A response to JK Rowling

[Hjft]

J.K. Rowling, like so many others, has recently been accused of transphobia and targeted for expressing some of her opinions on sex and gender. This is a very nuanced issue which many people struggle with, including members of the trans community. Assuming bigotry and shutting down debate is not the way to address these issues. Instead we should engage in reasoned debate in order to better understand the subtitles and find a way to live together with mutual respect.

On 10 June 2020 JK Rowling wrote about her reasons for speaking out on sex and gender Issues ( www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ ) . It is a welcome calm voice in what she calls a toxic environment and I commend her bravery for standing up to the bullies. The essay explains eloquently what she believes and why she holds the opinions she does. She opens up about some very personal issues, and I hope all her detractors will read it before shouting her down.

An essay, however well written, carries a bias, and a reasonable author will recognise that bias and be willing to consider that they could be wrong. And so should the reader of an essay. By writing this essay, JK Rowling has exposed some very valid points which the other side of the debate wish to brush aside. However, she has also indicated a bias which I hope to address.

She conflates sex and gender, and she conflates the law and medicine. Firstly she worries that trans activism is ‘pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender’. This legal definition is for the protection of the civil rights of trans people and has no bearing on biology. Trans people still receive healthcare appropriate to their individual biological truths. Every trans person is acutely aware of their biological sex because it is incongruous with their gender. Remember when Harry Potter uses Polyjuice potion to take on the form of Goyle in ‘Chamber of secrets”. He does not stop being Harry. Now imagine if Harry had got stuck, and had to live his life with everyone believing he was Goyle. It would be intolerable for him and would likely lead to mental illness or worse. This is what it’s like for trans people, and why the law is in place to protect their right to be their authentic selves. Being Harry is ‘not a costume’.

This conflation is further illustrated when she expresses alarm that ‘A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law’. Again, this demonstrates a conflation of law and medicine. If a trans person can find relief from their gender dysphoria by permanently expressing themselves in an authentic manner then why should we expect them to accept medical intervention in order to get legal protection. Imagine you have a migraine. If sitting in a dark room with a glass of water provides you with sufficient relief, then you shouldn’t be expected to take strong pain killers or accept brain surgery. The ‘man’ she describes is not masquerading as a woman - she is living her authentic identity as a woman. The law protects her rights to do so. She is not a predator, and it should not be assumed that she is. Without these rights, her transgender status would be revealed every time she tries to hire a car, or open a bank account, and it is her safety that is in danger. A man masquerading as a woman is not able to legally get a Gender Recognition Certificate - because they are a man.

[redacted*] I hope JK Rowling’s essay will mark a turning point in the tone of these discussions, and people can start to properly address them.

• [edited by MNHQ to remove inflammatory content - we're allowing the challenges to this section of the OP to remain]

How do we tell the difference between the genuine transwomen just living their authentic life and a man masquerading as a woman to gain access to female spaces?

I think they use the sorting hat

The seatbelt thing drives me mad, and if you didn't know the airbags may well kill us too as the hit most women in the wrong part of the body when they deploy. But no difference, eh?

It's the old cliche about fish not having a word for water. Men are swimming in a world optimized for them, so the first time they encounter anything that isn't it they go into "nobody else has ever felt like the world wasn't made for them" mode.

OP the law HAS changed in Scotland - where Rowling lives and runs a foundation supporting women and children fleeing violence.

Women in Scotland LEGALLY now (from 29 May) includes and man who says he's a woman and you CANNOT ask him to show any proof.

I am not a man. I am not a woman. So I must be a TW!

If TW means 'male preferring and adopting stereotypically feminine behaviours' then I suppose you are.

I think though that there's a problem with the terminology and also a logical problem with this binary way of thinking.

