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.*

Very broadly put, my view is that "old-school transsexuals" at least agree that a woman is female person, or as close as - whereas the other group would fundamentally disagree.

It doesn't make one any more "reasonable" than the other, but they are different arguments/ points of disagreement.

I have started using trans identifying teen/young person. I think this is the term that's starting to be used in more official circles and the one we should start adopting rather than trans kids.

it was the idea that "old school transsexuals" were any different, which is a myth.

Same idea said much more succinctly by Tinsel.

There's a TV programme interviewing transexuals from the early 70s, it's an eye opener to see how much like Hayton and Willoughby they are.

popeydokey this is where I disagree, I think the "old school TS" did the groundwork for what we see today.

Jan Morris is your go to point here.

Absolutely they did. But there was a movement around self-id about 8 years ago which changed the language etc and it's this that's being used to argue that female people aren't women, that woman is a feeling etc. Whereas those ppl said 'I want to be female and you all need to treat me as such".

Which bit do you disagree with sorry?

I agree. I don't what it's called in terms of grammar, but saying trans identifying, stops one claiming the person is actually something, rather than them wanting to be that something. It pulls the whole thing back.

like many others on this thread, I tend to avoid saying 'trans' In general because if we take JKR's definition 'people in this world who want to present as the opposite sex', then I don't really have a problem with that. if that's all they're doing, those people can crack on.

I DO have a problem with fetishy men wanting to pressure lesbians to have sex with them, or access women's single sex spaces for the purposes of sexual gratification. I DO have a problem with teenage girls being convinced that a mastectomy will solve any confusion about their sexuality or unhappiness with the gender expectations women are subjected to.

So I tend to be talking specifically about those groups rather than 'trans'.

But I do also have a problem with people (including people who describe themselves as GC) who try to police the language of others. If 'JKR finds 'trans' is convenient shorthand I really wish people would chill the fuck out and leave her alone to use it.

Interesting. And understandable. The whole thing relies on sexism.

As a more general point, people complaining about "language policing" in any arena puzzle me. We all have language we see as unacceptable, the most obvious example being the N-word. I'm sure JKR, for example, has strong feelings about words like bitch, slut, hysterical etc.

Our language should be open to criticism because it betrays our views.

But it also suggests that they are being influenced and vulnerable to a potentially extremist position.

The fracture point here is the older male transitioners particularly those with more extreme ideas and demonstrative of toxic masculinity regardless of their attire, and the much younger cohort who have specific vulnerabilities.

Sometimes purity of thought is necessary to refute the crazy. By purity of thought, I mean men are men and women are women - if we start with the acceptance of that factual premise, then conversation is possible. I don't deny people their trans label, I do oppose dangerous TRA ideology.

I don't see any problem with what JKR said, she seems to be talking sense on this issue as usual.

ultimately they're all people who fetishise women, in the dictionary definition of the term.

the act of giving something or someone an unreasonable amount of importance or interest. It can also refer to a sexual interest in something that is not a sexual organ, or in a person as if they are an object. Fetishization can be dehumanizing and is often rooted in colonialism, imperialism, and racism (and sexism - added by me)

regardless of whether these men were doing it 40 years ago or today, that's still what they're doing and it's still bloody offensive. I consider it naive of JKR to draw a distinction, but that's OK. I'm an anonymous key board warrior, she's owning everything she says. I get that she has to be more measured than me.

Yeah, I think she's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.

I do find a bit of a difference between people who think this is mostly driven by AGP men, and people who don't. (I do)

And, to be fair, it's got to be a lot to do with the people you actually know

Same here.

Same here

The movement didn't come out of thin air though, it's what "old school TS" wanted and worked towards.

On this surprising occasion I’m in disagreement with JKR. Unless there’s more to it or more coming, the umbrella term trans seems inadequate and misleading. It is not helpful to group such disparate demographics together and the term acts as a legitimatising devise for identity-based politics.

Agree.

Do we all fully understand what we are saying and how we are saying it?

Should we take pause to consider this, and be open to what we might be betraying.

Therefore I don't necessarily have a problem with JKR use of the word trans either - it's the core of the issue. Everyone who buys into the idea of sexist stereotypes. I personally think that's extreme but I can't stop that anymore than I can challenge any other religion with sexist ideas about the role of men or women without it being incredibly problematic. But I don't have to sign up to that religion either and those who are religious are still subject to following the laws that apply to discrimination on the basis of sex.

Where it becomes a particular problem is when we start talking about things like family alienation with children (and all the safeguarding that goes with it) and expressions of violence particularly towards women and girls. And actual enforcement of discrimination and removal of rights of women.

That's where recognising this as a ideology that young vulnerable people are sympathetic to rather than necessarily fully part of is your important line of definition.

and in the case of AGP or HSTS, the motivation is still always fetishisation of women driven by sexism. if you had healthy and realistic views and about women, why would you think a man could turn into a woman? why would you even want to?

so while I accept that there are gay men and straight men who like to role play as women, I don't consider their motivation to be very different

I disagree. We need to recognise identity politics as quasi-religious. Mainly because you can't stop belief. We HAVE to acknowledge it. We cant just wish it away. But we can define it as on a par with religion rather than something more substantive that we all have to be party to. Similarly religions in this country remain subject to the law and they are not permitted to break anti-, discrimination laws.

We need to clarify at all times that sex is immutable, you are what you are born and can not change…

the whole discussion when viewed in that light changes because once you accept that immutability then it is not possible to transition…

you then have to reframe the various sets of people, to confused teenagers / predatory men / etc, makes the discussion much clearer…

the word trans is deliberately used to confuse and obfuscate, because in that confusion lies validation for those with ulterior motives they can’t express directly…

remove that confusion, ban the word altogether and start to recategorise each group separately and accurately

Someone may have answered already, but I’d say trans-identifying (should technically be hyphenated?) would be a compound adjective. It also acts to qualify the rather more definitive nominal (in the sense of it being a noun, but also apt in other respects!) concept of trans, as you say.

the word trans is deliberately used to confuse and obfuscate

It used to mean, colloquially, "wanting to be" (the opposite sex) and now means "literally, actually is" (the opposite sex, or neither sex, or something else undefined) - a la Nancy Kelley - because what it means to be a woman is now a nebulous undefined set of characteristics.

That's where the sleight of hand is, and many people still think when TRAs chant TWAW they mean "pretend TW are female", when there are some that mean "woman is no longer a word with any meaning - we have literally rendered it meaningless".

This deliberate confusion between "wanting to be" and "literally being" is incredibly harmful.

'ban' 'erase'

There's your issue right there.

You can't.

Its a quasi-religious belief.

What happens if you try to ban a religion?