The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[krypton iodine sulfur]

JK Rowling had already raised the hackles of trans activists when she tweeted that she found it absurd that somebody (Maya Forstater) should be fired for suggesting sex was real.

Rowling's tweet says 'forced out of her job'. If memory serves, Forstater wasn't fired; her contract wasn't renewed. It wasn't because she believed sex is real.

Then she Tweeted her dismay about the term 'people who menstruate' in a policy paper titled 'Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate'.

Well, she posted a glib comment suggesting the title should say women despite the fact that the original title made more sense.

But for the life of me, nobody has been able to tell me what is transphobic about Rowling's views.

Her views? To be honest, I think it might be giving her too much credit to say her views are transphobic when referring to those specific tweets. But there is an issue with her mischaracterizing things in a way which paints transgender people and allies as absurd or antagonistic toward women's rights. That may not have been her intent, but it is the effect. A woman being forced out of her job for believing sex is real would be absurd... if it happened. But it didn't. And now transgender people get saddled with two more absurd claims to deal with (though admittedly, neither really began with Rowling):

i) That if a woman claims sex is real, transgender rights advocacy places her employment in peril.
ii) That the issue of transgender rights is about whether or not sex is real.

I can cut her some slack on the latter. In an era of endless sloganism, I'm pretty sure the words 'sex isn't real' have been thrown out there from detractors and allies alike.

The idea that 'sex isn't real' isn't exactly a cornerstone of transgender rights advocacy. It is a bizarre reduction of many complex and more nuanced points of conversation, none of which (save for the most extreme perhaps) deny biological factors differentiate us sexually. Perhaps better statements might be 'Sex is real, but not in the manner many describe it." Or 'Sex is real, but not relevant/ central to what we are discussing here.' Or 'Sex, as we often use the word, belies the actual biological complexity which exists in humans and muddies the waters on discussions of gender identity and expression.' None of those, of course, have the rhetorical zing of, 'sex isn't real' (or the corresponding 'sex is real').

With the statement regarding 'people who menstruate', again, we have this oddity of a detraction from Rowling which doesn't make much sense. The term 'people who menstruate' was, in this case, literally referring to people who menstruate. This does not include all women. It does include some people who are non-binary and some transgender men.

Rowling's commentary, again, paints this picture where the inclusion of transgender people is pitted against the recognition of women. It isn't. The article specifically mentions girls and women. She then goes on subsequently to make it out as if transgender people are erasing homosexuality somehow (or something to similar effect). Sadly, I know of transgender people who do this and I know of LGB people who do the reverse. But recognition of transgender people doesn't require the erasure of lesbians and gay men anymore than being gay or lesbian requires the erasure of transgender people. Some people choose to erase or exclude, but it's not intrinsic to validating either trans identities or gay and lesbian orientations.

I'm being a little unfair to Rowling. Her tweets don't imply all transgender people believe sex is real. But the problem is the jumps she makes. 'People who menstruate' becomes the exclusion of women's narratives. This jumps to the 'sex is real' trope which gets levered into 'if sex isn't real, then gay people aren't real'. Ultimately, she's sloppily grasping at tidbits of concepts to create this scenario where she is standing up for people against predominately inauthentic versions of arguments recognizing transgender identities.

When I say it might be giving her too much credit to say her views are transphobic, it's not to diminish her voice. It’s more that she weighed in as a bit of an armchair quarterback. With the Forstater tweet, if memory serves she just sort of left it hanging out there. But with the people who menstruate tweet, she got on the defensive. She pulled the ‘but I have trans friends’ and ‘I’ve read up on this, guys, seriously’ cards. When pressed into a corner, she pulled up abuse she had suffered as a shield. I mean that in no way to delegitimize and abuse she has suffered, or to say she shouldn’t share her story or concerns, but at no point did she really elucidate why her previous remarks should be seen in a new light. I could be wrong, but many of her statements didn't really come off as deeply considered statements of conviction. They read a lot more as 'I'm not the bad guy here.'

