Katy Montgomerie response to JKR

[Hermano]

Amongst some tweets (John Cleese) I was reading through the other day was posted a link to this response to JKR.

I have to admit, I'm relatively new to this area, and I think some of KM's responses are fair enough. I'm really interested to get a MN view of this response. I did search to see if I could find a thread already on this, if I missed one please point me in the direction.

FWIW I'm broadly on JKR's side in all this, I am tolerant and happy for everyone to be who they are but not at the expense of hard won women's rights. I find the whole debate at the moment very difficult as I think there are genuine people with strongly held convictions on both sides, and both sides have people who argue well.

I think in basic terms I'm quite convinced by a lot of this reply so I'm here to hear further responses from the JKR pov

medium.com/@completelykaty/addressing-the-claims-in-jk-rowlings-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f

It's really long and I have got to this statement and am going to give up.

'The position that the claimant takes isn’t the “belief that sex is determined by biology”, it is the the belief that everyone is put into box based on their genitals at birth: girl or boy, and that that is what they are for the rest of their lives. This is false and is not supported by science — biology is far more nuanced and complicated than that.'

The author thinks humans can metamorphose from one sex to the other and presumably back again throughout their lives.

Well this is such patent drivel I'm not going to proceed.

It's way too long.

Luckily it opens with such a nonsensical point that you can save yourself the bother of reading the rest.

Which responses in particular do you think are fair enough OP?
(To save us all time)

Montgomerie is continually on twitter and is reliably toxic in their views:

twitter.com/KatyMontgomerie/status/1274263634810679296

You are misunderstanding the entire ‘debate’ (in quotes because it’s not actually a debate at all).

It’s not a matter of opinion vs. opinion.

It is a matter of entirely nonsensical and incoherent babbling vs. objective facts and material reality.

I wasn’t born until 1989 so I don’t remember the 80s

Well that stood out for me. She has no idea of the shit show of sexist discrimination and misogyny that is heading her way as she ages - which she will not be able to identify out of.

What are the key points that were convincing OP?

I've been carrying on anyway while I watch columbo

'The reason JKR received such a backlash for supporting Magdalen Berns wasn’t because she “believed in sex” or because she observed how sexuality works, it was because of Berns’s very openly transphobic, antagonistic and often conspiratorial views on trans people'

Magdalen is dead and so can't respond. Obviously the views of the dead are open to challenge but it's so recent and she was so young and remembering a certain person posting a 'dancing on grave' gif, it feels a bit off.

Can't be bothered with the terf /cis stuff. In essence we're all literal Nazis.

Next up! Clownfish. You couldn't make it up.

'I think some of KM's responses are fair enough.'

To save people having to wade through, perhaps you could give an example so we can see where you're coming from?

Just one will do for starters.

I started reading it the other day and agree with pp that it is too long. I got about 1/4 of the way through and couldn't read anymore because Montgomery's ramblings are really boring.

I highly recommend you read the following blog, which I think adequately addresses all the points made by Katy Montgomerie:

medium.com/@dave_45588/a-response-to-why-what-jk-rowling-said-is-transphobic-by-katy-montgomerie-faad3746e7c1

Once you've read that, you should read this excellently-written blog by the same person, addressing all the points in another anti-JKR thread that went viral on Twitter (there are four separate parts to it, with each one linking to the next):

medium.com/@dave_45588/response-to-andrew-carter-re-j-k-rowling-pt-1-50e6e02a911e

It's very measured, resorts to facts rather than hyperbole, and in doing so makes very clear what is wrong with the sorts of arguments in posts like Katy Montgomerie's. I also strongly recommend reading all the sources linked throughout the blog. They really hammer home the strength of the points that are made.

JKR:
I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women

KM:
But like all of the misinformation in JKR’s post, these claims aren’t just frustrating, they are also dangerous. Some medical conditions vary greatly between men and women and this is a perfect example of where treating sex as a strict binary greatly harms trans and intersex people. Sometimes the difference between how men and women react to diseases can be down to chromosomes, sometimes it’s down to hormones, sometimes it’s down to particular organs, sometimes a combination of those things, sometimes it’s something else. Also it is often social too, and factors such as occupation, habits and diet play a role.
When the coronavirus news hit that men are more likely to die from Covid-19 than women, the almost unanimous immediate Gender Critical reaction was to claim that trans women would die at the same rate as cis men “because biology”. Then days later, scientists, including those at the NHS, announced they were trialing giving cis men estrogen therapy as a treatment, something which the majority of trans women are already on! Other researchers also showed that smoking, something that men are more likely to do, was a factor. The reality is, as I have said several times already, biology is very complicated. It is likely we won’t know all of the mechanisms involved that cause the difference in mortality rates between men and women for years, but to just blindly assert that trans women are the same as cis men reduces their chance of getting good treatment, and even harms study potential.

