Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Katy Montgomerie response to JKR

100 replies

Hermano · 21/06/2020 13:55

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

OP posts:
nauticant · 21/06/2020 16:38

One fundamental misrepresentation is to argue on what's happening now according to how things were 20 years ago. 20 years ago "trans" was largely understood to be "transsexual", there were several thousand such people in the UK, and they knew they needed to keep their heads down to get through life avoiding hassle wherever possible.

Many of the arguments and particularly the studies cited by trans activists relate to these people. The low level of desistance, the relatively high satisfaction with gender reassignment surgery, the degree to which they are accepted by (some) women in women's single sex spaces.

But things are very different now. Thanks to the transgender umbrella the few thousand transsexual people are lost in the noise of the 200,000-500,000 transgender people in the UK. These days we're looking at a completely different population and we need a completely new set of studies to work out who they are, what they want and what provides genuine benefit to them, particularly in terms of children being put on a medical pathway that is not reversible (since not all of the changed characteristics revert back to their original states) and can last a lifetime, and how there's a conflict with women's rights.

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 21/06/2020 16:46

the wider GC view that being trans is just about what you wear or what your hobbies are

Well, what is it about, then? What is it that transwomen and women share?

I'd agree that if a transwoman is taking artificial hormones then the responses/effects/manifestations may differ than those of a male not taking hormones. It definitively, absolutely does not mean that a transwoman's responses correlate with or will be the same as a woman's.

As for so many things, the sensible thing seems to be to be clear about the different categories - in this particular case being referenced I would imagine the relevant categories would be: male, female, male-taking-hormones, female-taking-hormones. A male taking hormones remains a male taking hormones. I'm not saying this to be unpleasant; this is very simple medical fact.

The answer to 'it's complicated' isn't 'just forget trying to look at nuance at all', it's to keep the complexity in mind while trying to find solutions that are beneficial and acceptable to all.

twoHopes · 21/06/2020 16:49

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

That's not the argument at all. The GC feminists who say "maybe I would have transitioned" are not saying that because they played with an action man. In the 70s and 80s it was fairly normal to have gender neutral toys and clothes anyway.

The argument many of us are making (myself included) is that we actually felt what is now diagnosed as gender dysphoria. As I've said in previous threads - my way of coping with female puberty was to not eat which meant I didn't get boobs or hips or even my period.

Unfortunately the desperation to escape female puberty / femaleness, experienced by many girls, seems to be completely misunderstood by trans activists who see this as a sign that they must really be male (or non-binary). This is the point that JKR, and many other women, is making.

ScrimpshawTheSecond · 21/06/2020 16:50

Actually, that point about things being complex is used quite often to suggest that we do away with all categorisation altogether. The reasoning seems to be something like: 'Sex is a spectrum, DSDs exist - therefore, let's just scrap all sex categories'. 'Sex is more complicated than just male and female - let's scrap any ideas about differentiation'.

It's a very odd point of view to argue. Something being complicated doesn't mean all thought, consideration and logic has to be jettisoned - it just means that discussion needs to include various different angles and considerations. The conversation needs to be widened, not abandoned.

VickyEadieofThigh · 21/06/2020 17:01

I have a lot of friends in the gay community who are big advocates of the GRA, think JKR is a bigot

I'm surprised you said that, OP - the GRA is currently in law and most GC women (including JKR) are arguing for it to remain as it is. Why does that make JKR or any of us "bigots"?

How many gay friends is "a lot", by the way? And are they men or women?

A lot of us on here are lesbian or bisexual and think JKR is right.

wellbehavedwomen · 21/06/2020 17:27

If the arguments we make are so wrong, why do they invent ones that we don't hold and never would?

The mere fact they argue in such poor faith is telling.

Adolescence, for many, is dysphoria. Almost all outgrow that dysphoria. There are genuine questions on how we help the very small number who have a gender dysphoria that can't be assuaged without medical support, and social transition, and the vast majority who just need time, love and patience to grow up as whoever they are, in their perfect, and sexed, bodies.

Women have a right to spaces free of male bodies, because the owners of those bodies oppress us. No man has a right to say, "emotionally I feel like a woman, so I am entitled to access your naked or sleeping or vulnerable selves at will, and without your consent, and you are a hateful bigot if you object." Yet that is what we are being told. And all the gaslighting wankery words used to disguise that cannot alter this plain truth.

