# 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:** 115
**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, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2284 "2020-08-03T16:09:44Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > If it’s a transman or NB , IME they would correct and move on. Of course, my experience isn’t car wrecks, but I’ve had occasion to misgender someone at a party or a club. And they’ll just tell me their pronouns and we’ll have a drink and it’s sorted. Again, no minefield. Just moleholes, easily filled in. You are still not tracking her line of inquiry. If a trans man is hit by car, he isn’t going to be able to correct you when telling your neighbors that you saw a woman getting hit by car. It’s likely that no one will know the gender identity of the person you’re about. So is it problematic to generally refer to anyone who codes as a female person as woman or girl? That is what @monstro is asking. > Is the fundamental problem here that you and your sister just aren’t interacting with enough IRL transgender people, and only know what the media presents to you? Uh, no. Both of us know and interact with trans folk in real life. I don’t believe the interactions I have with my trans coworkers makes me expert on the entire trans community, but then again I don’t think anyone can claim to be expert. The range of opinions and philosophies under the trans umbrella is exceptionally wide; that much I know is true. Which is why some of the matter-of-fact opinions expressed in this thread merit eye rolls. ---
**Author:** ![Dorjan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dorjan/32/12440_2.png) [@Dorjan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dorjan)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 4:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2285 "2020-08-03T16:14:20Z")
I wonder if they have these issues to the extent that w’re arguing about them here in Thailand, where three genders are legally acknowledged, and 18 genders are colloquially and commonly acknowledged and have terms. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2286 "2020-08-03T16:17:29Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > So is it problematic to generally refer to anyone who codes as a female person as woman or girl? That is what @monstro is asking. Not to me, at any rate. Because it’s entirely non-malicious and in a specific context. But we likely differ on what we see as “coding”. > Uh, no. Both of us know and interact with trans folk in real life. Socially, not just at work, I meant. Because she seems to be on eggshells around the issue, as though she’s going to get personally attacked for it. Which is _so_ not my experience with my trans friends. > Which is why some of the matter-of-fact opinions expressed in this thread merit eye rolls. That goes both ways. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2287 "2020-08-03T16:18:39Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > There’s few enough employees that that makes a difference? 2% of a difference, give-or-take. ---
**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, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2288 "2020-08-03T16:18:44Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > I wonder if they have these issues to the extent that w’re arguing about them here in Thailand, where three genders are legally acknowledged, and 18 genders are colloquially and commonly acknowledged and have terms. From what I know about Thai culture, no they don’t have these problems. There is no social compulsion to conflate women with kathoeys. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2289 "2020-08-03T16:19:59Z")
> [@Dorjan](#): > > I wonder if they have these issues to the extent that w’re arguing about them here in Thailand, where three genders are legally acknowledged, and 18 genders are colloquially and commonly acknowledged and have terms. That raises an interesting point. How are public toilets, changing rooms, and other sex-segregated spaces handled in Thailand? And is everyone happy with the way it is arranged? Presumably there aren’t 18 different bathrooms to cater to all the genders. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2290 "2020-08-03T16:36:44Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > Its neither accurate or informative to intentionally avoid the use of the word female when describIng conditions exclusive to the female reproductive system. I have already said, three or four times now, that I’m in favor of including explanations about who has or doesn’t have a specific part of a female reproductive system in articles about health guidelines specifically directed to the women and other people who possess that part. But that doesn’t mean that it makes sense in medical journalism to just discard an accurate term in favor of an inaccurate one. Neither “Females in a certain age range need to be screened for cervical cancer” nor “Women in a certain age range need to be screened for cervical cancer” is as accurate or informative as “Individuals with cervixes in a certain age range need to be screened for cervical cancer”. I agree with you, as I’ve repeatedly said, that the latter sentence would be more informative if it included an explanation of which kinds of individuals have a cervix and which ones don’t. > [@YWTF](#): > > if you object to referring to transwomen/girls as biological males on the basis on their feelings, even when “male” is clinically relevant and accurate Saying “biological males should not compete against girls in sports” is not more relevant or more accurate than saying “transgender girls should not compete against girls in sports”. You’re insisting on comparing apples and oranges here. The term “transgender girls” literally means the same thing as “individuals who self-identify as girls but are biologically male”. But the terms “females” and “women” do not mean the same thing as “individuals with cervixes”. That’s why it’s more accurate and relevant to specify the particular group of individuals with cervixes as “individuals with cervixes” rather than as “females” or “women”, while it is not more accurate or relevant to specify the particular group of individuals who self-identify as girls but are biologically male as “biological males” rather than as “transgender girls”. ---
