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’

So if men in dresses makes others assume they are gay then it’s homophobic stereotypes that needs fought against not basic, accurate language like men in dresses. It’s just a descriptor and not a derogatory one unless you accept sex role stereotypes about dresses being for us lesser women or homophobic ones about gay men liking women’s clothes. You can’t fight those biased, harmful, hateful stereotypes by silencing accurate and non derogatory descriptors like men in dresses as if language is the problem. We need to be honest about what the problem is to combat it.

Why not accept that someone might - gasp - think differently from you

If differences of opinion are fine, why do you want to force people to lie?

do you know what your motives are for putting the feelings of males over and above the basic rights (and feelings) of women? Because it would be really useful to know why you choose to do that

Because I don't lump males together as a homogenous mass, and I don't lump women together as a homogenous mass, either. Everyone is different, every situation and interaction is differently nuanced and needs an individual approach, which is why I feel there is no place for the absolutist views Maya has expressed.

If differences of opinion are fine, why do you want to force people to lie?

A debate on a forum is not the same as an everyday interaction in real life. In real life, I believe it's appropriate not to blurt out every opinion you may have, in the presence of people who are forced to interact with you (e.g. at work) with no thought as to whether your opinions hurtful to others.

I don't lump males together as a homogenous mass, and I don't lump women together as a homogenous mass, either

So you think it preferable to lump both males and females together as a homogeneous mass? Because that's what you seem to be doing: no recognition of e.g. the need for sex based rights....
Respectfully, @Nunsnetting, that's a really unwise approach.

I agree with JK Rowling. Absolutely. I also do not want to diminish the rights of trans people, but I too have rights, as a woman, that seem to be forgotten in all of this. I am struggling to see the hate she is getting on Twitter and the dragging of the HP series through the mud. I grew up with HP and at 30 it is still a huge part of who I am. I am glad I have found this thread and people who have the same beliefs as I

Oh, and @Nunsnetting, if everyone's different (and, of course, we are), and a nuanced approach to human beings is desirable (which, of course, it is), why the need for this binary 'gender' belief system in the first place? Because if anything lumps females together as a 'homogeneous mass', and does the same to males, then surely it's 'gender'.
Have you thought about that one before?

I believe it's appropriate not to blurt out every opinion you may have, in the presence of people who are forced to interact with you (e.g. at work) with no thought as to whether your opinions hurtful to others.

Just to clarify : you think it should be illegal to state that a man is a man because of hurt feelings? How would the people who use male pronouns for male people be punished?

spectator.us/jk-rowling-terf/

JulyKit Surely the part of my post which you didn't quote evidences that lumping people together homogeneously, with any or no societally constructed division, is the opposite of what I believe is right?

'Sex based rights' aren't as simple as they sound. For example, some women are afforded more rights in the workplace than others because they've had children. Others, who haven't, are marginalised.

A poster upthread mentioned privilege (in the context of being imprisoned alongside a trans rapist) - privilege can transcend all manner of rights. Does a highly privileged woman deserve sex-based rights over and above an under-privileged and marginalised man, for example?

When you add trans into the equation, the situation becomes even more complex. Another poster asked whether a transman would still need sex-based rights - the answer is yes, and the reason is, again, privilege.

To summarise - not all transwomen are privileged white males. The approach taken by Maya and applauded by JKR vastly over-simplifies the situation, into an Orwellian non-trans - good/trans - bad philosophy, which is why I reject it.

In real life, I believe it's appropriate not to blurt out every opinion you may have, in the presence of people who are forced to interact with you

And, again, this is not what happened, which is why people are pointing out that your argument is not in good faith.

I stand with Maya and JKR.

Respectfully, @Nunsnetting, it looks a bit as if you don't really understand what human rights and equality principles are and why they exist.

Maternity rights don't marginalise childless women, they merely go some way to enable women to balance employment with childbearing and childcare. In no way does that hurt women who don't have children.

The point of rights is that privilege should not impinge on them. That's why there's a difference in law and fact between rights and privileges. It's important to understand that if you want to discuss rights.

TG people have GR-based AND sex-based rights. If you think that's because of 'privilege', then that's your opinion, but it's certainly a refutable one (and not a very trans-friendly one, IMO).

I realise this might sound a bit patronising, but it's not meant to: you seem to find these areas interesting, but it doesn't look like you understand them very well. There's quite a lot you could read about rights, and how they differ from privileges (and why they exist in law) that might help you understand these areas a lot better.

I agree with JK; and Maya.

Just to clarify : you think it should be illegal to state that a man is a man because of hurt feelings? How would the people who use male pronouns for male people be punished?

No, I don't think it should be 'illegal'. Another one for the Things I Haven't Said list.

We are talking about an employment tribunal, not a court case. I do, however, think employers should have the right not to employ people whose views might be hurtful other people they employ, when those people have explicitly stated they reserve the right to express those views.

Maternity rights don't marginalise childless women

I didn't mention maternity rights.

Do you also think that employment tribunals aren't about applying the law, @Nunsnetting?

Oh, bless you!

some women are afforded more rights in the workplace than others because they've had children

That'll be maternity rights then, hun - and now you know the proper name for them!
You're welcome!

Some women are privileged therefore their sex based rights don't apply is just fundamentally not how rights are meant to work, legally speaking.

Nuns you don’t appear to understand the concept of privilege within class oppression. A man will always have male privilege, and always is in the ruling class of men who have power over the oppressed class of women.

Miranda Yardley has some great and very easy to grasp explainations of class oppression and privilege on her site. Very apt given she’s a transwoman also. You should read up on her site.

Do you also think that employment tribunals aren't about applying the law, @Nunsnetting?

You're being (deliberately?) disingenuous. Saying that a behaviour isn't appropriate in the workplace and is grounds for non-continuation of employment is not the same as saying that the behaviour is illegal.

For example - it's not illegal to get drunk. It might lawfully be grounds for dismissal if you get drunk in the workplace, though.

I do, however, think employers should have the right not to employ people whose views might be hurtful other people they employ, when those people have explicitly stated they reserve the right to express those views.

So it’s fine and appropriate to lose your job if you state that men can’t turn into women?

Even though they can’t. Because of hurt feelings?

That Spectator article is just spot on.

That'll be maternity rights then, hun

Why don't you check the tense of what I said, 'hun'?

Maternity rights don't marginalise childless women

I didn't mention maternity rights.

Well, yeah, you kinda did, you said:
”For example, some women are afforded more rights in the workplace than others because they've had children. Others, who haven't, are marginalised.”

So you need to clarify which rights other than maternity rights are mothers afforded in the workplace that those who haven’t had children aren’t afforded?