Is JK Rowling transphobic?

Looked for an found some actual data to inform this discussion. Given the huge progress on support for transgender rights less progress than I would have expected on private thoughts.

Note that among Clinton voters 45% would classify according to sex at birth over expressed gender if appearance was nonconforming to expressed gender and only 26% if conforming. (77 and 57% for Trump voters.)

Calling that 45% of Clinton voters bigots and transphobes won’t win them over to a different way of thinking. Instead it is exactly as you with the face opines: the word (and thus to some degree the concept) loses all value.

What studies? I’m aware of zero studies which have proven gender exists as a property independent of biological sex and socialization.

I can believe that trans folk have a gender identity, but I don’t see why I’m required to see this identity as indistinguishable from a biological female woman who has spent her entire life socialized as a biological female. I just don’t think identity works that way. There is an endless list of experiences that have shaped my “gender identity” starting from the day I was born and given a feminine name to the present when I find myself occasionally ignored in meetings in favor of old white men…there is 42 years worth of mental copes I’ve had to develop to keep this kind of shit from hurting me psychologically. There are also good things and neutral things that have shaped my gender identity. Take away these environmental inputs that have come to me due my biological sex, and my gender identity would be entirely different.

I’m not going to assume that my trans coworker (who didn’t start transitioning until his 60’s) has the same “gender identity” that I do. Because I believe socialization matters. Her biological sex is male and this means for 60 years, society treated her as a male.

What are you saying has been disproven, BigT? If someone told me that kids from a very young age show, at a group level, differences in preferences and play behaviors, I wouldn’t dispute that.

But you can accept this and still believe that gender norms are socially prescribed and create unhealthy pressure to conform. Boys are often trained into emotionally unavailable stoicism; it’s not all nature. Girls aren’t born being fanatical about pink and princesses; they learn from a young age these are things “girls do”. Even getting hung up about which restroom to use. This is purely a social convention. I can’t imagine that our hunter gathering ancestors concerned themselves with which hole in the ground was for women and which was for men.

Feminism has always been gender critical. “Women can’t math” and similar oppressive ideas is what feminism has been fighting against since it’s founding. I could care less about TERFs. Search my posts on this board and you’ll see me challenging gender notions going back to 2003, well before anyone was even talking about trans.

To answer the OP, no.

You can simultaneously hold the view that people can dress and identify as whatever they like and question the validity of suggesting that male and female aren’t real distinctions, which no amount of cosmetic alterations can realistically fundamentally alter. There isn’t even any concrete evidence that there are significant differences between ‘male and female’ brains, aside from average size.

You can hold this view, and still appreciate that gender dysphoria is real. We are really bad, generally speaking, at treating mental illness. At the moment we are running the experiment of improving the situation by attempting to change the appearance of people’s bodies. It seems like the best call, I suppose? I know many people it has worked very well for, and I know one person who still took their own life, previously stating that they still did not feel like a ‘real’ man. I’m genuinely curious if anyone knows what the actual data shows?

I don’t think you and I are exactly on the same page with this (and that’s OK!). But I do think I have the same opinion that you have with respect to this particular situation.

If we take the "women are people who feel like woman argument at face value, that means we must accept the notion that your coworker was a women even before she came out. She was a woman all those years she was socialized as a male and in the privileged position of being perceived as a man.

So that means transitioning isn’t even necessary to get the “woman” label. Goatee and mustache and linebacker shoulders and all, she can claim to be “woman” and expect that to be respected. Your coworker could demand feminine pronouns without making any changes in her male presentation, and everyone would be obligated to go along with this if they don’t want to be accused of transphobia and bigotry.

As I said, I don’t have a problem with providing such an accommodation. But I would roll my eyes if this coworker got angry for being refused membership to a woman’s organization. Why should the organization treat this person’s identity with the same gravitas as a person who has always lived the life of a female-presenting female–with all the good and bad that entails? At the very least, it seems reasonable to require a minimum period of “female presentation” before a person can be accepted into “women only” spaces (apart from restrooms and locker rooms).

