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 😡'

If I were doing the hiring I wouldn't need to ask the 6'2" person in a miniskirt who came clomping into my office any questions about their gender beliefs. It would be obvious, no?

@logiccalls

We need to be able to tell a child to look for a lady, if they are lost. We need to look for a female, quickly discernable by appearance, if we ourselves are in trouble. All cultures at all times have differences between the clothing, hairstyle, face-paint, and so on, to enhance the ability of everyone to instantly identify the females from the males, at a glance and at a distance, for good reasons.

You believe the reason some women wear feminine clothing, style their hair long and apply make-up is so children can discern them from men when in trouble? You really can’t think of any other reasons? And what of those women who don’t do those things? Additionally, not all women are friendly.

Beth Upton claimed he was a biological woman because he wasn’t a robot and was a woman. Totally disingenuous. He knew full well that he wasn’t a woman by any definition ever used.

He was only there in court because he was a man. Ridiculous. And I would not employ someone who lied to me and expected me to go along with it. Whatever the lie.

It’s not about the friendliness of the woman. I mean, yes there’s no need for women to wear frills for the sake of small children. It isn’t the frills that make them safer to approach than a man.

This thread’s descended into wittering bollox, what a shame. It started as a heated discussion about where the boundaries should be and how significant individual behaviour is. Private versus public.

We're talking about 100%, not "extremely reliably". There is an overlap in every single one of the features that you mention.

Males cannot 100% be told from females in ordinary social interaction.

Anyone who thinks they can is simply blissfully unaware of the ones they couldn't.

Frankly some of it has become as bad as the non violent aspects of trans activism.

Facial sexual dimorphism in humans is deemed scientific fact by everyone working in computer vision.

I'm sorry but it really isn't that categorical.

Most women will have feminine features. Most men will have masculine features. That's the only "fact".

Most is not all and there is a big overlap. There are women with very masculine faces and men with very feminine faces.

Every time women have this discussion I am frustrated by the fact that women cannot see how they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

Isn’t that what I was saying? In most cases, women are safer to approach than men, but not always. By “friendly”, I meant “not dangerous”.

It's sufficiently close to 100% that we don't need sumptuary laws to force gendered attire in order to assure single-sex spaces and other safeguarding protocols. Which, if you look at the thread context, is the point I was making.

I'd argue that, taking all observations made during a real-life interaction into account, the number of people who genuinely look like the opposite sex are single digits per million.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=GJyUT7y3KY4 demonstrates that gait and overall body shape are sufficient to recognise a man masquarading as a woman, with face and other details obscured.

I am frustrated by the fact that women cannot see how they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

Nah, we're not. Being a woman isn't determined by your face shape but by whether your mullerian ducts developed in utero. Being a woman gives a constellation of secondary sexual characteristics that let others reliably determine your sex. Face is one of that constellation.

Biological sex and sex differences and their relevance to the safety, privacy and dignity of of women can be discounted because sometimes - not often - some people - very few - can be mistaken for the opposite sex is a pretty silly position to take.

It’s sophistry.

Which is all they have.

Humans are more obviously dimorphic than many other species that reproduce sexually, but in a world where this were not the case, women would still need sex based rights.

they are effectively stating that some of their fellow females are not feminine looking enough to be a real woman.

No, we are saying that men are not women. If the difference between men and women were 'looking feminine', men could indeed change their appearance and become women. But if this were the only difference between men and women, we wouldn't bother to classify people as men and women.

I think people who think it's difficult to tell the difference have been looking at too many filtered photos.

Hence why I've been careful to talk about real-life interactions.

I get "sirred" sometines, last time was in Toolstation 😂, but the sirrer realises their mistake as soon as I speak

Yes. I was mistaken about the sex of someone whose photo and name were displayed on her workplace wall. I thought she was male. Then I met her, and it was instantly clear that she is female. And the photo wasn't filtered.

https://x.com/KnownHeretic/status/2047786368412336136?s=20

Genocided at Toolstation? I hope you managed to complete your purchase what with ceasing to exist and all…

I don’t think they are. They’re saying that in the VAST majority of cases, a glance is enough to tell us who is male and who is female regardless of how they’re dressed or their haircut.

That’s very different from saying that in those very few cases where it’s not immediately obvious, those more ambiguous-looking women are NOT also women. They are.

If not, how do you think it works? That we randomly guess at a person’s sex with no real clue? Yet a dog who’s afraid of men can always tell who the men are - and that’s not due to some amazing intuition that dogs have and humans don’t. It’s not: identifying someone’s sex is a very basic skill that’s innate to both humans and dogs rather than consciously learned. All we learn are the names to put on that difference.

And less dimorphic than many other mammals such as many rodents and bats. Yet even these species still manage to identify males and females despite the visual similarities.

The idea of forcing clothing on anyone was barking mad. As bad as any of the non violent fans nonsense.

I can't believe you are using a 90 second youtube video about ONE man being caught hiding his identity with a burqa to support a claim that no more than 9 people in a million could possible successfully masquerade as the opposite sex. I think your figure is completely unsubstantiated and likely to be wildly inaccurate.

Reliably?

You actually have no idea how many people behaving as the opposite sex you've ever met.

And yes, unwittingly, you are.