# J K Rowling and the trans furore **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 16, 2020, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795 "2020-06-16T18:05:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 112
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2224 "2020-08-02T21:27:33Z")
The analogy seems pretty strong to be. As for adult male and adult female, how about “adult male” and “adult female”? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2225 "2020-08-02T21:49:29Z")
Sounds like we’re talking about farm animals, but fine. You do realize that if you’re going to change the meanings of “man” and “woman,” and replace them wioth “Adult male” and “Adult female,” these things are going to happen: 1. The words “man” and “woman” will eventually no longer be used much, since they won’t really mean anything. The underlying concept is biological sex. That is how the human race is divvied up. It’s where babies come from. Sex is the basis for the sexism that permeates almost every society. It’s the basis for the oppression and abuse of half the human species. It is the biological reality that people have to deal with every day of their lives. Convince everyone “woman” just means “anyone who identifies as a woman,” and you’ll win that little battle but the word will fall into disuse, since it isn’t of much value. People will still see themselves and the rest of the human race, conceptually, as males and females, and so will just transition to using “male adult” and “female adult,” or some other more easily spoken term. 2. The hardcore trans activists and beardbros will then insist trans women ARE female adults and that trans men are male adults. That’s already happening - not in this thread yet, but it’s on the bleeding edge of the movement for sure, the idea that sex itself is a social construct and trans women are female… and the words will have to shuffle again, but the concepts will remain the same and nothing will actually be better. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2226 "2020-08-02T21:59:02Z")
That’s not what I’m advocating, and I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. I think “man” and “woman” have multiple meanings in common usage, and most of those will continue to be used as they have been, especially in common usage. Which definition is being used is usually clear in context. All I’m suggesting here is that trans women aren’t men, and trans men aren’t women. That makes a functionally tiny change to those words which doesn’t even matter for the vast majority of discussions. There are also multiple meanings for male and female, for that matter, depending on whether we’re discussing biology, sociology, etc. Most of the time the meaning is clear in context. Avoiding trans erasure does very little to 99.9% of language usage. It’s very similar to how the word marriage has changed. We just added another category of couples. Functionally for language very little changed. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 10:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2227 "2020-08-02T22:23:51Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > That’s not what I’m advocating, and I don’t think that’s what’s going to happen. I think “man” and “woman” have multiple meanings in common usage, and most of those will continue to be used as they have been, especially in common usage. Which definition is being used is usually clear in context. > > All I’m suggesting here is that trans women aren’t men, and trans men aren’t women. Then either you are saying trans women are not male adults, or you ARE advocating that that the primary meanings of “man” and “woman” be entirely abandoned. You cannot have it both ways. If those meanings remain true, trans women are, in fact, men; adult males. It is absolutely true to say that, even if you feel they don’t fit some other definition of “man” (which was always true anyway; “man” means a bunch of things, some of them not even nouns.) If they just flat out are not men, then the word “man” cannot mean “adult male”. ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2228 "2020-08-02T22:30:42Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Insisting that gay marriage is not actually marriage would indeed be rhetorical erasure of gay marriage, right? I think marriage is not a helpful analogy in this discussion and it’s surprising no one discussing this with you hasn’t made this point already. Marriage is a human invention. it’s a contract between significant others that is legally recognized by the state. Modifying the eligibility criteria for whom can be married doesn’t require making any changes to the fundamentals underlying the marriage concept. If we made polygamy legal tomorrow, the basic concept of marriage would remain unchanged. If we made bestiality legal, the same applies. We all would understand what someone meant when they said they were married to their horse. Redefining “woman” so that it includes males has no similarity to changing who is eligible for marriage. “Woman” is not a human invention; it’s a biological variant of the human species. For all of history, being a woman has denoted being a member of the female sex class. The opposite of being a female is being a male. Changing how we define woman to enable men to be counted among them purely on the basis of self-ID is analogous to redefining the color black to include shades of white. If “cisblack” and “ transblack” (aka white) are expected to be lumped under the same umbrella term called black, what does black mean? This new definition has to be coherent enough to explain how black and white fit within it. If it’s not coherent, it’s illogical and useless. That’s not even getting into the wrongness of redefining the word that an oppressed minority has united itself under, without even consulting with them first. ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2229 "2020-08-02T22:54:07Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The hardcore trans activists and beardbros will then insist trans women ARE female adults and that trans men are male adults. That’s already happening - **not in this thread yet** , Actually it is happening in this thread. I just was called to the carpet for referring to a trans man as a female. The future is now. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2230 "2020-08-02T23:08:56Z")
