JK addresses “language policing”

[Mayyouleave]

Haven't seen a thread on this, if there is one I'll ask for this to be removed.
JK posted about language policing today.

It has started a lot of intense discussion (as do most JK posts) however this time it is mainly from women and men who are gender critical, sex realists, trans windows etc who are upset and annoyed about her post.
I agree with her about language policing, I wonder what the thoughts are on this board?

x.com/jk]]

I'll copy the text in for those not on twitter/X

*I say the following again because, while I understand people's strong views on the matter, some of the language policing is getting a bit wearing.

As I've said multiple times, I do not believe that a person can be born in the wrong body and I don't believe in gendered brains or souls. I believe the ideology that preaches such ideas is dangerous.

However, there are people in this world who want to present as the opposite sex for many diverse reasons - some of which I'm truly sympathetic to, others far less so - all of whom call themselves 'trans.' I use the word 'trans' in the full awareness that this umbrella term covers multiple groups who have nothing else in common with each other, such as straight men who enjoy cross-dressing for erotic purposes and young lesbians who, tragically, feel they'll be happier without their breasts.

When I talk about sex-based rights, I use the word 'trans' to denote 'people who wish to be seen or treated as the opposite sex', no more or less. Telling me ad nauseam that 'there is no such thing as a trans person' isn't overly helpful, because you're trying to pull me into a different argument, on which I've already made my position clear.*

We need all different types of people approaching this in all different ways.

I hope @BonfireLady, this includes the pedantic, tiresome, and wearing ones among us!

Of course 😄

The arguments were thrashed out diligently before they were elevated by the big names though. Just because you weren’t there to witness it, doesn’t mean it wasn’t essential.

There was an element of "the emperor's new clothes" about that period (due to successful TRA propaganda, and the capture of public and private institutions) - many people were simply "being kind" (or feeling pressured) even though they never really believed that "transwomen were women". I think it's equally important, if not more-so, to explain why "transwomen are not women" than to say "actually, I refuse to call them transwomen, they are 'trans-identified-males", which doesn't get us as far IMO in terms of convincing people (although I'm not arguing that we shouldn't say it).

People don't necessarily need to be lectured about terminology; sometimes simply applying the merest hint of a Socratic argument is enough to reveal the flaws in trans ideology... so a woman can have a penis? and a man can be a lesbian? is often enough to make ordinary folk think, Eh? Wtf?

To reiterate, explaining that transwomen are men gets us further IMO than arguing over whether the correct term is "transwoman" or "trans-identified-male" (that's when we go around in circles).

The biggest success of the trans lobby has perhaps been persuading people that "trans" covers a range of unrelated things, and so those who would do harm are given shelter - but if most people already accept the "trans" definition, then trying to put the genie back in the bottle is perhaps a waste of energy (we're at least a decade too late for that, I think). That's why the infographic is useful, it cuts to the chase and shows people exactly what they are accepting as their definition of "trans", so clarifying in that way is useful.

Now, the meaning of "woman", on the other hand, must be defended at all costs, because to lose the true meaning of that would be a disaster.

Edited to add: I'm not suggesting we shouldn't use the term "trans-identified-male", I'm suggesting that we shouldn't beat the uninitiated over the head with terminology when they use the term "transwoman".

I'm not sure that calling them trans identifying teens will win many friends among the TITs themselves! But I gree with an awful lot of what you have been saying.

Tactics are difficult, and often need to be adapted to counter the opponent. Much as I would like to abolish the GRA, at the moment I am just telling my story and battling the be kind assumption that misgendering and deadnaming are reasonable concepts.

So what?

What's your argument here?

Some adults can consent to being in pornography, therefore we can't call it pornography if it include someone who can't ever consent? There is zero logic there.

That makes no difference because consent is not essential to the idea of pornography, not prostitution for that matter.

This is a made up stick to beat others with and it's a perfect example of misplaced self-righteous policing of language that helps no one.

If you or anyone wishes to use "child abuse images" go for it, but it doesn't make anyone more virtuous or aware.

And actually - pornography and prostitution of adults is criminal in some places, that's not some kind of universal.

What line is it tactically best to hold? In my own family, I am having to deal with the range from "gender critical with a bit of a conservative bias" through "be kind but I can see it's difficult for you" to "I'm a trans ally but I largely agree that gender shouldn't matter and sex sometimes does". Go outside my family, and the range widens further. In order to get anywhere with politicians, it may be necessary to use language that they don't see as transphobic.

I probably agree with your point.

I come from a place of pragmatism over this. We have to stress the point that words matter because the words set the law. We need to focus on how the law works in practice not just on an idealised level too.

In pushing back you need to see reasonable because the argument you are having is effectively with the 'undecided' and the 'just want to be reasonable' types. Ignore the extremists - you aren't actually trying to reason with them, so don't try to. If you do engage with them what your goal is, is to look reasonable - whilst stressing the importance of language and how language shift isn't an act of neutrality. If they go nuts at you in response, it's not necessarily a bad thing. It demonstrates your point. As does their lack of reasonable explanation. They don't have an argument to bring to the table apart from 'be nice'. If you can show that even pronouns aren't respectful and nice then the entire premise of accepting you can 'change sex' ceases to have as much support.

