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?

You evidently know nothing about sex variance from either a medical or social perspective

You misunderstand. I focus on what important and relevant instead of getting caught up in the nonsense that you are continually spouting.

I also don't have time now because I'm working, but given you have made some pretty strong accusations here I will come back and answer properly.

For now I'll just say I refute your accusations utterly and find it comical you are accusing me of "religosity" when I have been scrupulously careful to work with logic and facts, and to highlight differences of belief rather than claim right or wrong. One might almost wonder if I've touched on a trigger point - if so I apologise for inadvertently raising a sensitive topic for you.

To be clarify, if I use "correct" it's nothing more than "does this make a loigically coherent argument".

Your assertion "I’m not interested in judging whether someone’s experience is “correct” or “incorrect”, I’m simply interested in describing it." is deeply hypocritical given that you are placing IK's supposed (as projected by you) "experience" as higher value than the expereince of the women IK fought, and you are asserting the desire of gender variant people to frame their experiences using language like "cis" is more valid than the right of others (who may also be gender variant BTW) to say "this does not describe me".

Anyway, work calls - looking forward to showing the other logical gaps later.

I don't feel 'entitled' to anything.

Female competitors in that boxing ring though, they are fully entitled to fair and safe sport. Do you agree that they are entitled to have confidence in the IOC rules that have been shown now to be extremely weak in protecting the female sports category?

I have posted the history of the IOC's decisions and linked up what their latest policy is.

The IOC allows male people with differences of sex development to compete in the female sports category if their passport states female. Even if that athlete's birth registration has been found to be incorrect and that they are a male.

The IOC has made this clear.

But if you are interested in the evidence to the contrary of your belief that Khelif is 'female', there are experts who would disagree with you.

We have two tests from independent labs in different countries, and the results have been suppressed by the athletes. We have a Gynecologist making a statement that the boxers both have XY chromosomes and pubertal advantage ie that both of these boxers went through a male puberty.

We have an endocrinologist in Paris stating that ‘despite‘ karyotype and testosterone levels, Khelif is a ‘woman’. Female is not used here. This was reported by one of Khelif's coaches about a separate test done last year after the IBA results were discussed with Khelif.

Female people don't have testosterone levels that don't fit in the 'female range' of testosterone.

From the same coach, we also have the reports that an Algerian doctor has for the past year been monitoring testosterone suppression for Khelif.

Female athletes don’t have any requirements to suppress naturally produced testosterone levels.

Ever.

Only male athletes do this.

Are you actually, honestly telling me that you have an identity which "matches" your vagina?

In what sense is your identity like your vagina?

This makes zero sense to me.

And in what way am I similar to a male person who believes their identity looks like a vagina?

Female competitors in that boxing ring though, they are fully entitled to fair and safe sport. Do you agree that they are entitled to have confidence in the IOC rules that have been shown now to be extremely weak in protecting the female sports category?

I think it's important to note that females have not consented to box males in competition. The IOC have a responsibility to ensure this isn't breached.

No. Language only works when everybody understands and accepts what words mean. The vast majority of English speakers feel no need of a word to describe someone whose sex 'matches their identity'. They are perfectly happy with the long-standing meanings of the words woman, man, girl, boy, female and male, all of which refer back to sex. Adding a little known prefix borrowed from chemistry is just confusing. If people who believe they can identify as the opposite sex or as no sex want to invent words to describe themselves, they can obviously go right ahead, but they can't compel the rest of us to use these words too.

Well, I am a woman, don’t have any problems or doubts about my identity as a woman so would prefer that people respect my right to give my voice to my experience of being a woman and stop sticking prefixes on the word that describes my sex. If people want to give voice to their own experience then fine, but don’t do it by hijacking and debasing my words.

To be clarify, if I use "correct" it's nothing more than "does this make a loigically coherent argument".

you used it to describe someone’s sex (observation or assignment).

I personally prefer the terminology of “sex registered at birth”. As this refers to a factual event- the recording of someone’s sex, and avoids any assumptions about whether sex in that instance was “correctly” or “incorrectly” assigned/ observed and how it was assigned/ observed. It is important to avoid making these assumptions as - in your words (which I would not choose)- it is possible for sex to be “incorrectly observed” at birth.

