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

I love it. We are all now not sane because this didn't go your way like you expected, did it OP?

Someone else has said it already I think, but if you can't convince terfnet on this, then you are not onto a winning argument. You are feeding into some of the narrative about us wanting transpeople not to exist anymore. This simply isn't true.

I also disagree. Context matters. I'll happily refer to someone with their preferred pronouns if pronouns are necessary (they rarely are). I wouldn't say they are the sex that they aren't, though, and wouldn't agree that sex based services should be used because of a perceived identity.

What JKR was describing there is what happens when theory meets reality which is: However much GC theory is justified in terms of behaviours being genderless that's not what people actually believe when the rubber meets the road in 'real life'. Our intuitions that are moulded by typical associations very much direct our behaviours hence 'very female-coded energy' / typical behaviours being associated with the concept of women.

While you may find JKR's admission a betrayal & counterproductive to 'the cause' you are in fact doing just that by pretending this reality doesn't exist. GC's need to grapple with the fact there's indeed an inconsistency between typical behaviours existing & how they think the world should be if they want to seriously make in roads against stereotyping.

I agree with you. How we choose to treat and perceive individuals in our private lives is our private business. Public policy, on the other hand, is for everyone. JKR understands that just because she perceives this individual as "woman-coded" doesn't mean the trans individual should have the right to access female spaces.

I can respect that. It’s like the conscientious objector position during a war. So long as you recognise that others equally sincerely do not see it as lying. I think the GC movement is stronger (and bigger) when it can include both perspectives.

And by that I mean phrases such as “female coded energy” because what does that even mean?

It means they LARP really well.

Makes me like her all the more actually. My position has always been to live and let live, I have no beef with trans people personally, but I believe women’s spaces need to be preserved. End of. Doesn’t mean I hate trans people or want to see harm come to them. In fact on a personal level I’ll always try to make allowances for other people out of a sense of shared humanity.

This whole trans activist vs radical feminist conflict has saddened me greatly as I feel 90% of the issue comes from male violence. Which as ever gets lost in most discussions. Women are most at risk from male violence and trans people are most at risk again from male violence.

When push comes to shove I’ll stand with sex based female provision in terms of domestic violence shelters, bathrooms/changing rooms, which prison estate houses people and sports. However that doesn’t mean I wish to invalidate trans people’s lived experience, (or women’s for that matter). I am also by no means a subject matter expert but I strive for nuance where I can.

I appreciate that may put me at odds with hardliners from either camp but hey ho it is what it is. JK Rowling I admire tremendously.

I think we all get to draw our own line in the sand.

But personally, I think it would be helpful if everyone in positions of influence were really careful about the words they choose because we are a long way from being out of the woods yet.

And by that I mean phrases such as “female coded energy” because what does that even mean? It seems to suggest that someone can have female energy when they are a man - which in turn implies that being female is about energy, behaviour, and actions rather than a state of biological being.

Of course I understand that’s not what JKR meant but it’s uncharacteristically imprecise and provides TRAs with the chance to deliberately misinterpret it.

Educating the general public that there isn’t such a thing as “being born in the wrong body” has been a slog. But the court of public opinion really matters as the tide of opinion has helped to drive change, and that’s imperative for the safety of girls and women.

I don’t expect all GC women to have a hive mind; we represent quite a range of views. And I really do think that’s ok.

I just don’t think it’s contradictory to acknowledge that range of opinions while still expressing concerns over how ambiguous words will be misused by those with an agenda.

Of course I do. But at the moment, they think that presenting as the other sex is helping them. I only hope that it does and that the massive doses of cross-sex artificial hormones don't do permanent or fatal damage.

Oh, and I want to keep my family together.

I agree with you.

100%.

But - look at this: friends of our family are transitioning their son. He is an objectionable young man, none of the other kids like him much. He is 18. He will get facial surgery this summer, and will model the new face on that of his mother's when she was his age.

The family are aware of my politics.

Even so, I will play nicely, because he is their son, and because their daughter means a lot to us. I will use "she" in their company.

But all my political activity, which for me includes where and how I spend my money, will be done for us. For women.

So everyone who disagrees with you is not sane? Interesting...

Your hypothetical male seemed to be assuming jkr was some sort of leader who he was expecting you to follow. Which is bollocks of course.

I can see why you might disappointed OP. I agree that there needs to be a solid distinction regarding sex especially where physical strength can be used to an advantage. I am also uncomfortable with term "female coded behaviour". It's language like this that people with black and white thinking grip on to as if its some type of test. It has to be stated that JKR has had a hell of a time but she has the ability to buy peace and protection in job security and social isolation in a way that us down on the factory floor who agree with her stance do not. It is for this reason I wish she was a little more responsible with her public posts.

