To ask about JK Rowling - can someone tell me what happened?

[christmaspigeon]

Just that really. I like her. I like how she gives so much for charity and how she put Trump in his place, but I know people's views on her have changed. Something to do with trans comments?? Can someone explain (in really simple language!) what happened? Thank you!

My lifelong experience..I have never 'identified' as being female, I simply am. I have actually tried to find my 'gender identity' and discovered I don't have one, I don't 'feel like a woman', I just feel like me, AND just am a woman. Doesn't stop activists sneering 'you arejust cis, therefor you have no opinion', even though I technically fall under the 'trans umbrella' potentially more than said activists do!

[quote Biffbaff]@thebuffster

Since the 1990s there has been lots of scientific research which has identified more at play than the "binary" of XX and XY chromosomes.

Things are progressing as to how sex is defined, scientifically speaking.[/quote]
I am a biologist. From the article you posted:

Parents of children with these kinds of conditions—known as intersex conditions, or differences or disorders of sex development (DSDs)—often face difficult decisions about whether to bring up their child as a boy or a girl. Some researchers now say that as many as 1 person in 100 has some form of DSD.

And

They think that changing medical practice by legal ruling is not ideal, and would like to see more data collected on outcomes such as quality of life and sexual function to help decide the best course of action for people with DSDs—something that researchers are starting to do.

So tell me please: what is the ratio of the population that is suspected to have DSD? Note that this article has picked the largest possible value (“as many as...”) to support their argument. And there is no reference so I couldn’t go back and check the data that this ‘1 out of 100’ is based on.
In my day job, I am paid to dismantle and dissect the arguments that (shock and horror!) other scientists have tried to build up. I am paid to analyse their work, scrutinise where they are exaggerating and carefully balance their arguments against data. Nearly all the time, I have to tone everything down.
So call me a cynic, but I don’t believe that systems biology doesn’t statistically support the right to same-sex spaces for the people who were born and broadly (note my use of the word broadly here) categorised as females. If anything, it highlights that there is a statistical disparity (1 out of 100 vs how many females out of 100 again?) and that the TWAW have got it upside down.

As a final note:
please never quote Scientific American, New Scientist or other similar publications as your source of scientific data. They are considered secondary references, are rejected at the stage of medico legal reviews. I would lose my job within two days if I start using Scientific American as a primary reference.

As it stands, I wouldn’t even bother going to look for the primary references for that 1 out of 100 figure. Its statistically small enough for me to not ignore the rights of the born females whose out of 100 number this article has conveniently ignored! ( Another point that will be picked in any medico legal review; in fact, this point will be picked by the junior members of my team before it passes to get to the stage of any reviews).

@Winesalot

And biff what about our posts regarding males now representing women in roles set aside for females. So that females actually have a say in policies about their needs?

Are you comfortable with that? Or do you think this is ok? That these activists (and be sure, they are activists taking these roles) shape policies effecting women?

No, truthfully, I am not entirely comfortable with that. I would prefer to see boards representing diversity in all senses, so that neither trans nor birth sexes are excluded in favour of one or the other.

I thought the poster who addressed the question of how Kathryn the "fae" isn't best placed to address her maternity rights made an interesting point. Then again, even a woman who had given birth may not be best placed to represent maternity rights, surely that question comes down to the individual's policies.

FWIW My points about trans rights are about campaigning for them alongside women's rights, not instead of. Just like JKR states her position on women's rights is not one that invalidates trans rights.

That should have been:
but I believe that systems biology doesn’t statistically support the right to same-sex spaces for....

My intellectual experience isn't at odds with my own body, but I wonder what it would be like if it was?

But if it were, I would say that
a) you'd be succumbing to the Cartesian problem of the separation of mind and body, in a way that tends to be disconnected from the material realities of human life - and it tends to be an issue in western, developed countries, where we have huge privileges of being able to put the significance of intellect above everything else (not saying tis is a bad thing, just recognises this is where we are);

Women, generally, don't have the luxury or privilege of ignoring our bodies - we know how the functions of our bodies can sometimes override our intellects (I was always struck during the 1980s AIDS crisis, that women have always known the connections between sex & death ...)

b) more practically, I would respond to your dilemma by suggesting that some sort of therapeutic action would be needed to reconcile your intellect to your body (and not vice versa, as there's growing evidence that it doesn't really work ...)

That said, I agree - I can't imagine what it would be like to feel so at odd with my body that I wanted to cut off (or out) perfectly healthy parts of it.

Notwithstanding that our culture conspires to make many girls & women feel dissociated from their material body in some way. Diet industry, anyone?

@Thewithesarehere

That should have been: but I believe that systems biology doesn’t statistically support the right to same-sex spaces for....

