Jk Rowling and trans issues... talk to me!

[bunters]

Ok mumsnet, please talk to me. I’ve noticed that the feminist section of mumsnet seems disproportionately preoccupied with trans issues and I’d like to understand it. I opened the feminism chat today and topic after topic related to trans this, gender that

It is an indisputable fact that women suffer horrific domestic violence in this country (and worldwide), at the hands of men. Women are regularly beaten, raped, controlled, murdered and otherwise abused by men every single day. It’s so standard that it barely makes news when it happens, unless the crime is truly shocking.

This whole trans hysteria feels to me like if the government were to start a huge campaign to raise awareness of the dangers of choking on peanuts, while ignoring the huge damage caused by alcohol and tobacco.

JK Rowling has started a bizarre war around the language used to refer women, in the name of women’s rights. With her money and popularity she could have done any number of things to help women in a huge way. What has this achieved, other than pitting feminists against each other? Even if you believe she has a point, surely you can see that whatever ‘danger’ trans people pose to women is minuscule compared to the very real danger men openly pose to women every day?

We all know that men have felt entitled to take what they want when they want for centuries, and they don’t need to dress as a woman to do it. The women gang raped to death (can you even imagine the horror) in India weren’t attacked by men in dresses. I’m despairing of the fact that attention has been diverted from these horrors in such an extreme way.

When I look at my beautiful, tiny daughter I don’t worry about some trans person hurting her, I worry about the very likely situation when a man hurts her. In fact, I’d worry more that she’ll be trans and be hurt by someone before I’d worry about a trans person hurting her. When I walk alone at night somewhere, my mind isn’t imagining trans people waiting in dark doorways to rape me, it’s men. Men being bloody men.

If we accept that men don’t need to be trans and gain access to women’s spaces to hurt us, and we accept that trans people are way more likely to attempt suicide than the rest of the population (and so really are in need of help and protection as much as women), why do trans issues continue to cause such anger?

And if you do feel justified, what tangible thing are you doing to help women, besides moaning on mumsnet and signing petitions?

I know op isn't going to listen, but in case someone is reading this who is on the fence and doesn't get it, it's quite simple. If you change the definition of woman in law to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' it erases your ability to fight sexism at all, in facts it masks the existence of it.

The pay gap will still be there, but we will be gaslight that stats say the pay gap is closing (when reality is that more men have started identifying as women)

Male violence will still be there, but we will be gaslight saying women raping women is on the rise (when reality is it's mele rapists identifying as women)

Female athletes will start losing medals to men, but when we try to point it out we will be gaslight (what do you mean Serena lost a tennis match to a man? Andrea Murray is a woman now!)

Good luck trying to fight sexism and male violence when you can't even name it.

But you appear to believe that people can change sex and want others to believe this too

No, I fully accept that trans women are biologically male, and trans men are biologically female, as you can't literally change the sex you were born.
It doesn't mean I can't accept trans men as men though and trans women as women.

I believe Quaag's position is that it is not physically possible for males to be women biologically and vice versa, but that the social categories of 'women' and 'men' includes both sexes, dependent on their personal 'gender identity'.

I have my own view on the legitimacy of that idea, but Quagg sometimes seems reluctant to be crystal clear and I'm feeling helpful today. I'm she can clarify if I've misinterpreted.

Man and Woman refers to the sex of adult humans, though. Just like Stag and Doe for deer. That is the whole point of having those specific words. You don't have to keep saying biological male deer and biological male humans.

Just like the article on prison officers searching prisoners who identify as women but are physically still men.

www.independent.ie/irish-news/prison-officers-demand-guidelines-on-transgender-inmates-39637102.html?fbclid=IwAR1sG8A0-hU_Lz7ALG6S7C-01SJbdDUsmeJxdY-0A230PFJMlv23NQTd6EA

They 're not confused over adult human males and men. Irrespective of how people personally identify.