I also agree with JKR that the reality is that some people who are trans who are not pretending that the are actually the other sex but are able to behaviour respectfully and responsibly towards women. These are not the people you see on social media, or in female toilets, or sports or in debates. These people in my experience know that they are the ones with the issue and do not expect others to bend around them. They are also victims of what is clearly a mens rights movement seeking dominance over women who have had their rare and painful medical condition politicised and used to harm women and children.

Hmm. Yes obviously that is how I'd respond. I'm not giving that example because I'm literally afraid for myself. I'm sad for anyone else who is feeling pressured to use wrong sex pronouns (it does happen!) that they now have another source of guilt tripping.

As for your last sentence, I don't see how it logically follows from anything I've said. I think there are many others on this thread who might need reminding though. See my point above about not sanctifying someone

It works because sex is physical reality, regardless of the words. It may be a bit easier if language isn’t mangled, but the fundamental facts aren’t changed. That’s why ultimately the attempt of transactivists to claim ‘transwomen are women’ has failed.

Surely you’d just say “JKR can decide which males she chooses to calls what; I call all males ‘he’ and ‘him’”.🤷‍♀️

being gender critical isn’t a cult with a leader.

I'm not arguing for JKR's position. There's actually been some good discussion on this thread. But JKR hasn't suddenly changed her arguments or revealed anything new about her views that hasn't been known for 5+ years.

If you say that you're 'disappointed' in someone it implies that there some new revelation that's changed your opinion. To say that about the above JKR comments shows that the OP didn't really understand JKR perspective to begin with and the disappointment is misplaced.

The trouble with saying you are disappointed in someone is that it is code for “you really fucked that up you numpty” when giving someone a polite bollocking, particularly in a work situation or when dealing with teenagers.

So using it in the title of this thread just makes it more dramatic than it needs to be, and it will probably turn into a 1000 post bun fight as most JKR threads do once the usual suspects turn up.

You are perfectly at liberty to say you disagree with JKR’s approach to pronouns with her friend, but that would be less likely to generate lots of replies. To say it will make it easier for other TW to “demand” the use of female pronouns is nonsense. Just as we tell our kids “what happens in Jonti’s house is up to his mum and dad, your dad and I get to decide what happens in this family”. GC people are allowed to have family, friends, neighbours and colleagues with a trans identity you know. And in each case we will make our own decisions about our boundaries depending on the relationship.

The overwhelming majority of GC women will have a hard boundary at “the trans identified person remains the same biological sex and in situations where sex matters, that needs to be respected”. The other social niceties will vary from person to person, but I would certainly expect that a person with a trans identity would be treated with the same courtesy and dignity as any other person, especially in situations where their biological sex is irrelevant.

I'd prefer to not lie, regardless of who I persuade.

How does 'sex based rights' work if language for women is mangled to include men?

“No, I’m saying you’re a man. I don’t have to do what JKR does.”

I don’t think anyone is obliged to follow her example.

”JKR does it, why won’t you” sounds appealing but it isn’t. She does what she does, and I do what I do.

"but disappointed in JK today"

I don't really get this tbh. I'm curious about what in JKR's statement you think is new (rather than that you just don't agree with). JKR has always been been up front that she supports trans people and reasonable accommodations for them so long as those accommodations don't impinge on sex based rights (especially the rights of women) She's always been forthright about knowing trans people in real life and being sympathetic. Did you think that was just a rhetorical flourish on her part or that she was being disingenuous?

Of course there are a wide range of opinions across the GC spectrum so you're guaranteed to disagree with some. But to suggest the above remarks represents a departure for JKR, when in fact she's been extremely consistent for years, is simply wrong.

Refusing to allow any differences of opinion and a lack of nuance in positions taken feels like how we ended up here. So no, I am not “disappointed” in JKR. To do so would be akin to insisting on the same unswerving adherence to a particular position and creating a purity spiral that I criticise TRAs for.

Who does the word 'she' refer to in this respect?

It means a female person. What other definition does it have? If you include men in this definition what word is left for female people?

A man who IDs as a woman is not a woman. He is not a 'she'.

This is not about compelled speech. It's about words having agreed definitions so that a) women have rights and b)people can understand what used to be normal conversations.

Everytime prominent women use false pronouns for TIMs it put pressure on other women to do the same