Is JK Rowling transphobic?

[DSeid]

@Banquet_Bear

…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. …

Thanks for the link. It doesn’t say what you say it does and I appreciate your sharing the source.

From that link yes she clearly believes that “People should be free to live their life without discrimination or harassment. Vulnerable minorities should be protected.” and argues that “woman” should legally be a biological descriptor, not a claim of shared thought processes or gender identity. Her position, agree or disagree, is a concern that doing such reinforces gender stereotypes and boxes people in. Womanhood is not thought processes or behaviors to her; it is a biological descriptor and nothing more. That is not to me a hateful position or fearful one. I don’t agree with it, but I do not find it hateful.

According to that cite she was asked to put on a disclaimer and she complied. She was NOT found to have violated any stated policy.

[The legal question](People should be free to live their life without discrimination or harassment. Vulnerable minorities should be protected.)was whether or not her views were protected speech in the U.K.

This ruling was purely about whether Forstater’s views count as a so-called protected belief, like religious faith, which employers can’t discriminate against someone for holding. And while she met four of five legal tests for that, the sticking point was her insistence that a trans woman is still a man even if she holds a GRC confirming her legal status as a woman.

That’s what Forstater thinks. It might be what a number of other people think. But it’s not what the law says and the judge ruled that Forstater’s desire to be able to refer to someone by the sex she felt appropriate, even if that created an “intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment”, failed the fifth test – that a protected belief can’t violate human dignity or conflict with fundamental rights.

There however no instance noted of her ever treating or referring to a trans-woman as a man in the workplace. This was apparently based on the hypothetical that if she did that it would create that environment. Meanwhile she clearly sated that she would never do that, as above, that people should be able to live free of such harassment.

In the U.S. actually creating a hostile work environment is not protected speech and is regulated against. In the U.K. apparently stating outside of work that “woman” is a biological descriptor of sex and arguing that gender a social construct based on stereotypes, thus a trans-woman is still a man, is not protected speech, and is clarified as speech you can be fired for saying outside of work.

Now personally I think it is an assholish way to express the thought, and I do not agree with the thought, but it is not hate speech, it is not phobic speech, it is not speech that calls for violence or is made in the workplace to others creating an actual hostile environment, and it is not speech I’d want to see put outside the protected speech fence here.

[DSeid]

@GreysonCarlisle

We’re done.

That’s nice.

[Kimstu]

@monstro

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.

If she says she was a woman all the time, then sure, we can take her word for it. Of course, it’s also on her to acknowledge that she was “passing” and being perceived as a man, with all the societal consequences of that, whether she wanted to or not. She doesn’t get to rewrite history and claim that her lived experience is the same as that of cisgender women.

@monstro

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.

Of course. And the same would be true for a cisgender woman who happened to have a goatee and mustache and linebacker shoulders or any other conventionally masculine traits. Like I said, we can’t allow traditional gender stereotypes to be the gatekeepers of the category “woman”, either for cis women or for trans women.

@monstro

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?

Well, as I said, it would depend on what this woman’s organization is about. If it’s specifically concerned with the experiences of presenting and being perceived as conventionally female, then no, a “masculine-looking” trans woman should not expect to be included there. But if the organization is not focused on those experiences, then I don’t see why she should be excluded.

@monstro

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).

That comes down to appearance-based gatekeeping again, though. I think that’s a lot more problematic than you’re willing to admit.

@monstro

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.

I completely agree with you that transgender women who have benefited in some ways from male privilege all their lives shouldn’t blithely assume as soon as they transition that there’s no difference between them and cisgender women. But I don’t really see any transgender women doing this. If Bernie Sanders won the presidency and then came out as female, I sincerely doubt that Sanders would spend any time insensitively demanding to be called the “first woman president”.

[you_with_the_face]

@Kimstu

Well, as I said, it would depend on what this woman’s organization is about. If it’s specifically concerned with the experiences of presenting and being perceived as conventionally female, then no, a “masculine-looking” trans woman should not expect to be included there. But if the organization is not focused on those experiences, then I don’t see why she should be excluded.

