Daniel Radcliffe responds to J.K Rowling's tweets on gender identity

[EddyF]

Daniel Radcliffe responds to JK Rowling’s tweets: “Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people”

Daniel Radcliffe Responds to J.K. Rowling’s Tweets on Gender Identity – The Trevor Project

FULL STATEMENT

I realize that certain press outlets will probably want to paint this as in-fighting between J.K. Rowling and myself, but that is really not what this is about, nor is it what’s important right now. While Jo is unquestionably responsible for the course my life has taken, as someone who has been honored to work with and continues to contribute to The Trevor Project for the last decade, and just as a human being, I feel compelled to say something at this moment.

Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional health care associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo or I. According to The Trevor Project, 78% of transgender and nonbinary youth reported being the subject of discrimination due to their gender identity. It’s clear that we need to do more to support transgender and nonbinary people, not invalidate their identities, and not cause further harm.

I am still learning how to be a better ally, so if you want to join me in learning more about transgender and nonbinary identities check out The Trevor Project’s Guide to Being an Ally to Transgender and Nonbinary Youth. It’s an introductory educational resource that covers a wide range of topics, including the differences between sex and gender, and shares best practices on how to support transgender and nonbinary people.

To all the people who now feel that their experience of the books has been tarnished or diminished, I am deeply sorry for the pain these comments have caused you. I really hope that you don’t entirely lose what was valuable in these stories to you. If these books taught you that love is the strongest force in the universe, capable of overcoming anything; if they taught you that strength is found in diversity, and that dogmatic ideas of pureness lead to the oppression of vulnerable groups; if you believe that a particular character is trans, nonbinary, or gender fluid, or that they are gay or bisexual; if you found anything in these stories that resonated with you and helped you at any time in your life — then that is between you and the book that you read, and it is sacred. And in my opinion nobody can touch that. It means to you what it means to you and I hope that these comments will not taint that too much.

Love always,
Dan

Cis assumes all 'other' (ie. real) women 'identify' with the stereotypes forced on them because of their sex.

Also relegates actual women to a subcategory..as men are not women anyway.

'Cis' people oddly enough are not asked their 'gender identity'..cis is just assumed for some reason. I don't think there is anyone on this board (or in existence?) that follows all 'feminine' stereotypes, so therefor not one of us is 'cis.

Bravo Posie, agree with every word. You can only stand behind this bullshit if you believe - or claim to believe - that humans born with penises are always more important, more valid, to be prioritised above, the humans born without penises.

Flat out sexism.

Cis is a genderist term that makes actual women, the cunty type, a subset of their own sex.
^
Cis^ means that you are comfortable with gender, that women are fine with being subordinate in the gender hierarchy.
I don't believe in gender identity, gender is what is used to subordinate females it's not a choice or a feeling or an identity.

Cis means that males with identities can place themselves in the category of female while making actual females, the cunty type, the oppressor of these males.

Genderist logic posits that a woman like Malala Yousafzai has cis privilege and someone like C.Jenner is more oppressed than she is.

Cis is weapons grade bs.

Also please do not ignore transphobia. If you see it, report it. The mods are good at deleting it.

Spoketoosoon

"I’m not on Twitter and wouldn’t know how to use it but those of you who are, do you feel safe and comfortable to respond to Daniel Radcliffe and his supporters? Or are you shouted down if you do, branded transphobic? Are people tweeting support for JK? High-profile people?"

I have twitter and very rarely share my opinion on there. Regardless of how polite, measured and understanding I try to be, I am always met with extreme aggression and name calling. My only hope is that all the blue ticks staying quiet on there about the issue, are in fact too scared to come out and support JKR.

@Datun

There are a lot of emotional posts here, a few of which are incredibly transphobic and I will dismiss out of hand. But I'd like to ask those of you who've given your opinion without being offensive- why do you consider this term pejorative?

Several reasons, all of them underpinned by sexism.

Firstly, one of the explanations for cis is that you 'identify with the gender that matches your sex'. Gender is a set of stereotypes assigned to the people on the basis of their sex. Most women, particularly feminists, do not identify with the set of gender stereotypes society would like to ascribe to them. They form a hierarchy with women at the bottom. Women are disadvantaged on the basis of their sex, and gender is the means by which it's done. Think about it. Even what looks like a positive stereotype keeps women down. Women are nurturing, caring, supportive, available for sex, objectified, and across the world, killed, and not even born on the basis of being lesser than.

Secondly, it's in an attempt to make women a subset of their own sex. Not only physically impossible, but sexist.

And thirdly it means you're not trans. Specifically you're not a transwoman. A transwoman is a man who identifies as a woman. So you are being described as 'not a man' who does something.

Women, strange as it may seem, are human beings in their own right. An entity and a concept who exist without reference to men.

We are real, you know. We all share characteristics that put us in the same category.

We don't need to be recategorised, so that men can colonise that category.

This. I tried, but couldn't articulate it better. I don't need to be recategorised to make even more room for men thanks very much.

@CuppaTea86

Long time lurker on FWR, have never posted here before. I've just read a PP upthread mention about pushback against the term FGM. Are we not even allowed the use of the word 'female' as a replacement for 'woman' (the actual xx kind)?

