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?

And which sporting categories should they be eligible to compete in?

I've seen a variety of views on this site tbh (and no I won't be able to quote them this is just from memory)

it seems to be a spectrum from GC's - some seem quite happy with trans women so long as they stay in their own space essentially. So will happily use the preferred pronouns etc but don't want them in women's spaces

but I've also seen people deny trans identity entirely, saying that they aren't any type of women they're just men in a dress and they would never call a trans man a woman. This is the type of view point I mean when I say some deny trans women's existence because it seems to me that if you believe someone who says there a trans woman is literally just a man in a dress then a trans woman surely doesn't exist to you?

with the caveat that I am no doctor, or expert in sports in any way

I don't really think that trans women should be able to compete against biological women. When it comes down to it, whilst I respect trans women's right to live how they want and I will call them female pronouns etc, there are physical differences between male bodies and female bodies. So to allow that to go unchecked is unfair to female athletes

if there are sports where having a male body would provide no advantage (idk, darts? Shooting?) then absolutely, I see no issue with them competing

Saying you believe a trans woman is a man isn't denying that they exist.

If you'd asked me a few years ago I'd have said trans women are women because I hadn't really given it much thought but knew it was the kind, progressive thing to say.

Then - largely thanks to JK Rowling - I started to realise all the problems with that. And actually, it starts with pronouns. Because if you are going to call a male person "she" and say you believe that they are a woman, how then do you object to them competing in women's sports or using women's communal showers? Either you believe they are a woman or you don't. If they are a woman then why should they not be welcome in any and all women's spaces? If you think they shouldn't be allowed in any and all women's spaces then you don't actually believe they are a woman, so why are you saying that they are one? Who does this benefit?

Some people think it's transphobic to say that a trans woman is a man.

I think it's misogynistic to say that a trans woman is a woman. Because what a woman is, is not defined by a small number of (male) individuals. If you accept that the definition of a woman should be changed and broadened to include male people, you are changing the entire concept of what a woman is. You are defining women as people who accept and conform to feminine stereotypes (because once you remove biological sex from the definition there is actually nothing else left), and depriving the whole of society of a word for members of the female biological sex. I find that utterly misogynistic.

So you might find it shocking and transphobic that some of us see trans women as men in dresses, but if you believe (as many of us do) that a man is a male person, and a trans woman is a male person wearing a dress, what else would they be? Their gender identity is only real or meaningful to them.

On the child rapist specifically, there was widespread media condemnation of his involvement already so perhaps she did not feel she had any more to add.

By contrast, when it comes to undermining of women's fair competition through the inclusion of male bodied people in women's sport, there are powerful voices and news organisations who do support it and therefore do not give the public the full picture with regards to IK, both in regards to the known facts and in regards to the reasons for and depth of the opposition. If those who have the opposite view and a platform to say it do not speak up, we risk sleepwalking into a bad state of affairs for women's sports in the assumption that including males is welcomed and unproblematic.

I agree with all of this.

To make it even more problematic, when arguing for the right of trans women to have access to women’s spaces, we wouldn’t even be able to meaningfully measure any detrimental impact it had on women’s safety because any incidents involving attacks on women by trans women would be recorded and measured as a female attacking another female because… TWAW

And what about people with male DSDs such as Caster Semenya?

I think the issue I have with this is the need to put every person into exclusively male or female category. Why can't we have women and trans women? There is then the understanding that the people who are classed as trans women are not biologically female but identify as such and choose to live as women. Therefore we can address them in the way that they wish without blanketing them into the same category as biological women.

Then the discussion on women's spaces, women's sports etc can be had in a way that acknowledges the biological reality that there is differences without alienating trans people by denying their identity

JKR stood up for herself with the football coach as he'd been on her case for a while.

Is she allowed to stand up for women's rights and herself or does she need your prior approval OP?

Its revealing that it suddenly 'doesn't matter who started it' when it's pointed out JKR was responding to someone who had harassed her previously.

It's almost as if the common theme repeatedly is simply wanting JKR to shut up.

I'll be honest I don't know much about the science of it all but I would basically stick to what I have said. Those who are biologically male and have that physical advantage shouldn't compete against females.

I think coming out of these Olympic Games it's become clear that there needs to be some kind of standard testing on the athletes before they are allowed to compete.