This isn't an academic journal, is it? I also work in academic publishing

FWIW My points about trans rights are about campaigning for them alongside women's rights, not instead of. Just like JKR states her position on women's rights is not one that invalidates trans rights.

Well yeah, this is the obvious solution, and it is possible to do also. Just is it NOT possible to protect both when what transactivists are demnding is for women to give up their rights! It would be easy, to cmpaign for extra provisions for transpeople. But whats being expected, is for women to 'give' theirs instead.

I find it all a shame really, as if the demands were not going to detrimentally affect women, I am positive many/most feminists would stand beside them when fighting. But its unreasonable IMO to expect feminists to willing give away womens rights. And thats whats causing the issues at the min, thats whats expected of feminists, hence the rape threats and such for saying 'no'.

Many feminists have spent a lifetime fighting for LGBT rights, along with womens rights. Feminists are not on the whole bigoted nasty people. But saying no to the thing that would hugely destroy womens rights, despite all else that has been done in our lives, makes us horrid bigoted people. Its unfortunate really. As I said, I know I would be willing to fight alongside transactivists IF their demands were reasonable. Some feminists would not, as their focus is on women and girls solely, and there is nothing wrong with that. But those who only fight for wmen and girls, I doubt would purposely stand in the way, if the 'trans rights' that were being fought for did actually benefit transpeople without being detrimental to women.

[quote Biffbaff]@winesalot I did read your post and found your points about the definition of sex really interesting, thanks (genuinely)

What if the "stability of sex" is a false construct though? To keep men in one place and women in another? What if women's spaces aren't about safeguarding but about segregation? What if they are about safeguarding AND segregation? Depending on how you're looking at them?

@thebuffster perhaps it's easier to know where you fit, if your only experience is being comfortable with the label you were given at birth. My intellectual experience isn't at odds with my own body, but I wonder what it would be like if it was? That's why I find this interesting.[/quote]
Actually, if I subscribed to stereotypes that gender is based on, I don't fit. I have an athletic figure, am sporty, not especially pink. I've birthed a child but he has a disability from me not being able to 'birth' properly.
None of this changes my sex though, my body is me and whether it's what I wanted or not I can't change that.
I mean, you'd think my actual lived experience of my body failing me and my baby would mean I'm allowed a voice in this debate, but no, apparently not.
Also annoys me when tra accuse people of trying to steer children away from drugs as ableist btw. My son will have to have medical intervention his entire life. To compare him to someone having cosmetic surgery is frankly insulting.
As for the above comment, it sounds a bit like if we ignore sexism it will go away.
It won't.

I would prefer to see boards representing diversity in all senses, so that neither trans nor birth sexes are excluded in favour of one or the other.

I would think many on this board would agree in principle. How it is done it the part that needs exploration. I would for instance look at representation in the community the panel is representing and work with those proportions. Maybe remove a male position and make it for a trans person, women are after all 51% of the community. . But seriously, models for representation should be discussed.

When it comes to women’s officer roles, it should only be for females who identify as women. Usually there are other roles set up for transpeople. And either transmen or transwomen would qualify.

I have seen instances where there is not only a transperson officer but then there is also a transwoman in the women’s officer role. Hardly giving females a say in anything at all really.

What if the "stability of sex" is a false construct though? To keep men in one place and women in another? What if women's spaces aren't about safeguarding but about segregation?

@Biffbaff - I think historically and currently, sex-segregated spaces have acted to oppress [women] or to privilege [men]. You only have to be invited to the Garrick Club to see that privileging in action still ...

But there is a longer & more complex history of women's spaces. For example, women's public lavatories, and sex-segregated lavatories in workplaces, have been central to the argument for women's rights to be in the workplace, for probably at least 150 years. Indeed, I'm old enough to remember the rhetoric about "not enough facilities" to keep women out of previously male-dominated employment sectors (oh and those were always the higher paid jobs - funny that!)

And so on ...

I don't think there's a slogan answer to this sort of debate (channelling Professor Alice Sullivan's evidence to the Parliamentary Women & Equalities enquiry - "Grown ups don't talk in slogans).

We need to have tactics which are adapted and suited to specific situations, debates, and campaigns. But we also need to be clear about our central strategy: women's rights to define themselves, speak about their experiences, and organise collectively in women's interests.

i'm neither a man nor trans. There are women out there who think JKRs anti trans rhetoric is anti trans. Though obvs she's entitled to her opinions, and to expressing them just as others are entitled to their opinions on those views.

My points about trans rights are about campaigning for them alongside women's rights, not instead of

@Biffbaff what rights do transpeople not have?

NB: this is different from the everyday discrimination they may (or may not) face, which contravene their legal rights.

For example, hate speech against gender reassignment is illegal ie transphobic speech can be seen as hate speech, and is against the law.

On the other hand, misogynist hate speech is not against the law. Sex is the one protected characteristic in the 2010 Equalities Act which is not protected from hate speech.

