Why do anti trans people support JK Rowling?

[TaylorMia]

I'm a gay detransitioner who stopped taking hormones simply because I ended up not liking the idea of being on hormones and getting surgery. My insecurities aren't gone, but there's been some freedom in not being nervous about the increase of cardiovascular issues from hormones. I was also aware of Rowling's comments and never thought of her as being against trans people.

Over the past few weeks though, I paid attention to a lot of the people following her on Twitter who support her most, and I noticed that a large amount of them don't agree with a single thing Rowling has said about trans people. Rowling is on record for saying that she has no problem calling trans men he/trans women she, supporting adults having fairly easy access to hormones/surgery, saying that she considers most trans people 'vulnerable' and even saying she knew a trans woman that she could barely see as anything other than a woman. In contrast, a lot of 'gender critical' people say the opposite of those things. They get triggered by the idea of calling a trans woman a she and vice versa, sometimes don't even use their legal names, mock their appearances, think that trans people don't have their own specific needs, and in some cases, saying that the mere concept of being transgender is a capitalistic 'white male' misogynistic scam that manipulates mentally ill people, and that even adults shouldn't be allowed to transition. You can deny it if you want, but I can safely say I have seen all of these things said in 'gender critical' Twitter and forums. The word disingenuous doesn't really cover the attitudes of people who say that the whole concept of being trans is bad, bigoted and a capitalist scam, while simultaneously saying "We aren't anti trans". I am fully against gender ideology, but seeing these people's sentiments made me realize they don't really agree with what Rowling has said.

@RedToothBrush it's posts like yours and @RoyalCorgi that make me wish Mumsnet had an upvote function (although mostly I'm glad it doesn't).

@RedToothBrush the only thing in your excellent posts that I take issue with is your statement:

"To regain credibility it [the TRA movement] has to go back to consensus building, evidence building and grass roots level engagement."

The word 'back' is slightly misleading because in truth the TRA 'Movement' (which is undefined, although I personally define it as a misgynist movement) never engaged in consensus building, evidence of grassroots engagement. It is and always has been an astro-turfed 'movement' resting on hate and magical tinking. We may well ask ourselves why that is and who it benefits.

At the heart of this remains the problem that pro-women is conflated with anti-trans.

^^ This is the issue a 1000 times over!

It came from Stonewall and Mermaids in this country to a large extent though - which WERE grassroots based.

It does have a path of straying from grassroots in this sense.

Certainly Stonewalls reputation is built on the foundation of that being it's history and I don't think you can ignore that factor in how it has been taken so seriously and been supported as widely as it has. The piggy backing effect on gay rights is definitely part of the trans story - which does need to be recognised.

Equally that's why the LGB Alliance has ruffled feathers so much - because its very existence highlights how far Stonewall (and Mermaids) have strayed from grassroots and how the grassroots activists who formed Stonewall have a sense of betrayal for abandoning these values and no longer representing them.

Id take a guess that some of them follow her on the basis that she has been (incorrectly) labelled anti trans and in being anti trans themselves, align with what they assume to be true about her. Without reading her actual comments fully or listening to her speak on it, you can just take the hyperbolic nonsense that the TRA’s cling onto and see it as anti trans I guess.
This is the irony though isn’t it - she’s not anti trans and has no issue with trans people or their rights to live their lives.

I choose the language I use when speaking, so would decide on the pronouns I use. Nearly always sex based although I may choose to make exceptions.

I don't believe adults can 'transition' to the opposite sex. But I'm fine with people transgressing the social gender norms if they choose.

I don't think any cosmetic surgery should be available on the NHS. I don't think changing your body to relieve mental health issues should be supported.

But have no issues with adults funding the altering their bodies however they like if they can find surgeons who justify this ethically.

I view most of this as irrelevant to me as I don't care if adults make lifestyle choices different to mine.

It's only relevant when I'm told I have to use certain language, believe certain things and accept men as women. Then I say No.

So I'm more hard-line than JKR. You probably think some of those views are 'transphobic'.

I don't care.

Grumpi yes. Even my DC's school friends thought this after looking at shite on tik tok about JKR. Until DC challenged them and asked them to point out exactly where, in her statement, or anywhere else, she had been transphobic.