I would however just say that I whole heartedly disagree with the way IK has been treated in this issue. I think some clarity is needed on what's gone on here. If IK is biologically male and had the advantage of that then they shouldn't have been allowed to compete. But equally if it turns out that IK is biologically female then I think they will be owed a lot of apologies

You best ask all the trans women who insist they are not different to women.

By all means have trans women and women but not at the cost of women's privacy, dignity, safety and opportunities.

The trouble is that far too often it about using women as support humans to the ambitions and desires of males.

I think on both sides there are extremes. Many trans people are quite aware and reasonable about the biological reality and are happy to essentially be a third category. And equally there are some who will deny there is any physical difference between a biological woman and a trans woman. I have hope that the more reasoned voices in the middle ground from both sides will find common ground and solutions to these issues that can treat everyone fairly

What is the point of this category?

We don't have toilets or sporting categories for women, men, trans women, trans men and non binary people.

We have them for men and women.

I think the whole point of calling trans women women - perhaps the only point - is to move them from the men category to the women category.

Generally speaking they don't want their own category because they want to be in the women category. And that gives rise to a conflict of rights with women who want the women category to be sex based and exclude all males.

Ok cool. So they shouldn't have access to women's sex specific spaces and services then?

You know, that middle ground is exactly what "TERFs" have been calling for for years?

The truth can be very painful.

In what way exactly are gender critical women 'being extreme'?

I'm curious.

They want to retain their existing legal rights in the face of their erosion. They want to maintain women's sport rather than being less than an afterthought. They want to protect themselves from being collateral damage to the desire of males to enter women's spaces. And they want to retain the privacy and dignity of single sex health care.

Is this extremist behaviour?

I'd like to know.

I find it fascinating when this is framed as 'extreme' behaviour when it's women who have had to launch legal challenges to merely believe in sex.

The fact that the courts have ruled that biological sex is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society is fascinating. It will be interesting to see if the reverse gets tested in court too.

Women aren't asking others to say black is white. They recognise reality over fantasy.

But hell this is somehow 'extremist' now.

There's loads of gender critical women screaming for the death or physical harm of others on twitter aren't they... Oh wait no, that's the opposite to what's actually happening.

I don't think that question is as simple as yes or no, I guess it depends on the space itself and the situation.

for example - the toilets at my work are gender neutral (always has been, it's a small building and idk they didn't bother to make seperate toilets) doesn't bother me - there's no urinal so I'm not seeing penises and each cubicle is totally enclosed so to me not a big deal

also say for example a trans woman, who has had all the operations so has fully transitioned on a female hospital ward wouldn't bother me

but then a trans woman pre transition in a female only ward or prison etc I don't agree with

We know they exist because they're really,really hard to miss.

Wow you really picked one word out of my response and ran with it 🤣 notice how I said both sides have extremes, I didn't pick on GC's

The thing is, if the IOC imposed an Olympic wide rule that only biologically female athletes can compete in women's categories and everyone had to submit to routine testing, Imane Khelif would never have got as far as the Olympic boxing ring unless she had already been proven to be female and not have a competitive advantage over female athletes.

But the IOC has not done this. Athletes with male DSDs have been a problem since at least Rio, maybe London. Male athletes with transgender identities have been a problem since at least Tokyo. And yet the IOC has done nothing about this. They abolished standard chromosome testing despite the fact that over 80% of female athletes wanted to keep it. They let Laurel Hubbard compete as a woman. They didn't investigate the IBA's allegations about these two boxers but just decided to go with what it says in their passports. And they tried to ban the media from reporting clearly on the sex of any athlete. They have done absolutely nothing to stop male athletes competing in women's categories; all they have attempted to do is stop the media from talking about it.

Without people like JKR tweeting about this to her millions of followers, would the public even be aware?

Describing the kind of people who wish harm to trans people as being at the extreme end of the same side as gender critical feminists is problematic in itself though.

I don't think not believing humans can change sex puts me on the same side as the far right.

I agree all of that is a problem. But it's an institutional problem and it does need to be fixed.

as I said previously the things JKR said about IK I think were unfair, it the sneering etc. uncalled for and doesn't address the underlying issue which is the lack of testing.

What do you think about the fact that there will be women who work in your building who are bothered by it, who perhaps dehydrate themselves to avoid using the toilet because they are bothered by it, but don't feel able to say anything?

I think you've misunderstood me. I've said on both sides there are extremes - and I think denying / not accepting trans people's existence is extreme. I've already spoken on the biological side of things and we probably agree there.