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.

The proportional aim but is about whether there’s a need for sex segregation in the first place.

If there is, then the segregation should be based on … well … sex.

Glad to clear that up for you.

Guess what @Choppingwoodcarryingwater

Humans STILL can’t change sex.

And no one is buying your attempts to change the definition of sex 🙄

Ah no that's not how proportionality works. Sex isn't a get out of jail free card. The individual circumstances matter as to whether a legitimate aim is met.

It’s Déjà vu all over again 🫪

Definitions aren't fixed though

The definitions 'male' and 'female' exist purely to distinguish between the large-gamete, gestating category and the small-gamete, inseminating category.

It applies to animals, plants and some fungi. It isn't a socially constructed concept like gender, which demonstrably changes as societies change. Sex means sex and is a basic fact of life. Indeed, it is the reason for most life.

Happy Groundhog Day, everyone!

Innit?!

Chopping is Bill Murray, and I claim my £5!

If a legitimate aim is to be met, it will be met by segregation by sex.

Not segregation by ‘gender identity’, which there is no provision for in law

the right to identity (self identification)

Whenyou say this is a right, what do you mean?

People often seem to throw the word 'rights' about with little concept of what right, according to whom, for what purposes?

When people talk about their 'rights' it often seems to mean 'a thing that I think i should be allowed to do'.

Its almost as if its just a way to make their wants seem more legitimate.

There is no 'right' to pretend to be the opposite sex.

the right to identity (self identification)

Whenyou say this is a right, what do you mean?

People often seem to throw the word 'rights' about with little concept of what right, according to whom, for what purposes?

When people talk about their 'rights' it often seems to mean 'a thing that I think i should be allowed to do'.

Its almost as if its just a way to make their wants seem more legitimate.

There is no 'right' to pretend to be the opposite sex.

Sex traits can change is the point. Whether you personally accept this as what qualifies as a woman is simply an opinion not a fact given 'woman' is a socially constructed category. In other words, it can mean whatever society deems it to mean.

Why is this being brought up years later and the story changed? Annoyed all over again.

I loved his books, haven't bought a new one since he pulled that stunt. What a fucking bastard.

We remember dude. We'll always remember.

Nope. Definitions of male and female are fixed. And in the UK, as clarified in law, a woman is an adult human female.

And no, a significant proportion of the UK general public have no idea that a trans woman is a male.

The Telegraph in 2023: A third of Britons don’t know that transgender women were born male.

https://archive.ph/kg6QU

It’s almost like the language is designed to
obfuscate.

You've read too much Harry Potter if you think that saying magic words or taking potions causes people to change sex.

And yet, most adults seem to figure out how to breed.

Its astounding. What are the chances? itsalmost like you can tell, or something

Fake boobs are just fake boobs @Choppingwoodcarryingwater

Humsms STILL cannot change sex

It shows her hypocrisy.

We've seen all these arguments before (anyone reminded of dear departed Howse?) and they are still weak and unconvincing.

How does it do that?

Oh, for god's sake, woman is not a socially constructed category.

It's the word for a human of the female reproductive category (otherwise known as sex).

Same as hen, mare, ewe, doe, etc are the females of their species.

Been repeating this on here and twitter for the last 18 years. Where the fuck have you been?

https://news.sky.com/story/jk-rowling-deletes-praise-for-stephen-king-after-he-voices-support-for-trans-women-12017534

No, that does not what legitimate aim means. You seem to be making it up as you go to suit your biases.

Sex IS reproductive trait.

That’s literally what sex is.

I don’t know what your point has to do with the price of fish - or with the arguments that actually-existing trans activists have been making, or the orthodoxy current when King made his very silly intervention.

Or indeed with the actual statement he agreed with.

It was “trans women are women” - not “trans women are men who try to mimic stereotypical feminine behaviour as understood in a specific but not universal cultural context which may be subject to change over time” or even “trans women are men who believe they have feminine gender, whatever they mean by that”.

I’ve seen a few ‘let’s get round this by defining sex as something other than sex’ arguments recently.

The barrel is truly being scraped.