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 😡'

I agree with you op.

By doing this she's saying that a man can somehow earn the right to be referred to by female pronouns by behaving a certain way, which a lot of people do seem to expect. If we all work with that framework that means when the rest of us don't use female pronouns about some other trans identifying man, he can then insist "what, don't you think I'm female-coded enough, how dare you imply that".

It's basically putting some kind of judgement call on pronoun use that is based on perceived behaviour rather than actual biological fact.

I disapprove greatly. (I mean I'm sure JKR doesn't give a monkey's what a random mumsnetter thinks but neither does anyone in the public eye and I still have opinions about what they say too.)

It's possible to agree with 95% of what someone says and does, and disagree with the other 5%

She could have kept her friendships private. But she didn't in this case. I wonder why.

I prefer not to insult people I know to their face.

If they choose to cross dress and use a strange name, so what.

All I care is that they respect my spaces

Its called being a grown up
and where we have to get back to when gender goes away again

Noone is doing that.

How do you protect female only spaces if you don't accurately define what female is? How do you keep that clear if you describe men as 'she'?

Language matters.

Absolutely and no fucker gets to tell me what pronouns I use, particularly when they aren’t even there! No one gets to tell me what pronouns to use for other people either. No one gets to get me fired or take me to court.

If JKRs trans friend has insisted on pronouns, I doubt JKR would have used them. It’s a choice she’s made, as is her right.

And it’s ok to disagree with it. That’s your right.

There's only one group as far as I can see who's insisted on #nodebate - and it's not GC women.

We're not a hive mind and we all have varied experiences and views. Most of us have seen our views change over years - and that's because we listen, think, debate and discuss.

Anyway - welcome to Mumsnet and all that. I've no doubt this thread will run and run.

I think she's demonstrating that the fight for women's rights isn't personal. If men stay out of female spaces then we are happy to go along with their name choice.

It's pretty much what we've always said. Clothes and a name change does not change your sex but sometimes that doesn't matter.

We want the law to protect us in those circumstances where sex matters - changing rooms, prisons, hospital wards, etc.

The rest of the time sex doesn't matter.

What if you are an atheist but are happy to call a friend Reverend Jones?

Have you betrayed the atheist movement or been hypocritical? I don’t think so. I think there has to be room on the GC side for people to think and speak as they see fit, even if others on the same side choose differently.

She’s clear her friend hasn’t changed sex, that her friend is a man. There’s no confusion.

But she uses she to refer to her. Perhaps as gay men have referred to each other as ‘she’ while knowing exactly what sex they are.

Hard disagree sorry OP.

I'm a social worker and increasingly find myself working with trans people.

I know/don't believe humans can change sex but when faced with someone in front of me who is trans and meets the criteria for my services then I am polite and respectful and treat them with the same compassion and care as I do anyone else.

If Mr James Bond asks me to call him Jim , or Bob or Jane then I do. I record his sex, his preferred name and if he has told me he identifies as female then I record his gender as female.

You can be gender critical and still be a decent human being towards anyone who doesn't agree with you. Isn't that all any of us are asking for? It's the grown up response for the grownups in the discussion who realise it's not about taking sides but about respect, safety and decency.

JK has always said that she wants trans people to live happily and safely. What she is saying in the tweet above is entirely consistent with that.

Well she can certainly dispel the myth that GC must not know any trans people or they'd change their opinion!

Her friend clearly does not invade women's single sex spaces spaces. It is up to JKR if she calls him 'she' socially.

This is a purity spiral. I wonder about OPs motives.

There are some really fragile people out there who will not be helped by being corrected constantly. It’s tragic that’s where they’ve ended up, but me relentlessly confronting them with the unbearable truth isn’t going to help.

Oh please. Not every disagreement on this board is a TRA psyop.

As far as I'm concerned the GC position is a binary choice, either you believe in reality or you don't and muddying the water by playing into the whole gender idea with some trans people and not others based on what is basically vibes makes us look inconsistent at least and needlessly cruel at worst.

I’m a bit worried about this. Someone was referred to in the comments, and they seem a likely candidate. Whoever it is, I hope they are ok. The person I’m thinking of took massive abuse and bullying from TRAs. I really hope this doesn’t cause them problems.

Oh please.

What have you done to further the GC cause that even is a patch on what JKR has done?

This smacks of the KJK purity spiral threads.

Disagree with you OP. Most people on here don't have an issue with how people wish to identify, they have an issue with biological males forcing their way into women's spaces, and the forcing of pronoun use. That doesn't apply here. I think it shows that JKR is more nuanced than people realise, and that is to her credit.

But there’s no hive mind. We don’t all agree on everything. We occasionally agree with Trump and occasionally disagree with … damn, there’s no one sufficiently uncontroversial or universally approved of!

Believing that there is one true way is part of the problem. We all have to muddle through as best we can, in an imperfect world.

A transwoman who regards themselves as ,and refers to themselves as, a transwoman and not a woman will generally have my respect. I can see where JKR is coming from.

I think this is a good discussion, we are not a hive mind, we are a broad church and this particular issue, is a struggle for me as i am not sure what i think yet. So I shall listen and learn.

I've done what I can without the advantage of hundreds of millions of pounds at my disposal.

As far as KJK goes, she's the other side of the pendulum. Didn't she just call of all trans identified people to be barred from employment?

I agree with her. For me the struggle was always about preserving sex categories in policy and law, and protecting children from poor medical practice. I wanted to uphold freedom of speech and diversity of belief, and those cut both ways. Ive got very little interest in persuading people who identify as trans that their identity is invalid, or persuading others to isolate them.

I've been a radical lesbian feminist for 43 years. During that time I've often been told who I 'should' be friends with. Fuck that.

Insanely smart woman refuses to fall into obvious bear trap, what's the problem?

JKR's super power is that she has never allowed her very important views and understanding to be dismissed as discriminatory on an individual basis, which would allow her to be attacked under the Equality Act. Fabulous woman, and this is not the fulcrum point you think it is.

I think “female coded energy” will come back to bite her on the bum. It is exactly the sort of meaningless word salad that has been used by TRAs to confound and befuddle the hard of thinking into believing that men can, after all, turn out to be women.

It's really not JK's job to speak for every woman. Whatever her opinions are, are hers. You don't need to be "disappointed" in her for having them.

I, too, have trans friends. That doesn't mean I want them in the space where I'm changing any more than I would want my male presenting friends.