If Bernie Sanders (who I love) won the 2020 election and then announced that he’s a woman, so thus should be granted the title of first woman US president, I would lose some love for him (her). I would feel awful for Elizabeth Warren and all the other women candidates who have been struggling their whole lives to have their intelligence respected. Now, I don’t think this is a realistic scenario, but I don’t blame ciswomen for having this kind of concern. I think it’s wrong for liberal folk, of all folk, to be so dismissive of this concern. I especially think the opinions of male folk on this subject should take a backseat to those of the folks (women) who would be impacted by this. Men telling female-presenting women that they shouldn’t care about being displaced by male-presenting women is a little too much for me to take, I gotta say.

But surely you can’t? “Women are people who feel like women” means nothing. It’s circular; you cannot define things in circles. If a person “feels like a woman,” what is it they feel like?

That isn’t necessarily a simple thing to define, and it may have multiple definitions. A woman could simply be a mature female. It could also be a female who has attained the legal age of majority - which isn’t quite the same thing as “mature female.” It could be the Shania Twain definition, a female who feels as if they have the prerogative to have a little fun. It could be the collective of all women. It could be an impolite form of address; “dammit, woman, stop doing that!” It could be a way of describing one’s romantic partner; “Aisha is my woman.” I could think of more, but “a woman is someone who feels like a woman” is not one of them, unless you go on to better define the second “woman.” (“Man” has even more definitions.)

I don’t think male opinions need to take a backseat per se, but yeah, I do think it’s jarring to have biological males (both trans and cis) being the ones berating women who simply question the limits of self-identified womanness and are concerned about these limits being abused to our own detriment.

And yeah, the feminist in me can’t help but see the mansplaininess of being told what a female gender identity is. There just isn’t convincing me that someone who has spent their formative years presenting as male could see the world through the same gender lens that a biological female has. The transformative (and often times traumatic) experience of puberty alone leaves an impression on one’s self-concept that shapes how they see their own gender.

For instance, most biological females move through life highly conscious of the calendar and where things fall in their cycle. Our bodies train us for this watchfulness because inattentiveness can lead to an embarrassing Carrie in the shower scene in our pants. What impact does this constant time tracking have on gender identity? I dunno, I can only speculate. But I do know, after a lifetime of talking to and observing men, that biological males don’t have this burden sitting in the back of their minds at all times. Living in the moment is easy for them. To see this at work, all you have to do is ask a man and a woman how’d they survive alone on a deserted island. I can guarantee you most women will instantly be thinking of what they’d do to prevent bleeding from all over the damn place. Probably before food, water, and shelter is considered, women will be working through the options. How absorptive are banana leaves? How uncomfortable would it be to just swim for four days? Maybe I can hunt down a small mammal and use its pelt as reusable pad? Decades of having to think like this shapes one’s psychology and it derives from biologically-driven experience. Not from simply feeling like a woman, however that is defined.

Maybe I’m not following the right forums, but I don’t see biological females (trans men and trans-supportive cis women) policing beliefs about gender identity like their male counter parts are.

You hit the nail on the head. There is not much science in the current literature. There are a lot of claims and hypotheses and, from some of the less conscientious social sciences and the less rigorous studies, a lot of attempts at explanations that border on the mystical, but there is a dearth of hard studies relative to other topics.

That is changing, but in a charged environment you have to tread carefully. Plus, any rigorous studies are going to take time, which doesn’t lead to an easy resolution.

I think sex and gender are more tightly coupled than people want to believe. If I see good, solid work to the contrary, I’ll change my mind.

I’m also suspicious of the claims of social and cultural influences. They are so nebulous that they can be massaged into an explanation of just about anything that cannot currently be reconciled because it is yet unknown. It’s a bit like practicing astrology.