**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, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2291 "2020-08-03T16:57:18Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > That’s why I italicized _to me_ . But the information on his perspective wasn’t specifically meant for you. I’m sorry if you found it irrelevant, though. Consider the amount of time it took for you to go back and find me explaining my philosophy on whether trans men are actually women. You have spent more energy engaging me on these semantics than discussing the concerns raised here about about Title IX, the declining clarity of women’s health information, the loss of accurate crime statistics, the message it sends when an identity of an oppressed group is allowed to be co-opted by another, JKR’s concerns that internalize misogyny is driving girls to transition, and the increase in women’s exposure to preventable male violence. Is my personal rubric for determining what constitutes a woman more important to you than the above issues? ---
**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, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2292 "2020-08-03T17:20:23Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > But that doesn’t mean that it makes sense in medical journalism to just discard an accurate term in favor of an inaccurate one. Neither “Females in a certain age range need to be screened for cervical cancer” nor “Women in a certain age range need to be screened for cervical cancer” is as accurate or informative as “Individuals with cervixes in a certain age range need to be screened for cervical cancer”. > > I agree with you, as I’ve repeatedly said, that the latter sentence would be more informative if it included an explanation of which kinds of individuals have a cervix and which ones don’t. All they would’ve had to say is “Persons born female need to contact their doctor about cervical cancer screening by age 25”. It took all of 10 seconds for me to come up with this. The beauty of it that no one even needs to know what a cervix is or who does or doesn’t have one to act in an appropriate manner. Almost all 25 year-old females have cervixes. Females generally don’t started getting hystos until their late 30’s. You don’t write medical advice to address the exceptions to the rule; you need to write concisely for the target audience. A journalist should know this. ---
**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, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2293 "2020-08-03T17:39:56Z")
You asked me for examples, I provided them. That comment re Newgent being female was not directed at me, but your request for more info _was_. I’ve said before that I view transwomen as women, and I have spent some time in the discussion, though I’m hardly dedicated to it. A lot of it seems to revolve around semantics. JKR objected to people who menstruate NOT being called “women” specifically, at the beginning of this whole thing. While there are many aspects of transgenderism that I don’t understand, I don’t know enough to debate those particular issues. Should masculine presenting people be on women’s sports leagues? No, but I’m willing to defer to those who have actually studied the effects of feminizing hormones on the body. If they just feel like a woman that day? No, the physical advantage is too great. Do I think a particular reporter’s article that speaks to cervical cancer without mentioning “woman” is erasing me as a woman? No. I think it’s dumb, but I don’t think it’s harming me. Do I think internalized misogyny is a problem? Yes, I do. Very much so. You’ve objected to transmen being brought into the discussion, but wouldn’t that be the likely result of that internalized misogyny, rather than the transwomen that have been at the heart of much of the discussion? ---
**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, 5:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2294 "2020-08-03T17:49:17Z")
> [@raventhief](#): > > Do I think internalized misogyny is a problem? Yes, I do. Very much so. You’ve objected to transmen being brought into the discussion, but wouldn’t that be the likely result of that internalized misogyny, rather than the transwomen that have been at the heart of much of the discussion? I object to them being used as foils to deflect away concerns about males entering female spaces. I could care less if a trans man played in the women’s basketball league. As long as he’s not taking testosterone, his membership in the female sex class makes his presence permissible. I could care less if a trans man uses the women’s locker room. Again, his member in the female sex class makes his presence permissible. There is nothing to be gained by using trans men as proxies for men when the subject of sex-based rights and protections are being discussed. Trans men are _trans men_. They are not men in a society organized around sex classes. They are not men according to biologists. And they are not men according to reputable dictionaries. It is only under gender ideology that trans men are men. I don’t subscribe to this religion. ---
**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, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2295 "2020-08-03T17:57:34Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Does the existence of a tiny minority warrant changing the definition of terms so that communication is less efficient? That’s not what I said though. I don’t think people _are_ changing the definition. The definition of “woman” includes a number of different properties. An adult human with female anatomy, yes, but also female presentation, female identity, and female genetics, because we just assumed all those things went together more-or-less without exception. So we only needed one word for all of it. So now, we know that those things don’t always go together. And here some people are insisting that “woman” means – and has always meant – only _one_ of those things, and other people are like “but what about the other three things?” Given that genetics is invisible and anatomy is not always obvious, is it any surprise that many people have treated the psychological and sociological definitions as primary rather than the biological ones? (Of course, gender identity is also invisible. The recognition of a split between identity and presentation is even more recent than the one between gender and sex, but it’s not a split unique to trans\* individuals; many cisgender individuals are also affected. This does complicate things, of course.) Powers &8^] ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2296 "2020-08-03T18:01:49Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > 2% of a difference, give-or-take. I’m peripherally involved in a very male-dominated hobby, and there are typically more transwomen present than cis. ---
**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, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2297 "2020-08-03T18:02:59Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > So if you don’t know what my point is, what was your point when you said this? I deeply apologize. The number of posts intervening between my chances to respond make it hard to keep track of the different sub-threads. To recap, here’s what I said: > The longer this thread goes on, the more it seems that the root conflict is that some people believe gender identity to be a subjective feeling while others see it as an objective (if internal) reality. It appears it was incorrect to use the subjective/objective dichotomy here. I’m not sure what other words to use, though. To me, gender identity is more than just a “feeling”. It’s a “knowing”, like knowing you’re human. To me, calling it a “feeling” implies it’s more emotional than experiential (even though I know “feeling” can be used for both), and that implies that it’s a temporary or mutable thing rather than an inherent property of the person’s self-concept. Not being a psychologist, I’m struggling for the right words here. Powers &8^] ---
**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, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2298 "2020-08-03T18:04:32Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > I could care less if a trans man uses the women’s locker room. I would be very surprised if this was a majority view among women. 