The logic issue is this. 'I dont feel I fit into this mould I'm told I should fit into' is one thing. Jumping from that to 'so I must be that other thing over there' is just odd though. I could just as well say 'I don't fit into this mould of British 2020 feminine appearance and behaviour. I do really like jumping though and feel very comforable when I'm doing that. Therefore I must be a frog.' I have no idea what is like to be a frog though - any more than male people have any idea what it is like to be women. I've just seen them jumping and think that looks cool, I like doing that and I'd be pretty happy sitting around in and near ponds. Simply, not being one thing doesn't make you something else.

The terminology issue follows. Feeling you are not a man but like stereotypically feminine stuff doesn't make you a woman, any more than it makes you a frog. So, if you want to define yourself as something other than 'man'; why not go for a third way? If you don't like neuter (tones of asexual there), non-gendered, gender-free etc, get inventive! Define yourself, as yourself. Why not?

The other obvious thought is that if being 'a man' in whichever section of 2020 western, capitalist society you find yourself in is unappealing, why not move to somewhere with different societal expectations, roles and stereotypes? Why so much enthusiasm for changing gender - even going to surgical extremes so as to appear to have changed sex - when your gender preference is probably exeplified, more or less, certainly so that you'd fall within the bounds of normality, in another culture. Isn't emigration easier, nicer, probably cheaper and a lot more fun than surgery?

Why the determination to hold on to the society that you feel has rejected you?

@Hjft - the problem with all of this is that very few women, feminist or not, are opposed to anyone transitioning. What they are opposed to is the rights of biologically truthful (to use your words) women being taken away because of men. Stories are endless

www.cbsnews.com/video/transgender-teen-boy-wins-girls-wrestling-title/ www.lifesitenews.com/news/transgender-female-boxer-gives-female-opponent-concussion-breaks-her-eye-so www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/11/karen-white-how-manipulative-and-controlling-offender-attacked-again-transgender-prison I just cannot understand how any sensible person can fail to see that the rights of women and girls are being seriously eroded by the trans agenda. If you had a daughter and she was into martial arts, could you honestly hand on your heart say you would have no issue with her getting in the ring with this “woman”. Fallon Fox is a man who basically earned a fortune kicking the shit out of women. As one commentator so eloquently put it; I say if you had a dick at one point in time, you also have all the bone structure that comes with having a dick. You have bigger hands, you have bigger shoulder joints. You're a f*ing man. That's a man, OK? You can't have... that's... I don't care if you don't have a dick any more

@Hjft

Thank you for your calm approach and you say you are open to learning. I realise that these threads move very quickly and there will be lots on here to read. Others have said much about your thoughts on the 'conflation of sex and gender'. And that you seem certainly behind the ball on attaining a GRC and naive in thinking it is not being abused. I think some others have referred you to the 'It never happens' thread which shows cases where it has been abused and it has led to harm to women and children.

I would like to point out some glaring areas that are missed in your post. Maybe because you are very focused on acceptance of transwomen into safe spaces and validation (so it seems to me).

I have seen sports mentioned briefly by others. OP, do you think that you as a TW should be freely able to compete in sports in women's events? why? What research have you done that makes you think that it is fair? There has been a recent review of 11 independent studies done by (FondofBeetles on twitter) Dr Emma Hilton and it is pinned on her twitter time line. Please go and read this and then think about why any male who has had the benefit of a male puberty should be able to compete against women. Please consider safety as well as fairness.

Then please read about the current court case where girls in Connecticut are being denied their futures because scholarships are being given to people born male are winning their races.

The other area you didn't really explain is why you think that for employment and education where women are discriminated against BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX (yes, this is where others have pointed out you really haven't understood that women are 100% everyday of their biology). Health has been explored on this thread so far I think.

Do you understand that women have still not achieved equity with men in education and employment? Have you considered what will happen when employers choose a TW over a woman so that their gender equality stats look good, but they don't have pesky problems of potential pregnancy, maternity and childcare needs?

No TW needs these rights. They need their own rights - so go and fight for them. We have had Sal Brinton say that they would be completely satisfied that if all a women's shortlist were TW, equality has been served.