I can’t think of any major women’s organization that isn’t concerned with issues disproportionally impacting people with the lived experience of occupying female bodies in a world that treats females differently than men. As an example is Women Who Code, which describes itself as dedicated to inspiring women to excel in technology careers. On the surface one might think this organization should focus equally on all women, even those that are biological males who present as male. But when you consider that the group is actually attempting to overcome the social barriers that have historically kept biological females from entering STEM professions, it’s clear that the intended target is not male-presenting folk. Because males have never been socialized to see members of their sex as mathematically challenged. Women who have been read as female all of their life are hit with that messaging as soon as they start watching TV and see nerds mostly depicted as boys and men, and so their perspective is just different.

[Kimstu]

@you_with_the_face

I can’t think of any major women’s organization that isn’t concerned with issues disproportionally impacting people with the lived experience of occupying female bodies in a world that treats females differently than men. As an example is Women Who Code, which describes itself as dedicated to inspiring women to excel in technology careers. On the surface one might think this organization should focus equally on all women, even those that are biological males who present as male. But when you consider that the group is actually attempting to overcome the social barriers that have historically kept biological females from entering STEM professions, it’s clear that the intended target is not male-presenting folk. Because males have never been socialized to see members of their sex as mathematically challenged. Women who have been read as female all of their life are hit with that messaging as soon as they start watching TV and see nerds mostly depicted as boys and men, and so their perspective is just different.

Sure, I completely agree with you that Women Who Code is addressing the problem of sexist discrimination and stereotypes against people whom society perceives as female. However, it’s not only “female-looking” people who are subject to such discrimination; just having a conventionally feminine name or simply using feminine pronouns can give you “girl cooties” in the eyes of techbros.

Even if you formerly used a masculine name and pronouns, as soon as you transition to identifying as female, many people in tech are going to assume you have “girl cooties” no matter what you look like.

In any case, the organization Women Who Code doesn’t seem to agree with you that “male-presenting folk” who identify as women don’t belong in their group, judging from their published Code of Conduct:

WWCode is a non-profit organization dedicated to inspiring women to excel in technology careers. We are committed to our mission statement and equally committed to providing a harassment-free experience for everyone regardless of gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, ability, physical appearance, body size, race, ethnicity, age, religion, socioeconomic status, caste or creed.

They’re not saying that their organization is only for women whose “gender identity and expression” presents as conventionally female. You seem to be making that claim for them, but they aren’t.

[Banquet_Bear]

@DSeid

Thanks for the link. It doesn’t say what you say it does and I appreciate your sharing the source.

…the cite was to show that “in one week she posted 150 times on the subject”, that was it, and my cite clearly showed her admitting that. I don’t know where you got that it didn’t show what I said it did because it clearly did.

From that link yes she clearly believes that “People should be free to live their life without discrimination or harassment. Vulnerable minorities should be protected.”

Its a shame this mantra is completely at odds with her position on transgender people.

and argues that “woman” should legally be a biological descriptor, not a claim of shared thought processes or gender identity. Her position, agree or disagree, is a concern that doing such reinforces gender stereotypes and boxes people in.

It doesn’t “box people in.” You can’t both argue that “Gregor Murray is a man” and that “Murray’s position on gender identity boxes people in.”

Womanhood is not thought processes or behaviors to her; it is a biological descriptor and nothing more. That is not to me a hateful position or fearful one. I don’t agree with it, but I do not find it hateful.

I don’t doubt you do not find it hateful, and I don’t doubt that you don’t fear her position.

That’s probably because she isn’t targeting you.

But in the UK Transgender hate crimes recorded by police have gone up 81%. In the US the Trump regime have removed many of the protections introduced by the Obama administration for transgender peopleand they also recently said transgender people are no longer allowed to serve in the military.

Lets not pretend that the rhetoric coming from people like Forstater hasn’t had any affect on transgender people. This isn’t just opinion. She bought this case to court for a reason: it wasn’t to get her job back but it was to set a legal precedent.

According to that cite she was asked to put on a disclaimer and she complied. She was NOT found to have violated any stated policy.

That cite was her manifesto. If you want to know the facts of the case I would refer you to the judgement (which I also cited) and not her own words.

[The legal question](People should be free to live their life without discrimination or harassment. Vulnerable minorities should be protected.)was whether or not her views were protected speech in the U.K.

Your link doesn’t work. I’m assuming you linked to the Guardian article?

