JK Rowling threatening legal action

[TheLashKingOfScotland]

A TRA and Canadian Green Party rep has made libellous comments about JK regarding her position on trans rights and her suitability to be trusted around children.
JK asked her to retract them or they would hear from JK's lawyers. Currently they are digging in. Seemingly unaware that JK has pursued legal cases based on Twitter comments before and that it isn't acceptable to make unfounded statements about people.
It will be interesting to see how it unfolds.
It could have wider reaching consequences if certain sectors see they can't just make unfounded accusations any more.

This can be seen in questionnaires when people are broadly supportive of transwomen accessing female changing rooms until it is clarified that the vast majority retain their penis at which point opinion is firmly against it.

I've seen plenty of comments on news articles where someone clearly thinks the term 'transwoman' means a woman who identifies as a man. So they'll say 'of course a transwoman should be allowed in female changing rooms'.

And even I have to read things several times when the term 'transgender woman' is used, because that really does sound like it should mean a woman who identifies as transgender, but it now seems to be an alternative way of saying 'transwoman'.

I've taken to asking for clarity when I can, OldCrone.

But the trouble is, whatever language is used to request and receive clarity is going to be next up on the banned list.

It's an arms race, really. It feels like we're constantly running to keep up; I dare say it feels the same to the Other Side but they at least have the benefit of having the backing of the patriarchal establishment (on account of not actually challenging it).

And, looking back at the development of language over centuries, I suspect this has been going on for a very very long time.

I see the person convicted of assaulted Maria at Hyde park has called JK out in the terms of a drunk in the pub on a Saturday night (with added swears). What a world...

And even I have to read things several times when the term 'transgender woman' is used, because that really does sound like it should mean a woman who identifies as transgender, but it now seems to be an alternative way of saying 'transwoman'.

Some posts I have to read again and again: when they talk of translesbians and gays who is attracted to whom and who gets to sleep with whom and vice versa.
It is VERY confusing even for someone with a bit of foundation knowledge like myself.

The question should be would we be happy with men or women who consider themselves transgender sharing single sex spaces?

With an open answer allowed not y/n.

I see that nasty piece of work M O** is trying to argue that it was all Maria's fault. Lost touch with reality.

My advice to JK would be to publicly ignore them. Forever.

Do what she needs to do behind-the-scenes, but never acknowledge them and never address them.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I see that nasty piece of work M** O** is trying to argue that it was all Maria's fault. Lost touch with reality.

There are plenty of people calling them out on it. And pointing out that their tweets get surprisingly few likes and retweets. Maybe someone is not as popular as they thought.

I'd like to think so!

*The question should be would we be happy with men or women who consider themselves transgender sharing single sex spaces?

With an open answer allowed not y/n.* *

You need to rephrase the question into two separate issues:

Are we happy with men who consider themselves transgender sharing our single sex spaces?
Are we happy with women who consider themselves transgender sharing our single sex spaces?

See I think we need to stick with fact based language. Are we happy with biological males in women and girls changing rooms? No one is worried by people’s self held identities but by physical reality. We have to hold on to fact based language or... 1984.

Whatever happened to Indigo, star and crystal children? Did they ever grow up to be the world leaders as promised? Or was it a nonsense trendy old fad that fizzled out.

I wonder what those who would been 'indigo moms' back in the day would now call their kids.

Ayden.

TRAs claim that this person is an innocent victim, but Wolf just can't help but to show their real attitude.

Sounds nice...

That individual really does have a problem with middle aged women. Perhaps a Freudian therapist could be of some assistance?

I think the problem with any questions about women or transwomen nowadays is the refrain of "trans women are women" - so you can't ask a "simple" question about women or transwomen in spaces without immediately being accused of transphobia, because TWAW.

The phrase that always confused me was Trans-identified male, and Trans-identified female - both of which are pretty much "Banned" unless you wish to be accused of transphobia again - but I was never sure which was which with them (i.e. starting point and perceived end point).

I noticed on the JKR twitter threads that many of the TRA posts were getting very few likes, in comparison with the supportive posts. I hope that means the tide is turning, I really do.

@TheChampagneGalop

TRAs claim that this person is an innocent victim, but Wolf just can't help but to show their real attitude.

Oh but s/he is a laydee, don'tcha know! you can tell by the refained language wot s/he uses.

On the other side, we know that TRAs and academics are using constantly changing language as a way to try to maintain control of the debate. Either way it leads to a situation where the average person can't easily follow the argument without prior experience or a lot of effort AND frequently misunderstand what is being said.

I was thinking about this on the thread about the up-skirting activist.

One of the effects of so much quick language change may just be that people are used to things not making sense. Theories or ideas about the world don't fit together and never are integrated. You use whole different language sets for different topics.

It's like each set of ideas are kept in their little box. Which maybe keeps them from being really looked at careful. Many people simply don't expect them to fit together.

Many people simply don't expect them to fit together.

I can't get my head round this at all. Do people really not bother looking for the linguistic connections between different areas of intellectual endeavour? Am I doing that thing where one blithely assumes everyone shares one's niche hobby?

Theories and ideas about the world always fit together somehow because they're all created by human beings trying to make sense of our world - we're all working with the same raw materials, as it were. We just all figure out our own language to describe it and occasionally someone manages to gets theirs published.

@ThumbWitchesAbroad

I think the problem with any questions about women or transwomen nowadays is the refrain of "trans women are women" - so you can't ask a "simple" question about women or transwomen in spaces without immediately being accused of transphobia, because TWAW.

The phrase that always confused me was Trans-identified male, and Trans-identified female - both of which are pretty much "Banned" unless you wish to be accused of transphobia again - but I was never sure which was which with them (i.e. starting point and perceived end point).

I noticed on the JKR twitter threads that many of the TRA posts were getting very few likes, in comparison with the supportive posts. I hope that means the tide is turning, I really do.

I think it means you’re watching it be responded to in a more mainstream space and seeing a more average mainstream response.

It’s a children’s writers Twitter page rather than a we’ve all drank the koolaid space

Things that bring it fast and unfiltered into the mainstream stage are great actually because they allow people to come to it clean. That’s far preferable than the slow dripfeed of influence via education, blurring lines with lgb rights etc.

People get a sober view

There's something sneaky about "-identified" in those banned phrases.

I don't know if we discussed it back when HQ decided we weren't allowed to note an individual's sex using that particular sentence construction, but who is actually doing the identifying? Is it the individual, or is it the wider culture that refuses to accept effeminate boys and androgynous girls as they are and so convinces them that they must be literally the opposite sex?

Difficult one to pick apart given the constraints of the language policing though.

Are we “allowed” to say biologically male? I’ve been off the board for a long time so not up to speed with approved language and thought.

@TheHoneyBadger - maybe, but JKR's twitter feed has been targeted by TRAs so much since her defence of Maya Forstater that the subthreads where they kick off are really painful to read. But still the TRAs don't seem to like each other's posts, they'd sooner make their own - and very few other people like their posts either, they post encouragement to JKR for her stance on those subthreads.