Sent Daily Mail'd editor a complaint about how JKR's position on single-sex spaces was reported. DM's reply has me fuming.

[LordLoveADuck]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10932979/Hillary-Clinton-warns-Democrats-obsession-transgender-issues-cost-2024-election.html

Several days ago the DM used the term "non-trans women" to refer to women which is something I had never seen before and which I find is outrageous. I had assumed this was something the editors had missed. What rankled me was the context in which it was used because imo it infers that JKR would use that term herself. I quote:

"Rowling has become a lightning rod for supporters of the most hardline pro-trans policies after saying that some spaces such as domestic abuse shelters should remain open to non-trans women only, for safety reasons."

Rowling has never, to the best of my knowledge, used the term "non-trans women" and she certainly did not use it in her essay regarding single sex spaces yet the DM is stating that Rowling has said that shelters should be open only for "non-trans women".

In my complaint I suggested that Alex Oliveira, who wrote the article, read what Rowling has written so he can accurately represent her position which is that women are adult human females and that women, in certain situations, require single sex spaces.

I also mentioned how trans-activists, determined to erase the word woman when it doesn't suit their ideology coin neologisms to achieve that end and so I requested that the DM, to preserve the appearance of impartiality, not use those neologisms and definitely not put them in the mouths of those who state categorically that women are defined as adult human females.

Here's their reply

We have looked into the point you raise with our editors. With respect, our journalist does not ascribe the phrase to JK Rowling, or claim that JK Rowling has used this term, but merely explains the issue using our words: non-trans women.

DailyMail.com uses this description to make the issue clear to readers.

[this is bollocks because "non-trans women" wasn't clear to me at all nor clear to those I showed it to.]

We note that in her writing, such as www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/, the author uses the phrase trans women - so the use by the press of non-trans women is appropriate and in context.

[interesting that they note JKRs use of trans-women however they don't seem to have noted her using the word women]

In fact, we are a little puzzled by your concerns in that our article would appear to be in agreement with your point and explains that JK Rowling supports spaces for women only who are not transgender:

The press uses plain terms of its own choosing and not neologisms (unless in quotes or to use a commonly- accepted phrase that our readers are familiar with).

Please be assured DailyMail.com is free to choose the language it uses for coverage and is not dictated to by any specific interest groups.

Well women who are transgender (Trans men) are fine for women’s shelters since they are female, so their argument isn’t accurate. It’s not “women who aren’t transgender” who are welcome it’s WOMEN.

Misstache you had me there for a moment and then I realized you are spot on. You have just provided a brilliant example of why the term "non-trans women" is confusing and not in the least bit clear. It's complete bollocks that the DM's professed motivation for using "non=-trans women" is for clarity.

Non trans women implies that transwomen are women. That is bollocks.

ooops strike out professed. Sentence should read "It's complete bollocks that the DM's motivation for using "non--trans women" is for clarity."

I agree its all getting a bit ridiculous. But I I do understand what they mean by a non trans woman. I can't see why it has to be such a big deal.

You're right, the Daily Mail article is very badly written and difficult to understand as a consequence. I think it's because they are filleting an interview by The Financial Times and trying to paraphrase it to avoid plagiarism allegations. As a result you get sentences like "The Democrat admitted it was 'impossible to be pessimistic about the future' while he was watching his grandchildren growing up, but went on to paint a bleak picture of America's future". What?!

The DM are probsbly the last one I would start this fight with (many others though!) I also suspect they often report report things in a way to make the average person go wtf???

The reason I see it as a big deal is because it elevates the notion of transitioning and erases biological fact that women are distinct type of human with some specific characteristics that don't change by their donning pants or eschewing make-up just like men cannot become women by donning dresses and sporting make-up.

You, TheBiologyStupid may be right about the paraphrasing angle but they state that they use non-trans women for clarity. I resent the term and it wouldn't have taken Shakespeare to use women rather than non-trans women. I'm no Shakespeare but I'll give it a go:

Rowling has become a lightning rod for supporters of the most hardline pro-trans policies after saying that some spaces such as domestic abuse shelters should remain single-sex spaces, barring trans-women for safety reasons."

It's clumsy but I can see why they did this - they were probably trying to write the inverse of "the shelter would not accept transwomen" and ended up with they shelter would only accept non transwomen. I imagine they were trying to avoid using something like "biological males" in order to avoid a certain kind of complaint.

Personally while I think it's reasonable to point out this is a little dodgy, I think the DM is more to be commended than anything on their coverage of this issue. They aren't perfect, perhaps, but they've been very good compared to what a lot of other media outlets have done. So I'd be inclined to cut them some slack.

Just wanted to let you, MangyInseam and RJnomore1 know that I did express my appreciation for their covering stories involving gender that other media like media like do not. I actually thought their using that term was an editorial oversight .

As for giving them slack,I strongly disagree. The reason we are in this perilous state is that we have not done what TRAs do which is to go after every little thing. Not sure if you use reddit but there TRAs don't let anything remain posted if they think it is in the slightest detrimental to their cause. In fact it is what I've seen being done on reddit that spurred me to voice my concern to the DM.

I'm not sure that going after every little thing is serving TRAs well long-term.

OP, you are right that it is shitty writing. They got rid of the sub-editors and it shows, especially online.

On the plus side, their awkward phrasing will raise even more eyebrows.

MangyInseam ·I'm not sure that going after every little thing is serving TRAs well long-term.

Perhaps that is true however as Keynes said, in the long-term we are all dead.
Right now all we have is the now and right now gender theology is either growing in influence or dominating most sectors of public life.

Gender theology got its foothold by increments, what began as people being asked to be accommodating to a tiny handful of transsexuals wishing to use women's washrooms has burgeoned to the wholesale takeover of single-sex spaces etc Therefore any small incremental change such as any use of the term non-trans women, or non-males to refer to a women needs to be called out no matter the source.