Can't believe I'm writing this, but disappointed in JK today

[RobynMiller]

I know she is just one person but her tweets today are really undermining the whole GC argument.

Link: https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/2046948644373274709

'Nothing's changed. I was being honest about how I feel about an individual trans woman I know, who was a gay man pre-transition, and who I met for the first time post-transition. Objectively speaking, she has physical characteristics that make it fairly obvious she wasn't born female, but she's a gentle, funny person I've never referred to as anything other than 'she' and 'her'. I find it perfectly easy to reconcile my fond feelings towards her, and my experience of her as someone with very female-coded energy, with a belief that she hasn't literally changed sex (and incidentally, she doesn't believe she's literally changed sex, either).'

Basically, someone asked her about the trans identified male she mentioned in her 2020 essay and this was her response.

Does she not realise there can be NO EXCEPTIONS? Give an inch they'll take a mile and all that. It doesn't matter that he is gentle and funny or that he has very female-coded energy whatever the hell that means.

This does make it seem like when she calls TIMs out she is now doing it maliciously as she is perfectly happy to play pretend if she likes them enough.

Just so frustrating as it basically says that 'we could all play along with TRAs just fine and are choosing not to because we're such meanies 😡'

That's just semantics though. What would be the benefit in saying 'stereotype' rather than 'socially coded' ? They mean the same thing, in effect. In fact, 'socially coded' is far more explanatory than 'stereotype'. If you had to explain to someone what a stereotype was you'd end up saying it was a socially coded expectation based on one's sex.

Stereotypes don't disappear becauase we refuse to name them.

For me the question is what exactly, or where exactly is 'the line'.

For me this whole issue is about appropriate boundaries, and being able to differentiate and distinguish between one type of thing and one type of situation and another. Public and private. Personal feelings versus common consensus.

I think it strengthens her position. She has shown herself to be open minded, humane and considered. She has highlighted an example of this in her relationship with her friend, yet DESPITE this, she is standing firm against TRA and the ideology of it all.

That shows me a woman who speaks her truth from a position of knowledge and experience rather than someone who is 'anti-trans' because they are full of hate.

It prompts people to think about them more, rather than unthinkingly complying.

Lots of things are 'socially coded' and not a problem. But I think socially coding some things for men and some for women is.

Totally agree. Two things can be true at the same time. JKR has every right to refer to her friend as she likes. But we can also acknowledge her influence on the public discourse. The word 'she' already has a meaning - which is being challenged by activists to include men for not being manly enough. I don't see that as at all progressive. When gay men refer to each other as she, it always felt ironic, an inside joke. A straight woman calling a gay man 'she' just seems really depressing to me.

I have a very strong drive to be honest and it's been hard enough to manage the mental gymnastics it takes to kindly and politely find workarounds with those struggling with their sex and/or the pronoun police. On reflection, I do see this as a potential step back at a time when we've finally got people to realise how deeply regressive it is to pretend gender non-conforming people must be the opposite sex.

And it absolutely has nothing to do with having a hateful opinion on the lifestyle choices of those who claim to be trans. I'm GenX. Being gender non confirming is hardly new.

Though this has always been her position. Whatever she says she can't win when it comes to social media. The platform serves to split and polarise people.

This is the bit I don't like. Don't let the 'energy' phrase or the 'female-coded' bit. Certainly don't like it together.

But in order to think clearly about something you have to understand, first of all, what the term means.

To my mind saying something is 'socially coded' is far more explanatory than simply using the word 'stereotype'. But then my degree and background was in sociology and philosophy ( and teaching).

If I asked you what you meant by a stereotype, what would you say? How would you explain it?

I don't think it is doing that at all. If anything it is explaining how gender ideology and gender identity theory arose in the first place. It arose because people couldn't distinguish between what was socially coded/expected of the sexes with the reality of an individual's character and traits. So people came to feel that if you express yourself in a way that society has coded as 'feminine' it must mean that your are female, and that if a woman expresses herself in a direct or confrontational manner, for example, she is male.

