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

Oh just an aside in case people aren't aware (and I wasn't!).

A lot of the noise comes from the USA. Apparently cubicle toilets at work, in shops etc have massive gaps round the doors. Why? I have no idea. But apparently if you go into the ladies at work you avert your eyes when walking to find a free one as you can slices of the women in the toilets.

I think this is why the 'bathroom' thing is so big in USA.

We have plenty of gaps over/ under but not around the sides of the door.

Things are different everywhere.

And people who live elsewhere etc have no idea so it's all a bit cross purpose.

Even between sexes. In the UK on the 80s shops like top shop had communal changing. I remember it well. I told DH and he was taken aback. The shops he had been in had never expected men and boys to strip off and try clothes on in one room with mirrors all around...

With so much of this, people's cultures, countries, sex etc mean very different ideas about how things are.

OP, genuine question.

Did you really read this and think, that's reasonable...?

'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'

If so, can I ask why? Because a lot of people seem to be aok with saying biological sex in humans is not a thing, and I don't understand why.

Then in the next breath they'll talk about how bad things are for girls in other countries... And they mean female girls.

Why would I care what a transgender advertiser thinks about biology or Jo Rowling specifically or women in general? The very fact of transitioning is a rejection of biological reality.

Shiny, it does actually make sense

When we are born, our sex is noted and if female, as a direct result every friend will buy pink and every aunt will notice how kind the child is, granny will notice how the child responds to the toy doll, the mother will spend more time talking and making eye contact, so as soon as sex is identified gender is assigned and the well trained adults will implement the correct gender training

So identifying sex is also assigning gender

And that is so wrong

Where logic often fails is to declare sex irrelevant and mutable, to conflate the two

Shiny yes I did. I skimmed the biology section as I'm pretty unmovable in my view on that, though a good friend who is a feminist and a GP started a conversation about how actually sex is a spectrum, not binary, intersex etc and I'm also keen to get fully conversant on the rebuttals to that view, at the time I just muttered about how I understood it was binary except rare mutations and left it there. I'm not interested in KM's person's views of biology as they won't change my mind, I'm a scientist.

I am interested in how anyone can argue with what I thought was a well written and thorough piece by JKR, and I was surprised to find myself nodding along with some of her views, such as the ones I posted above. I felt uneasy agreeing and was keen to hear the other side, why KM is wrong. Since I don't have anyone to discuss this with irl I came here

torktork I completely agree with the point you're making. As with many things, I certainly don't have answers. As I hope I've made clear, I'm battling with my own feelings about much of this.

My bottom line is the battle between a person's right to be and be treated like the person they want to be, and everyone else's right to be safe and treated with dignity.

Some of the issues are v clear to me, but for many there is a fuzzy grey area where there is so much nuance and competing rights. I'm trying to feel comfortable with my views on this and it takes time because so much of it is baffling to me.

The DRM stuff with asda recently. What were asda thinking? Did they seriously not bother checking their material? Is there a senior person who makes money out of this?
And DRM, why would they include that awful passage? And the Pie catchphrase? We're they unaware or are they trying to normalise this in plain sight? I just can't quite believe it's that sinister, have they ever defended that? I've seen snippets of asda's snivelling non apology, but what from DRM?

With so much of this I just don't get the agenda.

actually sex is a spectrum, not binary, intersex etc and I'm also keen to get fully conversant on the rebuttals to that view

I would not bother with rebuttals beyond "you are being ridiculous." In fact, I'd ignore.

Any one of us can meet a person and know instantly if they are male or female almost all the time. Trans people want to transitiom from one to other and are really quite vocal that woman is a thing that is different from man.

Nobody actually believes male and female are on a spectrum.

No TRAs who talk about intersex conditions are actually suggesting that trans people have these conditions.

Anyone trying to say that trans people are neither male nor female is talking bollocks. They know it. You know it. When the beardy woke bloke goes looking for porn or a date or who to abuse online then he has no trouble distinguishing.