They couldn't. They'd never even properly read or explored it before. And they went silent.

@RedToothBrush
Yes. LGB Alliance's existence undermines and exposes the whole forced teaming strategy. In the west the battle over gays rights is won and widely accepted, not just by the middle ground, but also the original opponents of gay rights. It's rare to see that original form of homophobia now.
To forcefully attach oneself to the gay rights movements after the struggle is already won is seen as both an instant win and a way to avoid any form of debate or criticism by the TRAs.
Ironically it's led to a rise in a new form homophobia where gay kids are medicalised and undergo surgery instead of just exploring and understanding their sexuality.
There a word for the situation in nature where one organism attaches itself to another host organism and feeds off and kills the host; parasite.

I have found that my own views on this issue are very much in flux. Some events in the real world, such as Lia Thomas' success in swimming, really bothered me and made me feel much more black and white in my views. As I wrote on another thread, being asked if I would exclude a transwoman from girls night really threw me as I don't want to be exclusionary and potentially bullying.

In the end, I've pretty much settled on "where sex matters, sex matters". But I still don't know if I would or could use female pronouns for a man, I tend to try and use "they".

I think most people’s views have been in flux; starting from ‘be kind’ and gradually becoming more set as they realise exactly how anti-women trans ideology is.

As I wrote on another thread, being asked if I would exclude a transwoman from girls night really threw me as I don't want to be exclusionary and potentially bullying.

This situation seems entirely focussed on catering for the feelings of the hypothetical male. What about the wants and feelings of women? What if they just want female company?

A 'girls night out' is exclusionary by definition. If you want to include males, fine, but then it's just a 'night out'. Which is fine, but different.

WERE Stonewall and Mermaids ever truly grassroots based though? Genuine question not rhetoric. Mermaids for example was grassroots based in the early 00s but stood for something very different to what they stand for today. When Susie Green became CEO they immediately changed what they stood for and started going after big corporate partnerships.

I admittedly don't know as much about the history of Stonewall as I should but for as long as I've known them, they've always gone after corporatepartnerships and 'top table' type relationships. Very different from, say, the genuine grassroots gay and lesbian orgs of the 60s, 70s and 80s who would put out tiny hard printed zines, set up round the clock care shifts to look after AIDs patients in their areas, take young and newly out folks under their wing, etc. All very small and localised but when coupled with forward movement at the political level was making huge strides in social education and acceptance by the 90s. That's what I would describe as grassroots. Stonewall and Mermaids to me, has always been big business.

I started off feeling sympathetic to trans people because I hate the idea of any minority being bullied and I hope I would always behave respectfully to anyone.

I was happy to call someone by a female name if that is what they wanted. But then it turns out that ordinary middle-aged women like me are not afforded the same respect as we are no longer allowed to use the word “woman” to describe ourselves, and the term breast-feeding was eliminated in some places, and our unique and important female experiences such as menstruation and birth were appropriated by others. So the respect doesn’t work both ways.

Then I listened to how uncomfortable female swimmers felt getting changed in to their Olympic swim suits in the presence of someone with full male genitalia. And how their hard work and achievements were stolen away by imposters.

Then a Mumsnet poster pointed out that obviously it’s horrible and wrong if a trans female gets beaten up in a man’s changing room, however the problem of male violence is a male problem. Why do women yet again have to give up their safe space to accommodate that issue? Especially when approximately four women a week are killed by men in the Uk? Women need need safe spaces and some sportswomen have only just been awarded separate changing rooms; these facilities have been a long time coming and they are hard won.

Of course the trans movement doesn’t speak for all trans women and I am sure there are sympathetic individuals within it, but it’s pretty obvious to me and all women now, that this debate has become so toxic and entitled precisely because trans women are actually men under their costumes who argue aggressively and bombastically, well, like men.

Yes, that's pretty much the journey I've been on. I do struggle mentally as I've always seen myself on the progressive side and on the side of minority people.

This movement says its the natural evolution of anti-racist and anti-homophobic movements....but it doesn't feel like it. Saying you shouldn't use racist language or slurs is not the same as saying you can't say "woman". Making sure people of colour and gay people were treated fairly and equally added to society - it never took anything away.