 

[Metaphor]

Reading a book about trans and intersex experiences doesn't make you a better person, it makes you a shittier person. I'm sure most people who get involved in anti-trans activism at some point read a book by a trans person.

Ok... So no one claimed whether reading a book about trans/intersex people makes you a better or shittier person... I have to say, your entire post is like a case study in cognitive distortions. But anyway, again, your claim is that her post denies or doesn't allow for intersex people, which it very clearly doesn't. She specifically mentions them, and nothing in her post denies intersex people, unless you want to make the selective abstraction that merely speaking in terms of male and female denies/invalidates intersex people.

And the quote is she had talked to intersex people.

Then saying "people who mestruate" is a different thing than saying "women", and she should know better.

Well, yes, not all women menstruate, but the outrage is not based on the fact that, over the life course of a human female, there is a time before menarche and a time after menopause. No post-menopausal woman would read the article titled 'a more equal world for women after COVID-19' and then be outraged that she was tricked into reading an article that only applied to women who menstruate.

(Of course, if you read the article, you can see that the article itself is absolutely incoherent, using people who menstruate in the title, but then interchangeably talking about non-binary people, trans men, women and girls).

Do you believe that if the policy paper had 'women' in the title instead of 'people who menstruate', that would make the policy paper transphobic?

 

[Politesse]

Have you people even read the essay?

She's very clear about championing the TERF cause, it's not ambiguous or something.

Ah, so your problems with her are political not scientific. I'm glad we cleared that up.

Her post is political, not scientific.

 

[Politesse]

(Of course, if you read the article, you can see that the article itself is absolutely incoherent, using people who menstruate in the title, but then interchangeably talking about non-binary people, trans men, women and girls).

At least we agree on something.

Do you believe that if the policy paper had 'women' in the title instead of 'people who menstruate', that would make the policy paper transphobic?

No. But mocking anyone who doesn't have a binary-compliant identity on Twitter is bigotry, and ill-suited for someone who wrote a very famous children's series about the dangers of bigotry. She is, to borrow the language of her own books, "baiting squibs".

I'm not fond of the term transphobic or the various other pseudo-"phobias", as they also treads the boundary of using Freudian nonsense to pathologize what are properly considered social and political issues. I'm not offended when people are genuinely afraid of gay and trans people, but I'll sure as hell defend my rights against those who are trying to take them away, no matter what they're called. Fear whatever you like, just keep that shit in the closet.

 

[zorq]

I agree, her controversial tweet also denied the existence of intersex people. She gives them absolutely no consideration.

Um, no she doesn't. She even mentions intersex people explicitly:

She does deny the existence of vast swaths of intersex and trans people in her controversial tweet which I quoted in its entirety. That tweet condescendingly implies that the label "woman" must apply to every person who menstruates. There is no room for intersex or trans people in her tweet. The two terms have different meanings and the only reason she might have for deriding the expression "people who menstruate" and insisting that "woman" is equivalent is because she does not recognize that difference either through ignorance or ideology.

 

[Metaphor]

Rowling's tweet says 'forced out of her job'. If memory serves, Forstater wasn't fired; her contract wasn't renewed. It wasn't because she believed sex is real..

The contract was not renewed and it was specifically because of the consequence of Forstater acting on the belief that sex is real.

Well, she posted a glib comment suggesting the title should say women despite the fact that the original title made more sense.

Well, yes, she did. So, why is taking offense at 'people who menstruate' (see also 'cervix havers') transphobic?

i) That if a woman claims sex is real, transgender rights advocacy places her employment in peril.
ii) That the issue of transgender rights is about whether or not sex is real.

Except that 'sex is real' is specifically denied by some trans activists, often explicitly but also implicitly, because what some have called for includes
* Ignoring biological sex all together and all sex-based rights should instead be gender-based rights
* Amending sex-based rights in legislation to retroactively mean gender-based rights
* Amending the UK's Gender Recognition Act to completely remove the medical gatekeeping aspect and issue gender recognition certificates to anybody who requests one
* Fantasising that biological males have no advantage over biological females in sport
* Changing birth certificates retroactively, as if birth certificates referred to gender rather than sex.

