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’

Spot on HandsOffMyRights.
How difficult is it to see that perverts will use self id to abuse, spy on, assault and worse women and girls. There is nothing wrong with the two year assessment, it surely isn’t that difficult to see that if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.

What about when the religious colleague tells you you're going to hell? Are you allowed to say anything back or are you just supposed to agree? Context is everything and you are misrepresenting it.

It's just as unlikely that a religious colleague would (unasked) tell you you were going to hell, as it is that an atheist colleague would (unasked) tell the religious colleague that God didn't exist. Why is that? Because the majority of average people, in a setting that isn't some kind of formalised debate, try to treat one another courteously and respect one another's differences.

I am talking here about normal people going about their day-to-day lives and what should be their right to do so unhindered by purposeful discourtesy, unkindness or disrespect - which in the case of transpeople, would include being addressed by their preferred pronouns. The right to courtesy should apply to transpeople as much as it applies to people of any religious faith, race, sexuality, ability etc.

Now imagine the women in shelters after DV placed in a room with a male, and required to lie daily that the man is a woman. What's the cost to her mental and physical health ? Well, if she doesn't lie, she could be kicked out of the shelter, either onto the street or back into the home of her abuser...are other women OK with that cost ?

And if she is kicked out for not recognising the man in her room as a woman, her employer could take the opportunity to fire her or not renew her contract because of what she said. That is the direct effect of this judgement.

It's just as unlikely that a religious colleague would (unasked) tell you you were going to hell, as it is that an atheist colleague would (unasked) tell the religious colleague that God didn't exist. Why is that? Because the majority of average people, in a setting that isn't some kind of formalised debate, try to treat one another courteously and respect one another's differences.

That's not the point. You used a false analogy of a GC person being confrontational by "deliberately misgendering" for no reason. Which bore little resemblance to what we are discussing here. Many times there is a reason though. When is it ok?

The right to courtesy should apply to transpeople as much as it applies to people of any religious faith, race, sexuality, ability etc.

You might feel comfortable lying to yourself and to children, but I do not.

You forgot 'sex' off your list.

The right to courtesy should apply to transpeople as much as it applies to people of any religious faith, race, sexuality, ability etc.

But if you tell me I'm going to hell, can I tell you it doesn't exist? Or I am just supposed to be silent?

Would you walk up to a work colleague who was a committed Christian who was minding their own business and announce 'God doesn't exist' just to offend them? I would like to think most people wouldn't. So why would you purposely misgender someone, just to uphold your beliefs?

Yunno, I find being called a 'cis woman' pretty offensive.

Gives me the rage, reminds me that women's views still play second fiddle to men's. It assaults my view of reality (that olde worlde one of male, female and small number of intersex people).

But apparently I'm a bigot and a terf, so my being offended is insignificant.

Whereas if the offence goes the other way, a woman gets the sack.

And round and round we go.

Nuns I don't know what your intention is. But you keep producing false analogies, over and over again, which would make it appear to the casual reader just dropping into the latest page of the thread that the issue here is that Maya deliberately and repeatedly misgendered a colleague, when in fact she did no such thing, and furthermore said that she would not do such a thing because she believes in being courteous to people.

As I say, I can't be sure of your intentions, but I can't help but wonder whether this repeated insistence on false analogies which could mislead the casual reader is in fact a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation.

As anyone with half a brain knows, there's more ways of spreading misinformation than simply telling a lie straight up. "For Brutus says that Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus is an honourable man." First time round, you think the crime being implied is that Caesar was in fact ambitious. By the third or fourth repetition, you are in fact questioning whether Brutus really is an honourable man.

That's the game it looks like you're playing here. Never directly accuse Maya of harrassing a colleague, but continually try to elide discussing biology with deliberate misgendering, thus leaving the casual reader with the impression that Maya did something which in fact she did not do. In fact she explicitly said she would not do.

I am getting the impression (and again, this may not be your intention) that you are being a goady, disingenuous shit-stirrer.

If you are in fact, not being a goady, disingenous shit-stirrer, then I suggest you actually post to say that you accept that Maya did not harrass a trans colleague, and did not at any point deliberately misgender anyone.

There are thousands of FB and social media pages about atheism and not believing in god, and many of them point and laugh at people who do, emphasising how ridiculous they think religious people are.

How come those pages aren't being shut down for hate speech? I'm sure it's very upsetting for religious people.

Do you think those pages should be shut down @Nunsetting

The right to courtesy should apply to transpeople as much as it applies to people of any religious faith, race, sexuality, ability etc

You left out women, the female sex. Strange how no-one is really bothered about courtesy to us. You complained to Murray yet, about how disrespectful it is to call women cunts ? Or is that just business as usual, totally unremarkable, not a hostile environment for those silly, over sensitive women at all ?

Would you walk up to a work colleague who was a committed Christian who was minding their own business and announce 'God doesn't exist' just to offend them? I would like to think most people wouldn't. So why would you purposely misgender someone, just to uphold your beliefs?

No. but I wouldn't expect to be fired if I reserved the right to say God doesn't exist. And I wouldn't expect to be fired for saying God doesn't exist on a forum or place outside of work. And I wouldn't expect my religious colleague to think his dignity as a human being was affronted if I did say it.