No point bringing actual arguments for male and female existing to people arguing they are old fashioned ideas. You might as well be arguing against someone saying that potatoes are apples. No point. They know it. You know it. It isn't about facts.

Hermano, I initially thought evidence by GC people was being cherry picked - the NHS is a big respected organisation and we should trust it to do the right thing. Looking into it more, I've been pretty shocked at the quality of evidence available. Most of it is based on adult MTF transsexuals, not on teenage natal females and can't be applied to a very different grou

On the medical conditions point, from a data point of view it would be valid to collect data on sex, gender identity and medication (hormones etc) to work out which factors influence course and treatment. But transgender ideology tells us we can only ask the second two. Try to find an NHS form that asks for your sex, it's not easy. Even the census is planning on just asking about gender identity. The academic Alice Sullivan was even no platformed for arguing that sex was important to record on the census. Joan mcalpine, the MSP was attacked relentlessly for arguing the same in Scotland.
It's shocking reading the GIDS article published 2-3 years ago where they review the evidence for treating transgender children (I'll try and find a link). They weren't able to cite follow up studies as people's markers changed (names, nhs numbers, not to mention they dropped out of treatment). In quite a few studies it is unclear what people's natal sex or sexuality is (that awful suicidal ideation survey that stonewall cites as everything - "gender" and sexuality was self defined which makes it impossible to interpret). If there was really a desire to get meaningful data on health then why make it so hard?

The second point about trans kids - well that often cited 1% figure for detransition is based on adults attending an adult gender clinic for treatment. So clearly not the population who detransition who aren't returning to get more hormones. And they are adults, mainly MtF. The population of adolescents and children is very different. A hugely increased proportion of adolescent girls, most often with other mental health problems (it used to be at least 2:1 m:f, referrals at GIDS -it's now 3:1 f:m). No one knows how many detransition because, shockingly, no one is measuring it. We know that some people do - detransition reddit, YouTube testimonies, the detransition advocacy network are all out there to read and listen to. And I hope I'm wrong but I fear there will be many more to come.

The "years of therapy before medical intervention" is a blatant lie, or at least uninformed. Even at GIDS (which is probably one of the more conservative clinics compared to private ones and US) children have been referred for blockers after one visit (this was mentioned on newsnight this week). And 6 is the maximum number of sessions they're contracted to provide. Once you go private - well, genderGP advertise a fastrack for people who "are really sure" they want treatment, no need to inform your parents far or less your gp. "

I know it all sounds very heated, but for me, the more I read the more crazy it discovered it (gender ideology and the way it's being applied throughout society) was. I've yet to find someone who finds it more reasonable the more they read.

If little is at stake, if your actions don't impinge on others , then people should be treated as they want to be

As the stakes rise, then evidence is required to support their position

An employer asks for evidence of your degree, they won't accept that you want to be treated as if you had a degree

I can call myself Elizabeth Windsor, but if I turned up at sandringham, my face would be checked before these security guard would let me in

So dress what you like, call yourself what you like but if you want to play women's sport , what evidence do you have to say that you are woman/ equivalent to women

A big problem that HKR highlighted with her original posts is that refusing to acknowledge or use the word “woman” to mean “(Bio) female adults” Means there is no longer a way to talk about issues that women in general face. Instead each issue has to be addressed separately. Because we have to pretend there is no Namable group of people who are subject to ALL of FGM, firing due to pregnancy, child marriage, street Harassment and who menstruate. Instead we have to talk about “menstruation” as something that happens to “people who menstruate” and “street harassment” as something g that happens to “female identifying people” (or even more cringe I’ve hear lately is “women and femmes”).

These are things which are issues for women - approx 50% of the population. It is USEFUL to be able to politically Organize around this set of issues specifically.

@ShinyFootball

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.

Thank you. That saves me wading through the rest of the cult speak.