With the statement regarding 'people who menstruate', again, we have this oddity of a detraction from Rowling which doesn't make much sense. The term 'people who menstruate' was, in this case, literally referring to people who menstruate. This does not include all women. It does include some people who are non-binary and some transgender men (though the article in question only mentions non-binary people).

Transgender men are women. They are adult human females.

Rowling's commentary, again, paints this picture where the inclusion of transgender people is pitted against the recognition of women. It isn't. The article specifically mentions girls and adult women. She then goes on subsequently to make it out as if transgender people are erasing homosexuality somehow (or something to similar effect). Sadly, I know of transgender people who do this and I know of LGB people who do the reverse. But recognition of transgender people doesn't require the erasure of lesbians and gay men anymore than being gay or lesbian requires the erasure of transgender people. Some people choose to erase or exclude, but it's not intrinsic to validating either trans identities or gay and lesbian orientations.

I have read stories of parents who come to believe their child is transgender solely because the child has gender-nonconforming behaviour.

I'm being a little unfair to Rowling. Her tweets don't imply all transgender people believe sex is real. But the problem is the jumps she makes. 'People who menstruate' becomes the exclusion of women's narratives. This jumps to the 'sex is real' trope which gets levered into 'if sex isn't real, then gay people aren't real'. Ultimately, she's sloppily grasping at tidbits of concepts to create this scenario where she is standing up for people against predominately inauthentic versions of arguments recognizing transgender identities.

First, many trans activists believe sex is not meaningful. They say this explicitly but they also imply it. For example, many trans activists believe sex-segregated spaces should instead be gender-segregated. This implies that sex is an irrelevant variable for segregating people but gender is relevant. Indeed, this is implicit particularly in sex-segregated spaces like sports and toilets.

When I say it might be giving her too much credit to say her views are transphobic, it's not to diminish her voice. It’s more that she weighed in as a bit of an armchair quarterback. With the Forstater tweet, if memory serves she just sort of left it hanging out there. But with the people who menstruate tweet, she got on the defensive. She pulled the ‘but I have trans friends’ and ‘I’ve read up on this, guys, seriously’ cards. When pressed into a corner, she pulled up abuse she had suffered as a shield. I mean that in no way to delegitimize and abuse she has suffered, or to say she shouldn’t share her story or concerns, but at no point did she really elucidate why her previous remarks should be seen in a new light.

Her remarks should be seen in the exact same light because she never said anything transphobic in the first place.

 

[Metaphor]

No. But mocking anyone who doesn't have a binary-compliant identity on Twitter is bigotry,.

How did Rowling do that?

, but I'll sure as hell defend my rights against those who are trying to take them away, no matter what they're called. Fear whatever you like, just keep that shit in the closet.

What rights do you think Rowling is trying to take away?

 

[Politesse]

What rights do you think Rowling is trying to take away?

I have no idea what she thinks she's doing or why. I'm not her confidante or her therapist. But what she is materially doing is supporting the anti-trans lobby. And I see the unwarranted bullying of any minority group as a threat to my own well-being, especially if puritanical sexual views are at issue. Call me old-school LGBT if you like. Precedent can be a positive or a negative, depending the degree on our willingness to advocate on behalf of fellow-citizens whose challenges aren't necessarily our own.

 

[prideandfall]

the only reason she might have for deriding the expression "people who menstruate" and insisting that "woman" is equivalent is because she does not recognize that difference either through ignorance or ideology.

because "for the entire history of the existence of language some local version of the term 'woman' has referred to the female side of the species, and in the last decade there's been a trend to start acting like that isn't relevant for the sake of an estimated 0.2% of the population and it's frankly kind of weird to be talking explicitly about women but feel compelled to not use the word because semantic of worries" isn't a viable option?

yeah, jumping directly to the conclusion of bias against a class of people is obviously the more realistic answer.