Probably because it is so 'normal.'

@queenoftheair I agree, very interesting point about the "facilities" being the reason for keeping things exclusive.

@winesalot Yes, the board representation question is so important.

@thebuffster I found your post about your birth experience and experience of your womanhood moving. We are more similar than perhaps it seemed. Your voice in this is totally valid, of course it is. And I definitely didn't mean that we should ignore sexism!

i'm neither a man nor trans. There are women out there who think JKRs anti trans rhetoric is anti trans.

If you're going to say this Elfinghecking then give us an "anti-trans" JKR tweet.

Though obvs she's entitled to her opinions, and to expressing them just as others are entitled to their opinions on those views

Interestingly, though, when TRAs express their views that JKR - or any woman expressing her views - should "choke on my girl dick" or the like, feminists rarely respond with rape & death threats.

@QueenoftheAir

Though obvs she's entitled to her opinions, and to expressing them just as others are entitled to their opinions on those views

Interestingly, though, when TRAs express their views that JKR - or any woman expressing her views - should "choke on my girl dick" or the like, feminists rarely respond with rape & death threats.

Not only saying it, sending photos of said girl dicks on posts of a children's competition !

Disgraceful behaviour.

I also admire her for many reasons, but the anti trans thing has truly baffled me. And I have read her explanations but it just doesn't ring true to me. I find it difficult to see what her ex hitting her has got to do with any of the lovely trans people I know. If anything she should put all her time, energy, money and platform into Domestic Violence campaigns rather than sarcy tweets about the world 'women' not being used when talking about menstruation. I'm sure she's aware some transmen still have periods and don't consider themselves women.

@Elfinghecking really? You really can't see it? I'm just incredulous.

Transmen are fully aware of their biology (how could they not be?) there are women out there who doesn't know the names of their reporoductive organs and if English isn't their second language they may miss out on vital health checks. Women is universal and understood.

Why do their actual lives not matter?

And I have read her explanations but it just doesn't ring true to me. I find it difficult to see what her ex hitting her has got to do with any of the lovely trans people I know.

She has also talked about being friends with trans people. The point she is making us that victims of domestic violence are threatened by allowing men into single sex spaces. It's not hard to grasp.

And transmen might consider them selves not to be women, but they are. Being a woman is not about a feeling or identity but about a biological reality. Again, not hard to grasp.

*first language

I find it difficult to see what her ex hitting her has got to do with any of the lovely trans people I know.

Transwomen having access to female only spaces such as safe houses.

rather than sarcy tweets about the world 'women' not being used when talking about menstruation. I'm sure she's aware some transmen still have periods and don't consider themselves women.

If they still have periods they are biologically female and thus women. If accepting that biological reality is so triggering then why not take hormones to suppress periods? Why is it up to 99.99% of the world to change their language instead?

It's like the transman who is so convincingly masculine that kidney problems weren't picked up because of differences between males and females. Instead acknowledging that the recording of biological sex for medical purposes is relevant, the drive instead is to make the medical world more trans inclusive.

Because why take responsibility for your own well-being when you can force others to do that for you?

She took issue with the phrase ‘people who menstruate’ by insisting the word ‘women’ should be used instead, which denies the reality of trans men and is also insulting to women who don’t menstruate

Yeah, I know this is 20 pages ago, but I don't care. Its so stupid. The idea that saying only women menstruate is insulting to menopausal women, is based on the complete misreading ( so complete that is must be deliberate) of that sentence to all women menstruate. Only women menstruate is not saying all women menstruate. Nor is it saying, you are not a women if you are menopausal. It is stating the fact that only women menstruate. It uses the definition of women that was used through all history (adult human female) until ten minutes ago when people believing in this new gender ideology decided to throw out that meaning without giving a new definition.

What if the "stability of sex" is a false construct though? To keep men in one place and women in another?

You have come to the right website!

Here, millions of women will be able to tell you that the stories are indeed true, babies are not delivered by stork, and they do indeed grow inside human bodies. The sex of that body is entirely predictable, regardless of the identity of the person growing the human, or whether they wish to grow a human.

On balance this is good, if for no other reason than to establish how contraception works.

What if women's spaces aren't about safeguarding but about segregation? What if they are about safeguarding AND segregation?

It’s a good idea to ask why single sex facilities are provided, because they can be use to unfairly discriminate as well as to protect. It’s the same for all protected characteristics. However discrimination isn’t always direct and you can’t protect against illegal sex discrimination if you can’t define sex.

Agree ‘redevening’. People who make that argument betray complete ignorance of the experience of being a woman.

Women know that they will spend many years not menstruating, and that, unlike men, ‘not menstruating’ has very clear consequences for health and fertility. None of that is insulting, it’s just reality. Your sex doesn’t change and your human value is independent of your sex.