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?

https://x.com/WomensRightsNet/status/1824890987111690556

I watched this interview with Jane Sullivan yesterday and she mentions that there are currently 72 males playing in female league football teams in the UK

Again, cis is nothing more than a descriptive term that enables trans and sex variant experiences to be acknowledged/ captured/ expressed through language. You wish to disappear their experiences and their participation in public life by eliminating that language.

OK. Can I ask why that is?

This is not true.

Firstly, unless you have actual direct knowledge of someone's gender identity, describing them as "cis" makes unwarranted assumptions about their gender that are at best presumptuous and stereotyping, and at worst downright offensive. Don't do it.

Secondly, while it may (naively, see above) have been intended to be a neutral descriptor, in practice is is often used as a slur to dismiss or delegitimise people who oppose cross-sex demands. "Cisnormative", "cishet" - all used to dismiss people's questions and arguments because of who they are (or rather who they are assumed to be) not what they are saying.

Thirdly, the narrative of "cis women, trans women" obscures that even if you believe in gender identity, we are talking about "female women, male women". Put that way, in a climate of patriarchy, male privilege and female marginalisation, the assertion that male women are the powerless oppressed minority and female women are the powerful oppressors is suddenly a lot less convincing.

Again you have shown that you don't actually have the depth of understanding of feminist's positions, or you are entrenched in your own prejudicial portrayal of those positions.

So many feminist groups have been clear that there are many situations in life where a person's sex does not matter. And that 'gender' can be prioritised.

This is one issue, often explicitly stated, that sex does matter to the needs of female people.

But hey, top prize for the new heights of misrepresenting the beliefs of those who don't agree with you..

well done

And the exact same accusation can be equally said to be true for your doubled down usage of cis.

Please do keep roling out the text book platitudes, it makes more and more readers think more deeply about these issues..

Firstly, unless you have actual direct knowledge of someone's gender identity, describing them as "cis" makes unwarranted assumptions about their gender that are at best presumptuous and stereotyping, and at worst downright offensive. Don't do it.

I have never done this to anyone.

Hilarious that you are accusing me of misgendering people. The hypocrisy knows no bounds…

That's not the point. People are telling you they find the word cis offensive; you insist on using it and, worse, insist they use it. Yet 'language' is important when talking about transgender people!?

Can you not remotely see the hypocrisy in that train of thought?

As I said in an earlier post, you REALLY need to understand that the vast majority of people do not look at life through the prism of gender ideology. 'Cis' is only a thing for those, like you, who do.

Let me break it down:
-The planet is divided into men and women. Society doesn't need other descriptors for those people because that is the universally accepted default setting.

-There are some people on the planet who believe, for whatever reason, that they don't belong in either of these two categories. That being the case, words are added to general parlance to describe those people.

But that doesn't, in turn, mean we need new descriptors for the default group. We don't. 🤷‍♀️

Hope that helps.

Reader's note:

This is an argument used by men's rights activism. This argument does not acknowledge the historical nature of 'men's clubs' and the business that was done there where female people were excluded which amounted to negative illegitimate discrimination.

It also doesn't acknowledge the safeguarding issues associated with including any male adult in a female only space. Nor does it acknowledge how some 'men's clubs' exploited female people for entertainment and even sexual activities.

Sure, they were 'allowed' to exist. It was negative sexist discrimination at a time when that was allowed to happen. I don't see it being relevant as an example here though.

Trying to cut through all the nonsense that's being posted to distract from the key points.

At its heart it's very simple.

Do we want a separate category for women's sport or not? Yes or no?

If yes, then i cannot see how this can be based on anything other than sex classification. If it isn't, then it isnt women's sports. It's something else. Make that argument if you wish, but it's not women's sports you're arguing for.

Assuming that we base classification on sex then we need to gatekeep that properly. Passwords/official documents are not reliable indicators of sex. So we need to test. Cheeks swabs are quick and easy.

It really is that simple.

You said "Again, cis is nothing more than a descriptive term that enables trans and sex variant experiences to be acknowledged/ captured/ expressed through language."

You clearly do believe the term."cis" is meaningful. To whom would you apply it?

And please do not accuse me of hypocrisy. I am entirely consistent in my values and beliefs. You simply do not understand me, or indeed GC analysis.

The reason you see "hypocrisy" is because you are trying to fit GC analysis into genderist concepts, and as you are finding, they don't fit properly! But the problem is with the framework you are trying to use. You are like the person who keeps asking the atheist "yes I understand you don't believe in God(s), but which God(s) don't you believe in?"

For what it's worth I don't think you are doing this consciously, I think you have two belief systems in your head (the sex you know is true and the gender stuff you tell yourself you believe is true) and you are trying to argue from both perspectives without realising they are mutually incompatible. So you are projecting arguements onto other people based on your own internal contradictions between sex and gender not listening to what is being said.

