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.*

I’m not selling it as a quick fix. Never said that.

I don’t understand why we’d happily lose another five years. There were attempts to get us talking about Repeal around 2016/2017 or so. There was even a website IIRC. But all that got shouted down and shut down, and we got no further along other than some lawyers made money off it all and we got “you can say you don’t believe people can say sex and they can’t sack you”. And along the way, we lost good people like KPSS who achieved far more.

But is talk of Repeal now “militant”? The new “ultra”? Or does it mean we will be harmed by activists for talking about Repeal? How disappointing either way as either way is giving more ground to MRAs. Why can’t we talk about it?

We have two decades’ worth of evidence as to how the GRA has harmed women and children, caused division, permitted lies, and enabled targets to be placed on the backs of those talking about women and LGB rights.

It has to end. We need to use this time to work towards that happening for the next GE.

Well yes. But that's an argument for separating the cohorts. Not for calling them the same thing.

By then it will be 25 years long enough to know the harms to women and children

Society got it wrong. It’s not the way to go, there’s no point in continuing with the harm, which increases each year

I say society but I mean those adults who created the laws

From the thread (posted by Jill Foster so thank you Jill if you're here)

Rats it's blurry - anyone know how I can take better screenshots?

When I say "trans people exist" I mean that "people who say they are trans exist" which is obviously true. But most people would understand me to be agreeing with the trans activists definition.

Therefore, I won't talk about trans people but I would use words such as "people who say they are trans" or "men who say they are women".

Yeah, I think this is probably what a lot of women say or think.

I still think she maybe wasn't being tactical.

She just wanted a term to use and was fed up with people taking issue with it

edited to say, on the other hand, she knows full well people will scrutinise her every word. So maybe not!

She'll probably clarify at some point

Personally, I think it's important to work out whether a "trans" person is one who 'simply' wants to be the opposite sex, or someone who believes everyone has a gender identity that dictates which sex they "really" are because of what they are like as a person.

The latter have beliefs based strongly on sexist stereotypes that affect everyone and they see no issues with selfID and multiple gender identities etc.

I remember reading Reddits where the "tru trans" and whatever the genderists are called were in opposition.

I'm not saying there are no issues with an adult genuinely wanting to be the opposite sex but I think the issues are different if you don't need to invent a thing called gender identity.

I do actually try and ask TRAs on here which meaning they are using but they either don't know or won't answer.

But surely the word ‘trans’ covers all of these groups just as much as describing people as ‘religious’ covers everyone from voodoo priestesses to Westborough baptists to my elderly aunt who goes to church every Sunday in a flowery hat?

"Maybe it's got nothing to do with tactical measures, and everything to do with just being able to get on and talk about it"

Exactly.

I think she is being clear that the species has 2 sex categories that are determined by biology/nature. Within both sexes, there are people who disagree that they belong, or don't want to be placed in, the category according to their sex. The common collective term for these people is 'trans'. The collective term 'trans' captures a diverse group, many in it have very little in common with others.

JKR goes on to say that she takes issue with some sub sections of the trans category and has a lot of compassion for others.

I think the people who object to her position are those who think the differences within the category makes the category void - which is not correct. There is a single category within which the different types of people with trans identities can be grouped, regardless of who this lumps together. The existence of the category doesn't say they are the same in any other way than than the element that defines the category.

I think this happens the other way around, particularly with JK Rowling herself. She posts something which is clearly about women's rights, and the media report it as her saying something about trans rights. If your experience is that when you are talking about trans rights people twist it round to talking about women's rights then I'll take your word for it.

But to me that simply illustrates the problem. The trans rights lobby have positioned trans rights in direct conflict with women's rights. As soon as you demand the right to access female only spaces even though you are male, for example, you are coming into conflict with women's rights to have female only spaces.

The problem is that society has never really had an honest and open conversation about this. The more I think about it, the less I am able to think of any "trans rights" which do not conflict in some way with other people's rights. Even calling yourself a woman when you were born male is infringing on the rights of female people to have language to describe themselves which isn't also used by some members of the opposite sex to describe themselves. Changing the sex marker on your passport or birth certificate makes it all but impossible for society to deny you access to a single sex space even if they can see with their own eyes that you are clearly the opposite sex.

Imagine you are running a female only rape crisis centre and a trans woman wants access. You say, "Sorry, this service is for female users only, I'll need to refer you to another service which is inclusive of all genders." They say, "I am female, look, here's my passport." Then what?

The real issue here is that the only "trans right" that ever should have been granted is the right not to be harassed or victimised for being gender non conforming. Everything else is problematic. And that's why it's impossible to separate trans rights from women's rights because basically all "trans rights" infringe on women's rights in some way.

I often wonder if a new term will start to be used sometime in the future for those who have gender dysphoria. Because this current broad range of people under the trans umbrella has ultimately made the term immensely broad. I understand some trying to regroup under transexual, because they feel it fits their life better.

The real issue here is that the only "trans right" that ever should have been granted is the right not to be harassed or victimised for being gender non conforming. Everything else is problematic. And that's why it's impossible to separate trans rights from women's rights because basically all "trans rights" infringe on women's rights in some way.