Pretending that such stereotypes or codes don't exist doesn't make them go away. Naming them for what they are makes things far clearer.

I applaud a lot of what JKR does for women and her courage in supporting the GC/sex-based rights cause publicly. But I do feel she’s sometimes a bit inconsistent (that’s not a crime of course) and I’m not 100% clear of where she stands because of things like this. I don’t like the way she’s put on a pedestal as some kind of GC queen as I think that phenomenon is always potentially dangerous. And I think “preferred” (as opposed to sex-based) pronoun use is very key to the harms caused by the gender movement, because it fundamentally erodes meaning, trust and confidence in reality - so it does jar to see her calling a man “she”.

It’s interesting though to find how much it jars with me after a decade of thought, debate and discussion of this issue, both on here and in RL. I used to not mind it so much when it was a tiny number of clearly unhappy men who had been through extensive therapy to try to find the best solution for them, and who had had it made very clear to them that they were not actually going to change sex. It’s seemed more reasonable to be polite to someone on the assumed basis that you both knew it was a charade and there was no coercion or threat involved. Now, it comes with the implication that you go along with the GI claim that a TW is an actual woman and bow to the threats, violence, cancellations, overt misogyny and gross sexism of the whole situation.

Is her statement a "coded" message or what? I think for woman with such prominence in the GC arena she could have kept her mouth shut and not given ammunition to others, and we know who they are.

I am somewhat disappointed, because it feels to me that she is preaching to the converted, those who already have respect for those they know and like who are trans and who do not invade any female space etc. It's called manners. Only those with absolute hate in their hearts would provoke a trans woman who does NOT want to make bio women believe he is really a woman. That does not affect a general GC approach.

I really don't think her post was necessary. We know and observe the things she said anyway. Any decent person would towards a friend or other in the same position as JK's mate. That doesn't mean a conversion to being non GC.

I think your views are a bigoted op. Yes you can believe that someone can’t literally or legally change gender but still be respectful of others views and wishes on how they choose to live. That is basic human compassion and decency. The issue is where trans rights and trans activists try to overstep/roll back women’s rights.

I'm not a fan of wrong-sex pronouns because it's lying. However, JKR has a large brain and can obviously cope with the cognitive dissonance / mental gymnastics and is happy to do so for this friend. Importantly, I suspect she may have started doing this before she thought through all the implications. Perhaps she and this friend have come to a mutual position of compromise, who knows. Sometimes we do things for friends that we won't do for strangers. Crazy notion.

I'm guessing that if it came to this friend volunteering at Guides or working in a school with children then JKR would use sex-based pronouns because she recognises the safeguarding implications. Fortunately this TIM sounds like he also recognises his sex so would probably suggest doing likewise. There is no suggestion he's demanded this of her, nor tries to compel others. He does not use female spaces so obviously recognises that women are fully human with rights too - I suspect JKR would not wish to be friends with someone who does not (e.g. JM).

And as PP have importantly noted, she's not saying anyone else should do this, just explaining what she does. That's a really important distinction.

Yes, there is nuance. I'm guessing that to women who have suffered through the gender wars - such as Allison Bailey - she may use male pronouns for this person or avoid pronouns altogether. Recognising that using wrong-sex pronouns even about someone else is hurtful to someone who's suffered so much from the delusion people can change sex and from MRA sorry TRA demands.

Nuance.

This is just my guess.

My personal choice is to not use pronouns at all and only names for trans people I interact with directly, which also does require some mental effort but is more honest and avoids potential safeguarding failures.

I use normal English sex-based pronouns in normal conversation and about people I don't know as that is kind to me and also honest. I refuse to do anything to 'be kind' to obviously abusive males e.g. Isla Bryson, Katie Dolatowski.

