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’

I agree too. Good for her. I wish more people were brave enough to stand up to this shite, and I include myself in that in many ways.

There are numerous examples of things that might be offensive, to varying degrees and to various people. Racial slurs are one example. Misgendering is another. Misogynistic slurs would be a third example.

I am white, my ethnicity is British and Irish.

If I insisted I was black and compelled everyone around me to refer to me as a 'black woman' and forced people to let me into organisations and take awards designed for people from ethnic minorities, that would be ok would it? What if I found it really offensive for people to refer to me as 'Caucasian'? Could I get someone's 'contract not renewed' because their objective observation of me, that I am a white person and not from an ethnic minority, was really offensive to me? If that person was black and they said to me 'no, you are very obviously not a black person and its actually quite offensive to me that you are co-opting my identity in this way' they could lose their job for not treating me with 'kindness'?

No, I don't personally believe it's literally possible to change sex, Barbara. But I will defend others' right to believe that, and to be treated with appropriate respect and courtesy.

I will also defend the right of an employer to choose whom they wish to continue employing, on the basis of whether that employee respects the lawfully held principles of that organisation.

I stand with Maya. And JK 🙌

@BarbaraStrozzi you hit the nail right on the head. I have a friend who does not identify by their birth gender. Out of politeness and because I like that friend I respect their wishes and refer to them by their chosen pronoun and name.

I reserve the same right as you to not give that respect to people if I feel their behavior does not grant them such. As in the cases you mentioned

Exactly what Everard said. It's a lie. It's nothing like not using a slur. It's compelling me to lie. And furthermore I consider that lie to be a harmful one so it is compelling me to lie and to participate in what I view as a philosophical attack on my rights and those of every other female - my daughter, my mother, my friends. I will not - and i do believe ultimately cannot - be compelled to participate in that.

This was a ridiculous judgement but it has had the silver lining of shining a light on this ludicrous activism. The tide is only going in one direction. I'm so glad for both Maya and JKR - both brave women.

No, I don't personally believe it's literally possible to change sex, Barbara. But I will defend others' right to believe that, and to be treated with appropriate respect and courtesy.

I don't believe in God. I have a friend who does. We get on quite well, I would never say 'I think that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and I can't really understand how a grown adult can have that kind of genuine belief' to them. Because they never push their religion on me. It is their belief and it doesn't affect me in any way.

If they started forcing me to repeat prayers or insist that I declare that 'God exists' or that I must go to church every Sunday, because that is their belief and therefore everyone else must also believe it because otherwise they will be really upset, would it be unreasonable to say 'no, I don't believe in God'? Or would I have to go along with their demands out of 'courtesy'?

If I insisted I was black ... that would be ok, would it?

PeterRouse It's impossible for me to answer that question, because like you, I'm of white British origin. As has been pointed out upthread, although racial slurs and misgendering are both examples of speech which causes offence, the history, impact and ramifications of each are different.

In a 'democratic society' there are some things that it is regarded as unacceptable to say because they are offensive or hurtful to others.

I find the idea that humans can and should be categorised according to relative levels of masculinity and femininity deeply offensive.

I think the concept of gender oppresses women and has, among other things, led to their exclusion from education for hundreds of years. Women had to campaign for the right to be 'unsafe' and 'uncomfortable' in universities where they were allowed to study but not graduate, because before that they weren't even allowed in (except as servants).

I am offended by the idea that a word that I need to protect my sex based rights can, according to leaders of at least 3 political parties, now apparently only refer to gender.

Yet for some reason it doesn't matter if my rights are infringed or if I am offended.

As has been pointed out upthread, although racial slurs and misgendering are both examples of speech which causes offence, the history, impact and ramifications of each are different.

I'm not taking about 'racial slurs' though am I - I'm talking about me, as a white person, being referred to as... White. And whether that would be 'speech which causes offence' because I actually want to be referred to as black? Even though I'm very obviously not?

It's impossible for me to answer that question, because like you, I'm of white British origin

Yeah, that's totally the reason that's impossible to answer .

If multiple people fail to understand you @Nunsnetting, you might want to consider if your ability to communicate clearly is at fault rather than the people you're speaking to. Just a thought.

Anyway, as it's Friday night, I'm off to the Badley Fuckitt Winter Gin bar. Others may care to join me?

Of course, these people will not check themselves, even though JKR gifted them something close to a religion for outsiders. They will just attempt to cancel her.

Not only aren't they checking themselves, they're in the process of deciding that she didn't write her books really, they somehow fell from the sky, or came to their readers via a less "tainted" conduit. Some straight up want Rowling's name taken off the books so they can continue to enjoy them while pretending the author agrees with them.

Call it mental illness or call it a cult - either way, this is clearly not rational thinking or behaviour. Everyone who has enabled those young people in their refusal to come to terms with reality for years, resulting in them reaching this point, should be ashamed of themselves, and I'm very much including the doctors treating them in that judgement. Things should never have been allowed to get this far.

