To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

@thumbtom fair point re. 'legitimate wishes'... but surely, in that case, any wishes are legitimate?

I am so grateful to JK Rowling for highlighting this.
Also shocked at this article (hope I've managed to link that properly) that came up in the google results stating:
"J.K. Rowling, whose books gave kids hope that they could work together to create a better world, has now aligned herself with an anti-science ideology" JK Rowling is anti-science?!! Not posting under a different name, new user, signed up just to add my thoughts to this and am self employed so no one to sack me.

Melissa, you are in the wrong place, slap bang in the middle of this thread. Start a new thread

Just in case anyone here doesn’t know The Hampstead Heath swimming ponds have been captured. Once there were three; mixed bathing, women only and men only. The trans crowd have hijacked the women’s pond and now anyone who says they are a woman can swim there. They had a place already the mixed pond, but that wasn’t enough, so Muslim,Jewish, and women who want to swim in the nude, or have medical reasons to not want to be in the mixed bathing area can’t use a pond that many have used for years, it’s outrageous that the wants of a handful can trump the needs of the many.

It's always legitimate to wish! Of course. On a shooting star or on an eyelash or in a letter to Father Christmas but we can't all have our wishes legally enforced - the rights Maya reserved there are in fact enforceable, I reckon.

Her right to free speech (also in some cases a safeguarding duty) has to be weighed in. Whether conduct in relation to protected characteristics (again, NB identity isn't one) constitutes unlawful harassment depends on:

(a) the perception of B;?
(b) the other circumstances of the case;
(c) whether it is reasonable for the conduct to have that effect

There is a balancing exercise to be carried out - not an unqualified right to be treated as you wish to be in all circumstances.

I just don’t really understand the arguments that sex doesn’t exist, it seems to contradict with some of things trans activists say as well.

Eg. A trans woman ‘passing’ or ‘not passing’ as ‘cis’- if sex isn’t really then why is this a thing? Trans women were just assigned male at birth randomly for no reason and there is no biological difference between them so why would some ‘pass’ as cis? Surely that’s admitting there are differences?

Saying that ‘trans men, cis women and non-binary “folks”’ are the people who can get pregnant, have periods etc, why don’t cis men and trans women get pregnant? What do those groups have in common?

All very confusing.

Yes, dreadful over the pond although I thikn it is still mostly women who swim in the women's pond. I think they have to allow women who choose on the day of the swim to self declare as men to swim in the men's pond too.

I think we have a very good compassionate gender change law already and we should leave it as it stands.

That's my understanding too, @thumbton.
As part of that I'd have thought that GM's 'wishes' weren't really any more 'legitimate' than any other delusion or fantasy which anyone is entitled to engage in, but not to try to force others to collude with.
So, exactly: the balancing exercise doesn't seem to be have been carried out in any very balanced way this time.

Thank you for the additional context, VMisaMarshmallow.

For science, academia, non-emergency healthcare provision, etc, I acknowledge many of those valid concerns. Kindness, respect, and actual science are important. (Although, I don't think that criminals who do terrible things are a reason for preventing law-abiding citizens from being their true genders. Most people don't lie about their gender in order to commit opportunistic crimes; most people aren't criminals - or, even just deliberately unkind.)

However, physical appearance doesn't always match gender stereotypes regardless of sex or gender. Should Harnaam Kaur not be offended if someone says she doesn't look female? Or, should Thomas Neuwirth not be offended if he's misgendered when not performing as his stage persona? To the best of my knowledge, both of those people have some physical traits that do not match gender stereotypes. Physical beauty/appearance is always subjective; I'm sorry but it is definitely offensive to tell someone they don't "look" sufficiently gendered.

Ozgirl75 no, I haven't been on twitter.
I'm thinking I should maintain that.

Not sure if it's been posted, but for those of you who are new to this, Posie Parker is a prominent voice for women's rights.
Here's her latest video on the courageous and principled JKR:

"When they (people who have a platform) speak up it gives so many other people a voice to speak up"

Here is a summary of the case by the ever-reasonable Fair Play for Women: fairplayforwomen.com/jkrowling/

I fully support JK and am glad she voiced her opion. Nothing Maya said was wrong and I can't believe she lost her job for this.

I stand with Maya and JKR and am very grateful to them both.