JKR:
I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition

KM:
No. You wouldn’t have. This is a very common GC claim, the argument usually goes “when I was little I played with barbie/action man, therefore today I would have transitioned, but I am happy as I am today, so that would be bad, therefore we should ban everyone”. This is part of the wider GC view that being trans is just about what you wear or what your hobbies are, and also that specialist doctors hand out diagnoses of hugely complicated conditions like they’re prescribing paracetamol over the counter. No trans person thinks that they are trans because they liked painting their nails or climbing trees. As a kid I liked lego, trains and maths and pretty much nothing else and I was still trans. Doctors don’t diagnose kids as trans unless they show persistent dysphoria, and have gone through therapy for years.
The NHS says that less than 1% of people detransition, some of those go on to retransition, and most cite transphobia and lack of family support for their reason to detransition, not “transition regret”. That is not to say that people who do regret and other detrans people can be ignored at all. They often have all the same healthcare requirements as trans people, and sometimes even less support. It does mean that they should not be used as a tool to unempathetically wield against trans healthcare. That would be like pointing out that because up to 20% of people regret knee surgery (a regret rate over 20x higher than transition), we should ban it for everyone. If you genuinely wanted to decrease detransition rates and help detrans people you would increase funding for trans healthcare, remove the strict pressures on trans people to “transition the whole way or have no rights”, and improve LGBT education.

Montgomerie's one of Joss Prior's toadies, so I tend to take anything they say with a very large pinch of salt tbh.

Do you really think that section tells us we should take the article seriously Hermano?

It looks like weird made-up sciency stuff.

Men taking estrogen are not women. So the biological differences in medicine are still there. Whether the person is already taking estrogen or not. That statement actually backs up JKR's point.

These are two sections where I think KM has a valid response to JKR.

To be clear I am really after string rebuttals to KM to use in discussions with outher friends, I'm very happy to admit I'm not as well read and considerate as many on this board around this, and I have a lot of friends in the gay community who are big advocates of the GRA, think JKR is a bigot, I want to be well informed and able to give reasoned responses.

Thanks

"but to just blindly assert that trans women are the same as cis men reduces their chance of getting good treatment, and even harms study potential"

Indeed.
As does blindly asserting they're exactly the same as women.
But that's the only position acceptable if you're not going to get called transphobic, apparently.

KM is trans, for those who aren't clear.

Hermano re medical research. If the male/ female approach to medicine is not adequate, what do you think, or what do you think the author thinks, is the solution?

They say only considering male/ female is dangerous but offer no solution.

What do you think of the fact that the historical focus on male as standard has resulted in suboptimal diagnosis and treatment for women, including things such are dangerous (certain drug interactions) or lethal (Google heart attack symptoms male female and mortality, or similar).

There are far more women in the world than trans people in hormone therapy.

Also women have natural massive hormonal effects during life that men do not. Pregnancy, childbirth, menopause. How do these interact with drugs, illnesses etc? I've not heard any news on it although I only follow MSM. Menopause is under researched and poorly treated. It leads to many women leaving work as symptoms are unmanageable, mental health issues, a low quality of life.

Have you or the author considered across the piece?

The issue that men seem reluctant to go to the doctor and often present late is also pertinent. (Although when they do go, they tend to be treated more quickly and taken more seriously than women, who are more likely to be fobbed off with anti depressants for what turns out years later to have been a physical ailment all along).

to just blindly assert that trans women are the same as cis men reduces their chance of getting good treatment, and even harms study potential.

How can we study and research medicine if we cannot collect accurate data regarding biological sex?

If crime statistics are already being skewed by self ID.

Once again co-opting people with DSD's as a tool in their argument they just can't leave them alone despite being asked numerous times to do so.

Everything else in there is meaningless unscientific waffle with the added crap of the usage of cis.

and this is a blatant lie as borne out by the detail coming out of the Tavistock Clinic and the push from organisations such as Mermaids:

Doctors don’t diagnose kids as trans unless they show persistent dysphoria, and have gone through therapy for years.

Once more loudly for those at the back:

No-one is advocating that trans people should have no rights, they have the same rights as everyone else what they are not entitled to do is to remove the rights of others and have those rights in addition to their own.

Re. your point about how JKR et always “wouldn’t have transitioned” because they aren’t /weren’t ‘real trans’: you are not taking into account the social impact of either ROGD or of what is rapidly becoming socially acceptable homophobia, whereby it’s seen as far better to trans away the gay than to have a homosexual child.