Can you be specific about what four-of-five tests you think she passed? Because I don’t read the judgement that way at all. “The Granger Criteria” was used to assess whether or not her beliefs qualified as “as a “philosophical belief” under section 10 EqA”, but that wasn’t what this ruling was **purely **about. I don’t think that “her insistence that a trans woman is still a man even if she holds a GRC confirming her legal status as a woman” was the sticking point. It was simply another nail in the coffin.

There however no instance noted of her ever treating or referring to a trans-woman as a man in the workplace. This was apparently based on the hypothetical that if she did that it would create that environment. Meanwhile she clearly sated that she would never do that, as above, that people should be able to live free of such harassment.

The conclusion from the judgement:

[QUOTE=From the Judgement]
It is also a slight of hand to suggest that the Claimant merely does not hold the belief that transwomen are women. She positively believes that they are men; and will say so whenever she wishes.
[/QUOTE]

The judge doesn’t believe Forstater. I don’t believe her either.

In the U.S. actually creating a hostile work environment is not protected speech and is regulated against. In the U.K. apparently stating outside of work that “woman” is a biological descriptor of sex and arguing that gender a social construct based on stereotypes, thus a trans-woman is still a man, is not protected speech, and is clarified as speech you can be fired for saying outside of work.

I think you are reading too much into this particular judgement.

Now personally I think it is an assholish way to express the thought, and I do not agree with the thought, but it is not hate speech, it is not phobic speech, it is not speech that calls for violence or is made in the workplace to others creating an actual hostile environment, and it is not speech I’d want to see put outside the protected speech fence here.

Its speech that has driven people away from these boards: I don’t know any transgender people that still regularly post here any more. Its speech that empowers the bigots, its speech that attempts to change the laws to make it harder for transgender people to function in society. Its hateful, its mean, its phobic and when you are put in the position that you have to defend your right to exist it is obviously hostile.

[you_with_the_face]

@Kimstu

They’re not saying that their organization is only for women whose “gender identity and expression” presents as conventionally female. You seem to be making that claim for them, but they aren’t.

They are saying they are for a harassment free experience for everyone and even include gender in that category of “everyone”. I don’t infer that means their intended targets include biological male, male-presenters on equal plane with biological female women. And of course a non-profit isn’t going to sanction hostility if it wants to stay viable.

Trans men would likely benefit from STEM outreach, particularly if they transitioned later in life and were steered away from certain careers because of their biological sex. So it does make sense that Women Who Code would not be concerned with gender and gender identity, but it would be more focused on counteracting historic effects of sexism.

[DSeid]

Yes your link supports that she made over Twitter 150 posts in a week (which is probably fewer words on the subject than sone in this thread have posted in a week :)) true. It just also directly contradicts some of your other claims. No need to repeat.

Link again.

The position that she at least claims to be defended in your link is an objection to the concept of gender more than anything else. Her position, from what I’ve read anyway, is based on the idea that defining “woman” as anyone who says they are prevents analysis of the structural oppression of women as a class. Specifically her case was about whether or not those beliefs qualified as “as a “philosophical belief” under section 10 EqA”. Again, I don’t agree with her take on gender. But let’s not pretend that that is the same as or even similar to hate speech or an incitement to violence.

Agreed that you and the judge don’t believe her as to what she “will say”. But from your quote of the judgement she clearly lost her job based on what her beliefs are and a belief concerning what she would say in the future, not over any speech or action taken at work. To me that is pretty chilling.

As to what has and has not driven people away from the boards - I’ve shared my thoughts on that in the Disputation thread in ATMB, and do not need to hijack this thread. What place is allowed for what sort of discussions here is however a very different discussion than whether or not employers should, with threats of job loss, be able to control your belief expression in the public debate space (short of speech that directly impacts the work environment).

Is that a standard you’d like to see in place in the United States? Let’s take this to speech more explicit than Forstater’s for clarity. On Twitter someone says that they do not think a transwomen with a penis should be entitled to use a woman’s public bathroom and that they consider them as having a psychiatric problem. Should they be able to fired from their job for that outside of work speech? Is that how we want to control debate on these subjects?

[you_with_the_face]

@Kimstu

Sure, I completely agree with you that Women Who Code is addressing the problem of sexist discrimination and stereotypes against people whom society perceives as female. However, it’s not only “female-looking” people who are subject to such discrimination; just having a conventionally feminine name or simply using feminine pronouns can give you “girl cooties” in the eyes of techbros.