@Quaagars

But you appear to believe that people can change sex and want others to believe this too

No, I fully accept that trans women are biologically male, and trans men are biologically female, as you can't literally change the sex you were born.
It doesn't mean I can't accept trans men as men though and trans women as women.

How can you accept transmen as men and transwomen as women if you believe they cannot change sex?

How can a transman be a man if they cannot change sex?

How can a transwoman be a woman if they cannot change sex?

Why is it so hideous to accept transmen as transmen and transwomen as transwomen?

@bunters
for those of you posting JK's essay, it was that that got me so annoyed. She justifies her actions because she was domestically abused by her cis male partner.

What actions should she have to justify, though? What has she actually done which is so horrifying, so destructive?

Prior to writing that essay, she had said in a tweet that a woman losing her job for not agreeing that TWAW was disproportionate, and she had made a joke (also in a tweet) about a pompous bit of prattery.

For this evil behaviour, she has had death threats (serious enough to mean she needs protection twenty-four hours a day), rape threats, attempts to destroy her livelihood...

And you are annoyed with her for those two tweets? Blimey O'Riley. Save your wrath for the people here: terfisaslur.com/

In case you don't know the terminology, "terf" is a blanket-condemnation word applied to any woman anyone feels disagrees with him, her, fae, ae, vir, ze, etc about anything. It stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminist", and is particularly absurd when applied to a transwoman. So these threats apply to anyone who disagrees with the person who has posted them.

@Quaagars

But you appear to believe that people can change sex and want others to believe this too

No, I fully accept that trans women are biologically male, and trans men are biologically female, as you can't literally change the sex you were born.
It doesn't mean I can't accept trans men as men though and trans women as women.

But a man is an adult human male and a woman is an adult human female. A trans man is female, so is a woman. How can a female person be a man?

Or do you have a different definition for 'man' and 'woman'? I saw one the other day which was that a woman was 'someone who goes around being a woman'. Do you have a non-circular definition?

these threats apply to anyone who disagrees with the person who has posted them.

By the way, this includes anyone who thinks that transwomen should not be housed in female prisons sharing cells and spaces with women. And anyone who thinks there is ever a case for transwomen not competing directly against or with females in sports. So, if you have any reservations, you will get the same treatment as Joanne Rowling. Any reservations....

OP I haven’t read the whole thread but in short, you have failed to understand what the issue is - you have totally missed the point.

There are many threads, a lot of information on the internet, and JKRs own words which actually would provide you with a good introduction to the issues.

What is Cis? Is it a makey uppey term someone has invented to pretend another term has some grounding in reality or among people in general. Has it any provenance in the real world? Do you assume someone not only believes in that newly made-up identity, but refers to themselves by it?

My identity lies in reality. Not that ridiculous term.

@TheLobster

I know op isn't going to listen, but in case someone is reading this who is on the fence and doesn't get it, it's quite simple. If you change the definition of woman in law to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' it erases your ability to fight sexism at all, in facts it masks the existence of it.

The pay gap will still be there, but we will be gaslight that stats say the pay gap is closing (when reality is that more men have started identifying as women)

Male violence will still be there, but we will be gaslight saying women raping women is on the rise (when reality is it's mele rapists identifying as women)

Female athletes will start losing medals to men, but when we try to point it out we will be gaslight (what do you mean Serena lost a tennis match to a man? Andrea Murray is a woman now!)

Good luck trying to fight sexism and male violence when you can't even name it.

In a nutshell.

Assuming you really want an answer -

What is Cis?

From what I can gather, just means not trans.
Kind of like being straight means not gay/lesbian.

My identity lies in reality This right here. Like Dave Chappelle said "I support anyone's right to be who they want to be. My question is: to what extent do I have to participate in your self-image?"
A woman is an adult female human full stop ✋

"sex" is a protected characteristic under equalities legislation in the UK, in the same way as "disability" and "race". In order to have protection, the characteristic needs to be clearly defined and definable. Woman has to mean something clear if we want any kind of legal protection.

