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’

If Maya is reserving a misgendering exemption for one very specific set of circumstances, why would she not specify that? It's a situation with which others would be more likely to sympathise.

Why should she only be able to talk about sex in a few specific circumstances?

Only ignorant people will say “science is wrong”.

Can anyone confirm that has been mentioned upthread (or it might have been on the other thread on the Feminist board) that Twitter has deleted thousands of likes given on J.K Rowling's tweet?

Only ignorant people will say “science is wrong”.

And only dangerously disingenuous people will say it's not possible to distinguish between men and women, and that the distinction isn't an important one.

Why should she only be able to talk about sex in a few specific circumstances?

You used the example of a sexual assault victim being forced to refer to her attacker as 'she' as a justification for 'misgendering' - and I fully agree that a rapist has lost any right to the courtesy of being referred to by a preferred pronoun.

I commented that Maya had made no such distinction when she 'reserved the right' to misgender people. I am not arguing that she has no right to misgender people - but I am arguing that if she is publicly stating this right, the people she retains the right to misgender are equally entitled to be upset about this - and I am talking about transpeople, men and women, who are going about their daily lives with no intention of harming anyone, and who should be afforded the courtesy of having their preferred pronouns respected.

No

So @Nunsnetting are you saying that people who do not use preferred pronouns - either accidentally or deliberately- should lose their jobs?

How about if the person is a rapist but didn't actually rape the person talking about them. So if I talk about Karen White, should I lose my job if I don't refer to White as she?

Or is your rule only reserved for those trans people going about their daily lives with no intention of harming anyone.

How about Jess Bradley, who got their cock out at work? Do I have to call them she?

Maya had made no such distinction when she 'reserved the right' to misgender people.

Agreed. One of the features pointed up in the judgement was the absolutist nature of her views.

There is so much more to it than can be included in a headline or a sound bite.

As ever, Twitter permits little or no nuance, hence its polarising effect.

It people use the wrong gender to sack them for that is utterly ridiculous. I don't use twitter and these issues of who is male or female never really come up for me in day to day life . I know a lot of people wito are trans have mental health issues so that probably also makes thing even more complicated. A lot of them certainly need a lot of help.

And she is entirely free to express those views and beliefs both privately and publicly.

However, if her expression of those views causes an employer to treat her differently than if she did not express them, she is not protected by employment law under the equalities act.

Clymene It isn't a question of 'my rule' - it's a question of an employer's policy; whether that policy is lawful; and whether Maya breached it.

people who do not use preferred pronouns - either accidentally or deliberately- should lose their jobs?

There's a very clear distinction between someone accidentally misgendering an individual, and someone stating with no qualification that they reserve the right to misgender people.

How about if the person is a rapist but didn't actually rape the person talking about them. So if I talk about Karen White, should I lose my job if I don't refer to White as she?

This is exactly why Maya's absolute views are unacceptable. There are many examples and permutations of situations where misgendering might be understandable or forgivable or even reasonable. But stating that she reserves the right to misgender people is unkind and unreasonable. I wouldn't want to employ someone with such uncompromising views that they didn't care whom they upset. As I said earlier, it's not about my opinion - but I don't think the employer's stance is unreasonable.

I agree with JK. Such a shame that it's only someone in such a privileged position that's able to put her head above the parapet and call out this nonsense for what it is.

This is ridiculous. She didn't misgender anyone! She was fired for thought crime. For saying she would do something under certain hypothetical circumstances, which we have all agreed is entirely acceptable. All she did is not list the million permutations that constitute those circumstances.

This is from her updated crowdfunder:

"The fundamental question at the root of my case, whether women’s rights as a sex can be protected is one that is important enough to require us to talk freely.
I believe this judgment is wrong. Restricting people’s ability to talk about the law, and about proposed changes to the law using ordinary, everyday language which reflects material reality is unprecedented and fundamentally damaging to a free society. People need to be able to speak and exchange views without constriction by arbitrary linguistic rules, and without the fear that they may lose their job if someone takes offence.

In particular when it comes to shared spaces where people are undressing or vulnerable, we need to have clarity about rules, policies and rights. We may consent to sharing mixed sex spaces if we choose - but we should not have them forced upon us by losing the language to describe what is happening.

This doesn't mean we can't be polite and respectful to others. As I said in my witness statement I will, as a matter of courtesy use preferred pronouns. I made this clear to CGD. Despite what you may have heard or read I did not lose my job for "misgendering" anyone at work, or outside of it. In fact the only instance that was presented to the tribunal happened in June this year (after I lost my job) where I tweeted about Gregor Murray and forgot to use the pronoun they.
I was criticised in the judgment for absolutism. If you believe – as I, and I believe the majority of people do – that there are two sexes, and that they are separate and immutable, then this is by its nature an absolute definition. Equally if you believe that anyone can be a man or a woman by saying they are, then that is also an absolute definition. This is inescapable. Absolutism is not the enemy of belief or philosophy, and clarity is a requirement of debate. People with different beliefs can get along, just as religious believers and atheists can.

