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

There are a lot of emotional posts here, a few of which are incredibly transphobic...

Yet you are unable to point them out. Weird.

@Michelleoftheresistance

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.

THIS

I see Clementine Ford (Australian feminist) is in the love Daniel crowd today.

She really pisses me off because she talks about women's rights all the time. (But everyone is a woman if they want)

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

Thanks for the answer :) The thread is 26 pages long, so I'm not going to go back through and identify everybody who has made transphobic comments- (although I will be reporting the ones I've seen).

I'm happy to engage with anybody who is being inoffensive.

So, is the crux of your point that you don't believe in the ability to self-identify as a certain gender? If so, what is your opinion on the medical consensus around transgender individuals?

I do agree (as I've said elsewhere on the thread) that historical oppression does add to the complexity of this issue. I can understand that frustration.

@Helmetbymidnight

I see Clementine Ford (Australian feminist) is in the love Daniel crowd today.

She really pisses me off because she talks about women's rights all the time. (But everyone is a woman if they want)

Oh, I think I've just 'got it'. The right to be called a woman?

@BaronessRadishFemish

Have a look further back, I've quoted one, and reported a few.
I am WFH today but I'll get round to reporting them all, don't worry.

Talk about biting the hand that fed you...

I know you know Kittens but it seemed like a good time to point out to anyone unaware of what else might be going on...you know how it goes round here with any discussion of the fetish-that-shall-not-be-named...

I don't know if this has already been posted but it explains why cis from a grammatical point of view makes zero sense.

@willowflower19

I haven't read this entire thread, so there's a chance this has already been covered, but I've never had this question answered before a thread on trans women has been deleted.

Can somebody please explain why some women have such a visceral reaction to being called a cis woman?
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?

Could you explain which posts on here are 'incredibly transphobic', and why?

My personal revulsion of cis is because it relegates women to a subset of the category 'woman'. We are the entire category. Woman does not include biological males.

I'm happy to engage with anybody who is being inoffensive.

Would you let us know what standards you expect so that we can ensure we don't offend you, ma'am? Or should that be sir?

I'm not going to cover territory that you could cover yourself by reading the thread, willow. Again, you are being very disrespectful of other people's time.

Times reporting on DR's response:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/1fa19c98-aa3c-11ea-adef-7962e28cd764?shareToken=767ccf1b6e6f9dd9e3acef595626341c

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'.

Well, if you recognise the sexism, this is where you will get into hot water.

The descriptions male, female and man and woman, are biological descriptions. You can't be both. Adult human female, adult human male. Of or denoting the sex who produces either eggs or sperm.

If you want to talk about women who identify as men, and men who identify as women, you have to redefine the meaning of the words.

Try defining the word woman in transwoman or man in transman with an actual list of what that means. The actual description. Not just a woolly term like gender identity. Break it down.

You will hit rank sexism on the first rung.

Never could stand him as an actor of thin talent and no presence, can't stand him as a man now either

I think framing cis in terms of race is the most obvious way of showing the nuttiness of this movement.
Imagine Rachel Dolezal claiming to be trans black. Imagine her insisting actual black people start calling themselves cis blacks, and her calling them out for their cis privilege. Imagining her going in the BLM protests and insisting that trans black people like her be centred.
And even then it doesn't quite capture the craziness because race can be argued to be a social construct far more than sex can. Periods, pregnancy, menopause, abortion, miscarriage, cervical cancer. Even if all sexism went away, those things would remain, none of which will ever be experienced by a trans woman.

Identify as whichever of thr over 100 genders you like.

The terms “man” and “woman” are sex categories.

Everyone knows what a “woman” is when they want to exploit female biology. I bet Daniel Radcliffe wouldn’t sleep with a bearded TW with a penis. Tom Daly and his boyfriend didn’t exploit a TW’s body when they wanted a surrogate.

All JKR said was that sex is a real thing which shapes peoples lives. It’s a fact.

What medical consensus?

As an example there are the large number of medical professionals who resigned from the Tavistock because they felt the pathway to be harmful. There are also a lot of surgeons who strongly believe in that pathway because they make a lot of profit.

There can't be a consensus for something which is an ideology at best.

@Collidascope

I think framing cis in terms of race is the most obvious way of showing the nuttiness of this movement. Imagine Rachel Dolezal claiming to be trans black. Imagine her insisting actual black people start calling themselves cis blacks, and her calling them out for their cis privilege. Imagining her going in the BLM protests and insisting that trans black people like her be centred. And even then it doesn't quite capture the craziness because race can be argued to be a social construct far more than sex can. Periods, pregnancy, menopause, abortion, miscarriage, cervical cancer. Even if all sexism went away, those things would remain, none of which will ever be experienced by a trans woman.

FWR in particular and Mumsnet in general contains a wealth of information about what women here think about the medical treatment of trans issues that is available to anyone who wants to take the time to read it. Turning up and going "yeah but could you rehash and summarize it for me?" does not come across well at all. If anyone is interested in knowing my thoughts in particular, hey, that's what the search function is for.

@willowflower19

the medical consensus around transgender individuals

Can you clarify what this medical consensus is?

Also - how do you think that people who are subject to Female Genital Mutiliation are picked to be subject to the procedure? Do you think it is because of their biological sex? Or is there some other way that they are identified - perhaps there is a medical consensus on that? I'm pretty sure that its because they're female. How do you think we can best identify and protect this group of people when we can't have a name for them which doesn't include people born with penises?

So, is the crux of your point that you don't believe in the ability to self-identify as a certain gender?

Of course somebody can self identify as a particular gender. They can also self identify as being a member of a particular religion or Hogwarts house.

However, I don't think there is ever a legal need to classify people by gender (if you can think one please say) and many people reject the concept of gender.

It is however, sometimes necessary to classify sex, e.g. for medical reasons, for sport, to provide services and to monitor and prevent discrimination.

,

So, is the crux of your point that you don't believe in the ability to self-identify as a certain gender?

What do you mean by gender in this respect? Do you mean one of the number of different genders or do you mean the roles and stereotypes expected/enforced on people due to their sex? Or something else?

@willowflower19 for me it's about being GIVEN a subcategory, without being asked, by people who I don't think are part of the main category at all. Demoted if you like. It's also like an anthropologist 'naming' a tribe without reference to what they name themselves, or subdividing a tribe in new nomenclatures or 'types', without asking them how they perceive themselves to be organised.

This grovelling to the TWAW crowd is very revealing. I wonder how many of the people of both sexes feel deep down that males calling themselves women is a step down for them, and therefore something to be pitied ? Females calling themselves male is perhaps seen as an upgrade ?