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

Why? Why should people be protected from being discriminated against as a prospective employee for claiming a false sex identity, when it is OK to discriminate against people for claiming a false ethnicity, age, disability etc?

(In terms of the law, I understand there is protection currently, but I mean in moral terms why is it OK? It makes no sense.)

Hiring people involves discrimination You are selecting and excluding candidates on the basis of things like their skills, intelligence and personality. If someone makes a false claim and demands others believe it (or pretend to) that's definitely a basis for thinking they might be difficult to work with or piss off colleagues or clients. It is weird that "gender identity" being a protected characteristic acts against this and therefore there is clear discrimination against other people who want to pretend to be something they're not and expect to be taken seriously.

And we see the results of this in situations like Sandie Peggie's. You end up with people who demand compliance with their false identity being proritised and people who are naturally uncomfortable with being expected to indulge a false identity being punished.

As I think JKR has said, everyone knows what sex they are (at least by adulthood). Humans in general feel awkward, uncomfortable and/or annoyed by fakery and phoniness, that's a natural and adaptive human instinct.

What I mean to say, clumsily, is this:

If you have two people accessing a service, and one is disabled and the other isn't, it's pretty clear it's justified to give the disabled person some extra help or support etc as required. There are lots of easily imaginable situations where that might be required.

Ditto a pregnant woman alongside a person who isn't pregnant: there are lots of situations I can easily imagine where asymmetrical support is easily justified.

But a "gender-reassigned" person alongside someone who isn't - under what circumstances does it make sense for the former to have asymmetrical support, rather than simply be treated equally? Niche circumstances certainly, I'm struggling to imagine one. So it's very strange, in my opinion, that it's one of the three asymmetrical characteristics.

If it was to be included under beliefs, what would the belief be?

This is extraordinary intolerance that I don't want to see applied in my country.

There is certainly an argument to be had that gender reassignment never ought to have been added to the list of protected characteristics. It simply doesn't have any kind of analogy to sex, age, race and other immutable characteristics. I think it could have been covered under "belief" and thereby be treated equally with other beliefs.

I know what I'm saying is controversial but I'm not the only person who thinks this.

Gender reassignment, disability and Pregnancy are the only three asymmetrical protected characteristics (ie you get extra protection if you have it compared to if you don't, unlike Race for example where all races ought to be treated with equality).

I think most people would agree with me that those things, Disability, Pregnancy and Gender Reassignment, are not even remotely similar in their level of need and vulnerability.

Edit to add - disability is the third asymmetrical one, I forgot it initially. But it even more backs up my point.

It's not a very subtle distinction if you propose to enable employers to discriminate in the recruitment processes.

This is at least as bad as trans activism.

It's complex, but basically yes. I understand they can't because gender reassignment is a protected characteristic. But pretending to be something you're not and cannot possibly be (and often that someone else actually is, so you're appropriating their lived experience) shouldn't have become a protected characteristic IMO, and it's bizarre that it has.

However, if an employer doesn't want to employ someone because they don't like the fact that they're pretending to be something they're not and expecting others to join in the pretence, arguably this is reasonable (the person could be controlling and difficult to work with, struggle with understanding reality, make unfair demands on colleagues, clients etc, upset others by appropriating their lived experience etc). I would say this is reasonable in all cases of claiming a false identity - such as making false claims about your ethnicity, disability, age, qualifications, etc. My argument is that it's perfectly reasonable for this to apply to sex too, especially as it applies to things that are MORE spectrum-based/fluid/changeable than sex is.

So if an employer discriminated against a trans-identifying person, in one sense they are not discriminating against them on the basis of gender reassignment, but on the basis of claiming a provably false identity. In this sense they are actually treating the person the same as they would treat anyone claiming a falsehood, so arguable NOT discriminating, In fact it's discriminating in people's favour on the basis of gender reassignment, to protect them on the basis of claiming a false identity, but not anyone else who does that.

IANAL but I would like to see this discussed by lawyers to see if it is actually arguable.

There's a subtle distinction between undergoing a process to change the physiological and other features of your sex, or proposing to - and believeing you are actually the other sex.

Are you saying employers should be able to discriminate based on gender reassignment?

What employer would want to offer a job to the likes of Haech Lockwood a female claiming a non-binary identity? She took her employer to an ET & lost but the evidence presented at the ET showed she would have been insufferable in the workforce forever complaining of being misgendered etc

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6926ec33a245b0985f0340aa/Haech_Lockwood_v_Cheshire_and_Wirral_NHS_Foundation_Trust_and_others_2401211_2024___2407178_2024.pdf

No, that was not what I said. I said that it is as valid to not want to employ someone who is pretending to be the opposite sex and expecting people to go along with it and pretend it's true, as it would be with anyone claiming any kind of false identity and requiring people to act as if it's true.