But honestly, I don't know what I'd do if I'd been using wrong-sex pronouns for a lovely, mutually respectful friend for years before the men-wanting-to-use-unconsenting-women's-spaces attempts at coercive control of women as a sex class. In that situation it would be more difficult. Transsexuals really have been badly affected by the TRAs (but not as much as women and children).

JKR's done so much for women and children via Lumos, Beira's place and her advocacy around women's rights, and she is a genius. I think she deserves the benefit of the doubt and some trust, honestly.

And if we demand that she do the exact same as us in every situation then that's no better than the purity politics and groupthink of the omnicause, and that is not working out well for the UK or for women and girls.

For me stereotype has a negative connotation whereas socially coded is a neutral term.

I'm uncomfortable that JK finds it easier to use female pronouns for her friend because of his 'female-coded energy'.

I agree. I'll advocate for single sex spaces all day long. Similarly for women in sport and any other spaces where it has been harder historically for women to be safe/ recognised. But I also think that as a group trans individuals are vulnerable in different ways and I have zero interest in the language debate. If someone wants to call themselves a chicken then have at it if it makes you happy, as long as you aren't taking away safety/opportunity from others. Not everyone will view it in the same way and not everyone feels as strongly about certain aspects of the debate around GC. But I think that's where when we talk about compelled speech it works both ways.

Personally I think there are two vulnerable groups with very different complex issues facing them and those issues unfortunately contradict. For me the starting point to work together and actually successfully safeguard everyone is in that nuance so that the conversations that need to be happening can happen in a more accessible way. I think when people (albeit understandably) double down it just shuts down the conversation and nothing changes. I don't think that actually helps women unless we're talking about significant policy change that erodes single sex spaces. But really there's work to be done around educative work.

I think this is a fair criticism. I doubt it's consciously what was meant but I think it is a logical implication of what she said.

To be fair we are all surrounded by very subtle messages about expectations based on sex that we may not be consciously aware of. I think a lot of us would default to saying things like this unless we paused and deliberately examined what it's implicitly signing us up to agreeing with.

I wasn't sure if this article deserved its own thread or, as I decided, belonged here. An article by Julie...Bindel in Unherd about a tw, Claudia McLean

https://archive.ph/xWbZd

https://unherd.com/2026/04/i-transitioned-and-regretted-it/?edition=us

Usual story; homophobic boyfriend, fast tracked to surgery (45 mins., like a castration speed run), instant regret. Claudia hasn't detransitioned. Julie makes an exception for and she/hers him like a tra. I haven't rtt but I can empathise. This man has been injured all his life; by family and the homophobic society he lived in initially. Then by the man he loved who, for his own benefit, emotionally blackmailed him into irrevocable surgery. He was then failed by his psychiatrist. I don't know if I can say he was failed by his surgeons. I don't know with elective surgery if their duty of care stops at just doing their thing well or if they should ensure the surgery is actually good for the patient. I'd hope the latter but I suspect that's all outsourced upstream. I'm minded to think 'bottom surgery' by its very nature is unethical and those performing it should take a good hard look at themselves.

Any road up, I think Claudia is courageous. Speaking up at cost to himself. He's been damaged, let down, attacked but still speaks up. I can understand why his friends think 'she/her' is a small kindness they're willing to pay. I'm not sure I agree but I don't know him. Kindness is partly how we wound up here, or rather the wrong sort, the easy sort of kindness. But my heart goes out to him. I'm glad to learn his story. I'm sorry for what happened to him.

I agree. I found her tweet really surprising. I understand that she’s being kind to her friend, but every transwoman is probably someone's friend. I know she says the friend doesn’t think they are literally a woman, but I'd like to know whether they use women's changing rooms etc. Surely the affirmation of knowing people (and JKR of all people) think of them as a woman must encourage them to think they can.

And I’m very disturbed by the talk of "female-coded energy". Wtf is that? And does the possession of it, whatever it is, mean it’s ok to call yourself a woman, and expect others to agree, and speak about you as such, even if you’re a man?

@craftandglamour I'm a big fan of your posts today, it seems!

