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?

OP it is difficult because you can have empathy with trans people and their struggles and still want to protect women.

However someone said to me ‘so you SAY support trans people and say you support their right to dress and live as they choose but you don’t really because you don’t even support a transWOMAN, in her role as a woman, to use the female bathroom she is comfortable with which is what threat to you?! actually you don’t recognise her as a woman at all. Your support is empty’

And it’s really hard to admit but actually, I guess this person is right because, although this is OBVIOUSLY more than about bathroom rights (!) I can’t ignore biology in the interests of a minority group. I suppose that makes me a bigot?! Which isn’t a nice thought but I just feel that women are being asked to compromise something super important and it’s just not right.

I don't mind 'cis', and I don't object to transwomen in women's spaces. 'Menstruators' feels a step too far, though. I think the trans community should be robust enough to tolerate 'womens health' referring to gynae stuff, 'woman' shouldn't be a loaded term.

I do object to cis.

@Gimmecaffeine do you feel happy with trans women in all female spaces, including those in which women are vulnerable, such as women’s shelters / prisons for example? And do you feel comfortable with trans women competing in female sports (competitively, I mean) and counting towards closing the gender gap? Not saying that’s wrong by the way, it’s not an attack, just wondering as id like to understand if so.

You don’t mind Cis? Have you thought in any great detail about what that entirely made-up designation means for your status as a woman?

It is hugely offensive.

I am not a subset of whatever a man has decided he is. I am a woman.

"a lot of people who are horrified by what’s she’s said,"

Like some others on this thread, I'm genuinely baffled by the notion of any woman being "horrified" by what JKR has said.

It's entirely un-horrifying, being based on the reality of women's experiences.

OP your thread title is offensive and breaks MN guidelines. Please ask for it to be changed.

I don't mind 'cis', and I don't object to transwomen in women's spaces.

Really? All males who say they're women, or a specifically gatekept subset of them?

Karen White, for example?

"people who menstruate" - said no sensible woman ever. And away with our made-up word nonsense.

I hate the term cis too but I get what you're asking, so... to answer your question, lots and lots of the people I follow on Twitter and my FB friends are "trans allies" and attacking JKR. These are 99% straight, white women.

One of the big issues is that the issue looks so one-sided because it's almost impossible for someone like me to speak up and say actually I agree with JKR when I find myself in an echo chamber I don't fit into. I've seen the attacks on anyone who dares to say anything that is considered immediately transphobic (even though it really isn't!). People's careers at risk, being publicly vilified. I'm absolutely nobody on social media but my accounts do use my real name and I'm simply too scared to say anything. It's incredible we've come to this but there you are...

You could go read Naomi Wolf on Twitter. She’s rebutting JKR’s essay. Apparently sex isn’t real so we’re all fruit trees on the days the camels come down to drink. Or something equally sensible. With a nice helping of condescension on the side.

Now, I'm a little bit cross but wonder about something. You want to hear from 'cis' (sic) women. However you refer to 'trans women' and also clearly and simply refer to 'men' in your opening paragraph. Pray tell why you don't go through the malarkey of 'cis' (sic) men and trans men. Yet the word women can't be written.

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.

Exactly this. And 'we aren't defined by biology and your biology isn't what makes you a woman' - and then changing your body permanently to be a bit more biologically like the sex you want to be.

Admittedly in my ignorance on the topic i couldn't see what the issue is. I've spent a lot of the last few days reading up on why women feel it is important to protect certain spaces and admittedly i was still really on the fence until a post some wrote on another thread which was on essence, if you requested a female doctor would you be happy to be allocated to a transwoman doctor. That was a tipping point into understanding better.

I do however, become more accepting if the person has had gender reassignment surgery but again that may be something that changes as I read more about the subject.

Just an afterthought. What word will be allowed for 'people who menstruate' to use to describe themselves after the menopause or even during pregnancy if the word woman is misappropriated from being an adult female. Just when we are getting away from 'Miss' and 'Mrs', will we have the state of our reproductive status on display instead of marital status. It is rather reductive, n'est ce pas?

Jazzled it’s good to hear that you are reading and understanding.

Every time another person understands a small victory is won.

Yes, you will likely change your mind in regards to post-surgery as you read and think more and become more informed.

But in the meantime, here’s a comment of mine that I’ve just posted on another thread. It needs saying here at this point, too.

*Tens of thousands of women and girls in this country are harmed in some way by men every year. Millions and millions throughout the world. Those men should not be allowed into women’s spaces, regardless of how they identify, what they feel like, what they want, how they look or choose to dress, or what title they have thought of to describe themselves, or misappropriated.

As there is absolutely no way of sorting the good from the indifferent from the very bad indeed, all men must be excluded.

Even if there was a way to sort and define and establish that all the relevant men were good, decent, kind men, they still should not be allowed to enter women’s spaces, because a male presence, however benign, is very directly harmful to a certain number of women. A male presence, however benign, is not comfortable for women and girls in their very private, vulnerable spaces. Decent men all know this. Which is why they do not want to be in women’s spaces.*

And another, this time properly bolded!

Yes. Absolutely. Women do NOT have to have suffered sexual abuse, predatory behaviour, violence, rape or in fact any harm at all, in order to be entitled to protection from potentially suffering those things. It is enough to say no, I am not okay with this. I do not consent. My daughters do not consent. My sisters, my mother, my friends, women I don’t know and will never meet, do not consent. NO.

Women do not want men in their spaces.

The vast majority of men do not want to be in women’s spaces.

That does not take away from the rights of transgender individuals. They have every right to live peacefully without fear from harm. But they cannot gain that end by appropriating spaces that are sex-segregated in order to protect women’s dignity, privacy and safety.

There is always tension when it comes to rights and protections. It is a balancing act.

*As there is absolutely no way of sorting the good from the indifferent from the very bad indeed, all men must be excluded.

Even if there was a way to sort and define and establish that all the relevant men were good, decent, kind men, they still should not be allowed to enter women’s spaces, because a male presence, however benign, is very directly harmful to a certain number of women. A male presence, however benign, is not comfortable for women and girls in their very private, vulnerable spaces. Decent men all know this. Which is why they do not want to be in women’s spaces.*

This. I've said many times, my brother is a decent man (and GC - he understands the issues as they affect women well) but I would not like him in my own women's spaces, nor would I - knowing he is a decent man - think it appropriate for him to be present in other women's spaces.

A male presence, however benign, is not comfortable for women and girls in their very private, vulnerable spaces. Decent men all know this. Which is why they do not want to be in women’s spaces.

Such a good point, which needs to be shouted from the rooftops.

My DH, Dad and FIL won’t even walk through the lingerie section in M&S (or other lingerie shops) because they know that their presence there will make women uncomfortable.

What word will be allowed for 'people who menstruate' to use to describe themselves after the menopause or even during pregnancy if the word woman is misappropriated from being an adult female

Hag or crone. Going back to the 17th century is so progressive!

@Treats

Sorry to offend. I mean women with female bodies. I appreciate that Mumsnet don’t really use cis as a term

There is only one kind of woman and none of us have male bodies

All women have female bodies.

"Women with female bodies"

That would be, "Women."

The only men with female bodies are serial killers.

Mockers,

I'm with JKR. She is amazing.
'People who menstruate' is just idiotic. I won't engage with this Emperor's New Clothes, Kool-aid drinking idiocy. It will pass eventually.