 

[zorq]

the only reason she might have for deriding the expression "people who menstruate" and insisting that "woman" is equivalent is because she does not recognize that difference either through ignorance or ideology.

because "for the entire history of the existence of language some local version of the term 'woman' has referred to the female side of the species, and in the last decade there's been a trend to start acting like that isn't relevant for the sake of an estimated 0.2% of the population and it's frankly kind of weird to be talking explicitly about women but feel compelled to not use the word because semantic of worries" isn't a viable option?

But the article Rawling was responding to WASN'T talking explicitly or exclusively about women. It was talking about people who menstruate. That's a different shape on the Venn diagram. When the article feels compelled to not use the word because it is not the word that applies in that context it it perfectly natural. Rawling's entire Tweet was a semantic critique.

yeah, jumping directly to the conclusion of bias against a class of people is obviously the more realistic answer.

What explains her tweet better, ignorance or ideology?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The contract was not renewed and it was specifically because of the consequence of Forstater acting on the belief that sex is real.

No. We can safely assume that many of the people continuing to work there openly believe sex is real. She contested the reason that her contract was not renewed was based on her views regarding transgender rights legislation. Perhaps she centres her argument on the notion that sex is real, but that notion isn't mutually exclusive with transgender rights legislation.

Well, yes, she did. So, why is taking offense at 'people who menstruate' (see also 'cervix havers') transphobic?

It was either exclusionary of some non-binary people and transgender men, or it insists they should be referred to as women. Non-binary people and transgender men don't use those terms in denial of their physiology, so when Rowling's impulse is to mock rather than engage, it's natural to see the action as antagonistic or dismissive.

Except that 'sex is real' is specifically denied by some trans activists, often explicitly but also implicitly, because what some have called for includes

I've already acknowledged that outliers exist.

* Ignoring biological sex all together and all sex-based rights should instead be gender-based rights
* Amending sex-based rights in legislation to retroactively mean gender-based rights
* Amending the UK's Gender Recognition Act to completely remove the medical gatekeeping aspect and issue gender recognition certificates to anybody who requests one
* Fantasising that biological males have no advantage over biological females in sport
* Changing birth certificates retroactively, as if birth certificates referred to gender rather than sex.

Not a single one of those things necessitates nor evidences a belief that sex is not real on some level.

I have read stories of parents who come to believe their child is transgender solely because the child has gender-nonconforming behaviour.

So? Contemporary diagnostic criteria for children don't support the notion that gender-nonconforming behaviour is definitive of a gender-dysphoria/ incongruence of gender diagnosis.

First, many trans activists believe sex is not meaningful. They say this explicitly but they also imply it. For example, many trans activists believe sex-segregated spaces should instead be gender-segregated. This implies that sex is an irrelevant variable for segregating people but gender is relevant. Indeed, this is implicit particularly in sex-segregated spaces like sports and toilets.

I already covered that. Please don't chirp things back to me which I've said myself.

 

[Metaphor]

No. We can safely assume that many of the people continuing to work there openly believe sex is real. She contested the reason that her contract was not renewed was based on her views regarding transgender rights legislation. Perhaps she centres her argument on the notion that sex is real, but that notion isn't mutually exclusive with transgender rights legislation.

The importance of sex is central to transgender rights legislation.

It was either exclusionary of some non-binary people and transgender men, or it insists they should be referred to as women. Non-binary people and transgender men don't use those terms in denial of their physiology, so when Rowling's impulse is to mock rather than engage, it's natural to see the action as antagonistic or dismissive.

How on earth do you get Rowling's impulse to be seen as mocking non-binary people or trans men? She was mocking the report writers.

Now, to say the report should say 'women' is to implicitly say 'the results are only relevant to women'. Non-binary people either menstruate or they don't, so a non-binary person should understand that when someone is talking about a sex-based phenomenon (like menstruating) that is what 'women' refers to. The same goes for trans men.

I've already acknowledged that outliers exist.

And why should I trust your assertion that they are outliers, or the implicit assertion that outliers do not have the political power to implement their ideas?

Not a single one of those things necessitates nor evidences a belief that sex is not real on some level.