@Hermano

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

Oh right. So you actually came on here to ‘prove’ that JK is a bigot. You’ll need to use actual scientific, peer reviewed evidence to prove that the claims made by KM is scientifically true. Don’t worry I’ll wait for you to have a look for the peer reviewed research KM has linked the claims to. KM has followed up her claims with evidence, hasn’t she?

Sorry just catching up

'My bottom line is the battle between a person's right to be and be treated like the person they want to be'

This is not a right. At all. The ONLY time it applies is with trans. It does not apply in any other area of life that I can think of that is based on observable/ provable fact rather than things that are not provable.

The 'identify as' phrasing started with good intent.
Mainly around ethnicity / etc (example. Lots of people born in the UK may identify their ethic background as not UK e.g. Irish)
Disability. A sensitive area. Many people who are what most people would think of as disabled do not identify that way. E.g. the people in the deaf community who consider that they are aok and are only disadvantaged by the ablist society we live in. I have a disability from a young age which has impacted my life a lot. I did not identify as disabled until I was about 35 because... Of reasons.

So this stuff had sensitivities and shades of grey etc.

For the other stuff. No it is not a right to be and be treated as the person you want to be.
Really high IQ? Ex employee of NASA? World recognized playwright? Black when you are white? Sexually irresistible (and people have to treat you as that???).

Nope.

1 area. Only 1. And very heavily focussed on males who want to ID as female.

Also interesting that women who say I'm not cis often get TOLD they are. Full stop.

Yeah so. Sorry but it's a meaningless ill thought out thing to say.

'30midgebabe

Shiny, it does actually make sense'

No it really doesn't.
The author of talking about sex. Boy/ girl simply mean juvenile human male/ female.

I completely agree that sex role/ sterotypes/ gender (original feminist usage) are shit. Feminists have been fighting against them for years, as well as a smaller subsection of men as they hurt them too.
The author is not talking about gender role. They are taking about sex. Many refer to sex 'assigned' at birth as if it's random or based on something other than something that humans have understood since forever. Dick/ vulva/ boy/girl.

Have a reread I think you gave too much benefit of the doubt:

'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.'

They are not taking about gender role/ society / pink and blue. They are talking about biology.

It's bollocks.

That rebuttal of KM's piece by Dave is brilliant.

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

Especially this:

KM: "Trans women being women is a conclusion of the evidence, not a premise."
"No, “transwomen are women” is a thought terminating cliche.
The truth of the statement depends entirely on the meaning of “trans”, “transwomen”, “women”, and “are”. Unless you can actually state in a non circular way what any of it actually means, its just in group/out group signalling. It is a mantra to be repeated, to prevent any thought or inquiry.
It is dehumanising colonisation. Women’s existence reduced to men’s idea of what one is. A nice slogan we all said in order to be kind, turned into an edict to be enforced."

@midgebabe

If being trans is innate , then it is clear that every generation will have had women who were actually trans

We can see that thousands of girls are currently being treated by GIDS

Which suggests that thousands of women in each previous generation went without this vital treatment

Yet any women who suspects that they were one of the thousands is shouted down

Why might that be? Where are the missing thousands?

The point about the lack of women late-transitioning - excellent point.

A few women have publicly said that they would have jumped at the chance to 'be a boy' as young children - Stella O'Malley, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, JKR.

Yet virtually no middle-aged women transition. Why not? And there are many, many MTF late transitioners - transitioning in middle age.

It is quite clear to me that young women, and middle-aged males are transitioning for completely different reasons.

It is clear to women who remember how they felt or how their female friends felt around puberty.

The transition from child to sex object is scary and happens so young. (Namalt blah etc).

The dominant trans narrative is so very male gaze centric and so utterly oblivious to how the male gaze affects girls and women IRL.

The narrative is often so overtly sexual. All this stuff about breasts growing and being really excited about them jiggling as they run down the escalator at the tube.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/family/life/like-new-boobs-neat-round-dont-sag/amp/

Paywall so can't get the quote. Think that is the right one though.