There is nothing new here really. There is always some ideology that it is vital to believe in and that gives people the thrill of feeling superior and the guiltless pleasure of being really mean to others. It nearly always involves women. Religion used to fit the bill.

I posted Maya's own words saying she would use preferred pronouns for transwomen and transmen as a matter of courtesy.

People who keep bringing up 'misgendering a colleague' are not posting in good faith.

As anyone with half a brain knows, there's more ways of spreading misinformation than simply telling a lie straight up. "For Brutus says that Caesar was ambitious, and Brutus is an honourable man." First time round, you think the crime being implied is that Caesar was in fact ambitious. By the third or fourth repetition, you are in fact questioning whether Brutus really is an honourable man.

Good point.

which in the case of transpeople, would include being addressed by their preferred pronouns.

But you think people should be compelled to lie about another’s sex. That’s different to choosing to be polite and courteous.

Do you really think it should be enshrined in law that people can’t refer to a male as “he”, when that male wants to be called “she”?

And if so, how should those people be punished? No point in having a law of everyone ignores it.

How do you identify as female.

I use a female name and would describe myself as a woman.

What are you identifying with?

Other people who use a female name and describe themselves as women.

How is your identity different to a non-binary or male identity?

If I wanted to identify as a man, I would use a male name and describe myself as a man. If I wanted to be non-binary I might change between female and male identities (per above) or adopt a neutral forename.

Do you believe that if you didn't identify as female you wouldn't need sex based rights?

I've never experienced not being female, so I can't answer that question.

@Nunsnetting, can you name any other circumstances under which 'the right to courtesy' involves the right to force others to lie?

And can you explain why you don't include as part of 'the right to courtesy' the right to interact honestly as well as respectfully.

And if, for example, I demand that it's only courteous to address me as 'proper lady' or 'beauteous July', can I include that as part of my 'right to courtesy'? Because I'd like it if everyone considered me a proper lady, and also beauteous. And even if they don't think I'm either, I think it would only be polite for them to pretend that they do.

Other people who use a female name and describe themselves as women.

What that is seriously what you would describe 'being a woman' as? Using a female name and describing yourself as a woman? Nothing else? Nothing else at all...?!

Strawberry - why would talking about men in dresses be offensive? Nicky Wire wears women’s clothes while being clear that he is a (straight) man who likes wearing women’s clothes at times (for non sexual reasons). He is clear he is a man in a dress. Kurt Cobain was the same- quite clear he was a man who at time’s wore dresses for the sake of challenging gender norms. Lou Reed was up on stage in women’s clothes and make up just because he wanted to, most definitely a man in a dress. Why is it a bad thing to be honest? It would be great if men wore more dresses, wore more make up, challenged sex role stereotyping.

It’s not offensive to say woman in a pant suit, or woman in a tux, or women in combats or similar. Why is it derogatory to say men in dresses unless there is something somehow lesser or demeaning about what is traditionally women’s clothing?

I’m Scottish so maybe I’m not grasping this -men wearing skirts is our national pastime after all- but men in dresses doesn’t seem at all offensive unless you buy into the stereotypes that men shouldn’t do what women do, the same way tomboy is a complimentary term to a girl and nancyboy is a insult to a boy. Which just reinforces the offensive stereotypes that ‘girly’ things are not as good as ‘boy’ things and ‘girly’ things may be fine for us girls but men are better than us so shouldn’t demean themselves by lowering themselves to enjoy what is traditionally thought of as for women.

The right to courtesy should apply to transpeople as much as it applies to people of any religious faith, race, sexuality, ability etc.

What about the right to courtesy of people who don't want to be stuffed into a gender box but need the word women to protect sex based rights and services?

Is it courteous for a company like Lunette (of recent mumsnet menstrual cup feedback fame) to say that there is no word to explain the fact that menstruation, child birth, lactation and menopause only seem to affect one group of people?

Is it courteous to insist that the word 'woman' can only refer to some vague concept that sounds a lot like sexist stereotypes?

Something very weird happening with the media coverage of JK’s tweet. Every headline is some variation of “JK criticised for being transphobic” followed by loads of quotes from people on Twitter who disagree with JK. When I look on Twitter - or here - I see loads of voices saying “Thank you JK! Finally a voice of sanity!” But none of that is being reported, rendering the articles not at all reflective of the discussions they claim to be reporting.

I find that creepy, especially since it seems consistent across all the different right/left medias. Are the journalists scared? Just copy-pasting press releases from Stonewall? What is this? Since when is it ok to report half a story?

I use a female name and would describe myself as a woman.

When you say you 'describe yourself as a woman' what do you mean? What criteria are you using in that description?

@Mycatwontstopstaring, it's been like this for ages.
Dispiriting, isn't it?

I use a female name and would describe myself as a woman.

So would you be less female if you were called Alex or Jo?

Why do you describe yourself as a woman if you can't explain what it means. If I were going to refer to myself using a random word for no clear reason, I think I'd go for muppet or equinox.

I use a female name and would describe myself as a woman.

Does that mean that e.g. Lionel Shriver is a man?

Thought not.

vmisa

Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I don't think there is anything wrong with a man dressing however he chooses and I think gender stereotypes are wrong and harmful. And I love kilts!

What I meant was a reasonable employer could well have a policy which asked employees not to refer to transgender women as “men in dresses”, which could be offensive, as opposed to stating people can’t change sex, which really oughtn’t be.