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.*

Everyone has the ultimate right to belief whatever bollocks belief they want. Cos free society.

Equally no one has the right to impose those bollocks on everyone else and to force them to follow them. Cos free society.

The law itself is based on reasonableness and consensus (the police act by consent of the consensus) - when they go outside of this thats when they run into problems. Cos free society.

Focus on the points of reasonableness - behaviour - and the points of consent and consensus.

Thats where you will get the traction you need to return to sanity. Cos free society.

I think this is a great thread, showing the best of MN FWR. I do know what Marie means - I too have an instinct to paste a link to it in response to the next accusation that feminists are simply erasing/denying the existence of trans people. The length of the thread alone, before we even get to the quality of nuanced argument on it, serves to refute this (whether or not that’s acknowledged!)

And if it’s not acknowledged, & the sheer complexity of this issue is instead reduced, yet again, to a dismissive trope in response, then that, in itself, would ironically - helpfully?! - reinforce the issues this thread highlights in any case.

Red, I’ve not been liking posts today - too busy thinking hard instead - but agree with much of what you’re saying. Thanks for expressing these thoughts so clearly and persuasively.

No one is proposing to ban GI as a belief, unless I missed something here.

When have TQ+ activists said they want GI as a belief? Again I might have missed it but I don't think they have.

They are welcome to have that as a belief of course. But they do not want this. It's us stuck with "believing sex is real" as a belief. It's got us either nowhere, or treading water depending on your take.

It continues to enable GRA-originated harms to women and children. It's the GRA which is the problem. It needs to be repealed because it's wholly incompatible with safeguarding, complete datasets and data gathering, and the truth. It compels the press and others to lie. Time we called time on all that.

@IwantToRetire · Today 02:06

There is a huge difference between someone who suffers from gender disphoria and someone who "cross dresses" (ie challenges societal gender norms).

Respectfully, cross dressing isn't about challenging societal gender norms, it's about encoding and reinforcing them. They very often don't choose clothes that suit them, or fit them, or are suitable for the activity they are doing, they choose clothes that align with a gender stereotype.

Fancy dress.

I think this entire thread perhaps illustrates JKR's point perfectly. We get bogged down with semantics and it detracts from protecting women's rights, from ensuring that predatory males are not accessing women-only spaces, and that vulnerable teenagers are not being socially and medically transitioned.

I've seen a suggestion that 'trans children/teens' should be described as 'gender questioning ditto' which seems reasonable as it respects what they are doing without assuming the conclusion.

The problem here is we can not 'ban' a belief without being authoritarian. We can't be authoritarian even if we think a belief is bollocks.

But we can expect mutual respect (cos ultimately that about what humans rights are) and recognition of science and the need to safeguard vulnerable groups and legislate and rule in line with this legislation.

We choose to either be authoritarian (and all that goes with that which isn't ever good for women) or to be liberal minded and understand tolerance (whilst also recognising where tolerance ends and safeguarding begins).

There is at least one poster who has explicitly expressed a wish to ban.

Adding that I do understand why JKR might feel the need to draw a line under her use of the words ‘trans’ as it’d be wearisome responding to the hundreds of posters attempting to call her out on doing so ie arguing there’s no such thing as trans vs those screaming that she’s denying their existence. At the same time that phrase has, unfortunately, considerably muddied the waters.

And which TQ+ activists want GI as a belief? I’ve not seen or experienced that. They are very welcome to it. I wouldn’t stand in their way. But they do not want it even though they are quite entitled to it. They want to take us down the Canadian route. The best we currently have is being able to say we don’t believe you can change sex. It’s not enough. The GRA has to go and I do think it is worth five years of our time and effort in coming up with how that happens.

ResisterOfTwaddleRex

I think the GRA is somewhat of a red herring. The estimates for grcs issues is around 5000. Stonewall law is a bigger issue and the wholesale adoption of it in schools, workplaces, public facilities ect is a bigger issue imo. Certainly the GRA has had a major impact, especially with regard to prisons.

When have TQ+ activists said they want GI as a belief?

Exactly, wider society is nowhere close to understanding transgenderism as a religious belief, socially or in law, in which case 'trans people' makes sense as a term for trans-believers.

The TQ attached themselves to the gay rights movement which was successful partly for using the 'born this way' slogan because somehow we are still unable to understand morality relative to effects on others rather than what we perceive to be 'natural' or 'innate'. I think they don't want transgenderism as a belief because it would undermine their power to impose on everyone else, would leave them more open to ridicule or indifference, and the harms of the belief would be more easily exposed without the justification of trans as 'innate'.

I believe that's gone up to 7000 or 8000. Largely since there appears to be a move to legitimise being trans (as it were), on the basis of holding the certificate

That is definitely a feeling that legislation might make a distinction between those with the paper and those without.

Thank you. I think!

I knew there'd be some grammar to it!

Yes. We have all the time in the world and all the space, and hardly any of the scrutiny here on Mumsnet to endlessly bat this stuff backwards and forwards.

For instance, there must've been at least 20 threads started over the years, called 'what is gender?'

New people come to the discussion, and people turn it over and over. Understandably, because it's simply not something you can grasp as it's based on shifting sands and lack of logic.

