The Guardian asks: Why is JK Rowling speaking out now on sex and gender?

[RoyalCorgi]

The Guardian, clearly realising it can't ignore a huge story, but on the other hand not wanting to upset the rampant TRAs in its midst, has published a particularly feeble article that attempts to explain the debate between feminists and TRAs. In a painful attempt to be even-handed, it tries to make the TRA case sound reasonable as opposed to the steaming heap of misogynistic nonsense it actually is. (It's a bit like writing a well-meaning guide to why black people in South Africa are upset about apartheid, and giving the white view equal prominence to the black view.)

Here it is:
www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/why-is-jk-rowling-speaking-out-now-on-sex-and-gender-debate

No surprise that the piece is by Libby Brooks, who also thought that the important part of the story about Julie Bindel being attacked was Edinburgh University's LGBT committee resigning in response:

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/06/edinburgh-lgbt-committee-resigns-over-transphobic-hate-on-campus

and who, a few years ago, wrote a piece called "Grooming and our ignoble tradition of racialising crime" which is all about how awful it is that Muslim men are being blamed for the abuse of girls. (Sample quote: "But what has not emerged is any consistent evidence to suggest that Pakistani Muslim men are uniquely and disproportionately involved in these crimes, nor that they are preying on white girls because they believe them to be legitimate sexual quarry, as is now being suggested.")

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jan/07/grooming-racialising-crime-tradition

I'm glad it includes this point:

"Others express the concern that the spectrum of people who identify particularly as trans women is expanding to include male-appearing people who – rightly or wrongly – might be perceived as a threat, and feel sceptical about whether inclusion policies have been properly tested or if individual cis women will be too afraid or uncomfortable to challenge male-bodied people in their spaces."

Sorry I'm not clicking on the link because it's the Guardian, but what does it say about her timing?

I thought it was slightly dangerous timing to sort of "come out as GC" during Pride Month, or do you think she didn't realise or didn't think people would use that against her?

Presumably it's due to the Scottish govt redefining "woman" in their legislation? That's kind of a big deal?

I only got a couple of sentences into that article
"Gender critical feminists disagree with the trans rights activists’ view that gender identity is separate from one’s biological sex"

How, how, how on earth could she get this so wrong? Is she lying or thick?

"Others express the concern that the spectrum of people who identify particularly as trans women is expanding to include male-appearing people"

What? Nothing has changed. It's never mattered what trans women look like, they can identify as trans no matter how feminine they look and surely it's really, genuinely, quite transphobic to claim otherwise? (Nb i have always thought bringing anyone's appearance into their definition of identity is very wrong, TWATW no matter what they look like, just as women are women regardless of how they present) .

Am I really going to have to go through this tosh to tear it apart or shall I do something better with my time...

what does it say about her timing?

In it, she reveals for the first time her own experience of serious sexual assault and domestic violence which, Rowling explains, she felt compelled to write about after reading of the Scottish government’s latest progress towards changing gender recognition laws.

I'm not aware of any new developments about GRA reform since the consultation which closed in March, but the definition of women for representation on public boards has been in the news recently, so I assume that's what's being referred to here. I presume it's 'a woman is anyone who says they're a woman' being enshrined in law that she was reacting to.

I’m pretty sure that “Pride Month” is an excellent time to say that sex matters. If you don’t have sex, homosexuality can’t exist. I fail to see how she got anything wrong.

Because they know it will get them page views & revenue. Bet they don't allow comments, the cowards.

Those applying for a gender recognition certificate are entering into a legal agreement to live in their preferred gender for the rest of their life – any breach of this is punishable with up to two years in prison

So when is Freddy McConnell getting locked up then?

Sorry, that was why the Guardian are suddenly running a story on her now.

I think the timing has more to do with the fact that she accidentally posted some GC text into a tweet to a young fan who’d drawn a picture last week.

She couldn’t really stay silent about her views after she’s done that could she?

