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 😡'

She isn't saying "female energy", she said "female coded" energy. Are you able to differentiate between one and the other? I think we can all imagine what is meant by feminine coded behaviour, can't we?

Exactly how I feel. I would do the same for someone I loved. It doesn't make me believe that men can become women or that anyone with an obvious penis should be in a women's changing room.

I'm just not reading this in the same way as you. I think you are being overly pedantic,

I’m as gender critical as they come but my 24 yo son claims to be a woman. I still love him and he still loves me. I don’t call him by his chosen female name but rather a unisex nickname he grew up with (despite his actual name being a unisex name, make it make sense?!). But I am careful to not refer to him in a male sense in his presence and tend to word my speech very carefully. Not because I think he’s a woman but because he’s clearly troubled. Is the same concession I’d give to speaking to somebody with an eating disorder, I would be very careful not to discuss food or weight. Or if they were a drug addict I’d avoid potentially upsetting topics. It’s a mutual respect you give other people and Jkr is absolutely free to have friendships on her terms with anybody and still retain her beliefs.

Only if she’d said that HER trans friends were women and were allowed to use all female spaces. That’s not what she said.

If I want to let my friend convince herself that she’s lost weight when I can’t see much difference, I’m not necessarily being truthful but that’s my business not yours. Or for people who disapprove of lying to children, they still can’t go to someone else’s child and tell them “the truth” about Santa.

All we need is to ensure that the law doesn’t force us all to participate if we don’t want to.
Going further and forcing other people to tell the truth is compelled speech.

The polarised and combative nature is all around us on every level these days. It comes as a result of social media. This is not something which is an inherent property, though, of understanding the nature of sex and how the consequences of sex are important; especially for women and girls.

Most people now come to political discourse purely through social media. it diminishes the debate and the discussion.

I agree with you OP. I'm not for compelled speech and JKR has the right to call a man 'she' if she wants to, but I don't like it.

What she's doing is saying that this nice transwoman deserves pronouns that don't match his sex. The problem is that it feeds into the perception that if GC women refuse to use inaccurate pronouns for nice, harmless transwomen, we are being mean and disrespectful and that this is wrong.

The 'female-coded energy' remark bothers me more because it suggests she does believe in some kind of gender stereotypes as being real.

Female pronouns are used for women. All women, whether they fit stereotypes or not. They are not a prize for men who are sufficiently feminine, nice, harmless, or friendly. When we call a man 'he' it is not a judgement we are making about his aesthetic choices, disposition or behaviour. It is a reflection of the material reality of his sex.

She makes a point of saying that neither she nor her friend believe in a literal sex change, which is in line with what she has said all along.

I don't like the expression 'female coded energy' - it's meaningless nonsense and as pps have said, promotes a stereotype.

My overall impression is that JKR is a bit confused.

How is it undermining anything? If anything, it's a good reminder that someone can have strong beliefs and not be hateful or bigoted. I personally loathe extremism of any kind- something that both TRAs and GCs can be guilty of. Her response shows consistency and nuance, which is a more accurate reflection of our human experience.

I mean this is exactly what would be termed a 'hard line' radfem/gc stance?

Acknowledging that something exists and agreeing with it in principle are two different things. Things don't disappear just because we don't admit to them or acknowledge their existence.

I think 'female coded energy' is the sort of nonsense word salad that TRA's like to spout.

I think it’s clear.
And to me ‘coded’ means constructed, assigned, I.e a social interpretation rather than bio. So personally I would say ‘feminine’ rather than ‘female’. The energy commonly said to be female / feminine. Arguably stereotyped.

I'm with JK on this.

No, the poster in question indicated that it was wrong to refer to trans people by their preferred pronouns in order to be kind and respectful. It wasn't just disagreeing or saying she wished people hadn't used those words, she was saying using that terminology is simply out of the question. That's policing speech.

I'm not in favour of TRAs thinking they can compell anyone to use preferred pronouns.

Nor am I in favour of GC feminists thinking they can compell anyone to not use them.

It's all the same.

I'm in favour of the law protecting women and children and free speech.

But this person isn't a TRA, and isn't trying to compel anything. Why not live and let live?

This is exactly how I feel.

I know some transwomen. Am I happy to call them by the name they've chosen and their preferred pronouns? Yes, I will do my best, even if I get it wrong sometimes.

Do I believe they are actual women, and that they should be able to access women-only spaces? No.

It's not wrong to have a nuanced approach on this. You dont have to agree or do it yourself, that's your choice.

Pretty sure MalagaNights agrees with you. Neither GC fems, or TRAs should be policing speech.

Agreed.

”My lovely trans friend” anecdotes are not relevant and don’t help with holding the line.

At the risk of sounding massively patronising, I view this as a ‘pet phrase’ situation.

I know my neighbour’s cat is not a furry baby.
I know Neil the baby is actually 13.
I can tell my friend’s land shark is a young Labrador. Her noodle is a greyhound.

I mean, if I lived in Nessa’s world, I too would call her son ‘Neil the baby’. I wouldn’t purée his food. Di the Bus doesn’t drink petrol.

Language matters, and it’s used in different ways in different situations.
Legal language is different from scientific language is different from casual language.
India may be legally female, scientifically male, and casually a total bastard to some, she to others.

She's not saying that the transwoman deserves female pronouns. She is saying that she, JKR, chooses to refer to him as she. It's vastly different because in the first case it would mean that everybody has to call NiceTIM "her" (and this is compelled speech) just because he's her friend, whereas in the second case it's her performing a polite lie for her friend without forcing it on others.

ETA: I agree with PP though that using "her" in public is a dangerous slope (as in "could I bring Lucy home for dinner sometime honey? I'm sure you'll love her" And Lucy turns out to be a man when he's already on your doorstep, and yes, this is not a made up tale), but in this particular setting it's abundantly clear she's referring to a man so there is no deception.

I understand that. But I avoid using words like female-coded and feminine. I prefer to say sex stereotypes.

Only if you think in black and white. I actually appreciate that she's being real. Which is quite impressive given she's on X.

I don't think it undermines the GC view at all.

I don't have a problem with what she says at all. Out of friendship with her trans-identifying mate she chooses to use she/her for him. That's a person choice about an individual relationship, not something that she wants encoded in law.

She doesn't expect anyone else to call him 'she', it's just her way of speaking about a pal.