Bullshit. Amending birth certificates is the most obvious. Sex cannot be altered so unless there was a clerical mistake made on a birth certificate, the 'sex' information on a birth certificate should never be altered. To alter it is to deny the reality of sex, and to pretend that birth certificates refer to gender and not sex.

So? Contemporary diagnostic criteria for children don't support the notion that gender-nonconforming behaviour is definitive of a gender-dysphoria/ incongruence of gender diagnosis.

So? What makes you think the people who want to remove all medical gatekeeping from trans status won't get the power to do so?

I already covered that. Please don't chirp things back to me which I've said myself.

No, you haven't covered it. If I said 'trans women should not compete in women's sports, because trans women are biological males, and sports were separated by sex in the first place to recognize the advantage biological males have over females', that would be regarded as transphobic.

I am also regarded as transphobic for stating that trans women are men, and to imagine that trans women are women is semantic nonsense.

But this isn't about my views. It's about what Rowling said and why nobody can explain how it's transphobic.

 

[prideandfall]

But the article Rawling was responding to WASN'T talking explicitly or exclusively about women. It was talking about people who menstruate. That's a different shape on the Venn diagram. When the article feels compelled to not use the word because it is not the word that applies in that context it it perfectly natural. Rawling's entire Tweet was a semantic critique.

well technically i'd say the article was referring to menstruation and the need for continued access to the sorts of supplies required to deal with it (sanitation and such) - and i don't think it's a stretch that 10 years ago such an article would have probably been titled "Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for women during menstruation" or something.
i'm not saying this to argue a stance on the issue btw so don't take this as me advocating a position either way, but there is a factual point that 'people who menstruate' is kind of awkward wording relative to the more common nomenclature which one might expect to convey the point being made.

and obviously even that is a pretty subjective position to have, as to whether or not it's kind of odd wording, i only bring it up to point out that when i read rowling's comments what i read was an older person yelling at a cloud about how the world is changing and back in HER day if you had a period you just got called a woman and that was the end of it... i didn't read it as explicitly trying to give a finger to the trans community.
though on yet another hand, per my friend who's up on this sort of thing, a pattern of such comments from rowling frames it as being more of that, it's just not as clear from a single statement.

What explains her tweet better, ignorance or ideology?

either? neither? i don't pretend to know the mind of JK rowling, but i do find it interesting that you seem to.

 

[Trausti]

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

The importance of sex is central to transgender rights legislation.

That has nearly nothing to do with what was said. The idea that sex is not real is not central to transgender rights legislation.

How on earth do you get Rowling's impulse to be seen as mocking non-binary people or trans men?

That isn't what I said. Rowling mocked language which was inclusive of non-binary people and transgender men. It's not indicative of general inquisitiveness or desire to engage and understand (even if not agree).

Non-binary people either menstruate or they don't, so a non-binary person should understand that when someone is talking about a sex-based phenomenon (like menstruating) that is what 'women' refers to. The same goes for trans men.

I don't believe any non-binary people or transgender men who menstruate are really confused about that. Conversely, if the article states 'people who menstruate' should Rowling be so confused that this includes women who menstruate and their experiences?

And why should I trust your assertion that they are outliers, or the implicit assertion that outliers do not have the political power to implement their ideas?

You don't have to. I am merely responding to the 'some trans activists' nonsense. I am aware 'some' transgender activists say a great many things. But transgender rights cases haven't been fought and won on the argument sex is not real.

Bullshit. Amending birth certificates is the most obvious. Sex cannot be altered so unless there was a clerical mistake made on a birth certificate, the 'sex' information on a birth certificate should never be altered. To alter it is to deny the reality of sex, and to pretend that birth certificates refer to gender and not sex.

My birth certificate was amended. This has absolutely nothing to do with my views on biological sex. It was an administrative requirement from the government in order to have my other identification changed. My birth certificate has never once ever in the slightest been used for a purpose pertaining to my biological characteristics. It has been used for administrative purposes, and for the purpose of identifying me as a specific individual born in Canada.