Meanwhile loads of actual girls have been trying to disguise/ hide/ stop their body changing because it's so discomfiting. Baggy clothes, not eating etc etc

Then you get a tw who looks the part enough to be a go to in the media.

Paris lees said that they loved Street harassment as it made them feel sexy. And that women/ girls who didn't like it and complained/ tried to change things were miserable prudes spoiling the fun for everyone else. Aka women and girls live for the male gaze, and really enjoy being validated in their role as sex objects by getting comments etc from random men in the street.

I could go on...

Katie Montgomerie has been a dick on twitter for years. Always picks a fight. Nasty piece of work. Doesn’t listen, unwilling to engage except to put down women, and just in it for the poison really. Motivated by misogyny.
Unless Katie turned over a new leaf recently of course. Toxic mess.

I have to admit that I’m not knowledgeable enough to understand a lot of what’s discussed but this stood out to me, KM said “And it’s so much easier to win people over to your side if it looks like you aren’t expressing an opinion and are in fact just “saying the truth”. ”
But earlier in the article said
“ This is a very common “Gender Critical” (read anti-trans) rhetorical device.”
I’m not sure, does that imply she’s stating that GC = anti-trans? Or does it mean, just take it that I’m referring to the anti-trans section of GC?
She also says “Trans women face misogynistic sexism and sexual violence for being women every day” - is that really what they’re on the receiving end of, or could it be because they’re trans, instead? She goes on to say “ After all, does a sexist abuser ask to see your original birth certificate before sexually harassing you?” unless the abuser tells you on what grounds they’re abusing you, how do you know why?

I’m done with the “sex is a spectrum” nonsense. A billion years of evolution prove otherwise and also that anyone spouting such lunacy is a fool.

She also says “Trans women face misogynistic sexism and sexual violence for being women every day” - is that really what they’re on the receiving end of, or could it be because they’re trans, instead?

Possibly, if they look enough like women. Although I wonder why they’re startled when being treated like a woman is street harassment and not suave men skating champagne down the bar. As a woman the former started when I was 7, and the latter never happened.

But I suspect that transwomen cop old-fashioned homophobia. It’s asking a lot of an aggressive male to parse his violent reaction, and decide if he’s going to harass someone because they’re trans, or because his primitive brain is threatened by anyone who doesn’t fit into his version of the world.

Transphobia as a concept demands a fairly high level of awareness from the thuggish public, when rank homophobia is sadly, so common.

'Incels, and in fact the entire “manosphere”, generally have the same views of trans people and trans rights as Gender Critical people. They will regularly be seen allying together in arguments online, and sometimes you can’t even tell them apart. This is why so often you see “TERFs are Nazis” being thrown around online, because they have the same views on trans rights.'

This is just a flat-out lie.

If sex were a spectrum then there would be people in the middle of that spectrum who could make both sperm and eggs. It isn't a spectrum, it's a binary with rare mutations. Everyone is either male or female.

@NotTerfNorCis

If sex were a spectrum then there would be people in the middle of that spectrum who could make both sperm and eggs. It isn't a spectrum, it's a binary with rare mutations. Everyone is either male or female.

But you are forgetting that the science just hasn’t proven it yet..... it will. And laws should be changed to accommodate this in the meantime.

I mean the commentary that goes on around the theory that sex is a spectrum is simply ludicrous. The reality is nature has it sorted just as you say and it will not change at all unless by human manipulation.

I miss the days when everyone understood what biological sex was and understood that we are not clownfish or nematodes, and that disorders of sex development are just that.

Weirdly, I think the Vagina Museum had the best argument in response to JKR (and see my username to understand that I fully support everything JKR said). They at least acknowledged biological sex, even if they did ruin it in places.

twitter.com/vagina_museum/status/1269584788870123522?s=19

Thanks for Dave’s rebuttal, Jemima. That’s it exactly