I am glad that you have continued posting and I am glad that you will at least take the time to read the 'break it down' and hopefully 'it will never happen'. I hope that you realise that we don't wish you or any transperson harm. However, reframing the discussion as being 'pro-women' is not transphobic, claiming females oppression as theirs is in no way appropriate for males.

I believe that under 16 transgender girls should able to use female only spaces to keep them safe from harm.

Why should my teen daughter be forced to share with a boy. When getting changed, its not the clothes that matter, it's what's under them.

I would have been mortified to change in front of boys at that age, whether the boy was changing out of a skirt or trousers.

Let stop male violence so trans people can stay with the other willy owners.

This is where there is misunderstanding and conflation of sex and gender.
The person you describe has a penis (sex male), but is suffering debilitating gender dysphoria gender female). She is a person suffering from an accident of birth. If she can find relief by permanently living in a female role, then they are socially female and the law should protect them

Socially female means nothing other than gender stereotyping. Dressing in a stereotypical feminine manner, wearing make up and long hair. A soft, gentle and caring nature, natural maternal instinct and no sense of direction, incapable of operating power tools. Because that is what makes a woman, of course .

Socially female.

Christ.

One obvious thing here is that children under 16 should not be physically transitioning, and if they're not on hormones they should be physically indistinguishable from other kids of their sex. In those areas where a transgirl that age may already be on hormones that would cause breast development the obvious answer would be for doctors to stop interfering with the endocrine systems of children.

So, as I said above, my DH usually has long hair. He also has a soft, gentle personality and is rather nurturing, the sort of person who feeds abandoned cats and who children adore. Does that make him a woman, according to those besotted with gender roles? Or is it the skirts that matter?

This is where there is misunderstanding and conflation of sex and gender.
The person you describe has a penis (sex male), but is suffering debilitating gender dysphoria gender female). She is a person suffering from an accident of birth. If she can find relief by permanently living in a female role, then they are socially female and the law should protect them

Yes the law should protect that person from being discriminated against for presenting themselves in a way contrary to social norms.

I should be held to account if I refused a job to a qualified male applicant just because he likes to wear lipstick and goes by the name Susan, same as I should be held to account for not giving the job to the qualified black person or recently married late twenties woman who might go and have a baby soon, or the
grey haired person in their fifties who I reckon is probably a slow thinker or the person with one arm.

None of that means the entire world has to change the definition of woman to include this man.

None of it means the person can't describe themselves as a trans.

I'm all for supporting trans rights. Unless that impinges on the rights of others. Women have protected spaces because they need them. They have their own categories in sport, because they need them.

Oh god it's been a long, long week - am I the only one who snorts like a 5 year old at terms like 'willy owners' and 'penis holders' Must be the old if you don't laugh, you'll cry thing ....

I found your opening post very interesting op but i don't really understand where you are coming from. You make a lot of statements in your op, and seem very definite in your views, yet in your follow up posts you claim to know very little and say you have difficulty with writing and vocabulary. I am quite new to feminism myself and not a great writer but i have found mumsnet invaluable for interesting, measured debate. One thing that really stood out for me was that you said that sex doesn't really affect everyday interactions or words to that effect. I find that very strange. This morning i got into my car, which is very much designed for men; when i raise the seat so i can see in the mirror the seatbelt doesn't fit properly. I drove a short distance and encountered a (male) cyclist who shouted at me for being in his way (fucking women drivers. Get out of the way) despite the fact that he was in the wrong lane, and not on the cycle path provided. I went to my elderly mother's house, and washed and dressed her, i have several brothers, if i didn't do it they would pay a carer (another woman) to do it. I stopped off at the diy shop on the way home and was talked down to and patronised by the male staff that work there. That was just this morning, nothing unusual there. I am reminded of my sex every day, in almost every interaction i have.