I have no animus at all for anyone trans. They, too, are struggling to live in a system of rigidly policed gender binaries. I don't want them to change a thing about their expression, or lives. Wear what they want, express as they want, seek happiness as it means to them. I support legislation that bans any discrimination on gender expression - how can I not? It's misogyny to demand women and men perform gender roles, after all. But on that basis, I also want it acknowledged that gender identity is not sex, and that women need and have fought for single sex spaces for very good reasons. A man can wear a dress, makeup, and heels, and enjoy expressing himself in the gendered way enforced on women, and that's great. But it does not actually make him female. It's insulting to pretend otherwise.

We are not a costume, or a collection of traits and mannerisms, and nor are men. We're all human individuals, with one of two sets of bodies. Those bodies generally mean women are physically smaller, and weaker. They also mean we possess reproductive capacities men never can, and most gender roles across all cultures, however those roles can and do vary, are there to ensure men can control that reproduction. To claim that a system designed to oppress us - gender -should justify the removal of the very provisions we have fought for, in order to mitigate against that oppression... just breathtaking. Of COURSE gender expression, and identity, should be open to anyone. Of course they should. What has that got to do with sex?

It makes no more sense to co-opt single sex provision, when you are of the dominant sex, than it would provisions for disability. It is not a provision for you. I will (as I have fought and will continue to fight for disability provision) fight with any trans folk who seek domestic abuse shelters, or third space unisex changing rooms, that can meet their needs. But can they please stop demanding to use those for a sex class to which they do not belong, provided because of the vulnerability of that sex class to the other? Especially when they belong to the dominant, and oppressor, group?

Sport is just ridiculous. And prisons and hospitals... we have actually seen women raped by these policies, and this person says WE are on the side of the Incels? Get a fucking grip.

None of this is that hard to understand. The misrepresentation of our standpoint has, at this stage, to be intentional. Gender critical women have no problem with trans folk. We have a problem with the suggestion that gender is so tied with sex, that anyone who cannot accept the gender roles and identity assigned to their sex is therefore in the wrong body. That is NUTS. Their body is fine - it's the policing of gender that's the problem! Switching genders is great. There is no need to wish you could switch bodies, to match.

How is this so hard for anyone to understand? Why is this so hard for anyone to understand?

Tobeortobe · 21/06/2020 17:36

The last I saw of KM they were incensed because a poll they had started overwhelmingly showed women don’t masturbate in public toilets.

Mumoblue · 21/06/2020 17:38

The argument that "No you wouldn't have transitioned" is ignorant.

I think if I had been born later and the idea of "being a boy" had been pitched at me I would have grabbed at it with both hands. I had persistent feelings of not being "right" as a girl that didn't fade until my twenties.

And the NHS doesn't really record detrans people if they just stop filling their prescriptions or stop going to their appointments, so I'm sceptical of the 1% thing.

I think we wont know the full impact of this until about 10 years from now, when I think lawsuits will be more common.

I'm not against transition in itself, but I don't think it's appropriate for kids.

NotTerfNorCis · 21/06/2020 17:39

Started reading but it's just the usual hot air and obfuscation.

I had a long argument with Montgomerie on another site once. Montogomerie argued that silencing feminists 'adds to the free market place of ideas' and 'isn't censorship because they can talk indoors where no one can hear them'. After that I found it impossible to take anything Montogomerie says seriously.

ShinyFootball · 21/06/2020 17:53

'The last I saw of KM they were incensed because a poll they had started overwhelmingly showed women don’t masturbate in public toilets.'

???????????

So many questions!

ShinyFootball · 21/06/2020 18:00

Well I had a Google and it seems to be to point out that as some women may have done this, it means there's nothing wrong with trans identifying men wanking in the ladies.

NotTerfNorCis · 21/06/2020 18:08

TRAs want to believe that AGP-style behaviour is normal in women.

Fairenuff · 21/06/2020 18:14

some women may have done this

Some women or some transwomen? How do you know?

Al1Langdownthecleghole · 21/06/2020 18:19

The best examples you give can easily be refuted. Which doesn't bode well for the weaker arguments.

I've never heard of the author of this drivel but they are soft, wrong and very very long.