If a biological male who presents as male goes by a feminine name and uses feminine pronouns, techbros may be turned off but it’s not because of sexism. This would be transphobia. i see this as different class of problems than sexism, because the thought running in Techbro’s mind wouldn’t be “This is a chick that needs to be in the kitchen making me a sandwich”. It would likely be “This is a freak that I don’t want to be near.”

Perhaps you’re only talking about what happens on paper, like when tech companies are reviewing resumes? I don’t see how Women Who Code is really going to address this kind of issue, since it’s discrimination perpetrated by companies. The org’s mission statement says it aim is to inspire women to pursue tech careers. Which sounds like increasing the representation of women who present as women.

[Kobal2]

@DSeid

Yes your link supports that she made over Twitter 150 posts in a week (which is probably fewer words on the subject than sone in this thread have posted in a week :))

Not only no, but more importantly it’s a longer term commitment to being an asshole than a post or two on a forum. That’s over 1 TERF tweet per hour, every hour of every day. Assuming she never sleeps, unlike our great master in R’lyeh.

[Kobal2]

(as Belmondo quipped in one of his good movies, “Inspector, do you know the difference between a thief and an asshole ? The thief, on occasion, gives it a rest”)

[RickJay]

@Banquet_Bear

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.

You are oddly obsessed with misrepresenting my words.

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.

There, for that matter, no rule women can’t have beards or wear suits, or that men cannot wear dresses. I am, nonetheless, sympathetic to someone assuming a person with a beard and wearing a suit is a man; it’s an assumption YOU make all the time.

There is, incidentally, nothing wrong with Murray’s appearance.

[DSeid]

@Kobal2

Not only no, but more importantly it’s a longer term commitment to being an asshole than a post or two on a forum. That’s over 1 TERF tweet per hour, every hour of every day. Assuming she never sleeps, unlike our great master in R’lyeh.

First of all you do understand that the people you call "TERF"s find that term to be a term of offense and derision. Noted that one gives respect when one expects respect to be given … and that few of the characters in this kerfuffle seem willing to give much while expect much in return. Least disrespectful to my read has been Rowling.

A commitment to posting a fair amount in that one week about something that was an important issue to her. People do that. 25 Tweets a day for a week, each one 280 characters, generally not things spend much time on, really doesn’t seem crazed. It’s a maximum of 7000 characters a day. There are single posts in this thread over 10,000 characters long (and the one who I checked averages over 8 a day, almost all long, for well over a decade). I’m too self-aware to check my own but I’d suspect my daily character count has had weeks that way exceed 7000 characters a day, when I am involved in a back and forth in GD. Clearly there are those who exceed that in half an hour here!

So yes, definitely yes.

While we may disagree who has been the asshole when (I am comfortable that some might label me as that at times, when we disagree) it is indisputable that assholes posting over 7000 characters a day here is pretty damn common. And non-assholes as well. Again for who is who YMMV.

I’m going to pull back away from the specifics to the more general forms of the arguments again, which again are of more interest to than who was the bigger asshole first.

Is the holding the belief that “biological sex is real” and being minimally skeptical of gender as a similarly “real” thing, as opposed to a construct society imposes, necessarily a hateful belief? (Note, the question is not if you agree with the statement.)

Should the only criteria for gender identity be the unilateral statement of belief by the individual that all must accept else be labelled a bigoted transphobe?

Can people hold even bigoted beliefs and still treat people with respect and dignity and support policies that do the same as the right thing to do even if they disagree with the stated justification of it? (In terms of impact on the person getting the scholarship does it matter what the motivations of the donor were?)

Is labelling as bigots and transphobes those who are less comfortable accepting a stated gender identity that is discordant to biological identity when the individual makes a conscious choice to present as stereotypically concordant with their biological identity rather than their stated identity an effective tool for winning hearts and minds? Or counterproductive conversation killer.

Should a person be fired for having beliefs that you disagree with that they express outside of the work environment. Some on these boards have taken the position that supporting Trump is de facto hate speech that makes them feel threatened (Der Thirs for one but I think not alone.). Given that such speech makes some number feel that way should such speech be prohibited here? Should I be able to fire those who outside of work go to Trump rallies and post Trump supportive tweets, because those beliefs are felt to be hostile to some others?

