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]

In biology gender isn't clear cut

This makes no sense. However saying "in biology, sex is clear cut" does.

We know that single-race spaces are wrong, but what makes them any better or worse than single gender spaces?

That is the single dimmest attempt at a gotcha I've been on the internet today, and there's been some competition!

Single sex spaces exist to protect women from men. White people do not need to be protected from black people. If you think they do you are a racist. In fact even having made the analogy is going to rightfully earn you quite a bit of side eye.

Why are some kinds of segregation superior to others?

So do we need male and female toilets at all then?

You're presumably advocating on not having single sex toilets any more?

Otherwise you would be simultaneously saying it's silly women are concerned about the risk from natal men. But not silly that trans women are concerned about the same risk.

Single race spaces are seen as racist, single class spaces are seen as classist and strongly disapproved of. Why are some kinds of segregation superior to others?

Women's and men's bodies are different but there are no differences between people of different classes and only cosmetic, superficial differences between races. Women require services and protections that men don't. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

Oh, we're going to have the full TRA bingo card? Someone else can handle the rest of them, I've already done my hours for the day.

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.

Even with all of this (good luck on the noone sexually assaulting anyone thing though..if only) some women would still rather only change clothes, for example, in a room with other people of the same body type. And they should have that right. Regardless of risk.

Not sure why segregating by sex is oppressive? Nor how its anything similar to single race spaces tbh. But open to being educated.

I'll take what is human sexual dimorphism for 500, Bob! And with that I'm out. Have fun playing TRA bingo, everyone (except the intersex people who've already asked to be left out of this argument - looks like yet another TRA is refusing to honor that request).

Come on just say it RazorEdge you are a proponent of "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter".

we should campaign for equal rights for everyone, for women and the disabled and trans people and everyone else. When we say "My rights but not theirs" we are holding everyone back.

Yes and those of us who are women and would like equality, are disabled and would like equality, and are BAME and would like equality would also love this to be the case.

Believing that does not help with actual, real life problem solving that runs deeper than Twitter soundbites proclaiming everyone is equal.

There cannot be a way of everyone getting everything they want all the time.

Women are 50% of the worlds population. What percentage are trans women? Surely you can see that there has to be a basis in statistical possibilities for problem solving in the immediate term?

For example, I have epilepsy and for my particular type, flashing lights cause seizures. I don't expect everyone to stop making films with flashing lights in so that I can watch what I want when I want. Because that would be selfish and unfair on everyone else. It's unfair to me I have epilepsy. But life's not fair.

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

No, it depended on men's opinion not majority opinion.

The men ran everything and decided when women would be allowed to vote.

How many countries gave votes only to women and after a few hundred years decided to give them to men as well? Not half and half is it?

I do love that you've come to mumsnet and announced that there's no biological reason women can't vote. Thanks for your insight.

(Stamps another spot on the TRA bingo card)

@RazorEdge

Our society defines gender based on body types. Not all societies do. Eunuchs used to be pretty normal in India. They were their own category because society said so, despite having what we would consider a 'male' body in this society

From what I know, Eunuchs had their male genitalia removed so they could be servants in the private female environments within high caste households, providing strong labour without any risk to the high caste female honour. You're right. They started with perfect male bodies, and were mutilated in order to be useful. Nice analogy.

And yes, if all things were equal and fair, we wouldn't need gendered toilets

We don't have gendered toilets anyway thankfully. As there would be no way to actually segregate by gender as its an internal feeling.

We do separate toilets by sex though. But all loos are all gendered luckily. This is one of the areas where transactivists are very disingenuous. As they agree that sex and gender are different things. However, when we speak of sex segregation..they try to pretend gender is relevant, when its not, not even slightly. Always the trying to fudge gender and sex, though they agree they are different things and tend to agree that gender is about stereotypes, where sex is about reality (ignoring those few who reckon sex doesn't exist, or sex is a white supremicist made up thing as I have seen recently )

most lesbians manage not to sexually assault women when they're in changing rooms with them, despite being sexually attracted to women. Same with men attracted to men. I'm sure that heterosexual people can manage it too if the gays can

?

Yes, lesbians do not attack women despite being attracted to them. Whats this to do with please? Not understanding what the point of this is?

we should campaign for equal rights for everyone, for women and the disabled and trans people and everyone else. When we say "My rights but not theirs" we are holding everyone back.

And I'm sorry but it's so narcissistic and navel gazing to scold people for what you perceive to be an unuttered "but not theirs".

Black lives matter.
People aren't saying white people's lives don't, they're saying something needs to be done to protect black people from systemic danger.

Women's lives matter.
That isn't saying trans people's lives don't, it's saying something needs to be done to protect women from systemic danger.

[quote RazorEdge]@BatShite most lesbians manage not to sexually assault women when they're in changing rooms with them, despite being sexually attracted to women. Same with men attracted to men. I'm sure that heterosexual people can manage it too if the gays can[/quote]
HOUSE!

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

We know that single-race spaces are wrong, but what makes them any better or worse than single gender spaces?

That is the single dimmest attempt at a gotcha I've been on the internet today, and there's been some competition!

Single sex spaces exist to protect women from men. White people do not need to be protected from black people. If you think they do you are a racist. In fact even having made the analogy is going to rightfully earn you quite a bit of side eye.

This! That argument is wildly offensive and massively racist!