Stephen King's response to Rowling on sex and gender discussions

[ThisWildDreamer]

Stephen King was asked a simple question - are trans women women? - and when he said yes, one of the most wealthy writers in the world turned on him.

J.K. Rowling had just publicly showered him with praise. Within hours of his answer, she deleted it and, in King's words, "sorta blocked" him.

King is one of the most famous novelists alive, and he didn't walk it back or cast himself as the victim. He said plainly that nobody had cancelled Rowling - he just thought she was wrong. He turns 79 today, still saying it.

He could have kept the friend and stayed quiet. He said yes instead.

LOL at the OP.

...one of the most wealthy writers in the world turned on him... Poor mr King. The wording would sound like he wasn't one of the most wealthy writers himself.

He said plainly that nobody had cancelled Rowling - he just thought she was wrong.
And no-one cancel him either, JKR just thought that he was wrong.

Mr King got himself caught in a trap that "are trans women women?" should be a simple question.

Practically no-one really believes it is "a simple question with the answer yes" - majority realises it is "yes for some purposes" at most - be the first "no" about sports, communal showers, healthcare or dating one themselves.
People just don't like to make their lives more difficult by formulating a position, especially wealthy men who have little skin in the game.

One of my favourite books ever.

It’s, ironically, a very cargo cult kind of insult, isn’t it?

A few years ago TRAs (I think Katy Montgomerie was one: remember him?) noticed GCs pointing out the similarities between genderism & cults - a position that GCs maintained by knowing the characteristics of cults & seeing how the same characteristics appear in genderism.

They realised being a cult was a BAD THING, but couldn't be arsed to address the actual content of the comparison.

Instead - like building a symbolic landing strip out of flowers & hoping it will produce cargo - they just went for the form.

Call knowing what sex is a “cult”!

It has gone out of fashion: like the OP it’s very retro.

But crap ideas don't seem to die, do they?

No one is suggesting gender is sex though so the issue is really about an inability to understand or accept nuance which has always been a challenge for the conservative mentality.

That's not what happened. Don't fucking rewrite history.
HE poked the hornets nest out of the blue supporting her and got his arse handed to him by the masses. She thought for a moment that he had her back until he was forced to say trans women are women and then she got a load of hate for it.

There was absolutely no need to stir up the hive like that for no reason. He's a fucking coward. I watched it in real time, it was ages go and no idea why it's being brought up now.

He's disgusting,

Very very disappointed in S King. I’ve always loved his books, but he can get in the bin with his gender ideology as far as I’m concerned.

Just stick to writing spooky books about Maine Stephen, we’re not interested in your crappy politics.

If gender isn't sex (I'd agree on that), then it doesn't qualify a person for inclusion in single-sex spaces and activities, does it?

Activities based on feminine gender have always included the opposite sex. See men in fashion and hair styling, for instance. Masculine groups & activities have traditionally been opposed to inclusion of women, though.

Did she? What praise exactly? Where was it published/posted? How did she delete it?

What is the “nuance” possible between “Men can be women, even lesbians, if they say they are” on the one hand and “humans categorically cannot change sex, & sex sometimes matters” on the other?

Plus back when this story was fresh, years ago, TRAs were not so keen on nuance: much more for “No debate” & “Kill TERFs”.

What's the nuance here? That even though people can't change sex, men can be women?

It's definitely starting to feel like it. A Saturday night in 2020. 😬

There are two different issues here that are often conflated here. One is the right to identity (self identification) & the other is how to manage competing priorities as a result of it. Just because competing priorities exist doesn't invalidate self identification nor is inclusion a right….that depends on rights balancing.

I know plenty of people who claim TWAW because "sex is complicated". They think TW should be allowed in women's single sex spaces because they are somehow biologically women.

I'm sure that Mr King took this deleted tweet in his stride - he coped with that bloke creating a weird conspiracy theory that he killed John Lennon, after all.

The nuance is sex isn't just socially distinguished by reproductive traits but also set of roles, behaviours, expressions, and norms that societies consider appropriate for men, women and gender-diverse people.

Of course gender critical proponents would correctly categorise this as stereotyping but nevertheless that is the reality we live in as in those categories exist whether we agree with them or not.

Tell that to Dr 'I'm not a robot so I must be a biological woman' Upton

What are the competing rights supposed to be here?

Humans can’t change sex. If spaces are segregated by sex, then men shouldn’t be in women’s spaces.

I see that 'behaviours' has reared its head again.

Scientifically speaking, 'biological woman' can mean 'sex' as in reproductive traits or 'sex' as in sex traits as in female morphology & hormones. So technically trans people can obtain female biological traits.

We have been delighted enough by this terminological inexactitude. Thank you.

Oh knock it off with the errant stupidity

🤦‍♀️

Sex is generally defined around who produces large immobile gametes or small mobile gametes.

So no, males cannot become females, as cross sex hormones and surgery will never lead to them producing large immobile gametes.

But according to British law sex isn't an automatic qualification to a space…it must be proportional to meeting a legitimate aim.

27
(1)
A person does not contravene section 29, so far as relating to sex discrimination, by providing a service only to persons of one sex if—
(a)
any of the conditions in sub-paragraphs (2) to (7) is satisfied, and
(b)
the limited provision is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
(2)
The condition is that only persons of that sex have need of the service.
(3)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is also provided jointly for persons of both sexes, and
(b)
the service would be insufficiently effective were it only to be provided jointly.
(4)
The condition is that—
(a)
a joint service for persons of both sexes would be less effective, and
(b)
the extent to which the service is required by persons of each sex makes it not reasonably practicable to provide separate services.
(5)
The condition is that the service is provided at a place which is, or is part of—
(a)
a hospital, or
(b)
another establishment for persons requiring special care, supervision or attention.
(6)
The condition is that—
(a)
the service is provided for, or is likely to be used by, two or more persons at the same time, and
(b)
the circumstances are such that a person of one sex might reasonably object to the presence of a person of the opposite sex.
(7)
The condition is that—
(a)
there is likely to be physical contact between a person (A) to whom the service is provided and another person (B), and
(b)
B might reasonably object if A were not of the same sex as B.
(8)
This paragraph applies to a person exercising a public function in relation to the provision of a service as it applies to the person providing the service.

... and mammals still can't change sex.

Definitions aren't fixed though because they are reliant on public/cultural usage. And its self evident that trans woman has broadly understood accepted meaning. In other words, most people know what these words point to whether they agree on how the concept comes into being or not.