And then there are the children being taught nonsense that they can change their sex and put on a medical pathway which is totally unsupported by any clinical evidence but will cost them their fertility, their sexual enjoyment as adults, their bone density, their brain maturity, their health…. All because some adult men [censored by MN]

I agree Zeldafighter it’s confusing and complicated. I have always been someone whose politics aligned with the most vulnerable in society. I never thought for example that there would be an issue over which I shared opinions with the far right in America! This does make me doubt my position from time to time.

I think white racists did accuse those in the civil rights movement of eroding their power? And men certainly believe that of feminists? However I don’t think that either of those groups chose to be placed in a position where they had to fight for their rights, they simply found themselves in that situation? Whereas trans people? It feels like more of a deliberate choice?

As I said, I don’t want anyone, of any nationality, creed, or colour, no matter how they identify, to be in a situation where they feel disrespected, discriminated against, bullied or in physical danger, but the rights of one section of society, should not come at the cost of another. And trans men, by denying women safe spaces, are endangering them.

I will defend the rights of anyone whose human rights are being infringed, but I cannot call a man a woman because unfortunately some children and adolescents are being led to believe that it is possible to change sex and the adults in their lives, including doctors, are not setting them straight. So it is very, very important to use clear language and repeat as often as necessary that it is impossible to change sex.

Exactly what anti-trans things has JKR said?

Also, and perhaps most pertinently, JKR is pro-women's rights which is centred around women. It is not anti-trans, nor is it transphobic. But, because JKR speaks up in support of women's rights and will not be silenced, trans rights activists have declared her to be transphobic/anti trans.

Now that the women on here have been generous enough to share their thoughts, it would be nice to hear back from the OP.

@TaylorMia

I have to say, I'm not expecting the OP to reappear.

The OP did just strike me as trying to frame any responses as confirming posters as 'anti-trans' so the OP could go 'gotcha' and post elsewhere.

For me the issue is
pro-women does not equal anti-trans
sex does not equal gender
concern about womens right does not equal hostility to trans people
concern over safeguarding or other issue does not equal demonising trans people.

Its all these conflations that if you believe x, you must believe y. Thats just fucking idiocy and all about proganda techniques to force team by saying you are 'either with us or against us' on an emotional level without thought to practical applications.

It simply means there is a need to work through issues that are being identified in a practical way and to work out how to do things in a way that does not cause harms.

Replacing sex with gender without thought doesn't work because they just aren't the same thing - thats where the deliberate conflation falls flat on its face. Of course its going to throw up issues. Pretending these issues don't exist when there is evidence of a problem. All that is denialism.

When you change a system, there WILL be problems. Just because you believe something doesn't mean it works on a practical level. For this to be a progressive movement you have to use evidence and reason otherwise it is by nature actually regressive. Why is replacing sex with gender better for society as a whole? It can't just be about why its better for trans people if its having a massive negative impact for other groups such as women and children.

Things have to work on an objective level, not just because people believe something, in a functioning democratic society otherwise it is by definition no compatible with justice systems or equality systems we have a consensus on.

Ultimately, you are in a bit of a mess if you can't definatively answer the question 'what is a woman?' in a way that is legally applicable and consistent. Saying its because someone says they are a women, means all men can be women which by default increases male rights and reduces female ones. Being a woman can't just be a 'feeling' that can not be observed or defined by a third party objectively as that doesn't work in law.

There isn't anything 'anti-trans' about pointing out how this causes a fairly obvious problem for women.

Sadly I'm beginning to accept that it's unlikely that the OP will appear back. Shame, as it was interesting question which provoked some thoughtful conversation.
Thank you to everyone who shared their views.

Great posts @RedToothBrush - you should copy your FWR work over to a Substack or similar.

Redtoothbrush, you explain these issues so clearly. Really interesting and thought-provoking to read.

At the heart of this remains the problem that pro-women is conflated with anti-trans.

This plus may who went along with her being anti-trans had no idea what she's actually had or hadn't said but were going off vocal groups claiming what she said was anti-trans.

I suspect those groups thought they could bully JK into going along with their world view and no debate stance.