This just strikes me as ridiculous hyperbole. A very small function change to a meaning is not abandoning the primary meaning. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2231 "2020-08-02T23:19:24Z")
For some definitions, yes, this seems reasonable. But not for all - some have cultural or societal aspects, rather than biological, and some have changed over time. So I think the comparison has some validity. ---
**Author:** ![filmore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/7993a0/32.png) [@filmore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/filmore)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2232 "2020-08-02T23:24:20Z")
One additional problem is that terms like women and men are very difficult and almost impossible to define without including the biological differences of female and male. Without going into biological differences, what are the differences between women and men? There isn’t really much that separates the genders if not for their biology. For anything like looks, behavior, clothing, interests, etc., there are huge ranges of typical behaviors among both genders. A man can be anything from a huge, muscular MMA fighter who is just looking to get laid to a small, slender ballet dancer who wants a deep emotional connection before getting intimate. But those same exact things can be said about women. Each gender has huge ranges of normal characteristics that make it difficult to define what each gender is without getting into the biological differences. Both men and women wear flannel. Both men and women wear flouncy shirts. Both men and women wear makeup. Both men and women go without makeup. Both men and women can be sensitive care givers. And so on. I’m not sure that man and woman can be defined without referencing the typical biological characteristics that go along with female and male. ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2233 "2020-08-02T23:30:52Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > For some definitions, yes, this seems reasonable. But not for all - some have cultural or societal aspects, rather than biological, and some have changed over time. So I think the comparison has some validity. Can you come up with any other group of people—originally defined using objective biological criteria—whose membership was changed to include outsiders solely in the basis of these outsiders self-identifying? If you have no examples of this happening, then your insistence that some definitions of people can work like this is extremely unconvincing. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2020, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2234 "2020-08-02T23:56:48Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > Can you come up with any other group of people—originally defined using objective biological criteria—whose membership was changed to include outsiders solely in the basis of these outsiders self-identifying? > > If you have no examples of this happening, then your insistence that some definitions of people can work like this is extremely unconvincing. I can’t even think of any other options for “group of people—originally defined using objective biological criteria”. Neanderthals, maybe? Cro magnons? But I don’t think it’s “solely in the basis of these outsiders self-identifying” anyway - it’s based on the conclusions of psychology and medicine, in my understanding (not to change language, but to recognize the existence and legitimacy of trans gender). ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2235 "2020-08-03T00:20:04Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I can’t even think of any other options for “group of people—originally defined using objective biological criteria”. Neanderthals, maybe? Cro magnons? [How about the deaf community](https://www.nationaldeafcenter.org/sites/default/files/The%20Deaf%20Community-%20An%20Introduction.pdf)? They are a group who have developed a unique language and culture as a consequence of being deaf in a society that caters to hearing folk. Should people with normal hearing be allowed to redefine “deaf” so they can become members of this community? Wouldn’t it be reasonable to see this as a privileged group appropriating an unprivileged group’s identity? Would it be wrong for deaf people to fight this tooth and nail, since the cohesiveness of their community is at stake? If you can’t readily think of another group defined by biological criteria (like a hearing impairment or medical condition), then I don’t think you’ve contemplated this subject long enough to be shrugging off redefining “woman”. Redefining the word has implications that reach farther than gender. What is homosexuality, if males can be women and females can be men, with no requirement that physical bodies change? Homosexuality simply becomes a synonym for heterosexuality. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2236 "2020-08-03T00:43:42Z")
There are people who are part of the Deaf community (note the capital D, indicating the cultural community) who can hear. \*_Identification with the Deaf community is a personal choice and is usually made independent of the individual’s hearing status, and the community is not automatically composed of all people who are Deaf or hard of hearing._ _…_ _A person is a member of the Deaf community if he or she self-identifies as a member of the Deaf community, and if other members accept that person as a member_\* > **[Deaf Culture FAQ — The ASL App](https://theaslapp.com/faq)** > > YOU ASKED, WE SAW, WE ANSWERED. I am not hard of hearing, deaf, or Deaf. I know families that are in the Deaf community, and some individuals can even hear. Being deaf doesn’t make you a part of the community , and being able to hear doesn’t exclude you. ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2237 "2020-08-03T01:03:16Z")