[Banquet_Bear]

@RickJay

You are oddly obsessed with misrepresenting my words.

…you are oddly obsessed with photographs of Gregor Murray.

There, for that matter, no rule women can’t have beards or wear suits, or that men cannot wear dresses. I am, nonetheless, sympathetic to someone assuming a person with a beard and wearing a suit is a man; it’s an assumption YOU make all the time.

There is nothing wrong with making assumptions, there is nothing wrong with making mistakes. GreysonCarlisle made a mistake earlier in the thread, apologised, then corrected themselves. But from the judgement:

@From the judgement

When in an, admittedly very bitter, dispute with Gregor Murray, who alleged
that they had been misgendered by the Claimant, rather than seeking to accommodate Gregor Murrays legitimate wishes she stated: “I had simply forgotten that this man demands to be referred to by the plural pronouns “they” and “them”, “Murray also calls it “transphobic” that I recognise a man when I see one. I disagree”, “In reality Murray is a man. It is Murray’s right to believe that Murray is not a man, but Murray cannot compel others to believe this.” and that “I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not believe.”

90. I conclude from this, and the totality of the evidence, that the Claimant is absolutist in her view of sex and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

Forstater v CGD Judgement 2019.pdf

The judgement doesn’t say there was something wrong with making an assumption or making a mistake. It says that the evidence shows that Forstater holds an absolutest view and that she will refer to whomever she wants however she wants too even if it violates their dignity.

The photos you posted have absolutely zero relevance to this.

There is, incidentally, nothing wrong with Murray’s appearance.

Yet you couldn’t help but post a photo of them with the commentary “I cannot possibly imagine how someone could think Gregor Murray was a man.” Perhaps you should stop doing stuff like that. it violates the dignity of the person you posted a photo of and it makes things hostile and intimidating for transgender people that might want to post here.

[Banquet_Bear]

@DSeid

Yes your link supports that she made over Twitter 150 posts in a week (which is probably fewer words on the subject than sone in this thread have posted in a week :)) true.

…I very much doubt that.

It just also directly contradicts some of your other claims.

No it doesn’t. Its her manifesto. Its written from her point of view. Contradictions in her point of view are pointed out in the judgement, which I also cited.

No need to repeat.

Link again.

I asked you a few questions about the information posted in the link because I found the claims sketchy. Can you answer them?

The position that she at least claims to be defended in your link is an objection to the concept of gender more than anything else. Her position, from what I’ve read anyway, is based on the idea that defining “woman” as anyone who says they are prevents analysis of the structural oppression of women as a class. Specifically her case was about whether or not those beliefs qualified as “as a “philosophical belief” under section 10 EqA”. Again, I don’t agree with her take on gender. But let’s not pretend that that is the same as or even similar to hate speech or an incitement to violence.

You speak from a position of privilege. What Forstater says or does doesn’t affect you. She isn’t trying to redefine how the government or society legally view your identity.

Is it an incitement to violence? Not directly. But it isn’t a coincidence that there is a rise of hate-crimes against transgender people at the same time as the rhetoric from gender-critical adherents has risen. You don’t seem to want to hear this: but what Forstater preaches is hateful propaganda. They are talking points with very little scientific basis. And what she preaches is indistinguishable from the rhetoric used by the Trump administration when they stopped transgender people from serving, when they rolled back the protections bought in by the Obama administration.

So lets not pretend that what Forstater preaches is just an opinion. Its hateful rhetoric and its harmful.

Agreed that you and the judge don’t believe her as to what she “will say”. But from your quote of the judgement she clearly lost her job based on what her beliefs are and a belief concerning what she would say in the future, not over any speech or action taken at work. To me that is pretty chilling.

My quote from the judgement didn’t actually say that actually. Her contract simply wasn’t renewed. Businesses are allowed to not renew contracts with people.

As to what has and has not driven people away from the boards - I’ve shared my thoughts on that in the Disputation thread in ATMB, and do not need to hijack this thread. What place is allowed for what sort of discussions here is however a very different discussion than whether or not employers should, with threats of job loss, be able to control your belief expression in the public debate space (short of speech that directly impacts the work environment).