Although the same applies to biological males, biological females have many functional differences at the genetic and cellular level that biological males simply do not have. They are not hormone dependent and the introduction or withdrawal of hormone treatment does not alter some of those cellular functions. We ARE different from each other in a number of important ways.

In the meantime, what to do? Well, we can stop with the New Agey stuff; it’s not helpful. And, we can stop castigating ciswomen for being able to detect what is, to them, obvious male physical traits in transwomen. We should also stop stretching reality and requiring non transpeople to buy into weirdness about woman penises and male menstruators. Nobody buys it except for the faithful.

In this regard, I think transwomen have the tougher road to hoe because ciswomen are far more perceptive about subtle cues than are men. A lot of men don’t even notice subtle cues, but women are disquieted by discordant inputs and they notice those cues more readily.

It makes sense from an evolutionary perspective that women have to be more careful about being alerted to things that don’t seem right since they are smaller, weaker, and slower and many times further physically hampered by pregnancy and tending to infants.

Gender dysphoria is a real thing, the only reasonably viable treatment we currently have involves altering the body, and we should treat people with kindness and courtesy as long as that consideration is reciprocated. Shutting down people who disagree is a hostile tactic and makes them understandably angry. Disagreement is not assault and it’s emotionally manipulative to pretend it is.

Ultimately, however, ciswomen and transwomen have little in common from a life perspective. They have few shared experiences gender-wise, as biology dictates many of our life experiences and our pivotal moments in development, so there is going to be tension and misunderstanding and mistrust, but we can reach some form of truce, even if it’s an uneasy one.

You and **Monstro **noticed that too, eh?

What’s not to love about irony? It’s very amusing.

Apparently the infamous male arrogance is biological, not cultural/social. :wink:

Men are great and I admire their contributions to civilization and life in general. They are often under-recognized and they perform vital tasks that very few women would touch with a ten-foot pole. They are generally far more driven and more likely to take risks with big and unlikely ideas, which is probably why we live as well as we do with our modern materials and modern conveniences.

However, when it comes to womanhood, most men are not subject matter experts. Not even close. There are exceptions of course, but those are usually disciplined researchers or people who borrow heavily from disciplined researchers.

Here are some things I don’t understand:

I keep reading and hearing that “sex and gender are separate”. Which I take to mean that some people can be of one sex, but a different gender. No?

And while I don’t believe we’re going to be seeing the kinds of things monstro is describing on a regular basis, you WILL run into them online occassionally, in certain areas of the internet. (Tumblr is a HUGE one) Surely you’ve heard of “he/him lesbians”, truscum, tu-cutes, “stargender”, etc. There are indeed a lot of weirdos out there. I think they’re the minority, and I suspect many of them are trolls, or at worst, young kids trying to act goofy, but they’re there.

My own theory is that some of them (other than the obvious trolls) might be confusing gender identity and gender roles.
Either way, you can’t force yourself to like, or agree with everyone you meet. You CAN force yourself to treat people respectfully. . Are people really who they say they are? Who knows? I have more important things to worry about than what’s between someone’s legs. As long as you’re not hurting me, it’s “live and let live”.
(Although I will say, if you’re going to cross dress, put some effort into it. Not like that guy I saw walking around the Strip a few years ago.)

Supporting someones right to say something is not at all the same as agreeing with it.

RickJay:

According to Shania Twain, it includes:

[ul]
[li]Men’s shirts[/li][li]Short skirts[/li][li]Coloring one’s hair[/li][li]Doing what one dares[/li][/ul]

After some thought I do see some value in commenting on the cast of characters that circle around the tweet in question, as GreysonCarlisle states is the thread’s sole purpose. They do have value as potential archetypes. The following is at least to the best of my understanding.