Would the TRAs and allies resist if we continued to talk about "issues affecting females" e.g FGM, female cancer screening, female sex trafficking etc, without having to state 'ciswomen and transmen and non-binary' but just stating Females as a collective noun.

FWIW I absolutely don't think we should have to give up 'woman' as a word to describe adult human females or conduct linguistic gymnastics when we all know which sex class is being affected by these issues.

Female has long been co opted I'm afraid.

This was an SNP member just this morning. It's garbage obviously but they still spout it.

*sorry about the screenshot appearing in your quote. MNHQ still haven't fixed this.

Oh they have fixed the quote thing - just not in preview!

@willowflower19 as other posters have pointed out, it's not a question of my "right to self identify". It is what I am.

Identity politics truly is pernicious and divisive and dangerous.

To think it's okay to apologise on behalf of a successful woman for art he didn't create is the height of mansplaining sexism.

Sentence of the day. Thank you, Ova.

The purpose of 'cis' was invented by males, for males, and its sole purpose is to shunt female people out of the way so that male people are able to claim ownership of womanhood.

That's it. That's all. The rest of it is a lot of fudge to try and compel female people into accepting it. It is in itself a massive act of disrespect to the half of the human race born with female biology, and makes it very clear that they are nothing more than what and whom the biological males say they are. Incidentally these same males shout a lot about respecting people's choices of identity and not imposing labels - but they mean respecting male people, they don't apply those standards to female humans.

The male supremacism here is very hard to miss. I'm not a fan of it.

Course it's not common in real life. The general public is never going to accept that they must all be described in relation to someone who is transgender.

Why the fuck should they?

Furthermore, this entire issue has kicked off because J. K. Rowling wanted to call the half of humans who are capable of menstruation, women. Not menstruators or people who menstruate.

We have been called chest feeders, birthing people, menstruaters, cervix havers - all in official publications, and amongst professional associations, not just twitter twerps - and now they are campaigning to take the female out of FGM.

Can anyone, anywhere, point me to anything where men are described as ejaculators, penis havers, prostate owners?

Is erectile dysfunction directed at 'people who have penises'? Is prostate cancer advice sent out to prostate possessors?

Or is it just women whose biology must be eliminated to pander to a handful of men?

@Datun

This is fab, thanks :)

I take your point- the historical oppression of women does make this a more nuanced issue than it otherwise might be. It's really interesting when you consider it from this perspective.

I'd disagree with your second point, though- it is making cis women a subset within the broader category of women. Clearly, the same should apply for trans men, and therefore both cis and trans men become a subcategory within the broader category of 'male'.

However, I can see that there has been a larger focus on labelling cis and trans women, and I appreciate it is difficult to note this without linking it to sexism.

If it was possible to identify out of oppression everyone would do so,

You're forgetting Kittens that quite a sizeable number of males get off on identifying into that oppression....what was that quote again...

"Running a long hot bath of someone else's oppression and getting in for a leisurely wank"

Willowflower, you still don't get it.

We are women, we were born women, we don't self-identify as women. Men are born men, they are men, they don't have to self-identify as men, they just are men. It's biology.

We have female DNA, female bodies: that is what a woman is, a person with female DNA and a body that is designed to conceive and bear children. We are more than 50% of the human population globally. We exist, we all share these same basic characteristics. We don't have to identify ourselves and we certainly don't need men to tell us what we are, or to create sub-categories so that they can pretend they are women.

What next? Will you start using the phrase cis-black to describe people who were born black and trans-black to describe those who were not born black, and ore clearly not black, but who self-identify as black? I doubt it.

Now do you understand the fury of women at being described as cis?

trans men become a subcategory within the broader category of 'male'.

You are wrong. Transmen are female. Females are not a subcategory within the broader category of 'male'.

Even in my very progressive area not many people describe themselves as "cis". People occasionally tack it onto Facebook discussions etc in what comes across as a rather performative way, but irl the only times I really see it used is when there is a trans person involved in the conversation and they are very actively monitoring and attempting to steer how everyone discusses things. Even then it rarely seems natural, it's more of a sort of "as a cis woman" (looks over at trans person who's looking on for permission to continue speaking) thing. It honestly comes across as people, mostly women, being afraid that if they don't say it they'll get shouted at or worse most of the time.

I was going to write a load of stuff but, as is often the way, my answer is 'what Datun said'.

DAvid arronovitz supports JKR - Woot. No surprise there.

And Joanne Harris doesn't think biological sex matters? No surprises there either.

Trust me, terry, I'm not forgetting!

Datun says things beautifully.

I learn a lot reading her posts.

However, I can see that there has been a larger focus on labelling cis and trans women, and I appreciate it is difficult to note this without linking it to sexism.

That's because it is sexism. Can't talk about sexism without mentioning sexism.

@BaronessRadishFemish

To think it's okay to apologise on behalf of a successful woman for art he didn't create is the height of mansplaining sexism.

Sentence of the day. Thank you, Ova.

You're quite welcome. I'll be here all week.

What does Daniel Radcliffe know? Exactly! ...nothing.

Course it's not common in real life. The general public is never going to accept that they must all be described in relation to someone who is transgender.

This too. It's like starting every conversation with "as a person who does not have MS" - in a discussion that's about MS it might be relevant to note, but why would you frame every conversation that way?