It os "being trans" that is the anomaly here. People who claim to be something they're not and insist on that being validated can generally expect others to find them annoying, unlikeable or maybe not very impressive in a job interview, and I think that is OK. I don't understand why "trans" identity has been given a special pass when it doesn't work that way for anyone else claiming an untrue identity.

That does not mean trans people should be banned from having jobs. Obviously some employers will not have a problem with it, and some will love it. They're free to employ who they like. My point is that being put off by someone claiming a false identity that is actually someone else's real life experience, should be seen as totally reasonable, as it is in all other cases.

No, that's disagreeing with her. It sounds to me like you're insisting that people cannot have a different opinion to JKR!

No that's saying that any exceptions weaken / destroy women's rights (and I'd add child safeguarding). I agree with that. I also believe in free expression.

Lots of people do things to weaken women's rights, particularly working class women's rights. As far as that goes JKR does more than most FOR women's rights.

However she can still do the odd thing that makes things worse (more than balanced out by her generosity and charity elsewhere, in her case, including of course Beira's place and Lumos).

It's expressing an opinion.

Wow, now you want people who ask to be called "she" sacked and prevented from working?

That is as bad as the trans activists.

The OP said
Does she not realise there can be NO EXCEPTIONS? Give an inch they'll take a mile and all that.

That seems to me like not accepting that she has the right to say what she wants.

We're talking about comments here, not on 'X'. She can say whatever she wants, and we can agree or disagree with her and we can express that.

Nobody has threatened to murder her over it, true, but unless your understanding of the word “insist” requires some sort of actual force to be used I think a lot of people are insisting that she’s not entitled to speak as she wishes. I’ve seen comments on X saying she has “betrayed” women etc. That’s pretty strong.

No-one is insisting that all women do the same. I am pointing out that I disagree with her approach and I am disappointed, like the OP, to see that she has used preferred pronouns. I also pointed out that we all know the dangers of not using factual sex-based pronouns and that truthful language is important. You are free to disagree with that if you want, or to not consider it important or relevant. Everyone has freedom of expression.

And it’s entirely your right to refuse to call any transidentifying person by the “wrong” pronoun.

What you don’t have though is the right to insist that ALL other women do the same. It’s up to each person. Even Joanne Rowling has a right to freedom of expression. We don’t own her.

It seems to me that a bigger cause has not been any compromise an individual woman has made in her own life, but rather the insistence that EVERYONE must use certain words and avoid others, regardless of what those people want or believe.

Which is exactly what some people are doing to JKR on this.

Who knows, maybe the contrast between “Karen” - who she may have known for years - and the kind of aggressive AGP TRA that goes around bullying and threatening women contributed to her peaking.

Quite possibly. But I'm not convinced there is a clear dividing line between "Karen" and "India", "Sophie", "Heather" and "Stephanie". There are quiet men claiming access to women's spaces too. And you may have to know someone very well before you discover their attitude to women, or that they are claiming rights that don't belong to men, such as the "right" to be perceived as a woman and be referred to with feminine pronouns.

Let’s say JKR’s buddy is called Karen.

”Where’s Karen gone?” JKR: “She’s gone to the bar to get the pints in.”

”Jo, did you meet your friend Karen at a WI meeting?” JKR: “Well, no, because she’s a male and respects women’s single-sex spaces”.

I just can’t get worked up about this. JKR does so much as a feminist and a philanthropist and is not some kind of archetypally-perfect figurehead of the gender critical movement. Who knows, maybe the contrast between “Karen” - who she may have known for years - and the kind of aggressive AGP TRA that goes around bullying and threatening women contributed to her peaking.

I'm guessing this is the case. What I'm wondering about is why she's felt the need to discuss it publicly.

I think she was asked.

Great post. Once you start comparing it to other deceptions it becomes much clearer. If someone shows an employer they will lie and lie repeatedly, or have a really tenuous grasp on reality, is it really unreasonable to not want this person in the workplace?

For some reason saying you identify as having a qualification you don't have is frowned upon but being the sex you're not is fine even though in lots of situations (doctor, nurse, anything medical, anything with children) it actually probably matters a lot more, in safeguarding terms, than claiming you got grade 6 flute or whatever when you didn't. I think it's almost analagous to claiming you have a driving license when you don't when your job requires you to drive sometimes.

yeah. I was surprised by the reasoning when I saw it rolled out on twitter.

However, some people have taken it as being a relevant precedent. It certainly isn’t a reason to support language change precedence.