'Courage calls to courage everywhere.'

And the reality is most of the time transwomen are very visibly men, voicing this truth is not offensive.

It is not offensive to say that most of the time you can visibly tell what chromosomes someone has. But to use the term "man" to denote a set of chromosomes potentially might be.

There are many cases where traditional uses of terms became offensive. And the people stubbornly resisting language evolution became seen as offensive.

neonglow yes, confusing isn't it? Almost like it's made up?

I agree with JKR

@JAPAB yes, some men might well be offended by their being described as men - even though that description is correct.
Any person might at any time take offence to whatever they choose to find offensive.
Misogynistic men are especially likely to be offended if women express any opinions (or inconvenient facts) at all.
But no one had a right not to be offended, nor do they have a right to silence, threaten or intimidate others - or to hound them out of a job - because they are 'offended' by what that person says.

Laudete only if you buy into backward limited gender stereotypes. Even then it’s your own perception that’s the issue. I don’t care how feminine or masculine others think I look, I am female, a fact I can’t escape by identifying otherwise. I’m a huge Patti Smith fan though so androgyny in terms of look is an awesome compliment imho. Equally if people comment on me looking feminine I’m not going to be offended because they don’t think my punk T-shirt, ripped jeans and dog collar bracelets make me look more like my idols. See what a twattish argument it is now to claim being misgendered is offensive.

And actuallye it’s really important that we discuss ‘misgendering’ in terms of the importance of calling out rapists in female or prisons. Female prisoners are one of the most vulnerable groups there are, we must prioritise being free to discuss their safety over and above the need to pander to a man who feels like he should be called she.

yes, some men might well be offended by their being described as men - even though that description is correct.

It is only "correct" relative to a definition of "men" which says that "men" denotes the ones with an XY.

In a similar way that it is only correct that gay people cannot get "married" relative to a definition that says "marriage" is the union of one man and one woman.

People who do not subscribe to these definitions may find them offensive. And if someone else uses them when refering to you, you might find that offensive.

Whether someone should lose their job over their refusal to refer to a trans person with their preferred pronouns, or their refusal to acknowledge that a same-sex couple before them has a "marriage", is another question.

JAPAB I can’t tell anyone their chromosomes, I don’t ask to test them before using he or she. Women instinctively know when men are around, our blood pressure even goes up in response and there’s plenty of research that shows white coat syndrome in women disappears when we have bp tested by other woman. My preferred gp is a man, a very sweet non threatening man yet still my bp goes through the roof when he takes it yet it is normal when taken by the female nurse who I can’t stand two minutes later. Women’s whole nervous systems are wired up to identify men, because they pose a threat to us, so we pick up on all the ‘tiny’ clues like stature, voice, Adam’s apple, jaw shape, even movement as women have tilted pelvises to enable us to birth babies so we walk differently to men who don’t have this pelvic tilt. All these ‘tiny’ clues add up very quickly for women as we are socialised to know the threat men pose, even those who have never directly been a victim of a man know to appease male violence through the socialisation we receive from birth.

There is nothing offensive about the word ‘men’ or ‘man’ or even ‘masculine’ even though the latter has nothing inherently related to the former two. If people take offence at accurate descriptor then the problem is with their mental health not the people saying man.

And another 6K likes for JK's tweet over the last 2 hours.
Excellent!

CoolCarrie

I agree with her, and she will rise above all the twittering. She doesn’t need to prove anything to anyone, she is her own woman with her own voice and I am glad she has done this. We need more high profile women to do the same.

Absolutely. More power to her and to others who point out the ludicrous and defend the rights of real women.

I just ventured onto Twitter and can't believe some of the tweets! People saying she is wrong, and science is wrong. Well done her.

I don't get it at all. It seems clear to me.

My children think I'm a bigot though.

It is only "correct" relative to a definition of "men" which says that "men" denotes the ones with an XY.

Well, no, actually. There are chromosomal variations among males just as there are among females.

It's clear that GM is male, regardless of whether his chromosomes are XY or not.

And, as I've said, no one has a right not to be offended. I might be 'offended' by someone's choice of sandwich, or their correctly pointing out that cow's milk is an animal product (especially if, say, I'm downing a glass of it while describing myself as vegan, coz that's how I 'feel'). I have no right to punish or oppress the other person on either of those bases, though.