So if we stick to sex registered at birth. Cis refers to a person whose sex registered at birth (female or male) matches their identity. IK is a cis woman since she identifies as female and was registered female at birth. There’s nothing nefarious about it. Just simple description of the facts.

Does anyone's sex registered at birth match their identity though? Seriously?

The only people I know who believe they have an identity which either matches or doesn't match their genitalia are trans people.

What does an identity which matches having a vagina even look like?

Yeh you just want your experience to remain the “default “ as it’s always been. Like a white person denying they have an ethnicity. Or a straight person denying they have a sexuality. See how that works?

I agree, as you know.

We have discussed this on how many threads now?

Funny though, isn't it? When we ask a question about consent and whether these female boxers had the right to know exactly which sex athlete they are boxing, no one who supports Khelif being included in the female category answers the question.

I have decided that the reason is because those people really haven't got an answer that they want to declare on a public forum. Because could be for different reasons, but I suspect that in large part it shows their complete lack of care for female people, or it shows the inconsistency in their position.

The term "cis" in this case is the forced labelling of women and men that do not require a label. Mainly done by those that complain that others mislabel them.

The descriptive term for a woman is a woman
The descriptive term for a man is a man
The descriptive term for a trans woman is a transwoman.
non binary is non binary etc.

To put it another way a woman is not a sub group of woman.

cis is just a useful piece of shorthand for somebody whose sex at birth and gender identity match.

Obviously if you deny the existence of gender as something which can be incongruent with your birth sex it's meaningless but I cannot see why it's use is offensive.

It is offensive because it is a belief that is being forced on people.

I have a question, it's been randomly floating around my head so I'm intrigued to hear opinions...

Iirc 50% of individuals with 5ARD - AFAB, for clarity - decide to live as men once they hit puberty.
Should they be allowed to compete in female sports, if they meet the criteria of still having a female passport? Would you view them as the same as 'trans men', who are fine in the female category?

"The left" is a bit of a sweeping generalisation. I'm on the left, and certainly haven't sent JKR any death threats. I think she has a point, and that carefully considered words she's written on the subject of gender identity and the need to protect women-only spaces have been caricatured and over-simplified to demonise her. There are right-wing trans rights activists, and left-wing gender critical feminists. This isn't really an issue where a tribal left-right split is helpful (if it ever is!).

How is it forced?

Have you missed the point that Khelif is being described as a 'cis woman' to both shame posters who point out that Khelif has been tested and shown to be a male athlete with male pubertal advantage, and to leverage Khelif's inclusion into the protected female category for boxing?

The use of 'cis' in this instance shows the term to be meaningless to enable female people to describe their needs that are unique to any male person, particularly those who have a difference of sex development that includes the virilisation of their body.

It is offensive because its use has been shown now to be harmful to female people. And because there are large groups of female people who don't believe in the philosophical beliefs that have led to the creation of such a term. Why should anyone accept a term, let alone feel coerced to, that is derived from someone else's philosophical belief? Particularly now that it is shown to be meaningless for describing female people collectively.

What. Does. This. Mean?

What does an identity which matches having a vagina look like?

And what does an identity which matches having a penis look like?

Somebody for the love of God please explain.

It’s simply a factual descriptor as I explained clearly above. You are the one forcing your beliefs on people by trying to censor language used to describe things (/people) you don’t like.

Shaming, messaging in some organisations force the use. That is just two ways.

Can you define gender, or explain what it is?
Or will you comeback with non descript feelings?

Some of us have been trying to get rid of gender stereotypes and see that the gendered ideology is a step backwards for everyone.

It's not a factual descriptor.

There is no such thing as a gender identity which matches any particular type of genitalia.

Except that it is not a factual descriptor.
It would appear that I am not the only one trying to force my beliefs on other people.
As for censoring language by describing what things mean.
You are having a laugh. Without having a definition your points are ultimately meaningless.