If you go in shouting about how you want to repeal the GRA, others understand this as a direct attack and wanting to remove rights. They don't understand it as saying we want respect for all and the GRA ultimately is completely counter to that on many levels. Because it's too confrontational.

All you do is end up losing the argument with the middle ground and legitimising the more batshit responses from those who always going to be entrenched.

On a personal level Id be delighted is the GRA went. I think it's hugely damaging to society as a whole. But I see it as counter productive to target it.

Which is why I actually agree to an extent with you about a certain amount of pragmatism when it comes to assessing your target audience.

For teens laying the ground work of getting them to think critically and not just parrot stuff by asking questions is your key stuff.

Basically the way to deal with 'nefarious organisation' is not to take them on directly or be seen to attacking them but to go through the slow process of reinvigorating logic and reasoning and encouragement of asking questions rather than swallowing what you are told.

Phrases like gender questioning teen and trans identifying teen both make the point about there being an element of doubt and it not certain of the outcome. Which automatically makes others around by default ask questions. It means that teens also aren't trapped in the narrative either.

Requiring all teens themselves to use this language isn't necessarily, if the grown ups in the room aren't. Because you've still set up a situation where the questioning is enabled and you've set up an escape route to detransition in the future.

The environment and culture tips from being totally authoritarian to one which is more open minded and that's the important thing. Trans is a house built on sand. It can not cope with the tide coming in. But like King Knut, you can't stop the tide coming in, just because you want to and you stand there shouting at it.

I've annoyingly not read the whole thread, but im going to comment anyway.

The problem we have is that we are being slowly groomed into accepting trans. Both as concept and what trans rights should be.

Its telling that cross dresser izzard didnt come out 20 or 30 years ago. He gets to say he should be in womans spaces now and the media nod along, what would the reaction have been in the 1990s?

We need to go faster than the grooming of society if we are going to make changes.

Part of that is using true language. The GRA gives adult men female birth certificates, trans is a symptom of lots of issues, not a natural group of teen girls and middle aged men.

I think the known consequences for speaking up is as big a part of the grooming as the medias coverage. I dont think people believe izzard is a woman or the non binary girls are anything but girls, but have learnt not to say anything. Look how quickly we rejected 'gender affirming' treatment for children when it was safe to do so.

i dont think many people need the slow approach, but need the safety of being able to say the truth.

i dont think many people need the slow approach, but need the safety of being able to say the truth.

Fully agree, @illinivich

I don't want to argue with people I support particularly, and I massively value what JKR has done, so I haven't posted much on this thread, but I'm not convinced that the softly softly approach is always the way to go, for the reasons @illinivich laid out. I also think the Overton window needs to be shifted further to the side of biological reality.

I would suggest that perhaps the people that are so anxious about clarity (me included) are those that have seen the linguistic sleights-of-hand and how they have led to people unquestioningly accepting nonsense phrases, then changing their actions based on those.

Some of these people might well change their minds and language once this has been, well, clarified.

Others, as they say, didn't reason themselves into the position so won't reason themselves out of it. They've genuinely 'felt the feeling' - perhaps the feeling of guilt and sadness at how gay people have been treated in the past, perhaps the nice feeling of "feeling kindly" ( a great K Stock piece I think). Those feelings won't change unless other feelings come along.

Exactly.

The problem we have is that we are being slowly groomed into accepting trans. Both as concept and what trans rights should be.

i dont think many people need the slow approach, but need the safety of being able to say the truth.

yes, I'm inclined to agree.

Isla Bryson and sport has moved everything on to the point where it does genuinely feel safer to object.

And more people are beginning to understand that there are two distinct cohorts.

I saw a comment from someone who is expert at safeguarding who said the reason why we shouldn't just have this umbrella term is that for the children and for the men, being trans is a symptom, not the cause.

Calling them the same obscures that.

I totally understand the irritation of being stopped before you've got to the end of your sentence, because you're using phrases or words that people object to.

But - almost every layer of this issue is absolutely strewn with linguistic manipulation, sleight of hand, deliberate verbal censorship.

Words are the weapon.

And whilst that might be a reason for someone who wants to communicate to simplify what they're saying, in my opinion, it's a mistake if you are sacrificing comprehension because of it.

I'm a massive fan of simplifying concepts. Because in an effort to communicate, surely the goal is to make people understand?

But If you absolutely require more words instead of one to do that, then, to me, more words it has to be.

I totally understand the irritation of being stopped before you've got to the end of your sentence, because you're using phrases or words that people object to.

But - almost every layer of this issue is absolutely strewn with linguistic manipulation, sleight of hand, deliberate verbal censorship.

Words are the weapon.

This all happens because of the words people use. It couldn't have happened without the obfuscation.

There are some well-observed points made in recent posts (and on the wider thread) which give pause for thought on the importance of language.

I think it’s worth looking at JKR’s comments again (copied below, my bolding of text). I wouldn’t characterise it as a ‘softly-softly’ approach and she isn’t ‘avoiding clarity’ IMO.

