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 😡'

How is it a purity spiral to acknowledge men can never be women and vice versa? OP is correct. The compelled speech is not OP's but this ridiculous society we're now living in that promotes lying.

I love JKR. She has her own views, same as everybody else. They don't have to coincide. We've always known she has pet TIMs so this isn't an inconsistent position from her.

Again, where does it say that this person is claiming a right, as opposed to simply (at most) making a request?

"I didn't agree with her when she said this thing, I wish she didn't say it like that"
"You're POLICING her speech!"

Er, no. That is not how disagreement works. It's possible to disagree with what someone says without wanting to literally ban them from saying it?! Why are so many people levelling this odd accusation of compelled speech

Calling people hypocrites, liars and now insane is not going to persuade people to your view.

Just like me calling you (for silly effect) a liar and splitter I’m sure didn’t endear me to you or dispose you to be persuaded by me on anything.

That’s the point, becuase the GC movement, to succeed, needs to reach and persuade as many people as it can.

JK has spoken about having and respecting trans friends many times over the years. She has never called for trans people to be excluded or marginalised, but believes women have the right to their own single sex spaces. This is nothing new.

I would be respectful towards any trans identifying person who respected women and their spaces and like JK I have a trans friend who presents as male, but who knows they are not biologically male. I accept them as they are.

You've misunderstood my point entirely. I wasn't talking about JKR's trans friend. I was talking about the expectations this framework could create in other transwomen.

Let me simplify my point so it's not misunderstood.

Another man could read these words and say "look, JKR calls her friend She-her because she is so female coded, but you won't call me She-her, are you saying I'm not female coded enough?"

This is why I don't like JKR's comment.

The thoughts of JKR's friend didn't enter into my argument at all.

It’s a world of difference between dealing compassionately and as a human being with the many nuanced people in your life and policy which has far greater ramifications. She speaks for many people in this I suspect.

@RobynMiller It's tough when your idols fall. 💐

Everytime prominent women use false pronouns for TIMs it put pressure on other women to do the same

Who does the word 'she' refer to in this respect?

It means a female person. What other definition does it have? If you include men in this definition what word is left for female people?

A man who IDs as a woman is not a woman. He is not a 'she'.

This is not about compelled speech. It's about words having agreed definitions so that a) women have rights and b)people can understand what used to be normal conversations.

Refusing to allow any differences of opinion and a lack of nuance in positions taken feels like how we ended up here. So no, I am not “disappointed” in JKR. To do so would be akin to insisting on the same unswerving adherence to a particular position and creating a purity spiral that I criticise TRAs for.

"but disappointed in JK today"

I don't really get this tbh. I'm curious about what in JKR's statement you think is new (rather than that you just don't agree with). JKR has always been been up front that she supports trans people and reasonable accommodations for them so long as those accommodations don't impinge on sex based rights (especially the rights of women) She's always been forthright about knowing trans people in real life and being sympathetic. Did you think that was just a rhetorical flourish on her part or that she was being disingenuous?

Of course there are a wide range of opinions across the GC spectrum so you're guaranteed to disagree with some. But to suggest the above remarks represents a departure for JKR, when in fact she's been extremely consistent for years, is simply wrong.

“No, I’m saying you’re a man. I don’t have to do what JKR does.”

I don’t think anyone is obliged to follow her example.

”JKR does it, why won’t you” sounds appealing but it isn’t. She does what she does, and I do what I do.

How does 'sex based rights' work if language for women is mangled to include men?

I'd prefer to not lie, regardless of who I persuade.

The trouble with saying you are disappointed in someone is that it is code for “you really fucked that up you numpty” when giving someone a polite bollocking, particularly in a work situation or when dealing with teenagers.

So using it in the title of this thread just makes it more dramatic than it needs to be, and it will probably turn into a 1000 post bun fight as most JKR threads do once the usual suspects turn up.

You are perfectly at liberty to say you disagree with JKR’s approach to pronouns with her friend, but that would be less likely to generate lots of replies. To say it will make it easier for other TW to “demand” the use of female pronouns is nonsense. Just as we tell our kids “what happens in Jonti’s house is up to his mum and dad, your dad and I get to decide what happens in this family”. GC people are allowed to have family, friends, neighbours and colleagues with a trans identity you know. And in each case we will make our own decisions about our boundaries depending on the relationship.

The overwhelming majority of GC women will have a hard boundary at “the trans identified person remains the same biological sex and in situations where sex matters, that needs to be respected”. The other social niceties will vary from person to person, but I would certainly expect that a person with a trans identity would be treated with the same courtesy and dignity as any other person, especially in situations where their biological sex is irrelevant.

I'm not arguing for JKR's position. There's actually been some good discussion on this thread. But JKR hasn't suddenly changed her arguments or revealed anything new about her views that hasn't been known for 5+ years.

If you say that you're 'disappointed' in someone it implies that there some new revelation that's changed your opinion. To say that about the above JKR comments shows that the OP didn't really understand JKR perspective to begin with and the disappointment is misplaced.

Surely you’d just say “JKR can decide which males she chooses to calls what; I call all males ‘he’ and ‘him’”.🤷‍♀️

being gender critical isn’t a cult with a leader.

It works because sex is physical reality, regardless of the words. It may be a bit easier if language isn’t mangled, but the fundamental facts aren’t changed. That’s why ultimately the attempt of transactivists to claim ‘transwomen are women’ has failed.

Hmm. Yes obviously that is how I'd respond. I'm not giving that example because I'm literally afraid for myself. I'm sad for anyone else who is feeling pressured to use wrong sex pronouns (it does happen!) that they now have another source of guilt tripping.

As for your last sentence, I don't see how it logically follows from anything I've said. I think there are many others on this thread who might need reminding though. See my point above about not sanctifying someone

I can see why you might disappointed OP. I agree that there needs to be a solid distinction regarding sex especially where physical strength can be used to an advantage. I am also uncomfortable with term "female coded behaviour". It's language like this that people with black and white thinking grip on to as if its some type of test. It has to be stated that JKR has had a hell of a time but she has the ability to buy peace and protection in job security and social isolation in a way that us down on the factory floor who agree with her stance do not. It is for this reason I wish she was a little more responsible with her public posts.

I also agree with JKR that the reality is that some people who are trans who are not pretending that the are actually the other sex but are able to behaviour respectfully and responsibly towards women. These are not the people you see on social media, or in female toilets, or sports or in debates. These people in my experience know that they are the ones with the issue and do not expect others to bend around them. They are also victims of what is clearly a mens rights movement seeking dominance over women who have had their rare and painful medical condition politicised and used to harm women and children.

Your hypothetical male seemed to be assuming jkr was some sort of leader who he was expecting you to follow. Which is bollocks of course.

So everyone who disagrees with you is not sane? Interesting...

I agree with you.

100%.

But - look at this: friends of our family are transitioning their son. He is an objectionable young man, none of the other kids like him much. He is 18. He will get facial surgery this summer, and will model the new face on that of his mother's when she was his age.

The family are aware of my politics.

Even so, I will play nicely, because he is their son, and because their daughter means a lot to us. I will use "she" in their company.

But all my political activity, which for me includes where and how I spend my money, will be done for us. For women.