I have not denied anyone the 'reality of sex'. I could burn every last birth certificate to ash and erase every record and database in existence and this would have no material impact on anyone's biological characteristics. Amending my certificate does not 'deny the reality of sex'. It acknowledges the reality of administrative processes and bureaucracy. Also, the government has record of what my certificate originally said.

So? What makes you think the people who want to remove all medical gatekeeping from trans status won't get the power to do so?

What does any of that have to do with anything? Even the original comment regarding parents had near nothing to do with what was being said.

No, you haven't covered it. If I said 'trans women should not compete in women's sports, because trans women are biological males, and sports were separated by sex in the first place to recognize the advantage biological males have over females', that would be regarded as transphobic.

The issue under contention at the time was whether or not transgender rights advocates are making absolutist statements that sex isn't real. You provided a scenario where transgender rights advocates argue a range of views from sex-related characteristics are relevant but can be compensated for medically to views that sex-related characteristics are not relevant. The key word here is 'relevant'. Saying sex is not relevant is not the same as saying it is not real on any level. When I provided alternative statements to 'sex isn't real' which might more accurately represent arguments being made, one of them was:

'Sex is real, but not relevant/ central to what we are discussing here.'

Your belief on the relevance of sex wrt sports and whether or not that gets you labelled transphobic have no bearing on the fact that the belief that sex is not relevant does not equate to the belief that it is not real.

 

[zorq]

But the article Rawling was responding to WASN'T talking explicitly or exclusively about women. It was talking about people who menstruate. That's a different shape on the Venn diagram. When the article feels compelled to not use the word because it is not the word that applies in that context it it perfectly natural. Rawling's entire Tweet was a semantic critique.

well technically i'd say the article was referring to menstruation and the need for continued access to the sorts of supplies required to deal with it (sanitation and such) - and i don't think it's a stretch that 10 years ago such an article would have probably been titled "Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for women during menstruation" or something.
i'm not saying this to argue a stance on the issue btw so don't take this as me advocating a position either way, but there is a factual point that 'people who menstruate' is kind of awkward wording relative to the more common nomenclature which one might expect to convey the point being made.

and obviously even that is a pretty subjective position to have, as to whether or not it's kind of odd wording, i only bring it up to point out that when i read rowling's comments what i read was an older person yelling at a cloud about how the world is changing and back in HER day if you had a period you just got called a woman and that was the end of it... i didn't read it as explicitly trying to give a finger to the trans community.
though on yet another hand, per my friend who's up on this sort of thing, a pattern of such comments from rowling frames it as being more of that, it's just not as clear from a single statement.

What explains her tweet better, ignorance or ideology?

either? neither? i don't pretend to know the mind of JK rowling, but i do find it interesting that you seem to.

You don't know her mind? Really? You just said that you had interpreted her tweet as an old person yelling at a cloud complaining about change.

You see I don't know her mind either. That's partly why you are responding to my question and not my answer to that question. But I want to remind you that both of us have these clever little tools in our heads that are quite good at finding patterns and using those patterns to fill in missing information and make predictions about our environments.

You can do it too. You just did, in fact, and I pointed it out to you. I could ask you to do it again to make an effort at actually answering the question I posed, but I think you already answered with your aforementioned speculation.

Anyway, I don't really think she was "deliberately trying to give a finger to the trans community" either. You know who else she forgot about, besides trans and intersex people? People in menopause. I think she detected what might be called a "micro-aggression" against women by referring to them as "people who menstruate" and in an effort to call out this micro-aggression she didn't consider the context of hundreds of thousands of people who menstruate who also don't want to be called "women" OR the millions of people who are happy to be called "women" but don't menstruate.

Now on the contrary, Rawling is a woman who has made a (very successful) career out of crafting words. So successful that she should be quite cognizant of the power of words. She should know that words have meaning and sometimes they are chosen very carefully and for specific reasons. Then how could she possibly ignore that wisdom and launch this ill-conceived assault on an inoffensive word choice like "people who menstruate." WHY did she forget about these exceptions? Why did she take the time out of her day to equate the two groups in a condescending way seemingly out of the blue? Was she experiencing a moment of clueless incompetence or a moment of intolerant incompetence?