The experience of taking my former employer to tribunal has been extremely difficult. But it is not just my issue. This affects millions of people in their workplaces, schools and families. And it affects our institutions. I feel responsible for taking this on because of the broader implications. I am reviewing the judgment closely with my legal team who believe that it is flawed. We will give a further update when this review is complete."

@Nunsnetting but you just admited yourself there are instances where misgendering is the rationale and reasonable thing to do. I am sure Maya would use common sense to these situations so why is it wrong for her to say she reserves the right to do so if she feels it appropriate. I am sure she would only misgernder someone if it was appropriate not to deliberate hurt someone feeling or disrespect their wishes

She didn't misgender anyone!
Except she did though, so that’s not true.

She was fired for thought crime.
Except that she wasn’t fired, so that’s not true either.

For saying she would do something under certain hypothetical circumstances
Except that’s not what she said... she said she reserved the right to misgender trans people. Full stop.

And in fact she went further, defending her stance in workplace communication spaces (Slack).

Oh, and she likened trans people asking that a preferred pronoun be used to use of a date-rape drug, and various other views that could objectively be considered offensive to trans people.

which we have all agreed is entirely acceptable.
Except “we” don’t all agree.

There is no way that you can determine in which situation it is unacceptable to 'misgender' someone and which it isn't.

It is compelled speech. And compelled speech can never be acceptable in a democratic society.

How on earth do you misgender a man by calling him male?

What did Stephen King do? I can’t see anything

mark hamill has apologised for liking jkr tweet stating he didnt realise what it meant

ffs

A moment of impulse and weeks of regret...

What did Stephen King do?

I think he posted something, became worried about angry activists, and deleted it. The technical term is a "reverse ferret".

You say 'compelled speech' can never be acceptable in a democratic society, but that just isn't true when you are talking about speech which is deliberately or knowingly offensive to some. Is it 'compelled speech' if someone is expected to refer to a person's ethic origin using their preferred term, rather than referring to them by a racist slur, for example?

Head... desk... thunk.

The determined-ness to double down on the lies about Maya is incredible.

None of the following were at any point in time Maya's colleagues: Claire Quentin, Philip/Pips Bunce/Gregor Murray.

Maya did accidentally misgender Gregor Murray at one point. This is a pretty understandable mistake to make, given Gregor sports a full beard, dresses in a suit and tie in what our culture sees as a stereotypically masculine presentation, and likes calling women "cunts" on line (for which Gregor was suspended by the SNP, much to the SNP's credit). But Gregor does not work for the same employer as Maya - in fact Gregor lives up the other end of the country in Dundee, for heaven's sake.

Maya has stated that she would not misgender anyone to their face, out of courtesy.

But she wants to be able to discuss the political implications for women and girls of reforming the GRA, without fear of losing her livelihood as a result. And discussing the political implications of reforming the GRA involves discussing the fact that you cannot physically change sex, that male people retain male physiology regardless of how they identify, and that this has implications for women's spaces and services.

This will of course upset some people - but none of us have the right to go through life without being upset and offended at some point by some of the views of others.

She didn't misgender anyone!
Except she did though, so that’s not true.*

After she was fired, so irrelevant to the case.

For saying she would do something under certain hypothetical circumstances
Except that’s not what she said... she said she reserved the right to misgender trans people. Full stop.

That's right. To be able to talk about women's sex reserved spaces. Otherwise you can't talk about it. Not that she would go around saying it to people.

Oh, and she likened trans people asking that a preferred pronoun be used to use of a date-rape drug, and various other views that could objectively be considered offensive to trans people.

She said that saying 'that woman insists on using the ladies' is completely different to saying 'that man insists on using at the ladies'. And that your perception changes completely depending upon the sex of the person you're talking about. Something which you can't do if you have to lie.

The psychological impact of people believing you're talking about a woman, when they find out you're talking about a man, is significant.

This is the article in question that maya referred to.

fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/

The issue over this is because men and women are not symmetrical, in terms of their behaviour. If they were it wouldn't matter. Men commit 98% of all sexually violent crime.

If you want to start saying that men and transwomen commit 98% of sexually violent crime, then that might be better. 'Male and transwomen' violence, instead of male violence. Male and transwomen sexism, etc.

It's about the deliberate blurring of the non-symmetrical nature of men and women which is detrimental to women.

In order to address it, you must be able to communicate. And communicate, you must use the correct words.

Unless, of course, you want nothing of the sort.

This is exactly why Maya's absolute views are unacceptable.

I am confused about this idea that because Maya wishes to protect her rights her views are abolutist. She said in her statement that she usually believes it is right to use preferred pronouns.

I wish to protect my right to have an abortion and that is probably very offensive to many people. However, that doesn't mean I intend have an abortion.