So, if keeping transgirls safe (from regular boys who might attack them?) means demanding access to girls' single-sex spaces, why are we being transphobic when we say we need to protect regular girls from male violence, too? The sort that might walk in through the changing room door when any male can declare themselves female and entitled to admittance and nobody dare question or challenge them.

It seems the problems all come from potentially violent males. The only ones who are truly safe are the males in their single-sex space (even with smaller, weaker transmen accessing it) and the transwomen in women's spaces. Women aren't safe anywhere any more. Is that OK? I don't think so.

See the "It doesn't happen" thread for a whole slew of times when it did. 🤷🏼‍♀️
Why is it acceptable to put all girls and women at risk and eliminate their rights to meet the demands of a particular group?

This must have been said before, so apologies to all of MN for that; I feel as though as I'm playing MN bingo here.

The 'TW in female spaces' issue just reminds me sooo much of the 'pushchair in the bus's wheelchair space' issue, so oft rehearsed here.

Without wishing to invite a re-hashing of that discussion, the issue arises where there are a limited number of spaces designated specifically or primarily for use by wheelchair users. People with pushchairs habitually make use of them when empty, to avoid the inconvenience of folding their pushchair, putting it and anything stowed beneath in the luggage rack, or sometimes because they've chosen to take a pushchair that they're not capable of folding and lifting, onto a bus and would actually have to get off the bus, if someone else needed the space and was given priority.

A conflict of interests arises when a person in a wheelchair needs to use the space and the pushchair owner declines to move to make space for them.

The discussion that follows goes: 'Disabled people have battled for decades to get those and other (meagre and inadequate) designated spaces. Without them, many people cannot leave the house, or get anywhere at all. If the wheelchair user has to wait for the next bus, they could be waiting all day. So, if you (pushchair users) want to battle for your own spaces, please do so but stop parasitising ours'.

The more intransigent, unimaginative, unempathetic or just plain selfish pushchair users say 'Nah, we'll just carry on using this space. We need it. What do you mean yours? It's ours too, has been for as long as I can remember! There are sooo many reasons why we're special and don't have to think about other people, or inconvenience ourselves in their favour. In fact asking us to do so is outrageous! Clearly, you have no empathy for us and probably really just hate us, meanies! Just get the next bus, or, why don't you use a taxi anyway?'.

Yeah. TW and female spaces.

I so agree about the pushchair/wheelchair analogy.

@RazorEdge here's something to interest you

medium.com/@genderdetective/an-open-letter-to-the-guy-on-twitter-who-wonders-if-biological-sex-is-real-58d2cb4403f5

TLDR:
Here’s my resolution: As long as pimps, priests, and politicians know what a female body is, I do too. The moment they’re confused — the moment they hesitate, the moment they qualify, the moment they adopt the restraint and caution you demand from the targets of their abuse— then I’ll happily open myself up to ambiguity.

They're just obeying their biology like the rest of us

What is obeying ones biology, if you care to expand on that @RazorEdge?

Sex is complicated. What makes a person a woman, given that there are so many different genetic combinations of sex chromosomes that lead to a human being?
Do we screen everyone's chromosomes before deciding which spaces they can use?

Yet somehow its always been possible to tell with a remarkable degree of accuracy which people are likely to have babies and which people should be able to vote.

Please don't try to tell us that sex is complicated by referencing distinct rare disorders of sexual development.

Recent studies seem to suggest that whether a person is transgender is biologically determined, so it's nature not nurture

This is completely irrelevant to sex. No woman has ever been able to escape sex based discrimination simply by asserting that she feels more male.

RazorEdge Those are Disorders of Sexual Development that in actual fact prove that there are only two sexes as they occur in one or other of the two human sexes. Furthermore, people with DSD's have repeatedly asked NOT to be used as some kind of 'gotcha' in the transgender debate, they have clearly stated time and time again that they are NOT transgender why don't you have the basic respect and courtesy to listen to them and do as they ask?

They're just obeying their biology like the rest of us.

'No I insist that I should be able to vote! I am just obeying my male biology!'.