Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

A response to JK Rowling

966 replies

Hjft · 11/06/2020 09:54

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]
OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
PastMyBestBeforeDate · 11/06/2020 18:01

RazorEdge

  1. People with disorders of sexual development have asked many times to have been left out of this debate
  2. A disorder does not redefine the ordinary development. Humans are bipedal. Some babies are born without two functioning legs. We are yet to redefine humans because of that.
merrymouse · 11/06/2020 18:03

"I have no need for sex based rights! I will avoid the need for contraception by force of will! I will just tell my ovaries to obey my biological feeling that I am actually male!"

TorkTorkBam · 11/06/2020 18:05

Do we screen everyone's chromosomes before deciding which spaces they can use?

How did Boko Haram decide who to kidnap?

How does Saudi Arabia decide who must cover their hair and who can go out alone?

How do Pornhub decide how to classify the porn?

How did the government know which ones to conscript into WW2?

How does the Vatican decide who can be a priest or a nun?

How did people decide who to court for marriage before chromosome tests existed?

Total mystery. Am baffled.

Maybe ask one of those teenage girls who go around getting themselves pregnant.

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:06

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

RedDogsBeg · 11/06/2020 18:06

A trans woman can't click her fingers and be a man.

What? A transwoman is of the male sex class which means they fall under the definition of men.

A man cannot click his fingers and become a women, a woman is an adult human female, no man or transwoman is an adult human female.

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:08

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

merrymouse · 11/06/2020 18:08

A trans woman can't click her fingers and be a man. That's not what she is, which is why she's trans.

But you can't click your fingers and change sex either. Women don't need specific rights because of their gender, they need them because of their sex. I can assure you that if it were possible to change sex, many women would have done so.

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:09

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

merrymouse · 11/06/2020 18:10

Let's focus on changing society's views, then everyone can be welcomed.

I need sex based rights because of my physical body. It isn't a question of being welcomed or not welcomed.

merrymouse · 11/06/2020 18:11

there is no scientific evidence of being able to control one's reproductive capabilities with their mind. I'm sure that you know this.

I'm sure you can tell that I am being sarcastic.

The point is, again, that women need sex based rights because of their bodies, not their minds.

PastMyBestBeforeDate · 11/06/2020 18:13

That's nice RazorEdge but not relevant.

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:14

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

merrymouse · 11/06/2020 18:14

@merrymouse there's nothing biological about voting. Voting is a societal construct and thus is fluidly changeable depending on changes in majority opinion.

Women have been excluded from voting because of their bodies.

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:17

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:18

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:18

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

BatShite · 11/06/2020 18:19

In biology gender isn't clear cut.

As far as I am aware, gender is not a 'thing' at all in biology.

merrymouse · 11/06/2020 18:19

everyone knew not to sexually assault others

Yes, please do go ahead and focus on that bit. In the meantime women need single sex spaces.

ForgotAboutThis · 11/06/2020 18:19

Oppressed groups should have the right to gather in their own Space. Hence why there are single sex spaces and single race organisations etc.

No one is doubting that we live in a world of developing constructs.
But here is the question again: when women were not allowed to vote, how did they know who could vote and who couldn't? Since sex is apparently not binary, how do people decide which babies are of the sex that's to leave in orphanages or drowned?

ForgotAboutThis · 11/06/2020 18:21

And while we wait for this magical nirvana, what should we do to keep people safe?
"If everyone had access to what they needed (i.e: we could all use the same toilets because they all had menstrual products for those who menustrate, and because regardless of what we had between our legs, everyone knew not to sexually assault others, if furniture and shops and society were designed for the physical variance between bodies that is present in the human race) then all of this would cease to matter."

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 11/06/2020 18:23

Funny how sex is only complicated when women try to say no to something. Almost as if it had something specifically to do with the people saying no, like there was a way to group those people somehow.

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:24

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

RazorEdge · 11/06/2020 18:25

This reply has been withdrawn

This has been withdrawn by MNHQ at the poster's request

YouJustDoYou · 11/06/2020 18:25

Recently there was a meme supporting the BLM movement. "We understand that we can never understand". So..why is it ok to apply this to white people acknowledging that they can never understand what is is to be back in this world, but it is not allowed to apply this to certain other demographics when they say are something they have never had to go through or suffer through or socially experience or be?

PastMyBestBeforeDate · 11/06/2020 18:26

Because they're evidenced based.

Swipe left for the next trending thread