A more logically consistent viewpoint would be for the OP to say lots of different people need protection for different reasons but there's no need for people of different classes of characteristic to be carved out in law.

Biology still matters - regardless of identity arguments - in terms of heath issues and in terms of the way that data is collected and analysed.

This is ever more pertinent when dealing with a virus that impacts differentially according to biological sex - not self affirmed gender identity.

How can you analyse sex difference in disease processes if self id is the norm? Aside from women suffering prostate disease/cancer and similar anomalies we need to break from the man as norm in relation to eg heart disease. We can't do this unless sex is recognised as an objective category that is not overwhelmed by subjective priority.

How can a transwoman be a woman if they cannot change sex?

Because one of the explicit aims is to sever words from their meanings. It is to subvert the relationship between words and the external reality they describe. It is to pretend that words are mere emphemera, used randomly to describe whatever subjective fantasy dominates the speaker's internal landscape. If you don't submit to the Newspeak dictionary? You must be cancelled.

From what I can gather, just means not trans.

No, cis a technical term which relates to spatial arrangements (eg chemical groups, geographical features). 'Trans' is be used as its counterpart in that context, but is also used in other ways (eg 'transplant, transport'). The use of Cis in relation to sex or gender is a false pairing.

@Quaagars

Assuming you really want an answer -

What is Cis?

From what I can gather, just means not trans.
Kind of like being straight means not gay/lesbian.

Straight means heterosexual/ attracted to members of the opposite sex. Gay/lesbian means homosexual/attracted to members of the same sex.

Can you give similar definitions for trans and 'cis'?

@BovaryX

How can a transwoman be a woman if they cannot change sex?

Because one of the explicit aims is to sever words from their meanings. It is to subvert the relationship between words and the external reality they describe. It is to pretend that words are mere emphemera, used randomly to describe whatever subjective fantasy dominates the speaker's internal landscape. If you don't submit to the Newspeak dictionary? You must be cancelled.

Agree, but I was hoping Quaggers could enlighten me on the subject.

@Quaagars

Assuming you really want an answer -

What is Cis?

From what I can gather, just means not trans.
Kind of like being straight means not gay/lesbian.

Bisexual people are not gay, but they are not straight, either.

By that terminology trans women are women; women who were born with female genitalia and have always been first girls and then women are cis women.

I think that explains why women on the whole don't like it: it classifies each of them as a member of a subset of what they are, while what they are becomes exclusively for others.

Gay and lesbian are subsets of a sex so an analogy of cis with those words falls down at that point. Sort of like the difference between a red-head and a human being: red-heads are a subset of human beings, human beings are not a subset of red-heads.

The mental gymnastics you must be achieving to go from highlighting India's rape crisis as an area feminist is not concerned about (we are) to your next and last post highlighting that you understand the issue of prisons but as proportionally women are not in prison you dont get why we're concerned.

Do you not see how strange your thought process is?

I've skimmed the thread. I am amazed that PP have to explain yet again the issues and yet again links have to be posted. The OP is lazy. Interestingly, she hasn't checked in for some hours.

Anyway, I don't know any transpeople but I do know plenty of gay and lesbian people through work. The impression I get from the OP is s/he is a bigot towards my LGB friends...the phrase "gay women" is blatantly bigoted. S/he also sounds like a very privileged person who because she has no experience of something, says it doesn't exist. Her language reveals she claims to be a feminist, but by not defending lesbians and saying womens' experiences are false, she is a blatant misogynist.

• I think that explains why women on the whole don't like it: it classifies each of them as a member of a subset of what they are, while what they are becomes exclusively for others.

It's worse than that; it defines actual women as a subset of a 'women' that has become undefinable. (And don't blame me if that sentence isn't easily comprehensible!). I don't believe we've ever seen a slightly convincing response to the simple question: 'if trans women are women, how do you define 'woman'.