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 know you'll think this sophistry

I do a bit, yes, but I do recognise that not everyone can, wants to or thinks it's politically expedient to speak bluntly. So I'm not going to police your words. But I guess it depends on what your focus is. And some of the issues require directness and plain speaking, IMO.

Sorry meant to quote you in that first line @theilltemperedclavecinist

If I had the ear of policy makers...

It's not really the policy makers we need to convince, it's the population at large. The policy makers got us into this mess by feigning beliefs (mostly; the ones who truly believe are too far gone for sense to prevail) which they presumed were held by the population at large, while the population at large was simply smiling politely and trying not to offend anyone by not "being kind". If we convince the population at large (and we won't do it by beating them over the head with terminology in the first instance), then the policy makers will follow.

In the example I raised (not strictly trans, but women's rights related), the population is already onside: it's the IOC needs to change its mind. Maybe the thought of being sued for death or injury will sharpen up their thinking.

Actually we should be raising the whole financial liability thing more often...

I think the discussion on here is in a way illustrating JKR's point.

There is a discussion to be had about what language to use, and people will come to differernt conclusions.

Most people, I think it's fair to say, will agree that context makes a difference. Most people will not always use the same language, it will depend on who they are talking about and what point they want to make. There are so many different instances, and sometimes a person lets one argument lie because they don't want to distract from a point they see as more immediate in that instance. That doesn't mean more important every time, or even more fundamental, it means in that instance it might not be the main issue.

The quote from JKR says,

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 think the bit I've highlighted here is the important bit, and we need to imagine that scenario, where she is saying something she has considered worth pointing out, and keeps getting sidetracked by some person or people insisting that she has to stop using the term "trans people."

Sometimes it's ok to just have the discussion you are in, which may well be important in itself, and not have every discussion go down into the weeds.

I think the bit I've highlighted here is the important bit, and we need to imagine that scenario, where she is saying something she has considered worth pointing out, and keeps getting sidetracked by some person or people insisting that she has to stop using the term "trans people."

Sometimes it's ok to just have the discussion you are in, which may well be important in itself, and not have every discussion go down into the weeds.

Yes, I fully agree.

Me too.

Dang, we're just the bloody epitome of reasonableness!

Well, we can't have that!

....releases virtual crickets onto this thread in protest at all the reasonableness 🦗🦗🦗🦗🦗

😁

There is a discussion to be had about what language to use, and people will come to differernt conclusions.
Most people, I think it's fair to say, will agree that context makes a difference. Most people will not always use the same language, it will depend on who they are talking about and what point they want to make. There are so many different instances, and sometimes a person lets one argument lie because they don't want to distract from a point they see as more immediate in that instance. That doesn't mean more important every time, or even more fundamental, it means in that instance it might not be the main issue.

This. In the context of helping my daughter, either by talking directly to her or to others who are there to support her in a professional capacity, I have no doubt that she could easily be on an affirmation pathway if I hadn't struck the balance. I had to be both firm and let things go at different times - I'm certain that my choice of language was important at every step. At times it's been really frustrating taking things slowly, but engaging support along the way through careful conversation has been critical to all of the things that have changed for the better when it comes to the support that she now has in place. There are still some significant challenges and blockers, but I believe I wouldn't have the number of people "on side" as I do now if I had gone for a more direct choice of words.

Plus I genuinely do accept that some people hold a belief that we all have a gender identity. People believe all sorts of things that I don't. If I was concerned that someone was being pulled towards harm because of religious radicalisation, I wouldn't start by telling them (or anyone who might be able to help them) that god/Allah doesn't exist, even though, as an atheist, that's exactly what I think.

I haven’t had time to read the whole thread yet so apologies if this is me repeating something which has been said before, but on my initial reading of JKR’s tweet I agree with her and it fits with the way I regard gender ideology as a sort of religion.

What I mean by that is:

1. some people believe in god (or that they have a gender identity)
2. those people might call themselves Christians (or trans)
3. I don’t believe in god (or gender identity)
4. but I accept that people have the freedom to believe whatever they want re religion or gender identity
5. what I don’t accept is that their belief gives them more rights than non-believers, or rights to dictate what non-believers do/don’t do etc.

We can’t get to a place now where nobody believes they are trans or believes in gender identity.

We have to accept some people will believe this stuff for varied reasons and to varying degrees, just like there is a huge range of people who believe in all sorts of different religions. You can believe that god doesn’t exist (or that gender ideology is made up) but what you can’t do is deny that there are people who believe in those belief systems, and who we should afford the freedom to do that, however ridiculous we might think their belief system is.

In my mind the debate is about where we draw the lines and boundaries. And to me, the boundaries need reinstating robustly as we have allowed gender identity to infringe on other peoples rights and freedoms to a frightening degree.

Sometimes it's ok to just have the discussion you are in, which may well be important in itself, and not have every discussion go down into the weeds.