No doubt you will reject that suggestion. And indeed it is after all just my opinion. But perhaps you should ask yourself privately and be honest, does it resonate?

Because in your example, 'women' include male people who have been incorrectly registered as female at birth while still having the exact same advantages that a male with a trans identity has. This has been recently proven with a study that I now cannot find, but where male athletes with 5ARD have had their other hormones tested and performance observed. It has shown that those athletes, such as Semenya, have the potential to perform at the elite level with other male people.

And for the record, with current medical technology, all humans can be reliably categorised into male and female sex categories based on whether their bodies are formed around production of either large or small gametes.

Absolutely.

Here's the key difference. Women didn't want to be in these man-only spaces because they wanted to be men, or even particularly wanted to be with men. They wanted to be where the power was, where networks and decisions that affected them were made. And those spaces could continue to function as spaces of power whether or not women were included, albeit no longer patriarchal power.

Women's spaces aren't places of power. They are places of refuge from the power of men. The men who want to be in women's spaces are simply interested in being where the women are. But when men are included they no longer function as places of refuge.

You clearly do believe the term."cis" is meaningful. To whom would youapply it?

For the third time, a cis person is a person whose gender identity aligns with their sex assignment at birth.

I have never applied this label to anyone without knowing their gender identity. It is obviously necessary to know a person’s gender identity (as well as their sex assignment) in order to apply this label as it’s part of the definition itself .

This doesn’t make any sense at all. There’s perfectly good words used to express trans and sex variants - I.e. trans and DSD (or the specific DSD an individual may have). Their experience or even language isn’t diminished by applying words to people outwith the groups you’re referring too.

And as mentioned above, ‘cis’ doesn’t even help in sex grouping as you’ve made it clear a male person wrongly identified as female is considered, ‘cis’ female despite not needing any of the health care or protections (such as in sports) that biological women need. So who is ‘cis’ actually helping in reality? It’s a completely meaningless and an offensive descriptor.

And why is it relevant today?

Because today, under the EA2010 there needs to be a legitimate reason for those clubs to exist as exclusively for men. Because feminists worked with governments to show the power differential and how these clubs had their undeniable role in that power creation.

It seems a very weak argument, yet I have seen it used often enough on MN. And at times by a male poster who identified himself as a men's rights activitist. He was very proud of the argument too.

Cis women is a meaningless phrase that has now been proven to remove the human rights for female people. It is inaccurate and it lacks the precision needed to discuss those human rights that female people need.

She (Imane) was born with a Vagina, she doesn’t have testicles and doesn’t produce testosterone as a normal male with male sex organs would, despite having XY chromosomes. As she was born with female parts, she would legally be considered a female in the UK.

In order to understand the experiences of sex and gender diverse people you need to have language that distinguishes between a person‘s sex assignment and their gender. If you don’t have this language you erase their experiences. “Cis” is part of the language that enables this description of their experiences. That is all.

that has now been proven to remove the human rights for female people

😂😂😂 a beautiful example of how Helle likes to declare controversial ideological/ political opinions as “proven facts”.

Lets say there are two people who have the 5AR2D DSD. (the one that Caster Semanya has)

Bob is identified as having this condition at birth and his sex is correctly recorded as male as birth.

Chris is not identified as having this condition at birth and his sex is incorrectly recorded as female. At puberty he discovers he's actually male and lives the remainder of his life as male.

Under Tandora's rules she would call Bob a Cis man and Chris a trans man but they are both biological males the only difference being that Bob had a more observant medical team at birth.

Can you please post the evidence of Khelif having a vagina? And that Khelif doesn't have testes (not testicles but testes in any form)?

Because you state this with such confidence and it goes against the current evidence that is available at this time.

Khelifs coach confirmed that Khelif had high testosterone and they were taking steps to reduce this.

Nope. You can have transwoman. Woman is taken.

It is a clear example though.

The inclusion of male people, such as Semenya with the male DSD 5ARD, was used 25 years ago to remove sex testing. Or have you forgotten this?

Even in 2021, Richard Budgett stated that the IOC continued to prioritise inclusion over fairness for female athletes.

You can continue to make whatever claims about inclusion that you like, it does not change the fact that the IOC has removed the right for female athletes to have fair and safe competition in sports. Oh.. that is right. You admitted a thread or so ago that you don't have a firm grasp on sports or how competitive advantage works.

And strangely, my opinion is not controversial at all. It is one that persists in the majority of the UK population. And other countries as well.

My opinion: no male athletes with testosterone derived advantage should be included in the protected sports category set up for female athletes to compete safely and fairly.