what would you say? How would you explain it?

This is the bit I don't like. Don't let the 'energy' phrase or the 'female-coded' bit. Certainly don't like it together.

Though this has always been her position. Whatever she says she can't win when it comes to social media. The platform serves to split and polarise people.

Totally agree. Two things can be true at the same time. JKR has every right to refer to her friend as she likes. But we can also acknowledge her influence on the public discourse. The word 'she' already has a meaning - which is being challenged by activists to include men for not being manly enough. I don't see that as at all progressive. When gay men refer to each other as she, it always felt ironic, an inside joke. A straight woman calling a gay man 'she' just seems really depressing to me.

I have a very strong drive to be honest and it's been hard enough to manage the mental gymnastics it takes to kindly and politely find workarounds with those struggling with their sex and/or the pronoun police. On reflection, I do see this as a potential step back at a time when we've finally got people to realise how deeply regressive it is to pretend gender non-conforming people must be the opposite sex.

And it absolutely has nothing to do with having a hateful opinion on the lifestyle choices of those who claim to be trans. I'm GenX. Being gender non confirming is hardly new.

It prompts people to think about them more, rather than unthinkingly complying.

Lots of things are 'socially coded' and not a problem. But I think socially coding some things for men and some for women is.

I think it strengthens her position. She has shown herself to be open minded, humane and considered. She has highlighted an example of this in her relationship with her friend, yet DESPITE this, she is standing firm against TRA and the ideology of it all.

That shows me a woman who speaks her truth from a position of knowledge and experience rather than someone who is 'anti-trans' because they are full of hate.

For me the question is what exactly, or where exactly is 'the line'.

For me this whole issue is about appropriate boundaries, and being able to differentiate and distinguish between one type of thing and one type of situation and another. Public and private. Personal feelings versus common consensus.

That's just semantics though. What would be the benefit in saying 'stereotype' rather than 'socially coded' ? They mean the same thing, in effect. In fact, 'socially coded' is far more explanatory than 'stereotype'. If you had to explain to someone what a stereotype was you'd end up saying it was a socially coded expectation based on one's sex.

Stereotypes don't disappear becauase we refuse to name them.

I don't have a problem with what she says at all. Out of friendship with her trans-identifying mate she chooses to use she/her for him. That's a person choice about an individual relationship, not something that she wants encoded in law.

She doesn't expect anyone else to call him 'she', it's just her way of speaking about a pal.

Only if you think in black and white. I actually appreciate that she's being real. Which is quite impressive given she's on X.

I don't think it undermines the GC view at all.

I understand that. But I avoid using words like female-coded and feminine. I prefer to say sex stereotypes.

She's not saying that the transwoman deserves female pronouns. She is saying that she, JKR, chooses to refer to him as she. It's vastly different because in the first case it would mean that everybody has to call NiceTIM "her" (and this is compelled speech) just because he's her friend, whereas in the second case it's her performing a polite lie for her friend without forcing it on others.

ETA: I agree with PP though that using "her" in public is a dangerous slope (as in "could I bring Lucy home for dinner sometime honey? I'm sure you'll love her" And Lucy turns out to be a man when he's already on your doorstep, and yes, this is not a made up tale), but in this particular setting it's abundantly clear she's referring to a man so there is no deception.

At the risk of sounding massively patronising, I view this as a ‘pet phrase’ situation.

I know my neighbour’s cat is not a furry baby.
I know Neil the baby is actually 13.
I can tell my friend’s land shark is a young Labrador. Her noodle is a greyhound.

I mean, if I lived in Nessa’s world, I too would call her son ‘Neil the baby’. I wouldn’t purée his food. Di the Bus doesn’t drink petrol.

Language matters, and it’s used in different ways in different situations.
Legal language is different from scientific language is different from casual language.
India may be legally female, scientifically male, and casually a total bastard to some, she to others.

Agreed.

”My lovely trans friend” anecdotes are not relevant and don’t help with holding the line.

Pretty sure MalagaNights agrees with you. Neither GC fems, or TRAs should be policing speech.

This is exactly how I feel.

I know some transwomen. Am I happy to call them by the name they've chosen and their preferred pronouns? Yes, I will do my best, even if I get it wrong sometimes.

Do I believe they are actual women, and that they should be able to access women-only spaces? No.

It's not wrong to have a nuanced approach on this. You dont have to agree or do it yourself, that's your choice.

But this person isn't a TRA, and isn't trying to compel anything. Why not live and let live?

I'm not in favour of TRAs thinking they can compell anyone to use preferred pronouns.

Nor am I in favour of GC feminists thinking they can compell anyone to not use them.

It's all the same.

I'm in favour of the law protecting women and children and free speech.

No, the poster in question indicated that it was wrong to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns in order to be kind and respectful. It wasn't just disagreeing or saying she wished people hadn't used those words, she was saying using that terminology is simply out of the question. That's policing speech.

I'm with JK on this.

I think it’s clear.
And to me ‘coded’ means constructed, assigned, I.e a social interpretation rather than bio. So personally I would say ‘feminine’ rather than ‘female’. The energy commonly said to be female / feminine. Arguably stereotyped.

I think 'female coded energy' is the sort of nonsense word salad that TRA's like to spout.

Acknowledging that something exists and agreeing with it in principle are two different things. Things don't disappear just because we don't admit to them or acknowledge their existence.

I mean this is exactly what would be termed a 'hard line' radfem/gc stance?