Pigeonfaces · 21/06/2020 18:23

I find all this a bit long and difficult due to my pink ladybrain. Is Katy Montgomery saying males have the right, in certain circumstances, to undress and shower in open plan changing rooms with teenage girls?
I think Katy should answer this. Have the courage of your convictions, Katy!

Winesalot · 21/06/2020 18:25

I find K M to be rarely rational in their interactions. And this was no different. They always bring in the sex is a complicated spectrum and include those with DSDs.

The activists that declare that women stating that they may have transitioned if they had been teens now are just making it up, are complete hypocrites. They doubt the voracity of our statements while enforcing the ideology of ‘anyone who believes they are’. Can’t have it both ways. They really can’t.

Plus they then get hurt if women say they can’t be women because they have no lived experience.

So it is entirely, me me me and you are all bigots.

Winesalot · 21/06/2020 18:31

@NotTerfNorCis

TRAs want to believe that AGP-style behaviour is normal in women.
Yes... when I put on my husband’s trackie dacks or his shirts, I feel so turned on thinking of myself as a MAN. Is this the type of trope they think. Or is it that they think we walk around constantly aroused by being a woman. Is this what they believe or just what fuels their own perpetual fantasy.
NotTerfNorCis · 21/06/2020 18:52

we walk around constantly aroused by being a woman

This. They miss the point that AGP is not about feeling aroused while having a female body, it means being aroused by the idea of inhabiting a female body (or wearing female clothes/carrying out gendered activities). It's fixation on self.

AnyOldPrion · 21/06/2020 19:00

Montgomerie is arguing that all the girls currently transitioning are only doing so because of an unchanging “gender identity” and that every single one of them will continue to be “trans” whatever happens to them in future.

This is likely because Montgomerie is viewing “all those transitioning” through Montgomerie’s own, very polarized, lens. Just because that was how Montgomerie experienced it, therefore all others who claim to be trans as young people must be the same and to deny them would be cruel.

But if this were true, and all the girls and young women NOW are all unchangeably “trans” and coming forward because the possibility has become visible, then you would expect a similar increase in older women coming forward, who’ve felt that way all their lives, but only now see the possibility. But there are almost none.

Which suggests to me that some, possibly many, of the girls now coming forward do not have a fixed and stable “gender identity” but are coming forward for other reasons than increased visibility.

The whole article is seen through a particular lens. Obviously that’s true to an extent on either side of this, but for example, there is no nuance whatsoever in Montgomerie’s description of Magdalen Berns.

When I look at Magdalen, I see an angry young lesbian, deeply frustrated at what is happening within her community. She generally reacted with forthright, but truthful language. On one single occasion, in anger, she posted the unpleasant tweet included, but those words are probably the most extreme she ever posted.

Instead of being taken as words posted in anger, they are held up as the only example of Magdalen’s campaigning. Show me any person on either side of this who has never posted anything angry and you are showing me a rare person indeed. Look through Montgomerie’s own history and you will find far worse, on a regular basis.

Enderthedragon · 21/06/2020 19:20

Oh God the 'Biology' section - cannot believe they actually went there with clownfish and anthias! I couldn't read much further than that, knowing that the whole thing is a 29 minute read.....

One thing I will say is I cannot believe that KM is 31! I know twitter selfies etc are often heavily filtered, particularly in certain circles (!!!) but even having watched their YouTube videos I still had them down as much younger!

Hermano · 21/06/2020 19:28

Lots here to catch up on, I will read everything and I really appreciate all the replies.

I am struggling with this because I absorb information so much better by speaking rather than reading, but as MN threads like this one feel a lot more like a conversation they're easier for me. I'm not trying to wind people up or annoy anyone on this board , I want to be really clear on that.

My background with the trans community is a good friend at work of the 'Sandra in accounts' type, 65, 6ft3 and balding, twinset and pearls, always used the ladies at work and was lovely and harmless. And my gay friends, they're a varied bunch but some are fairly extravagant men who like dressing up, and a smaller number of gay and bi women who are generally more femme than butch.

My gut is that anyone can dress how they like / call themselves what they want etc etc, no harm done. But then a couple of years ago I started reading this board and realised what changes were underway.

Noone I have spoken to irl is really aware of this. I've spoken to my parents (both pretty Liberal with wide social circles they talk lots to), siblings, and a few friends, and there is a strong sense of 'this doesn't make sense' referring to the TRA having such power, so many public figures being afraid of them.