Let’s start with Gregor Murray. This is a biological male who chooses to present stereotypically male, (classic man’s suit tie beard) who is known to call women “cunts” and “bitches” in disagreements, who at has chosen to claim identify as non-binary and who claims great hurt at being referred to as a “he”. Now maybe this is a very sincere asshole, but I could certainly understand some concluding that Murray is trying to edgelord or troll, trying to create circumstances in which to claim offense and get attention. A poster child for trans-sexual issues? Not. Again at best an ass. I strongly support transperson rights but yeah you lose me at biological male, male presenting, trans-non-binary misogynist asshole.

IF one was pretty convinced that this person is edgelording, and one feels that person is being an ass to you and yours, is disrespecting your and yours, is giving that person respect in return required? Minimally I would not consider referring to someone you consider to be an edgelording asshole and hateful to you and yours as “he” in the same boat as referring to a longtime trans-man or woman who is trying to be accepted as such the best they can by an unwelcome pronoun.

Maya Forstater. I could understand a position that trans-women are not the same as cis-women and having a resentment based on perceived appropriation. I can understand her sense that she should have a voice on what counts as a member of her club. Nevertheless if that was her thought she expressed it in a needlessly hurtful way. Phobic? Wrong suffix. But trans-skeptical, even trans-adverse? Yeah. Also bit of an ass? Sure.

If she was in supervisory position at the think tank then her tweets could possibly have been considered as creating a hostile work environment for trans-people. In that case being subject to discipline would be justifiable. But someone without that supervisory role engaging in the public debate on these issues outside of work, not misgendering co-workers … losing their job for that expression of disagreeable speech outside of work seems wrong (unless she had a contract stating that her public posts outside of work were considered reflections of her as an employee and subject to discipline if they failed to reflect a stated organizational image at all times). Should monstro and you with the face get fired from their jobs for having expressed their skepticism here? Anyone else?

As an archetype she is a good example of how not to engage in this sort of discussion and a good example of excessive policing of people’s POV outside of work by employers who in general should not be in the business of policing their employees politics and demanding adherence to any specific viewpoint.

JK Rowling. The tweet itself is pretty benign: do what you want to do, be allowed to do what you want to do, but firing a woman for expressing an opinion you disagree with outside of work with no charge of misbehavior at work, is wrong. Agree or disagree with her that thought is not hateful or phobic. Doesn’t mean she isn’t, she might be, but not based on that tweet anyway.

Yet the wave of condemnation! The apparent eagerness to label those who do not think that calling a misogynistic biological-male traditional male-presenting self-identifying trans-non-binary asshole of a person “he” when the person has stated a preference for “they” is a hate crime to be punished with job loss and universal tsk-tsking as bigots and transphobes!

Cite for “bitches”?

As near as I can tell, Murray apologized, accepted his punishment as deserved, and hasn’t acted out further. Hardly seems misogynist.

The suffix is perfectly fine.

That’s the debate. What did she mean, especially with the “sex is real” comment? There’re also the #IStandWithMaya and #ThisIsNotADrill tags she used.

I haven’t seen any of that here. But maybe you mean out there in other corners of the internet. Maya was certainly not charged with a hate crime; her contract was simply not renewed, which was entirely supported by the courts.

…I didn’t see anyone in this thread call for Rickjay to be charged with a hate crime or for losing their job for posting this nonsense.

But what is wrong with calling out that post?

Because RickJay could have just called out the misogyny for what it was. Nobody would have objected to that.

Instead RickJay chose to post a link not to anything misogynistic that Murray had said or done: instead RickJay posted a link to photographs of Murray. It wasn’t a slam on Murray’s behaviour: it was a slam on what Murray looks like and how Murray chooses to present themselves. There is no rule that non-binary people can’t have beards, there isn’t a rule that says non-binary can’t wear suits. I actually altered our dress-code at my business (because it was out-of-date) to accommodate a non-binary team member and they chose to wear a shirt and tie. Forstater admitted that she knew Murray identified as non-binary. So what was the point of posting the photos here?