 

[Metaphor]

That has nearly nothing to do with what was said. The idea that sex is not real is not central to transgender rights legislation.

The idea that sex is not relevant is central to transgender rights legislation. It is central to it, because trans people demand the right to use sex-segregated spaces that correspond to their gender and not their sex.

Now, you and I both know that some trans activists also believe that sex is a social construct. This is patent nonsense, otherwise there would be no trans people. You might regard the rejection of patent nonsense as transphobic, but I don't.

That isn't what I said. Rowling mocked language which was inclusive of non-binary people and transgender men. It's not indicative of general inquisitiveness or desire to engage and understand (even if not agree).

No. The language is exclusive only if people consider 'women' to refer to gender and not sex. You support that revision of the word and I do not.

In any case, women is exclusive too. It excludes biological males.

But the point Rowling was making was how dehumanizing referring to people by individual sex-related functions was - just as trans activists find it dehumanizing when strangers ask about their genitals (because a person is not their genitals).

I don't believe any non-binary people or transgender men who menstruate are really confused about that. Conversely, if the article states 'people who menstruate' should Rowling be so confused that this includes women who menstruate and their experiences?

She isn't confused. She objects the same kind of dehumanizing language that trans activists object to when people enquire about their genitals.

You don't have to. I am merely responding to the 'some trans activists' nonsense. I am aware 'some' transgender activists say a great many things. But transgender rights cases haven't been fought and won on the argument sex is not real.

Yet that's what Rowling was attacked for. If trans activists think that there is nothing transphobic about saying sex is real, why was Rowling attacked for saying it?

In any case, whether the demands of trans activists imply they think sex isn't real, the demands certainly betray the fact that they think sex is irrelevant when they demand sex-based rights based on their gender.

My birth certificate was amended. This has absolutely nothing to do with my views on biological sex. It was an administrative requirement from the government in order to have my other identification changed. My birth certificate has never once ever in the slightest been used for a purpose pertaining to my biological characteristics. It has been used for administrative purposes, and for the purpose of identifying me as a specific individual born in Canada.

Your birth certificate now contains a lie, and it's a lie that the Canadian government and trans activists were co-collaborators on. You should oppose the amending of sex on birth certificates for people to amend their gender on other documents.

Of course, if those other documents refer to sex and not gender, that is an additional lie enabled and compounded by the first lie.

I have not denied anyone the 'reality of sex'. I could burn every last birth certificate to ash and erase every record and database in existence and this would have no material impact on anyone's biological characteristics. Amending my certificate does not 'deny the reality of sex'. It acknowledges the reality of administrative processes and bureaucracy. Also, the government has record of what my certificate originally said.

I would hope so. Until of course trans activists demand that that too is erased.

Your belief on the relevance of sex wrt sports and whether or not that gets you labelled transphobic have no bearing on the fact that the belief that sex is not relevant does not equate to the belief that it is not real.

I agree that social constructs are real, but denying sex as a biological phenomenon and calling it a social construct and substituting gender for it denies sex is biologically real.

 

[Metaphor]

Now on the contrary, Rawling is a woman who has made a (very successful) career out of crafting words. So successful that she should be quite cognizant of the power of words. She should know that words have meaning and sometimes they are chosen very carefully and for specific reasons. Then how could she possibly ignore that wisdom and launch this ill-conceived assault on an inoffensive word choice like "people who menstruate." WHY did she forget about these exceptions? Why did she take the time out of her day to equate the two groups in a condescending way seemingly out of the blue? Was she experiencing a moment of clueless incompetence or a moment of intolerant incompetence?

It's quite because Rowling is aware of the power of words that she spoke out at all.

 

[Politesse]

Haha, you know what the thread title makes me think of?

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-0lAhnoDlU[/YOUTUBE]

God bless Aerosmith.

 

[repoman]

Are you baiting for this to be posted?