“I say the following again because, while I understand people's strong views on the matter, some of the language policing is getting a bit wearing.

As I've said multiple times, I do not believe that a person can be born in the wrong body and I don't believe in gendered brains or souls. I believe the ideology that preaches such ideas is dangerous.

However, there are people in this world who want to present as the opposite sex for many diverse reasons - some of which I'm truly sympathetic to, others far less so - all of whom call themselves 'trans.' I use the word 'trans' in the full awareness that this umbrella term covers multiple groups who have nothing else in common with each other, such as straight men who enjoy cross-dressing for erotic purposes and young lesbians who, tragically, feel they'll be happier without their breasts.

When I talk about sex-based rights, I use the word 'trans' to denote 'people who wish to be seen or treated as the opposite sex', no more or less. Telling me ad nauseam that 'there is no such thing as a trans person' isn't overly helpful, because you're trying to pull me into a different argument, on which I've already made my position clear.”

Her main concern is discussing sex-based rights. Once we are engaged in this discussion with those we’re trying to convince - not the TRAs, who already know well enough what they’ve done to the language, but those undecideds who have already accepted their definition of “trans”, then we can use clarification of language as required.

Essentially, we have been debating on this thread whether the best approach is to say either: “transwomen are NOT women, they are men” (those you are trying to engage might then wish to discuss further).

Or to say: “transwoman is a nonsense term, I refuse to use that term, and no GC person should ever use it, because the correct term is actually ‘trans-identified-male’”, because trans is a Latin term which means... (at which point the person you’re trying to engage simply hears… Blah, Blah, Blah).

I can see why JKR rails against the second approach - it’s the wrong argument!

That’s not to say that we shouldn’t fight to retain (and regain) the proper meaning of words, but we must first engage. Given that TRAs were so successful on a societal level with their “transwomen are women” mantra, it makes sense to me to use that very language, at least initially, to push back on it (transwomen are NOT women). Once the conversation has started, the precise meaning of language can then be raised in support of the GC argument, but saying that trans-people don't exist because of a linguistic technicality doesn't help.

One caveat to my approach: we must absolutely resist the subversion of language by the trans movement going forward by, for example, explaining clearly what is meant by terms such as 'trans kids', and by fighting for such definitions as 'women = adult human female', and so on.

But, i think its important to keep in mind this from a pp:

"I saw a comment from someone who is expert at safeguarding who said the reason why we shouldn't just have this umbrella term is that for the children and for the men, being trans is a symptom, not the cause."

I don't think we benefits from using trans as an umbrella term. Its certainly not worth cementing the idea that girls are just the younger versions of adult male transitioners.

it makes sense to me to use that very language, at least initially, to push back on it (transwomen are NOT women).

Now to me, that language is the problem. I get that people disagree, and I don't think that circle can be squared.

I agree the umbrella term 'trans' is problematic (and has been used deliberately by TRAs to blur the issues), but the problem from a GC point of view is that it's a term generally accepted by society, we're trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted. But yes, we should clarify exactly who is included in that umbrella term, and we should do so by using traditional language such as 'transsexuals', 'transvestites', etc - it's more important IMO to explain why the umbrella itself is harmful, than to endlessly berate people for using the already generally acknowledged term that's used to describe it. JKR also states that some of the language policing is wearing, the inference being that in other instances it may well be more important to do so.

That language is the problem, but we can choose to explain why men can't be women, or we can choose to explain why transwomen shouldn't be called transwomen, they should be called trans-identified-males. I agree with JKR that the former gets us further. 🤷‍♂️

I don't language police individual people in general, and I expect them to similarly not try to police me. I won't use gaslighting language.

Also, I don't explain why "trans women" should be called "trans identified males", explain why all males, regardless of claimed gender identity, are men.

If I had the ear of policy makers, I would not waste any time explaining why men cannot be women, because English law currently says the opposite, based, as it is, on an unfalsifiable proposition about sex in humans. Getting the law rescinded would be a stretch target right now, because of its quasi-religious nature.

That doesn't mean that they don't know that TWAM, given that they are always either a legal female with a GRC and replacement birth certificate (ie male at birth) or a legal male who potentially qualifies and therefore has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. It's a legal definition, with no implications for what it 'really' means, so I'm fine with calling them transwomen, and moving on smartly to the particular problem I've got a gripe with.

GI has given us loads of problems, which are quite varied, so I'll just pick one as an example:

"She may be legally and socially female, but she's been through male puberty, so, if she is allowed to compete in the female class, someone may get their neck broken. Competitors should be tested to avoid this."

I know you'll think this sophistry, but I just think we can get further by drilling down to the 'why' of each issue, instead of just shouting 'he's a man!'.

(Although he is, obviously. And the law is pants.)

I agree with not policing people. Mostly concerned to understand and be understood. What would be an example of gaslighting?

Anything along the lines of calling males a type of woman or saying males who identify as women who are attracted to women (straight male MTFs) are "gay" or "lesbian". Anything involving the word "cis".

And vice versa for the female people who identify as men.

I think there really do need to be people who hold the line, because it makes it more possible for others to say no.