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.*

This is the point though.

If people are unable to understand her view because they haven't read the many things she has said on the issue - which paint a pretty clear picture,frankly - they can ask.

If you don't want to use the term, I doubt she will tell you that you have to.

Her complaint was about policing language.

It’s so much bloody simpler to just say “people who identify as trans” or words to that effect. No need to redefine the meaning of ‘trans’.

Yes, but then people need to know what trans is. People in the debate will already know. But to know what identifying as trans means, you need to know what trans means. To people who arent au faith with the arguments just sounds like more circular language.

Yes, she complains about policing language. So what?

Does that mean that ‘policing language is wrong’?

Its just her opinion and her bugbear.

No you don’t need to understand what the meaning of something is, if someone identifies as it. It would be more important to clarify what ‘identify as’ means.

“This person identifies as a dog”

Everyone knows what a dog is, the important matter, is the fact that this person in some way believes that they are something which they are not.

Just the same as if “This person identifies as a trans dimensional dream-weaver” - you don’t need to know what that is, just that they are at odds with reality in some way.

She isn't "redefining" the meaning of "trans"; I think that most people who aren't invested in the debate one way or the other would agree that hers is a generally recognised and acceptable definition of "trans".

Trans means "to cross over" more or less.....Transsexual is the old term for someone who wanted to present as the opposite sex. Transgender is a more contemporary creation that fits in with post modernistic theories of the Self - from which the concept of 'Gender' arises.

Translucent describes a material that permits light to cross

Transubstantiation is a concept in Catholicism whereby matter is transformed. Wine turns into the blood of Christ, and a wafer turns into the body of Christ - all through an act of faith.

Transcendant means to move beyond something...

..........and so on

Trans ( gender) means different things to different people....there is no set definition - for the reason it is not something which can be measured and is conceptual only.

She is redefining it. The terms used before “trans” were transvestite, transsexual, crossdresser, butch woman, effeminate man, tomboy, person with a ‘gender identity disorder’, etc. Believers in a ‘gender essence’ (that they imagine we all have, but common to all these people, this essence can be ‘born in the wrong body’) brought all those terms together under the umbrella “trans”.

I really couldn’t say what people who aren’t really invested in the debate one way or the other would think is meant by the term. In my experience, there’s a sympathetic view that “trans” means a man who is so full of loathing of his male body, he is willing to do the unthinkable and be castrated, and for this sacrifice of his masculinity, he is entitled to the reward of being treated as a woman in all circumstances, and anyone who doesn’t agree is cold and cruel. They definitely don’t consider lesbians, autistic kids, fetishistic crossdressers in the mix.

I understand that debating whether certain terms are actually offensive or harmful can sometimes feel like arguing semantics, but they can be worthwhile in the sense that it can provoke discussions about re-examining the scope and potential ramifications of using such terms in public discourse, as well as bring clarity that might have been previously lacking to the whole issue (regarding the thread topic -- some people apparently can't distinguish between "transgender/transsexual women" and "transgender/transsexual men", and get confused).

Those discussions led us to move away from using the r-word to describe children with developmental disabilities, for instance, so I wouldn't call them entirely "language policing".

I understand that your example of using "child porn" rather than "child rape/sexual abuse image/video" might be trickier, though, because that opens a whole new can of worms about whether porn itself depicts consensual sex at all, regardless of the age and purported legal consent of those filmed, which should be a separate thread.

This might be better

Sure, sometimes it can be a useful discussion. But that's not what I see happening when people continually pull up others within a discussion in the way the OP describes.

And yes, the questions you could ask about consent in pornography might be relevant. Except that the more basic issue is that someone completely made up the claim that pornography implies consent in the depicted sexual acts and therefore saying child pornography legitimizes sex with children. It's just not true. Where did this claim come from and for what purpose? It seems to exist only as a means to scold people about their language and imply they support sexual abuse. The reasons why someone might want to derail a discussion for such a purpose are not elevating.

As for the endless treadmill of ejecting words that were perfectly legitimate but have, as a result of their meaning, been used by some as insults, that is a problem but I'm not convinced the solution of endless change is actually helpful. I understand why it seems like it though, especially to the young.

The ‘child porn’ objections aren’t about consent. Pornography literally means ‘writing about prostitutes’,and has morphed into photographing and filming prostitutes.

The objection to ‘child porn’ is the same as objecting to the term ‘child prostitute’. Children who are below the age of consent are de facto, deemed to be victims of child abuse and rape, if they are engaged in any sexual activity. Child abuse and rape are crimes, where as prostitution (being paid for sexual acts) and pornography are not crimes. The consent thing is a red herring. Children are deemed to be incapable of sexual consent.

IME I think people who've delved into everything do recognise that the main drivers of the enforced belief are the AGPs but also that the footsoldiers who manage this (who are not AGP) are large in number.

Yes, and if we want examples of language policing, watch how often posts stating this get deleted here.

Apologies if it's upthread and I've missed it by reading too quickly. Where is "the guide" WRT the page 44 quote from Anya Palmer?

See? The TRA policing is happening right now.

I agree that the term trans has been used deliberately to blur boundaries to the benefit of trans ideologues, and that society has been slow to waken up to this, but we are where we are and disappearing down a semantic rabbit hole doesn't help us win any arguments. People who are strongly pro-trans, or gender-critical, will not have their minds changed by the opinions expressed in threads like this - it's those who are not yet aware of the dangers posed by trans ideology that must be convinced, and denying the term "trans" allows TRA's to say to them that we are denying that trans people "exist". JKR's use of the term seems reasonable to me and I don't believe it concedes any ground whatsoever. Debating the precise meaning of "trans" distracts us; explaining to people that "trans" now includes "autistic kids and fetishistic crossdressers" is a better tactic.

There is anti feminist censorship taking place right in front of us. Someone at
MNHQ is actively censoring this board and trying to stifle women from discussing issues like this

I disagree. People in my experience are too prone to falling for the ‘gender essence’/wrong body narrative which the term “trans people” (deliberately) implies. They think “How awful - castration!”, “How awful - wrong body!”, “How awful - not being accepted for who you truly are/real self!” - it scrambles their brains. They are more likely to think “maybe trans people are misdiagnosed with autism” or “maybe fetishistic cross dressers are struggling because they are born in the wrong body and are not being accepted”.

It is so much clearer to say “many people identify as being trans, this includes autistic people and cross-dressers”.

It is so much clearer to say “many people identify as being trans, this includes autistic people and cross-dressers”.

Erm... is that not what I said?

Yes, it happens all the time. Any mention of what is really going on and bang, your post disappears.

You said “that "trans" now includes "autistic kids and fetishistic crossdressers" not “people who identify as “trans” includes…”

You give legitimacy to ‘trans’ as though it names an objectively true thing, which it does not.