What brought home the dangers of 'polite social pronouns' most forcefully for me of late was Naomi Cunningham having to forcefully argue (twice, if memory serves) in a legal tribunal for the right to use correct sex in order pronouns for a witness in order to present her case, when a crux of her legal case rested on the fact an individual was - in fact and in law (no GRC) - a man.

And it was by no means certain that she would be granted that right at the time. There was a feeling from some that it was now so socially impolite to use the correct sex pronouns for someone who wanted to be the opposite sex that it would potentially count as harrassment to do this, even when putting forward a legal case in which barristers owe furious not only to their client to put forward their best case, but also to the Court with whom they are required to be truthful.

Had she not been so robust and eventually granted the right to use her own (accurate) words, Naomi Cunningham would have had to present her case against a man being granted access to female changing rooms by arguing that, "she" shouldn't be there.

So I've seen just how easily what people think of as a a polite, social white lie shifts the Overton window of social acceptability to the point it ends up as an actual risk to fair justice in a court of law (without ever a law being changed).

That is one reason I take the 'hard line' I do, but I don't expect everyone to have even considered that perspective, let alone be convinced by it. Because it does sound absolutely outlandish until you see something like that happen in a context you're personally familiar with.

I'm disappointed with the "female coded energy" as I dont believe there is any such thing.

Generally I dont regard it as kind to reinforce a delusion by using wrong sex pronouns. But JKR knows her friend much better than I do, knows he isnt deluded as he knows he's still male but is willing to make believe with him to help his mental health. Many people would do the same. I have a problem with compelled speech and public lies but if someone wants to be kind to a friend that isnt my business until they expect me to do it too.

Apologies for jumping in at a late stage before reading all the responses.

I know a "transman" who I met long before I realised that mis-sexing is a problem. I use masculine pronouns for her out of habit and because everyone else does. I see him/her as a woman. Am I still a hypocrite though I am unhappy with playing along with her?

To answer my own question, I think I am, but it's a difficult situation to get myself out of, as several valuable relationships are involved. I could decide to call this person 'she' and 'her', and I can almost guarantee there would be a blazing row, and the risk of those relationships being severely damaged. So I try to avoid pronouns altogether, but I'm not very good at it and it sounds very clunky and still risks a row if she notices.

I don't think she is saying that he can somehow earn the right to female pronouns, as she is not policing your or my speech. On the other hand, I'm not sure if she has thought through the effect of millions of people doing as she is doing – it normalises and legitimises genderist thinking, and makes it harder to stand up against it. Her individual actions have negligible effect, but the combined societal effect of millions doing the same has an impact.

I don’t think JK has ever been hateful or disrespectful to trans people. Shes always defended women’s spaces and that’s different.
Respecting someone’s ask to be called she doesn’t impact anyone else negatively. Being friends with this person certainly doesn’t. But allowance trans women into a women’s hostel for example is a very different subject that could impact someone else.
Its nuanced and sensible.

Very well said. I haven't RTFT but came looking for someone saying something like this. I think all JKR has done wrong (and it may have been a strategic mis-step) is use a rather academic word like "female-coded" without explaining what it means. I see at least one tabloid has screamed that she says a tw has "female energy", which is not at all the same thing.

She's using 'female-coded energy' as a synonym for 'stereotypically feminine behaviour', as dissected by PPs upthread, possibly because the latter wording would have unwanted connotations of superficiality.

As I am gender critical, I support the right of men to adopt the cultural norms expected of women if they want to, and accept that this may be an authentic part of their personality. I just don't believe that they are female.

GI in its present form is harmful. But when we've neutralised the harms – when trans people acknowledge their sex when it matters, don't proselytise, and don't claim cross-sex sex-based rights, and when the medical profession has come to its senses – then trans people will still exist. In that scenario, I would accept there being an established social convention of referring to them using cross-sex pronouns.

Yes, I know that pronouns are Rohypnol. I just don't think that they are as important per se as all the other factors.