I fully agree and that's why I think the GRA is bad law and will have to go, sooner or later.

Yes it does cover them all.

But I can understand why people take exception to that, if they've got one or the other in their family. Because the cohorts are completely different.

The thing is, JK Rowling knows that, she said so in the actual tweet.

Her explanation was she's just using it as a term

"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."

so yes. 'She's just using it as a term', is the simplest and easiest explanation. I just totally understand why some people won't like that

I mean, you could argue that a woman who doesn't consider herself to have a gender identity that matches her sex is trans - because she doesn't have a gender identity and/or doesn't believe that any identities "match" being female.

The "gender identity" definition is a vague definition that doesn't even work unless someone sets out which sexes align with which genders. Which they won't, because that requires stating they believe that there is something inherently female about a woman.

Non binary people are 'trans', agender people are 'trans'... a genderist would possibly conclude that most FWR posters would be "agender" if they were desperate to put people into gender boxes.

I learnt the concept of 'cognitive dissonance' on FWR, and I'm now going to use it to describe what TRAs must feel when they come on here, the infamous nest of trans-hating vipers, and find almost entirely [maybe even entirely entirely on this thread? although there's often a raised angry voice or two, understandably] rational debate of principles, not hatred against trans people.
Nobody is saying that trans people don't exist, it's the fall-out from what they manifest, proclaim and unfortunately impose on wider society that we object to.

Sorry to disappoint if you're looking for literal hatred🙄

Oh you sweet summer child @MarieDeGournay they won't experience cognitive dissonance, because rational debate of principles is a transphobic act of hatred!

I agree.

The existence of the category doesn't say they are the same in any other way than than the element that defines the category.

I can just imagine a woman whose husband has ruined her life and that of her children, and has become a selfish, walking, talking fetishist, being annoyed when he says I'm trans just like all the young girls showing up at the Tavistock.

And a mother of a child utterly confused and wanting a double mastectomy feeling like her child is being lumped in with cross dressing fetishists.

Intellectually, calling them both trans, because they both wish to be the opposite sex, is correct. I just don't think it's helpful to them. However helpful it might be to people discussing it.

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.

Assuming by trans widows you mean me, it wasn't her substantive point that I took issue with, it was the idea that "old school transsexuals" were any different, which is a myth.

The crux of the issue seems to be quite different definitions.

Quite a few posters have said that they think that the term 'trans person' is used to denote someone who has changed sex and think this is what most people, when using the term, mean.

That's not my experience. I think most people's working definition is that a trans status means it's someone who has done kind of issue with the sex they were born as and they can't remember if which words depict what (eg does transwoman refer to gym or mtf). They know that people can't change sex and make sense of someone's trans status by working out their natal sex.

I do think there is a danger with the idea that the old-school transexuals were more reasonable because they really understood they had dysphoria and it medically helps them to present and be treated as the opposite sex. These are the people who pushed through the GRA. There is no genuinely safe man who wants to break down women's boundaries.

Quite a few posters have said that they think that the term 'trans person' is used to denote someone who has changed sex and think this is what most people, when using the term, mean.

Yes, there's that as well, the general assumption that someone's "had surgery" when it also could refer to a demi-boy kid who- gasp!- is female with short hair.

They all believe the same ideology to a point still though. We can't ignore that. Its a religious belief.

At present we have a bunch of vulnerable teens repeating extremist language and ideas - threats and violence towards women are expressions of extremism. Hell we had an incident targeting the LGB Alliance yesterday. So they are in many cases by definition extremists. So in some respects it's unhelpful to separate them from the ideological term because they very much are extreme.

Hence my point about identifying unacceptable behaviour first, and foremost.

And we can then talk about vulnerable people within the context of this.

We need to start talking about militancy and sympathisers though as separate groups. And I think that's perhaps the way we should go especially after events yesterday.

We can cope with the concept of Mormons and Mormon extremists. We can cope with the concept of Muslims and Muslim extremists. We can cope with the concept of Irish Republicans and Irish Republican extremists

This is what we are talking about and the position we need to get to.

It allows allyship to become softer and more nuanced without reverse ferreting. And in turn it will lead to a wider collapse as questions are asked. Cos the asking of questions helps restore critical thinking on a wider level.

There's a word here that I can't use but the above is basically how you deal with them. It's easy to Google these strategies and tactics. On this score I am a) fairly sure JKR is very aware b) it may not be 'tactical' as such but she's demonstrating awareness of the word I can't use c) do we think JKR occasionally reads MN? Or has a circle of friends she's part of who do and may be reflecting on conversations on here indirectly? What has been a significant part of discussions in FWR this week? What is there's steadily growing awareness of?

JKR wrote about authoritarianism. There's no way she doesn't understand these concepts. She understands how the truth v suppression of the truth plays out and how you need to behave to enable it. Cos history.

Tactics? No. She just understands what she's dealing with I think.

To be honest, when I say trans person, I'm mostly, in my head, thinking of men. AGP or HSTS, but fairly militant, like say, India Willoughby.

I don't generally think of young girls showing up at the Tavistock as trans, in my head. Just very confused girls.

It will.

But it's not the hill to die on and focus on.

That's ultimately my point.