Agreed. Every person I've spoken to IRL has been on a journey of some kind. I only have to think back to the way my best friend sometimes said something that I thought was mean and unnecessary when I was learning about all this (she knew to take it slowly because of my liberal leftiness). I only continued listening because I was so invested in helping my daughter and because I knew something didn't quite make sense. When I look back, what she was saying wasn't mean at all - she was just pointing out some of the bits that were hardest to square off in my head. I did used to really believe that everyone has a gender identity, so it felt mean to me if she sometimes used the word "man" to describe a transwoman - so I fully understand why some people think it is. Even though she's someone whose opinion I value on so many things, if it hadn't been for the blend of her careful approach and my huge focus on it all (owing to personal need to understand it), I'm pretty sure I'd have switched off to what she was saying - I remember one time when I was right on the verge of doing so. I have kept this thought front and centre when engaging on things: it's of no benefit to me or my daughter if the person I'm talking to disengages with what I'm trying to say. In fact it might even push things the other way.

The comparison to religion isn't quite right because generally speaking religious people understand others don't have the same faith, dont need others to believe or make claims that not believing in their faith means we don't think they exist. Trans people need others to not only see their ideology, but play along.

Crucially, there isnt the same legal fiction around religion as there is with the GRA.

We arent in the position where some can believe they are the opposite sex and others are free not to believe it when we have the GRA and the threats around hate speech and non crime hate incidents. Also the confusion and compromise around single sex situations.

If a man believes hes a woman and the state supports that belief, it will impact everyone else. Whereas the state can recognise multiple religions without redefining anyone else.

That makes sense @illinivich. I suppose my view is that the state shouldn’t endorse it or give it any sort of recognition or special status as a belief, but I appreciate that’s not how our system works currently.

There isn't a legally enforced belief any more, agreed.

But Galileo was put on trial for heresy for saying that the earth went round the sun, in contradiction with the bible.

State enforced belief, no matter what science says, isn't a new thing.

Sorry, that should have said that there isn't a legally enforced Christian belief any more.

But there is still legally enforced belief... the GRA. It defines someone's "gender" (a belief in a male/female essence that is separate from the body) as more relevant than their sex for legal purposes.

This isn't quite true. The Galileo affair was a lot more complicated than that. One important point being that his theory had serious problems he couldn't explain and wasn't widely accepted by other scientists.

Total aside of course but in many ways the popular narrative around Gallileo is a sort of myth - a belief in itself that is intended to present a certain spin on belief vs science.

Fair enough if I've only got the Hollywood version... but it was still a trial about his heresy, yes? That he was denying a legal fact, that apparently the sun went round the earth, where that fact had been given its official status as truth by the church.

Even if there was doubt about his theory - and scientists have different theories all the time - my understanding is that the legal objection to it, the reason for the trial, was based on the "truth" being determined by the church. If that's not the case then I would agree it's not a good analogy.

Even putting Galileo aside, there are plenty of instances in our history of people being punished by the state because of their religious beliefs not conforming to the state version of the time, so I think it is still relevant regardless of Galileo in particular.

And of course, plenty of current states in which certain religious beliefs or practices are state mandated and can’t be disagreed with.

Just to add - I’m not saying I’m totally wedded to the idea of religion as a perfect analogy. It probably isn’t perfect. But I’ve found it a useful way of quickly and accessibly explaining the basic way I feel about gender ideology in a way that people who are not well-read or particularly invested in the topic can grasp quickly.

I find it useful shorthand I suppose for why opposing gender ideology doesn’t necessarily (in my opinion) make you transphobic - to me there is space for disagreeing with someone’s belief, and even advocating against changes to the state or public life in aid of that belief, and being ‘anti’ or ‘phobic’ in relation to the people who hold those beliefs.

Good point @PepeParapluie (Edited to add that this was in reference to your first post above. Your second describes how I feel too about using religion as a comparison - it also helps me decide what kind of language I want to use, because I imagine how it might play out if I was challenging the impact of any other belief if it were being enforced as a truth)

And to bring it back to the use of language, imagine a scenario where I wanted to request that a locally organised community event donated its funds to a project other than the church repair funds. I have attended events that were run by a secular and religious collaborative events team which donated funds to the local church (they tend to donate to various different causes), so it's not a far-fetched scenario.

As an atheist, should I stick to the "correct" language of plain fact, rather than using any language from the Christian faith? Would my letter be more persuasive if I did? Obviously, in my atheist world it is a fact that god doesn't exist, rendering any words related to god pointless, so my letter might read something like this:

"Whilst I think it's great that you're raising money for a local cause, I'm disappointed that it's being spent on a building that isn't needed by everyone. The building's purpose seems to be for people to gather together to listen to, sing about and quietly mutter to themselves about a set of life rules, dictated to them by someone who stands at the front and claims that the rules come from a some kind of deity. No proof of such a deity is offered and asking for this is either frowned upon or answered by pointing to words in a book that was first written about 2000 years ago, where nobody knows for certain that the eye-witness accounts of seas parting, water turning into wine, a man rising from the dead after 3 days, a woman giving birth despite being a virgin and so on were seen and experienced exactly as we see written in today's book. Are we even sure we need the building at all when we've got a town hall for community things?"