But the point is, we can bat it backwards and forwards.

JKR isn't really in that position. She's coming at it from a far more authoritative angle, with true influence and power.

She needs all her words to be effective and understood.

Providing endless clarity is too time-consuming.

So she's just gine and done it once, I'm guessing. For the sake of expediency.

Personally, I'm more than happy for people who believe in gender identity to have it recognised as a belief.

However, if the kids showing up at the Tavistock and the men in the transwidows threads are characterised identically, because they share the same belief, to me, that's a retrogressive step.

we should be separating them, not joining them

But Stonewall law couldn't even have got started without the GRA.

Having legally falsified documents regarding a person's sex has got to go.

I simply don't believe in a moderate approach. I have huge sympathy for those people who are suffering from dysphoria / mental health problems. These people need to be treated with respect and kindness and get the help they need. I do not agree however that the delusion of "trans" should be accepted as reality. People can live however they wish and refer to themselves however they like and hopefully live long and content lives but what they don't have the right to do is insist that society indulges their delusion by pretending that "trans" is somehow real. I think a moderate approach is a form of surrender. It essentially allows men to gain a foothold on women's spaces and pronouns. If we accept "trans" as reality it's then a slippery slope to accepting "trans women" as a subset of women. I am not prepared to do this. I respectfully acknowledge others might have a different opinion but my stance is that there can be no half way softly softly approach with this as this compromises our hard fought battle for single sex spaces and pronouns.

TeaMistress

I think this is what JK is talking about. People taking her out of context. She hasn't said anything about a moderate approach, she is simply saying this is the word I sometimes use.

Tooting33

Stonewall added the T to their remit in 2015, they have caused more damage than the GRA and they are partly responsible for the notion of a "trans child".

And that's fine. I very much admire and look to JKR as a beacon of advocacy and protection of women. I understand where she is coming from in relation to language.

@Igmum posted an image earlier, that I saw on Twitter earlier and it gave me a bit of a lightbulb moment. I’ll link and then try to get a clearer screenshot.

https://x.com/Terfs_R/status/1844718858776596730

Okay, screenshot in two halves. Cut off the top line which said “The Trans Umbrella”

This really brought it home to me how much of a problem we have when we use the word “trans” for all the people demanding it. It’s not being used by transactivists as JK Rowling has expressed it. It is used to create a group of people who claim they have an inner essence that makes them trans. It really is as vague as that, and there’s no way to challenge anyone making that claim as they no longer have to do anything at all, other than make that claim.

The rights that are being asked for, supposedly on behalf of the entire group, are now for the benefit of the predators. The reality is that self-ID doesn’t benefit either the vulnerable or the trendy-hop-ons, though the latter probably like it as a chance to be disruptive. Self-ID is actually terrible for the vulnerable as it allows all kinds of predators to use their existence as an excuse for enabling predatory behaviour.

So long as we use the language those men want us to use, we are weakening our argument. Just as calling men “women” weakens our argument, using “trans” for predatory men weakens it. Just as I use “men who claim they are women” I now use “people who claim they are trans”. It’s clunky and doesn’t really work on Twitter, but I cannot use their language.

Part of our problem is that the predatory men have actually sold a lie to the vulnerable, although they’ve sold it even better to the trendy-hop-ons. We have a classic example of this in looking at the recent attack on the LGB Alliance conference. It looks likely that a group of trendy-hop-ons have literally done the dirty work for some predatory men.

The fact that trendy-hop-ons AND the vulnerable have been brainwashed into seeing predatory, perverted men as somehow heroic leaders, while they have been sold the lie that JK Rowling as Public Enemy Number 1 is the ultimate irony.

It also gave me pause for thought as I would like to help the vulnerable, but they are never going to ask for our help, and indeed reject us as hateful and push us away. I was trying to think of a way we could get through to them, but I don’t hold out much hope.

What we can do is protect them by trying to ensure medicine returns to being evidence based and work to ensure that fewer children are hurt by protesting gender stuff being promoted in schools.

But I think there is a massive danger now in using the word “trans” because we don’t have control of the language. It’s been created and propagated for a reason.

So I disagree with JK Rowling in technical terms, though I would never criticise her directly and rarely challenge anyone else’s language, other than in explaining my position when it comes up for discussion. I think most people who use pronouns, call men women, and use the word trans are probably still on a journey. They may end up where I am or not, but if they are speaking out for women’s rights, I will support them in doing that any way they wish.

Yes I agree and wrt children in your other pp

If we separate the trans umbrella into groups, why couldn’t it end up as something like this:

The young girls who identify as trans: you feel different to stereotypical views of girls. Actually you are a feminist in the making; come and join us in changing society, not yourself.

The young boys who identify as trans: you are also likely a feminist in the making. Put your energy into helping society to change. Become a feminist or join the campaign referred to below.

The middle aged M to F people: campaign on educating men to be more accepting of the ranges in the spectrum of masculinity so that you feel welcome in the male toilets. Make up a word for the movement that gives you a sense of purpose and belonging if it helps.

The cross dressers: dress how you like; most of us do.

Surgery? Dear Lord…after all these years I still can’t fathom how it became an alternative to political change.