JKR rebuttals from cis women?

[Treats]

I’ve seen a few rebuttals of the JKR statement, but only from trans women or men (mostly with beards). I’m genuinely interested to learn about the ‘other side’ of the issue, but I want to hear it from people who have a female body. I want to hear from someone who’s actually menstruated why they’re comfortable with the term “people who menstruate” instead of “women”, for example.

My natural instinct is with JKR but I work with a lot of people who are horrified by what’s she’s said, and I genuinely want to question my beliefs in this area. But I don’t want a man to tell me what I should think when the question is about what makes women distinctive.

Has anyone seen anything?

Cis off.

I hate that word. I am a woman. No prefix required.

The whole not wanting to be defined by biology bit but then being fine with being called a person who menstruates - that is literally defining someone’s biological function.

Can people please RRFT? The OP's use of the word 'cis' has already been addressed. It's derailing the discussion to concentrate on that.

I think it is arrogant of JKR to dismiss the experiences of trans people and suggest they are broadly influenced by social media. I find it odd she thinks her own feelings about her own gender are in any way relevant to the majority of trans people. She clearly struggles to comprehend others may have experiences that differ from her own. However she clearly is on the side of women and is coming from a good place

JK doesn't have "feelings about her own gender". She has opinions about her own sex.

I personally find it arrogant that male-born people assume that their 'feelings about their gender' make them women in the same way I am - how on earth would they know?

And, transwomen have different experiences but they are women. HUH?

I am comfortable with the term as I am a person and I menstruate. I feel it is more inclusive and considerate of those trans men who still menstruate. Trans people have already gone through a lot and could do with some kindness.

Why do we have to include trans men and women into the definition of the word and make cis a subset? Why can’t trans men and women just me a subset. If things need to be inclusive (like san pro) they can just say they are for women, non binary people and trans men. If we focus on stopping discrimination against trans and non binary people, what’s the problem with accepting there are just different categories of people, all equal.

Women’s sport and things reserved just for women should be for women, third spaces created for everyone that needs them and trans people can have their own awards etc where it is felt they need to be acknowledged and encouraged (similar to women).

The whole TWAW and they don’t want to constantly be reminded they aren’t 100% a member of their chosen gender identity to me seems a bit of a fallacy. Surely they don’t forget, especially the fast majority that still keep their penises and actively campaign for TW to be W. Being acknowledged as a trans woman/man can’t possibly be consistently confronting them with an uncomfortable truth that they see every time they take a piss and spout propaganda on the internet.

Why isn’t that good enough?

I have never seen a coherent objection to JKR's point, which is simply that women are human and have rights and deserve empathy just like everyone else (i.e. given what 'everyone else' is: men).

I've looked for it. For years, actually.

The objections by women (and a lot of men) boil down to "Stop dumping on the poor minority. Be kind." With the always unspoken coda: Nothing about women or that happens to women is worth one jot of discomfort for anyone else.

I'm not sure why some of these TRAs have predicated their entire struggle on erasing women. But whatever their reason, erasing women is obviously central to them. JKR's crime was saying, "No." It's impossible to express a coherent objection to that without saying women don't count. So all we get is incoherence.

I’d reply but I’m not cis. I don’t have a gender. I’m just a woman who sometimes dresses/behaves in a stereotypically female way and sometimes dresses/behaves in a stereotypically male way. Sometimes a mix of both.

Under the stonewall definitions I suppose I’m gender fluid.

Still a woman though, since I was born female.

Hi OP,

Feel a bit sorry for you re the ‘cis word’! You won’t make that mistake again! Moving on...

I’m pretty new to this issue too, I hadn’t really been aware of the debate, shamefully and I have spent the last few days reading a lot. I agree with the majority of posters here and stand alongside JKR / alongside women for all of the reasons variously outlined.

However I know that’s not what you were asking and I have seen a few posts from women who support TWAW and the Harry Potter traitors.