This is actually interesting, but please note the exact wording of my question: > Should people with normal hearing be allowed to redefine “deaf” so they can become members of this community? If people are welcomed into the community regardless of their hearing status, this doesn’t make these people actually a type of deaf person. Redefining “deaf” so it includes both hearing and non-hearing people is what I’m asking @iiandyiiii to contemplate. ---
**Author:** ![raventhief](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/raventhief/32/4_2.png) [@raventhief](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raventhief)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2238 "2020-08-03T01:17:12Z")
I understand what you’re saying. I’m just pointing out the fact that you can be culturally Deaf without being physically deaf. So some Deaf people can hear, and many deaf people aren’t part of a particular community at all. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2239 "2020-08-03T01:37:28Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > I’m going by the definition of gender that you gave me earlier. [“the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex”](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gender). So when you claim someone has a male gender identity, is it not fair to assume you mean they identify with certain traits? Sure, I’d agree with that. But some of those traits are psychological – internal – and others are behavioral and cultural – external. Identity vs expression. > It’s not an oxymoron at all, since you can’t be a trans man and _not_ also be female. For one definition of “female”, perhaps. Specifically, the genetic one. But previously you used “female” to mean the anatomical definition. And “female” can also mean “female gender”. So as I said – even though you don’t _mean_ an oxymoron, it _seems_ to be one to some of us because we interact with people first based on their genders. After all, if I see someone who presents as female (gender), I’m going to consider her a female person without checking to see if she has female anatomy. That’s why it grates when you say “trans men are female”. If I’m looking at a man, I’m not thinking about his anatomy. > [@YWTF](#): > > If there is no way to know whether someone’s internal sense of self accurately reflects their gender as oppose to their personality or some other thing, it’s a purely subjective determination. I’m open to the possibility that I’m misunderstanding the distinction between objectivity and subjectivity. If so, I apologize for that. Let’s assume I’m wrong and that gender identity _is_ subjective. What was the object in pointing that out? Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2240 "2020-08-03T01:39:36Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > So some Deaf people can hear, and many deaf people aren’t part of a particular community at all. Yes. Just like there is a lesbian community that doesn’t include all women, there is a Deaf community that doesn’t include all deaf people. Redefining “woman” to include males has implications on the lesbian community. Likewise, redefining deaf to include hearing people has implications on the Deaf community. Glibly changing what these words mean without carefully considering the downstream effects is so crazy and unfair that it’s bizarre an analogy to deaf people is even necessary to make this clear. ---
**Author:** ![Powers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/edb3f5/32.png) [@Powers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Powers)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2241 "2020-08-03T01:47:43Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > Glibly changing what these words mean This isn’t what’s happening. What’s happening is that these words referred to a constellation of traits that almost always went together. And now we’re discovering that they go together less often than we realized. Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![YWTF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/d07c76/32.png) [@YWTF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YWTF)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2242 "2020-08-03T02:04:04Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > That’s why it grates when you say “trans men are female”. If I’m looking at a man, I’m not thinking about his anatomy. I follow Scott Newgent on Twitter and I sent him a DM to ask about this very subject. Told him I was taken to task by trans allies by referring to him as a female. He told me that this is stupid and he thinks it’s delusional when people try to skirt biological fact for emotional reasons. He transitioned because changing his physical body has given the _illusion_ of a sex change needed to help him cope with dysphoria. But he knows very much what he is (females). Trans allies have done more to convince me gender ideology is dangerous and untenable than actual transgender people have. You are complaining about terms “grating” you when you ain’t even trans, dude. If I were trans, all of this would strike me as performative and insulting in a back handed way. They aren’t all emotionally frail denialists of reality. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2243 "2020-08-03T02:07:28Z")
> And now we’re discovering that they go together less often than we realized. Does the existence of a tiny minority warrant changing the definition of terms so that communication is less efficient? A lot of people are unable to walk. They were born missing legs or they become paralyzed later in life. But our lexicon is sprinkled with expressions built on the assumption that everyone can walk. “Walk the walk”. “Walk in someone’s shoes.” “Walk on by.” We don’t see folks pushing to get rid of these expressions, even though it can be argued they erase a significant chunk segment of the population. There are way more paralyzed people on this planet than intersex folks. Are intersex folks the ones pushing for these language changes? Because if they aren’t, I wish people would stop bringing them up so much. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795.md?page=111) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795.md?page=113)