Podcast - The Witch Trials of J K Rowling

[DrMeredithGrey2023]

Firstly, I am not educated enough in the trans rights movement to hold any real debate, and so if anything I say is ridiculous - that is why.

I've just finished listening to this podcast.

I knew that Rowling had made comments that landed her in hot water with some, but never really looked in to it before.

I thought the podcast was good, especially for someone like me with limited knowledge on the topic, but it has left me wondering - surely there's a grey area?

She came across as a very well read woman, who herself said that she made no public comments herself until she'd done a lot of reading on the matter.

Does someone have to agree with every single part of a movement in order to not be seen as a bigot? From what she's said, she's very happy for everyone to live the life they are happy and comfortable living, she doesn't want anyone to come to any harm due to their choices.

Does wanting to keep a certain label for yourself make you a transphobe?

I listened to it too and thought the same thing.

she's very happy for everyone to live the life they are happy and comfortable living, she doesn't want anyone to come to any harm due to their choices

I understood that's what she said from the very start and some chose to not read her twitter posts properly.

You've listened to the podcast so are able to make your own opinion on JKR.

Unfortunately it would appear that many people who attack her, libel her and even threaten her do not take the time to listen. Or to read her actual words on the subject. Which she has posted, transparently, for anyone to access.

Nothing new there for anyone who actually read what she said in the first place. All the drama and hate was fuelled by people who don't want/can't do nuanced debate, they want to shut down the conversation instead.

Existing in what you are calling a “grey area” is precisely what is getting people called Nazis. Which is very sad.

I feel the exact same as you OP, I'm no expert but I've been looking into this gender stuff since JKR first spoke out as she was always a role model to me.

I'm desperate to find some kind of middle ground that would actually work, and open their eyes to what JKR is actually saying, but every time I talk to TRA's however it's just... All or nothing.

They refuse to take you at your word that you're approaching the conversation in good faith and will be on the defensive no matter what you say. It's inherently anger you're met with when you try (from my experience).

I have no idea how to have these conversations in a way that would be acceptable, and it's not from lack of trying.
I can only liken it to trying to get through to an obvious alcohol addict.
If they just don't accept that the conversation is necessary to begin with, you cant have the conversation at all because only one person is making the effort.

It surely can't be impossible? Otherwise no addict would ever recover?
Though tbf I've not thought that analogy through very much so it might not even work as one :S

JKR's views ARE the middle ground!

The traditional view is that your biology determines your entire role in life.
The TRA view is that your feelings determine your actual sex (or gender - but in their eyes gender over rides sex).

Both of these are extremes and women always end up losing out. JKR's view, as I understand it is that everyone can have whatever feelings they like and live a life which makes them happy, but sex is real, you can't change sex and in a few situations this is important. She also believes that women have the right to call ourselves women and talk about our experiences as women.

8th rule of misogyny: Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.

Most people, including myself, start to become aware of this issue and think that there must be a reasonable compromise. I thought about the trans people I care about and what would be right for them, I thought about third spaces, being kind, being accepting, how we can all be kept safe and happy. Then the more I read and looked into it, the more I discovered what this is about. Keep reading, keep looking into this and listening to all sides. Then you will be able to come to your own conclusions about why this debate is apparently so 'toxic' and see where there the prejudice and hate are coming from and to whom they are directed.

Great thread.

Thank you for posting @DrMeredithGrey2023 . If it helps to hear it, my own journey in to understanding gender identity started from a different perspective and at the start I felt none of it was connected. I came from a very specific start point, understanding and supporting my autistic daughter who (almost overnight in retrospect) started questioning her gender identity. I inherently felt that something didn't add up so I did a lot of research, ignoring anything peripheral. That said, I did take a look for myself at the JKR essays and couldn't find anything that I would consider "transphobic" but saw no connections whatsoever to our own family situation. So I moved on and ignored it.

My turning point on seeing the interconnections was the Isla Bryson case. Since then I've explored women in sports and the impact of gender identity on gay and lesbian people. From what I've seen, all of it is interconnected around what I can only conclude is a religious-style belief. I have a huge respect for JKR and realise how important her stance has been on my own understanding.

Live and let live, just as JKR says in multiple different media. I haven't listened to the podcast but I will do.

I'm an atheist but am happy to respect and acknowledge others' religious beliefs. However, just as I wouldn't support Sharia law (to pluck one example) being the law of the UK, I also can't and won't support women being denied their own biological reality in sports, single-sex spaces and same-sex relationships. Ditto for men in same-sex relationships (on this one, Mr Menno is a great example of an advocate for both women's rights and gay men's rights).

The lack of a grey area is what peaked me. I was of the “be kind” mindset until I saw how women were being treated. We wanted to find a compromise where everybody could be happy and live the life that’s right for them.

Unfortunately it has become an all-or-nothing religion. If you don’t believe TWAW and TMAM; you refuse the “cis” label; you want some spaces to remain single-sex only for women’s safety, dignity, privacy and to ensure their representation in sports, music, film and other awards fields… thou art verily a bigot.

It’s so sad. But the podcast is an excellent, balanced account of how this situation evolved, and I hope more people listen to it and make up their own minds about JKR instead of just unquestioningly believing what they are told by the Twitterati.

I thought this podcast series was really good. It didn’t change my views despite hearing more detail.. JK Rowling is very well read and I absolutely do not think she is a bigot neither is her approach to learning ‘indirect bigotry’ as was claimed on the podcast.. I found that ‘definition’ shocking actually in 2023! Made zero sense to me and I thought it was a really damaging idea to any progression of our society.

Thanks for your replies guys.

I do highly recommend the podcast - I think that a former member of the Westborough Baptist church is the host makes me feel a lot more like it's an open discussion - rather than leaning either way.

Can I ask, with regards to the term CIS woman - what is the idea there? That everyone has another word in front of their gender, preferred or other wise? So, biological women are CIS women and trans women are known as that, or something else?

Currently listening to the final episode. The whole series has been very good. She's such a reasonable person, and she never ever says anything unpleasant or hostile or defamatory about the people who disagree with her, in marked contrast to the way they talk about her.

There is another long thread on this somewhere if you're interested in reading what others have said, OP.

Oh yes, I'll search for it

A cis person is anyone who isn’t trans. So a cis woman has a “gender identity” that matches her biological sex. This is problematic because many gender critical women don’t have a gender identity. We have a biological sex and a personality. So we find cis offensive. It also means we are a subset of women because the word “women” effectively becomes an umbrella term for both cis and trans women.

The thing about the indirect bigotry accusation is that - as usual with these people - it made no attempt to address the actual argument. The trans woman said that when JKR claims to be concerned about children, she's not really concerned about them, she's pretending to be concerned about them because she is prejudiced against trans people. But this kind of accusation is simply an attempt to deflect attention away from the argument and on to the motives of the person making it.

You could take the same approach with anything. "You're not really concerned about female genital mutilation, you're just pretending because you hate Muslims." "You don't really care about priests abusing children, you are just anti-Catholic."

By doing that, the activists effectively silence any opposition. How can you ever voice your concerns about harm to children, if you are always going to be accused of having ulterior motives?

That, of course, is the intent. Instead of saying: "Don't listen to JKR's concerns about children because her motives are suspect," they could address the concerns themselves - are they valid? Are they reasonable?

Why don't they do that? One reason only: they can't. They know JKR is right and they haven't got a single argument against her. That is why, ultimately, JKR and allies will win, and these idiots will lose.