The main agreement seems to be that we aren’t being kind enough

So, I’ve seen comments such as:

‘Can you imagine being a transwoman in a male prison or male changing rooms? How vulnerable that must make you feel? If you are living as a woman - live as a woman’

‘Women should be inclusive. Trans women are at risk in places such as male prisons, why can’t we share our places? I don’t feel threatened’

‘but there is more to being a woman than sex. Why can’t we recognise that and allow trans women to live as they would like? What are the actual risks at any scale? Surely we should be supporting this minority’

Etc etc. They are all pretty simplistic statements that lack and critical thinking. That said, I haven’t seen many comments from women supporting the ‘cis’ statement or people who menstruate terms. Probably because they’re ridiculous.

What I keep waiting for is someone really high profile to come and support JKR. I just feel there is a pile on and those in public eye should be AT LEAST defending her from abuse, ideally standing with her. But although she has an army of supporters, no one famous seems to be putting their head above the parapet. It’s so disappointing.

The problem with the phrase “people who menstruate” is that it is quite a complex sentence. If we start using it rather than “women and girls” then people with a low reading ability or English as a second language may not understand it, and ignore it as they will think they don’t know what it means so it doesn’t apply to them, whereas if you just say “women and girls” even people with a low IQ will know that they are the group of people who have periods.

By being inclusive you could actually be excluding the people you’re trying to reach. Trans men know that medically they have women’s bodies so they’re not likely to start reading articles about prostate cancer and think it applies to them.

OP, I try to avoid analogies but as this is so current...

What would you say if white people were to declare that they were black, and that from now on people who were visibly black should be called cis-black and people who were white but self ID as black should be called trans-black. And then the trans-black people complain that the word black should never be used because it hurts their feelings and privileges those who are cis-black. And so there is no identifiable class of black people, and no racism, and no oppression of black people.

Now do you understand why cis is so offensive?

I meant to add but was interrupted by coffee and toast....

Capturing language is one major step to capturing minds. If you can regulate the language that people can use, you have some control over how they think.

Transwomen are different to women born female

Transwomen have concerns about safe spaces feeling uncomfortable around some people ( men) in some circumstances, yes, I get that

What I don't get is their right to say that people who are objectively different to them ( not Transwomen) are not allowed to recognise that difference.

If it were provable that on key factors such as sexual abuse rates. they were not different to women then it would be transphobia, but objectively they are different.

Like we are forced to accept that we are the same as Transwomen, because they say so

So Paris Lees is telling Jameela to stop as it's making them look bad.

Yeah, actual bigotry towards domestic abuse survivors will do that.

Sorry, wrong thread.

'People who menstruate' is to include trans men who also menstruate. Saying 'women and girls' does not include them in a way which respects their idenity as (trans) men.

Those who object against 'people who menstruate' are thought to be being deliberately exclusive of trans men which is thought to stem from transphobia.

To say 'women menstruate' is also thought to be transphobic because it excludes trans women, who do not menstruate.

I'm not saying these are my views, but this is an explanatin of the perceived issue.

And then there are all the people who have totally (willfully?) misinterpreted and extended what she actually said.

Hi everyone - thank you all for posting. Not to ignore the many excellent points that you're all making, but I'm keen to focus on the point of my post - where are the women who are making detailed and thoughtful points in opposition to JKR?

@Justjoshin22 - thank you for your post. That's mostly what I've seen too from women - we should be nice to trans people because they suffer more than us. It lacks the detailed and thoughtful element that I'm looking for.

I have seen a few men coming out to support JKR. But by and large it's not risky for them to do so. Maybe the point I'm honing in on is that women are not part of this debate - JKR says her piece and is then subjected to a war of words between men and transwomen. Women are either silent or a supporting chorus of stock phrases.

I'm instinctively GC on this issue and I don't really need to hear all the arguments on that side again (I accept that because I used the word cis in my thread header, some people will think I do, and I do understand that). But because of the environment I work in, and the respect I feel for people I know who hold an opposing view, I feel that I really ought to test my thinking and assumptions against someone who has thought it all through and believes TWAW. And I want that person to be a woman.