The conclusion of this vapid piece says it all. JKR should not have spoken because her celebrity has amplified this and she could influence people. Critical positions are presented as an existential threat to rights.

There is also concern that, when a woman of such influence and popularity as Rowling sets out a critical position, then the wider public, who are largely supportive of transgender people according to most recent British Social Attitudes research, may begin to question their fundamental rights.

How do gc people 'fear that sex is being argued into non-existence' if we consider it the same thing as gender identity?

Also keeps mentioning 'living in their acquired gender' with no explanation as to what this means. What does it mean?

What an unbalanced argument. How disingenuous UK day that self ID has been the case since the GRA was first introduced so she doesn’t know what JKR is worried about! And then in small print they just need to live in the new gender for 3 months prior and have a period of reflection for 3 months after.

What? Nothing has changed. It's never mattered what trans women look like, they can identify as trans no matter how feminine they look and surely it's really, genuinely, quite transphobic to claim otherwise?

The law hasn't changed, but when it was written in 2004 I don't think legislators imagined non-binary identities, people like Pip Bunce/Alex Drummond/Danille Muscato or the concept of 'widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman'.

Happy for somebody to correct me, but I think it was originally written to protect the right to privacy, so legislators didn't envisage that it would be used by people who obviously still present as their biological sex.

I think the Guardian could well benefit from posing questions around trans identities more generally.

For example, let's talk about trans-racialism That might be a good place to start in this febrile time of toppling statues and 'taking the knee'.

And then in small print they just need to live in the new gender for 3 months prior and have a period of reflection for 3 months after.

I think it's shameful that the Guardian doesn't even question what the concept of 'live in the new gender' means.

@bishopgiggles

I only got a couple of sentences into that article "Gender critical feminists disagree with the trans rights activists’ view that gender identity is separate from one’s biological sex"

How, how, how on earth could she get this so wrong? Is she lying or thick?

Either way, it's not a good look, is it?

I'm not surprised that someone has completely failed to understand the arguments, whether that's because they can't be arsed to engage with them or because they're just going off what someone else told them.

I'm slightly surprised that this level of 'journalism' is on a website of a national newspaper but then maybe I shouldn't be.

Imagine actually believing that feminists are totes into strict gender roles and stereotypes.

The law hasn't changed, but when it was written in 2004 I don't think legislators imagined non-binary identities, people like Pip Bunce/Alex Drummond/Danille Muscato or the concept of 'widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman'.

They might not have imagined it, but if how a person presents was important then that should have been specified. Obviously they couldn't, cos it would be really really sexist. It's legislators' job to consider unforeseen consequences or unintended consequences.

Yes BovaryX.

Also, nobody has questioned trans people's fundamental rights.

The conversation has always been about removal of women's fundamental rights via removal provision of sex based services and protections.

Tbf the article does say "she felt compelled to write about after reading of the Scottish government’s latest progress towards changing gender recognition laws."

Most people aren't aware of this. A journalist wanting to inform ppl might have considered linking to information as to what this means. I'll try and find the mn thread on it.

No comments allowed. A pity.

Link.
Scottish government redefines "woman" in law

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3929533-Scottish-Government-redefines-woman-in-law

It's legislators' job to consider unforeseen consequences or unintended consequences.

Yes, but MPs don't always have much imagination. The legislation is a botch job, but it was written for a small group of transsexuals, not the large group of people currently included under the trans umbrella.

@bishopgiggles

The law hasn't changed, but when it was written in 2004 I don't think legislators imagined non-binary identities, people like Pip Bunce/Alex Drummond/Danille Muscato or the concept of 'widening the bandwidth of what it means to be a woman'.

They might not have imagined it, but if how a person presents was important then that should have been specified. Obviously they couldn't, cos it would be really really sexist. It's legislators' job to consider unforeseen consequences or unintended consequences.

There were a number of MPs at the time who did quite scarily predict the current situation.

Their comments are recorded in Hansard, Lord Tebbit and Ann Widdecombe were two of them - neither of them are the kind of voices anyone on left would have taken much notice of.