I've avoided using all of the following words: church, sermon, hymn, prayer, vicar/priest etc, god, bible and miracles. The premise of doing so (in this example) being that I'm taking a hard line, so that I can then go on and suggest what I believe to be a better cause for the funds to be given to. Not only am I avoiding words, but I've chosen to challenge the entire belief head-on as the basis for my argument.

It's hopefully obvious that I would never write such a thing!! There are two reasons: a) I don't need or want to be offensive, just because someone believes something that I don't b) I wouldn't expect too many people who did believe in god (or anyone agnostic) to read any further and listen to any suggestion that followed an opening like that. While I might get a few fellow atheists engaged, if I personally saw a letter that started like that, I would have to make an effort to get to the end and take on board the point being made. IMO there are far better ways to put the same suggestion (an alternative use for the money raised) forward.

So whilst I'm not suggesting language policing the other way round, where people are told they should use words that believers would prefer to hear, I'm an advocate for including the language of belief if it helps your overall message to land more effectively with the audience that you're engaging with. If that involves using words like "trans", so be it. I personally now avoid pronouns altogether on most occasions (although sometimes I use preferred pronouns if the scenario warrants it, but never for a child) and I draw the line at "cis" to describe myself. I don't worry about anyone calling me cis any more than I would worry about a Christian referring to me as someone who might not get in to heaven based on my rejection of god.

(For any Christians reading this whole post, please do know that I would never speak about the church in the way that I did above and I've seen a lot of good in my own community that has been led by the church - plus our local vicar is great!).

When i said the comparison with religion isnt quiet true, i was talking about the here and now.

I understand why people compare it to religion, but it doesnt help to get to a solution.

Trans ideology requires everyone to behave as though someone has changed sex. Thats why the GRA exists. We are free not to believe it, but we arent free to live our lives free of it.

To be like religion in the UK now, both believers in trans ideology and believers in sex would need to be able to go about their day to day life free from each others belief. We cant do that. Either a man can use womens facilities because he's a woman or he can't because he isn't. There's no middle ground.

I can see why ultimately treating it like we do religion is appealing, but it not the solution. We cant ever ignore sex because its crucial for safeguarding. And that includes being polite and using preferred pronouns.

The comparison to religion isn't quite right because generally speaking religious people understand others don't have the same faith, dont need others to believe or make claims that not believing in their faith means we don't think they exist. Trans people need others to not only see their ideology, but play along.

I’m not sure about this. In this country there is currently no expectation for people to follow a certain religion or hold a belief in God but historically this has not been the case and if you look to other countries where religion and state are intertwined it is obvious that there is always a risk of religion becoming an authoritarian force that requires people to either play along or face serious consequences.

In the UK we are a secular multi-faith society where people are broadly tolerant of all faiths and none. But when it comes to transgenderism people are acting towards non-believers more like they would have towards atheists 200 years ago.

To be like religion in the UK now, both believers in trans ideology and believers in sex would need to be able to go about their day to day life free from each others belief. We cant do that. Either a man can use womens facilities because he's a woman or he can't because he isn't. There's no middle ground.

This applies to religion also though. We are never entirely free from others religious beliefs. Sometimes accommodations are made for religious people that give them the ability to practice their religion. This may affect non religious people in various ways. Atheists are often exposed to religious culture that they would prefer not to be subject to. And religious people may be prevented from praying exactly where and when they wish. Outside abortion clinics for example or in the school which banned muslim prayer. There has to be some form of compromise sometimes. All of this also applies (or should) to transgenderism.

I understand why people compare it to religion, but it doesnt help to get to a solution.

I think it does. We've already got the legal right to not believe that everyone has a gender identity, won by Maya Forstater at the same time as the (more well known) win that "gender critical belief" is protected. IMO it's far more use to refer to the legal protection to not believe than it is to think of "gender critical belief" in that way. Although it's great for winning tribunal cases where someone is discriminated against for "GC" views, it's of little value if we have to think of sex immutability on an equal footing to the belief that we all have a gender identity if you're saying no to gender identity enforced as a truth.
Here's that other part of the Forstater win:

https://x.com/anyabike/status/1749777661855940901?t=oXG0YKcTKgTs8mHqFCzb9A&s=19

Trans ideology requires everyone to behave as though someone has changed sex. Thats why the GRA exists. We are free not to believe it, but we arent free to live our lives free of it.

Indeed. That's why I want to use my legal right to not believe. I shouldn't have to accept that a transwoman can enter women's sports and spaces just because they've got a certificate which rubberstamps their belief to be "true".

Although it's in the US, there was case recently which could be useful on this point. A man had been fired from his job for refusing to use preferred pronouns. Like me, he decided to avoid using pronouns at all, rather than having to choose between upsetting the person with the (opposite sex) preferred pronouns and saying something that he didn't believe to be true. His won on appeal because it was found that he shouldn't be forced to adhere to a belief he doesn't uphold. This is a great quote from the article:

Tyson Langhofer, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: “Peter wasn’t fired for something he said; he was fired for something he couldn’t say.

Here's the thread on it:
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5179115-common-sense-wins-out-on-enforced-belief