It isn’t a hijack at all. We are literally debating identity here. People are arguing that trans-women aren’t women. This isn’t just about the work environment. This thread is about what JK Rowling said: not just about the work environment.

Is that a standard you’d like to see in place in the United States?

I don’t live in the United States. I have much bigger fears for transgender people living in the United States right now than I do for any potential transgression of freedom of speech.

Let’s take this to speech more explicit than Forstater’s for clarity. On Twitter someone says that they do not think a transwomen with a penis should be entitled to use a woman’s public bathroom and that they consider them as having a psychiatric problem. Should they be able to fired from their job for that outside of work speech? Is that how we want to control debate on these subjects?

I’d fire them. No question. It wouldn’t be safe to have that person working at my workplace. I have a duty of care to all of my employees and this employee is clearly unsafe. The gender identity of my staff members are not up for debate.

[RickJay]

@Banquet_Bear

Is it an incitement to violence? Not directly. But it isn’t a coincidence that there is a rise of hate-crimes against transgender people at the same time as the rhetoric from gender-critical adherents has risen.

Ah yes, the old “anyone who disagrees with me is causing violence” nonsense, in the absence, of course, of evidence of either a rise in hate crime or, for that matter, evidence crime against transgender people is due to women saying things like “I don’t think people with dicks should be in my change room.”

[Taber]

So, some transphobic people blocked a transgender pride float at a pride parade, and Gregor Murray called the protesters a misogynistic slur, and so now people in the thread are saying it’s ok to misgender Gregor because they are a misogynist?

It seems to me that it is either ok to be bigoted towards bigoted people or it is not. If it is, then Gregor did nothing wrong, and acting bigoted towards them is not ok. I take the other side, that even if a person is bigoted, it is not ok to show bigotry towards their group. Gregor was wrong to call those transphobes a misogynistic slur, but that still would not justify misgendering Gregor.

[Kimstu]

@you_with_the_face

I don’t infer that means their intended targets include biological male, male-presenters on equal plane with biological female women.

Well, you can see from, for example, this 2015 discussion of Women Who Code rules and positions that they take the inclusion of transgender women in the category of “women” extremely seriously. I don’t see any qualifiers restricting their inclusion of transgender women to those who present as conventionally female in their appearance.

@you with the face

So it does make sense that Women Who Code would not be concerned with gender and gender identity, but it would be more focused on counteracting historic effects of sexism.

The idea that WWC is not “concerned with gender and gender identity” may be your notion of what they ought to do, but it doesn’t seem to be backed up by the actual statements from the organization. For instance, from a WWC official from the discussion from my above link:

Language is important! WWCode has a history of CIS and Trans women as
members, leaders, speakers, and mentors and we want to continue to
communicate our Network as a place for all women. As Sasha pointed out, we
need to continue to examine this opportunity as we expand around the world.

Based on this feedback we will change the Code of Conduct language:

From: WWCode events are intended for people who identify as women unless
otherwise noted and are always open to transgender.

*To: WWCode programs are intended for women and/or transgender unless
otherwise noted. *

“Intended” - because legally men who were born and identify as male are
able to participate in our programs as long as it is for the expressed
purpose of the program
“Transgender” - rather than all women (CIS and Trans) so we don’t exclude
transgender men
“Otherwise noted” - because for some programs we say “open to all genders.”

[you_with_the_face]

@Kimstu

The idea that WWC is not “concerned with gender and gender identity” may be your notion of what they ought to do, but it doesn’t seem to be backed up by the actual statements from the organization. For instance, from a WWC official from the discussion from my above link:

Well, you’re right. I won’t argue about what they say. And I don’t think it’s unreasonable. It is their organization and they make the rules for inclusion.

I guess my main point is that I wouldn’t fault a similar organization if they did have criteria for “women” that did not include biological males who present as males.

[Kimstu]

@you_with_the_face

I guess my main point is that I wouldn’t fault a similar organization if they did have criteria for “women” that did not include biological males who present as males.

Neither would I, as long as the organization had explicit relevant reasons for that exclusion: e.g., that they’re concerned specifically with the experiences and challenges of people who identify as women and present as conventionally female.

(I’d also be a lot more comfortable with this hypothetical organization if they phrased their restrictions along the lines of “this organization focuses on the experiences of women who… [specific criteria]”, instead of something like “this organization considers that only women who… [specific criteria] are women”.)