Are we basically saying that such an analysis doesn't exist?

'People who menstruate' is to include trans men who also menstruate. Saying 'women and girls' does not include them in a way which respects their idenity as (trans) men.

People are free to have any identity they want. What they can't do is force the rest of the world to see them as they want to be seen or to accept their identity.

If some women want to reject womanhood and identify as trans men or non binary, they are free to do so. They cannot force the rest of the world who use the dictionary definition of woman to mean adult female human to believe that they have ceased to be women and to modify our language to appease them and to participate in their belief that they are no longer women.

Are we basically saying that such an analysis doesn't exist?

I've yet to see one. To date, the people who disagree with what JK Rowling has said have ended any possibility of dialogue by repeating 'no debate' and 'bigot' at anyone who disagrees with them or asks the sort of questions you're asking. They would view you as a bigot just for asking, which I presume you know, otherwise you would be asking them this question, not the people on this forum who largely don't believe TWAW.

@OldCrone

'People who menstruate' is to include trans men who also menstruate. Saying 'women and girls' does not include them in a way which respects their idenity as (trans) men.

People are free to have any identity they want. What they can't do is force the rest of the world to see them as they want to be seen or to accept their identity.

If some women want to reject womanhood and identify as trans men or non binary, they are free to do so. They cannot force the rest of the world who use the dictionary definition of woman to mean adult female human to believe that they have ceased to be women and to modify our language to appease them and to participate in their belief that they are no longer women.

This ^^

We are being compelled to use language to support a belief system that only a tiny minority of people believe in. This is how tyranny starts — by making people say or do things they don't believe in on pain of being shamed, losing their jobs etc.

I feel it is more inclusive and considerate of those trans men who still menstruate.

It's just a polite way of calling us Bleeders.

Just like 'vagina havers' is just calling us 'cunts'

It's dehumanising and rude.

Plus it's just very foggy - 'menstruators' - do you mean right now (bit personal isn't it?), or ever? Or do I expect to in the next few weeks? Is what you're talking about really just regarding menstruation (you could say that tampons in the toilet could be) or are you talking about something else that applies to women who just happen to be of reproductive age, and you're trying to avoid saying the word 'woman'

@OldCrone - "They would view you as a bigot just for asking" - precisely this. Thank you for understanding!

I haven't been on Mumsnet as much in the last couple of years as I used to be, but it certainly used to be the case that women were able to ask the questions here that were unaskable elsewhere. It might seem strange that I'm asking you to justify TWAW - or point me to people who do - but I think it's still the only place on the internet where it's possible.

I don’t believe you’ll find any such analysis.

There is somethings I've been really wanting to ask, but to be honest I don't want to look like I'm belittling another marginalised group by asking... especially with everything going on right now.

I fully support the BLM protests going on right now and the actions being taken to highlight racism in our culture.

My questions are though....

Why is is ok for a man to dress as, what would be considered, a stereotypical woman but if he wanted to dress as a stereotypical
Black man it would be offensive?

If someone was to say they identify as a different race to that which they were born we would think them ignorant (quite rightly)
But to claim to be a different sex to which you were born is not just ok, but we all have to play along with the delusion or be labelled a bigot?

Why is one acceptable and the other isn't?

Personally I think a man or woman can dress however they like, can change their name to whatever they like but to then feel they should be given the rights of the people they are perpetuating to be, at the expense and safety of women is just bonkers.
That they can then dictate the type of language used to describe women, is unbelievably offensive!!

If it was any other class of people it would be stopped before it got going! I just don't understand why other women are supporting the ideas that trans women are women? There are other ways to support trans people without erasing women!!

calling us vagina havers' is just calling us 'cunts'

That's it really, in a nutshell.
In fact, I'd rather be called a cunt.

Girls and women can identify as what they like but the world still sees them as not as important as men. It's wishful thinking.