You don’t need to call Murray a “a misogynistic biological-male traditional male-presenting self-identifying trans-non-binary asshole of a person.” You can just call them a misogynistic asshole. If you insist on adding the rest of the stuff your motives start to get a bit suspect.

Whoops. Their.

The meaning I infer is that just because one may identify as a woman doesn’t make you a woman. Sex matters when deciding this because “sex is real” in a way that gender is not.

GreysonCarlisle “phobic” means “fear” - maybe you see fear as a motivator but I do not. Maybe it is bit pedantic but nevertheless this thread hinges on words’ meanings.

True the transcript I read did put is as “where’s your fucking solidarity you transphobic b*****?” so maybe it was a different word being used along with cunt? Bonbon? Brother? Bubeleh? Could be. I withdraw the claim. :slight_smile:

Was disciplined further for ongoing abusive behaviors.

Tell me though - how many times would you be okay with an American politician calling people the n-word, or “kike” or “fag” … so long as they said sorry afterwards?

Some of the rest of this person’s record. I’m particularly impressed by the reasoned analysis of the proposal for a 40% female board quota, the ability to put out a report about sanitary products in schools managing to refer to trans-men and the non-binary but not girls or women, and most of all the “expressed ‘happiness’ at the death of Guardian journalist Deborah Orr”. Sounds positively Trumpian Murray does! You must be proud.

Banquet Bear if Maya Forstater should lose her job for posting nonsense why not others who post here? You “suspect” my motivations … shouldn’t I lose my job? What standard is there that justifies the one but not the others?

In the context of this discussion conflation of the issues that those who have had long term persistent pervasive difficulty functioning in the world because of gender /biological sex discordance with a person who chooses to look and dress concordant with their biological sex, who is not restricted in anyway, whose only complaint to be made is having a desire to be called “they” and to have the freedom to claim great hurt that someone uses the pronoun of their biology and chosen appearance, is relevant to the discussion. It is the real life of monstro’s hypothetical: a bearded biological male in the urban professional’s lumberjack outfit (suit and tie) claiming deep hurt at being referred to as “he”, enough that it was a cited reason to fire the person who used the word in that context. The picture was context for why some might think that the word “he” was an easy faux paux to make.

GreysonCarlisle above proves how even knowing that using “his” in reference to Murray is clearly misgendering and enough to get one fired, the mistake happens when someone presents like that. And I think GreysonCarlisle has made that mistake before in this thread. “Whoops” is right. People lose their jobs over those whoops apparently.

Having referenced Murray as “he” was considered “transphobia” … Murray’s stated identity as non-binary and presentation as unambiguously male is as relevant as much as Murray’s calling people “cunt” is.

It also means an aversion to.

We covered that a page or two ago. Something about calling someone a roaster and a pish, which I have no idea what those even mean.

I don’t think that’s applicable. Cunt in Scotland doesn’t carry the same baggage as it does in the US, and it’s not even close to kike or fag. It is considered a vulgarity and abusive, though, so it’s not like Murray gets off entirely. But they did apologize, declare the punishment just, and evidently hasn’t repeated the behavior.

Nope. You clearly don’t understand misgendering.

Also nope.

Cite? Even if I did, so what? Mistakes are one thing. Doing so intentionally and repeatedly is what constitutes misgendering. Otherwise, it’s just a whoops.

We’re done.

…she didn’t lose her job for posting nonsense. She posted a lot of stuff that many considered transphobic, admitting that in one week she posted150 times on the subject. She was asked to tone it down, she refused, they didn’t renew her contract. She took them to court, she lost. That’s what this case is about.

This one met the standard of the employment tribunal. Its a high standard to reach: and one I’m perfectly happy to use as my benchmark.

Thats a lot of fucking words. None of them are relevant here.

When did this happen in “real life?”

Apparently not. GreysonCarlisle made a mistake, apologised, nobody gave a fuck. Thats how it actually works in the real world.

Its not relevant at all. Its barely relevant to Forstater’s case.