Which is part of the problem women trying to bring attention to this have been facing, that nobody believed it would be allowed to get this far. Nice people just assumed that at some point the government or the doctors or someone would step in and insist that although a person's sense of self is their own and not subject to control by others they do not have the right to impose their views on others. But in fact that has not happened, instead we've had male rapists put into women's prisons and male individuals who believe themselves to be women a few days a week winning women in business awards and anyone who tries to point out that perhaps this isn't a reasonable way for a society to deal with the fact that some people believe themselves not to be the sex they were born as has been shouted down, sacked, and in some cases hauled in for questioning by police.

This is madness and it needs to stop.

I agree merrymouse. Why is it ok for my feelings to be hurt by being complicit with a lie? Why is it ok for my speech to be compelled by others when it directly has negative consequences for myself and other women? Who gets to decide whose feelings are more important than others, and why? Language matters, when words lose meanings there are consequences.

I would never say 'I think that believing in God is akin to believing in fairies and I can't really understand how a grown adult can have that kind of genuine belief' to them.

And the courtesy you are affording your friend by refraining from attacking their faith is founded on exactly the same principles that mean we shouldn't intentionally misgender.

If they started forcing me to repeat prayers or insist that I declare that 'God exists' or that I must go to church every Sunday, because that is their belief

The vast majority of transpeople aren't forcing their beliefs on you, though, are they? There are religious people who would do exactly what you describe, but they are an extremist minority in this country. Likewise, you might be engaged in social media battles with a few high-profile trans activists, but most just want to go through life without having their beliefs and gender identity attacked.

Which means not being subjected to people they might have to work with reserving the right to misgender them.

I stand with them.

What this comes down to is 'do words have meaning?'

Can a cat become a horse just because a group of people band together and decide that they are going to call cat's horses from now on. Does the collective noun to describe a feline creature, that is usually a household pet, have any meaning at all - or is it subjective.

In a post modernist society where all truth is presumed to be relative it is easy to get into a big mess.

I don't think that truth is relative. I think truth is relative until it has to converge to a central foundational point. It's when it become 'that is' because 'that is' and it no longer rests on idea or opinion or persective.

The foundational truth is usually simple and usually quiet because it 'just is'. It never needs to resort to name calling and aggression and group mob behaviour and definsiveness. It speaks for itself. It just is.

There are male and female. There just is. It's observed at birth. Its how each and everyone of us got here.

I'll come clymene

Since this is AIBU maybe we need a signpost?

EvenSupposing What do you believe is my alternative, hidden meaning for not answering the question? I'm curious.

LI will also defend the right of an employer to choose whom they wish to continue employing, on the basis of whether that employee respects the lawfully held principles of that organisation

Which lawfully held principles did she not respect? She did not misgender anyone at work.

I am curious to know what is a lawfully held principle of an organisation? What is unlawful about stating that there are two sexes? Allowing organisations to set the rules on what is and is not acceptable to think and say is a pretty dangerous path, don’t you think? I think this tribunal decision, which is not binding on other tribunals, will be appealed and then we’ll see that there are important limitations on an employer’s ability to dictate the thoughts and speech of employees. There’s a very recent ECHR case on this that says that “the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression should be secured even in the relations between employer and employee” and that an employer has to show that legitimate business interests have been harmed by something an employee has said, and that its response has to be proportionate. I’m no expert but I have trouble seeing how the employer’s legitimate business interests have actually been harmed by someone tweeting about biological fact.

She did not misgender anyone at work.

The 'at work' bit is irrelevant, unless the person works for a company that has no social media policy, which would be very unusual in 2019.

I will also defend the right of an employer to choose whom they wish to continue employing, on the basis of whether that employee respects the lawfully held principles of that organisation.

But it's not clear how an organisation that aims to end poverty and inequality can achieve those aims if it doesn't allow it's employees to talk about sex.

One of the points that MF has made is that this is an organisation where employees are supposed to be able to make robust arguments about economic policy using data. How can you do that if you can't analyse the impact of sex or talk about government policy on sex based rights?

You can't answer it because the two situations are completely analogous (except that sex is dimorphic and race not - so really changing sex is more, not less, impossible). But wokesters know transracialism is considered unacceptable. So it's a catch 22.

And the gin bar is here

My DD and myself wanted to write to JKR to thank her, but then thinking of the logistics of lots of hate mail headed to the company that handles her post right now, thought that this might not be a good time. So to say a big Thank You indirectly, we've made a donation to her charity Lumos and marked it in honor of her for sticking up for women. Well done Jo.

No, I don't personally believe it's literally possible to change sex, Barbara. But I will defend others' right to believe that, and to be treated with appropriate respect and courtesy

So by that theory of some one has declared themselves black (which a white woman has in the media) and an employee says ‘hang on no their not’ - they should be sacked? Would you still defend their rights to belief?