Since I'm nervous about discussing this with many people I do value this board a lot, but I do regularly feel things don't quite add up.

A friend recently was discussing HP and mentioned she didn't like JKR as she was 'a bit of a TERF', this friend lives and works in california and would definitely always side with woke vs any other group, and I have a spider sense that an occasion is on the horizon when I'll have to either shut up and listen to her nonsense or otherwise have some well evidenced answers up my sleeve. She's got about 4 trans members on her team at work and views things in a very 'they have the right to be who they want, I don't mind peeing in a cubicle next to them' view, which at a basic level I agree with. I understand others might have reasons for not wanting someone male born peeing next to them, but really to me this issue is so much wider than loos.

I don't think every trans person is a potential toilet attacker. I DO think every toilet attacker will consider using self-id as an excuse if they're caught being dodgy in a loo. And for some reason that distinction ses to get lost in almost every argument I see about this, eg on twitter.

I'm also uneasy about gender as a concept, the idea of 'feeling female'. But I understand that just because I feel OK in my body doesn't mean that everyone else on the planet does. I can imagine that some people look down at their genitals / chest and feel revulsion that their body is wrong. I want those people to be able to have a mechanism for being recognised as the body they feel they are. I don't think it's my decision whether they have to have surgery or not to be defined that way, but I am very clear that I don't think a 6ft 3 hairy trucker with a beard and a deep voice can leave the house with men's jeans and a polo shirt and after finishing his morning cuppa in a cafe suddenly decide he's a woman and burst into the loo and pee in a sink.

I understand many of the issues about sports.

Time to stop typing and read.

Thanks again

OP posts:
Hermano · 21/06/2020 19:33

I had a long argument with Montgomerie on another site once. Montogomerie argued that silencing feminists 'adds to the free market place of ideas' and 'isn't censorship because they can talk indoors where no one can hear them'. After that I found it impossible to take anything Montogomerie says seriously

Bloody hell, speechless.

I genuinely thought the article I linked to was level headed and reasonably well written and made good counter arguments. I'm glad I asked as this context is important, and I'm glad it's been pointed out problems with the article.

English comprehension was not my strongest subject at school! As I say I struggle to absorb anything except the surface meaning from reading long articles, not sure why as I'm generally quite intelligent? But I do so much better through listening to people speaking

OP posts:
Enderthedragon · 21/06/2020 19:37

Thanks Hermano

I do think that it is really important to read the opposing arguments on any issue, including this one. I am not about censorship and no platforming. I think that a lot the posters on this board have already read lots of the opposing arguments over the last few years through Twitter and various blogs, and have been able to refute those arguments in various ways (eg. they are not backed up by evidence, they rely on misogyny/stereotypes, they are just plain batshit!) And this essay mostly I think probably just rehashes those arguments.

However, for people who are new to this, and that number is growing and growing as the sunlight is cast on this issue, I think it's really useful to read something like KM's essay (long as it is!) to see the other side of the argument.

TorkTorkBam · 21/06/2020 19:44

I can imagine that some people look down at their genitals / chest and feel revulsion that their body is wrong. I want those people to be able to have a mechanism for being recognised as the body they feel they are.

Does this apply equally to the anorexic who wants a gastric bypass and diet pills? If not, why not?

Does this apply to any woman who hates her body after having children? A man going bald as he ages? Anyone getting wrinkled and liver spotted as they age? How are they recognised as having the body they wish they had? How is it different?

QuentinWinters · 21/06/2020 20:16

I genuinely thought the article I linked to was level headed and reasonably well written and made good counter arguments

It's sort of well written and the language is oh-so-reasonable. But go through and try to list what the counter arguments are. And do they actually stand up on their own.

So 1) some animals can change sex. Yes. Sex in nature is not immutable. Sex in humans is. No human being has ever spontaneously changed sex. So that's not relevant
2) LGBTQ conversion therapy. The author is conflating gay conversion therapy with talking therapy for trans people. They aren't comparable as I explain upthread. So again, doesn't stand up.
3) "Just want to pee". Fine, but our argument is about safeguarding. Again, doesn't stand up.

These long essays are designed to obfuscate points and be confusing. Doesn't mean they are logical and based in facts.

Swipe left for the next trending thread