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 😡'

One of the main ways important battles were won was by building a large coalition, a lot of it here on MN.

That coalition would have been a fraction of the size if the movement also insisted on telling women how they must or mustn’t refer to their friends.

That wasn’t a crucial battle, and making it a shibboleth now won’t help win over the rest of the population.

👏👏👏Exactly! Correct language matters from the start!

I'm fighting to restore sanity and end gender ideology. Are you?

We can't do that with wishy washy hand wringing because your one trans friend is a nice person. It's not about the person. The whole ideology is toxic and to give in now is like stopping antibiotics because you feel better. You haven't cured the actual problem, you've just made the worst ones stronger.

A PP said "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..."

Quite. Well, then we need to know what are the criteria - exactly what way of behaving counts. And who decides those criteria. And who decides which individuals satisfy the criteria and get to be called 'she' and 'her' and which ones don't.

This.

I think we really really really need to be clear about this distinction. Especially those of us with trans-identified young relatives/family members/friends.

Did something happen to you personally to make you so militant in your views around trans people? Genuine question.

Who do you need to persuade in order to win that fight?

If your position doesn’t even fly on the feminism boards of MN, it’s not going to persuade many normies off it.

I’m someone who fully supports the right of women (or men) not to use compelled pronouns. I don’t agree with compulsion in the other direction either.

Do you accept that your trans-identified young relatives/family members/friends have a problem with mental health and delusion? Is your hope that one day the realise they've been suckered in and stop being trans-identified?

It's not compulsion it's a statement of irrefutable fact. Is it a hard sell to you that lying is bad?

Treat people face to face as you would have them treat you.

There are ways to call out grifters that do not undermine the rights of the confused.

I respect the rights of others to have religions I think are drivel

I will call a TIM by their chosen name
but will suggest they stay well clear of the ladies loos

its called being pragmatic

The way I want to be treated is to be recognised as the obviously female sex that I am. I will do the same, which means calling trans identified males men every time.

JK was always on the softer side of GC just like Joanna Cherry.

I have a trans identifying friend who I have literally in 20 years of close friendship never used him or her to in their presence. I say 'you'. It's not difficult.

If he's not there I refer to him as him because he is a man.

Noone knows who JKR is referring to, except close circles perhaps. Noone is 'policing her speech'. But if she is talking about a man she needs to use 'he' and if a woman 'she'. Otherwise she's lying or we need a conversation about definitions.

Because if definitions depend on the speaker, we are very much back in the weeds.

Is an atheist who refers to a friend as Reverend Smith lying?

I don’t think they are. Especially if they have gone out of their way to make their beliefs clear. What irrefutable fact are they denying by doing so?

Your colleague Dave turns up to work one day announcing that he is now Davina. You play nice and call Davina 'she'.

How can you then say you're uncomfortable with Davina using the women's toilets? Haven't you just acknowledged Davina is a woman by using the word 'she'? In which case, what's your problem?

How friends refer to each other is a private matter, so henceup to them. There's no public interest, safeguarding, or human rights infringement when JKR refers to a male friend as "she". It's not a choice I'd make, but I'm not going to condemn her for making it.

This is really sensible.

I think it's absolutely essential that we make a distinction between a) rejection of gender extremist ideology which tramples on women's rights, and b) straight out old-fashioned transphobia.

Let's leave the transphobia to MAGA and masculinist insecure men. I was really disappointed with KJK for the tweet linked to above. She is an utter hero, and I can understand what's led her to that position, but it's not one I can join her in.

But we need to keep insisting on the nuance. As JKR said: "Wear what you like, love whom you like etc etc" ... Her position is consistent, and is, I think, one which most people would agree with.

Reverend Smith is a Reverend so no. It's like if you called you friend Joe who is a plumber, Plumber Joe.
Or your Catholic friend Mary, Catholic Mary.

Some might see it as odd but referring to someone's job title in the way you call them isn't saying you believe in their god. Catholic Mary is a catholic. That's a true fact. Like if I'm in the office and to clarify which John I mean I might say Accounting John.

Well at least we all get to debate this issue in 2026. Viva free speech.

Yip.

No because a Reverend is a title with a meaning relevant to the church.

Is a person who is against the monarchy lying when they refer to the King?

My problem with gender ideology and TRAs has always been their aggressive dictating of what I must believe, feel, accept and acknowledge as well as the unacceptable commandeering of women’s spaces and opportunities. A transwoman who didn’t believe he was a woman, wasn’t invading women’s spaces and sports and wasn’t telling me what I could think or say wouldn’t be a problem for me at all.

On the topic of dictating what other people should think, I am amused at the idea you think JK Rowlings would give a f.ck about your dissproval of her actions, opinions, friendships or words. I could be wrong but you may not be the first, Still, you could always threaten to burn your Harry Potter books to bring her back into line, that always seems to make the other people who disapprove of her feel better.

Why do you seem to think I think JKR would care? I didn't at her on twitter to get her attention. I came here, where I thought, mistakenly perhaps, that posters on the board would care that a major figurehead of the fight we've put so much into is setting us back. Why would you jump to slander me as a book burner when I've said nothing of the sort?

The fact is that there are truths that must be held and calling males he is one of them, or else we risk sliding back into the hell we just barely managed to escape.

And no one’s stopping you (well, no one here. IRL there are various obstacles we’re in court fighting about).
And no one’s building law and policy around ‘the good ones’.
JKR isn’t calling for her friend to have special treatment or to organise the world around his needs.

No one is "dictating" or "compelling" JKR to do anything. Op says she's "disappointed" and I said I disapprove, of this particular comment of JKR's.

Also no one said they thought JKR would care what we think.

Why accuse us of stuff we haven't said?

But she is publicly giving that friend special treatment. And she is doing it based on some unnamable criteria/test the friend seems to have passed and not on factual reality.