JKR being uncharacteristically quiet

[Jdugsgsgwyd]

Anyone else noticed since the news that JKR is being sued by Imane Khelif she's been very quiet, unless I'm mistaken she's hasn't tweeted at all in about a week.

and hasn't responded at all to the legal action being taken against her. This is very unlike her, I'm thinking she's been advised by her lawyers to keep quiet. Anyone else think she might have put her foot in it this time?

No, we're saying the fact that Khelif was assigned female at birth and raised as a girl suggests she is genuinely anatomically female, at least to all external appearances. We're not talking about her gender identity and this isn't a case where someone's gender identity is at odds with their birth sex, since Khelif clearly feels that she is a woman, as she was assigned.

We are also noting the irony that individuals in the gender critical movement have put a lot of time and energy into deriding the suggestion that sex at birth can be mis-assigned, until they find a woman they want to misgender, then suddenly they acknowledge that this can happen.

Well apparently most of mumsnet can’t understand the difference- so no I dont have much hope.

According to the GC crew trans kids are mostly self-hating (and/ or abused) gay kids and this boxer (who mostly likely has a DSD) has been wrongly mistaken for a trans woman all over social media.

Yes and it's Gender Critical women who apparently have double standards on this.

😂

I didn't save the video, but this still is on reduxx

You really really have no idea about what a DSD is and how it presents do you.

And yet you are trying to lecture those who have made an effort to erm.... checks notes... educate themselves and use... checks notes again... use google.

😂😆

He doesn't

What on earth gives you the confidence to declare that this person you don't know, whose doctor you are not, whose medical information you do not have access to, whose underwear you have not seen inside, definitely doesn't have a vulva? Can you genuinely not see that this is information that you do not know, and are simply making up?

Lord give me the confidence of a GC mumsnetter making statements about the genitals of total strangers.

We are also noting the irony that individuals in the gender critical movement have put a lot of time and energy into deriding the suggestion that sex at birth can be mis-assigned

Show me when this has ever happened. Without using a trans identifying person.

Most of the people talking about trans are the ones that believe Khelif is a woman. The ones that think he's male, including JKR, have been talking about DSDs from the start not trans

Sex is not assigned at birth. Sex is observed at birth (and usually before).

The sex you are at birth is the sex you will always be, and sometimes this matters
Sometimes, in the case of some DSDs, sex is incorrectly observed. This does not change the sex you actually are.

That's all. There's no gotcha. Everyone, including trans people, are the sex they are at birth. Almost everyone, including trans people, has their sex correctly observed at birth. A very small number of people, which can include trans people, have a DSD that leads to an incorrect observation of their sex. That this observation was incorrect can be physically shown later in life.

Trans people claim that they sex they were "assigned" at birth is wrong because of something in their mind. This cannot be shown by any physical tests - all physical tests will align with their birth sex unless the results are impacted by conscious cross-sex medical interventions. Even then, only some physical tests will be impacted. No trans person without a DSD will ever test fully as they opposite sex because, well, they are not the opposite sex.

The rules do not change. Sex is real and fixed at conception. Sometimes it is incorrectly observed. Whatever trans people experience and whatever they transition to, it is not "being" the opposite sex.

We are also noting the irony that individuals in the gender critical movement have put a lot of time and energy into deriding the suggestion that sex at birth can be mis-assigned, until they find a woman they want to misgender, then suddenly they acknowledge that this can happen.

This is incorrect. We have argued many times over the years that sex isn't assigned it's observed, however, there are rare times that sex is assigned due to ambiguous genitalia which would normally be the result of a DSD. We have always known that this can happen, however, this should not be used as proof that humans can change sex

Round of applause for...

... Talking actual sense instead of utter bollocks (sic).

Oh so it never happens again now? So Khelif must be a woman then. Case closed everyone, BeyondOlympicLevelProcrastinator has solved it for us. Sure hope JKR doesn't lose her castle when she has to pay up.

Thank Christ you said it, this is obvious to me! I can’t understand why people do not get this!

Loving the gender criticals on this thread finally admitting that sex can be “assigned” or as some of them prefer to call it - “incorrectly observed” 😁.

TRAs have never listened to what women's rights activists have said so it's no wonder they don't actually understand our position and misrepresent it.

Oo look another attempt at a gotcha.

Try harder.

I simply repeated what you all yourselves just said. 😌

We are also noting the irony that individuals in the gender critical movement have put a lot of time and energy into deriding the suggestion that sex at birth can be mis-assigned

Show me when this has ever happened. Without using a trans identifying person.

I think what Beyond was saying is 'Show me a post on MN from a gender critical poster that accepts that someone who believes they are the opposite to their birth sex was mis-identified at birth'.

Yes it can be incorrectly observed, in the case of a rare DSD.

What is so hard to understand here?
XY = male
XX = female

In the majority of instances, XY will give you an observable penis and XX will give you an observable vulva.

In rare cases involving DSDs for example, XY could give something that could be mistaken for a vulva but isn’t. Having ‘something that could be mistaken for a vulva’ does not make you female.

This has fuck all to do with trans??

Nobody has ever denied this. It happens in complex cases where there are medical problems. It doesn't happen because a perfectly healthy newborn grows up to be a person who self-identifies as the opposite to their birth sex.

No. You haven't. If you can quote something JKR has said that's transphobic, do it. If you can't then your claims of JKR's transphobic are clearly false.
As for your question, some males pose a risk to females therefore we exclude all males from female spaces, services, prisons and sports.
Does that mean we dont trust any males? Of course not. It means that the exclusion is there to protect females.
Also important to note is that the males who pose no risk have no issue with being excluded.

We've always said it. It's the only time assigned actually makes sense.

Loving how the appropriation of DSDs only works when it suits genderists though.

Ah we have resorted to misrepresentation at this stage in the thread.

It's a script we are all familiar with.

Thanks once again for the demonstration.

Everything always works for the genderists. It's always to their favour. Meanwhile it's females who get shit on.

Funny that.

So to you this person who has XY chromosomes but was able to carry a baby to term and give birth is a man? A man who just happened to carry a baby in his uterus and give birth through his vagina? To you, men can have vaginas, have uteruses, get pregnant and give birth? If this person said to you, with their vaginal birth baby cradled in their arms, breastfeeding, that they felt that they were a woman, you would tell them they were wrong and they were actually a man and it's simple and they're an idiot for thinking otherwise?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5885995/

I'm sorry but you have your head in the sand. You can make statements until you're blue in the face about how DSDs are simply about "incorrect" observations of sex at birth but reality will continue to prove itself more complicated than your "rules".

And because I know what argument you're going to come back with, yes I know DSDs like this are very rare, but that's irrelevant- the fact they exist at all disproves your argument. If your argument is always true except for one exception, then it isn't always true.