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, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2299 "2020-08-03T18:14:00Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > The definition of “woman” includes a number of different properties. An adult human with female anatomy, yes, but also female presentation, female identity, and female genetics, because we just assumed all those things went together more-or-less without exception. So we only needed one word for all of it. You seem to think you can just assert this multi-property definition without supporting its existence with evidence. You might as well be saying “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”. No, we haven’t, but you pretty much have to believe that to rationalize your beliefs, don’t you? I promise that you cannot find any reputable source that includes “female identity” and “female presentation” in the definition of woman. These are imagined properties that you and other have tacked on to the word, but that’s all they are: imaginary. There are adult females who have been in vegetative states for most of their lives. Just lying in the bed, dressed in a unisex hospital gown, oblivious to the world. These people are called women. They don’t suddenly become something else because they aren’t presenting or identifying a certain way. ---
**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, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2300 "2020-08-03T18:18:41Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > I would be very surprised if this was a majority view among women. I’m not trying to be snarky when I say this but I’m gonna say it anyway. Why would you even care about what the majority of women think with regards to trans men? You don’t seem particularly concerned about their attitudes towards penis-having trans women. ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [August 3, 2020, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2301 "2020-08-03T18:24:26Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > It appears it was incorrect to use the subjective/objective dichotomy here. I’m not sure what other words to use, though. > > To me, gender identity is more than just a “feeling”. It’s a “knowing”, like knowing you’re human. To me, calling it a “feeling” implies it’s more emotional than experiential (even though I know “feeling” can be used for both), and that implies that it’s a temporary or mutable thing rather than an inherent property of the person’s self-concept. > > Not being a psychologist, I’m struggling for the right words here. There’s a condition called [asomatognosia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asomatognosia) that sometimes affects people who’ve suffered a stroke. It causes them to no longer recognise one of their own body parts. Obviously this is quite different and way more serious than a mismatched gender identity, but point is, it’s not just a feeling, and it does have an objective, physical cause. I wouldn’t say those patients are correct in their beliefs, though. ---
**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, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2302 "2020-08-03T18:28:28Z")
> [@YWTF](#): > > You seem to think you can just assert this multi-property definition without supporting its existence with evidence. I admit there’s a bit of conjecture here, but it seems the most straightforward possibility. How else to explain why separate terms for each aspect of femininity weren’t developed? And how else to explain the existence of demonstrably sane, rational people who identify as women even in the absence of female anatomy? > You don’t seem particularly concerned about their attitudes towards penis-having trans women. I don’t believe I’ve evinced any particular indifference in this regard. I’ve acknowledged those concerns as an obstacle, haven’t I? 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, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795/2303 "2020-08-03T18:52:54Z")
> [@Powers](#): > > I admit there’s a bit of conjecture here, but it seems the most straightforward possibility. **How else to explain why separate terms for each aspect of femininity weren’t developed?** I’m racking my brain to make sense of the sentence in bold, and I have failed. Please clarify? > And how else to explain the existence of demonstrably sane, rational people who identify as women even in the absence of female anatomy? Because there are plenty of sane, rational people who are laboring under the same incorrect impression that you are. They think women are defined by acting, thinking, and feeling a certain way. Because they find themselves acting, thinking, and feeling the same way they ascribe to women, they see themselves as women. As simple as that. It’s a perfectly logical conclusion to reach if you start with the assumption that women act, think, and feel a certain way. The problem is that the assumption is wrong. This is why @RickJay is 100% correct when he says gender is sexism at its core. A woman is someone with a female body and _any_ personality, not a “female personality” and any body. A man is someone with a male body and _any_ personality, not a “male personality” and any body. If society truly believed the above, gender ideology wouldn’t have the foothold that it does. The very fact that it does underscores how truly sexist our society is. I recently learned that David Bowie was once asked about his wardrobe during an interview. “Why are you wearing a woman’s dress?” “I’m not. It’s a man’s dress.” This is what progressivism looks like to me. David Bowie saying “I’m wearing a dress because I’m a woman” will always be nothing but regressive. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795.md?page=114) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-furore/855795.md?page=116)