JKR didn't use any language that was trans phobic, she just spoke the truth and some people are just incapable of accepting the truth. The way these extreme trans activists have behaved towards her is sickening and I hope she has reported anyone who has issued death threats to her to the police. A person's chromosomes determine their gender/sex - if the have a Y chromosome then they are male. Anyone who is transgender will have the outward appearances of whatever sex they transitioned to, achieved through surgery/hormone therapy, but their chromosomes will still show their natural gender. I have no issue with anyone who is transgender living in peace alongside everyone else, which I am sure most of them do. I suspect that, as usual, it is a small minority stirring up hate and spoiling things for the majority.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
The phrase I used was "the language of transphobia".
JKR said in her piece that she had read widely on this issue and sought to present herself as a neutral outsider who had read stuff from "both sides".
However the language she used was a red flag that this was not the case.
If you read FB post and the poster repeatedly said "moslem" instead of muslim would that set of alarm bells? Their defence would be that it is a correct alternative traditional spelling. If you suggested they were racist they may say "Islam isn't a race". I have only seen racists insist on using the term "moslem". If they insisted they weren't racist I think oh I got it wrong . I don't think that racists get to self define - someone saying they are not racist is not going to persuade.
Similarly someone saying "I'm not transphobic but..." does not mean I think that person could not possibly be transphobic.
As for the language - I haven't got the blog to hand but JKR's repeated references to trans activists (posting on twitter, especially posting offensive insults is not activism) and her saying "biological" and "natal" women. This is not neutral language. It is the language of "gender critism" aka transphobia. The term Rowling wants is cis. Cisgender is in the OED. The refusal to use a neutral non loaded term is, again, to me indicate that JKR has being read transphobic material.
Comments on "people who menstruate" are dishonest. How often have you seen that or similar terms in the wild? The phrase is used, as I'm sure you all know, to be inclusive. What should it be replaced by? Women? But we know not all women menstruate so discussion of, for example medical research relating to those who menstruate then being relabelled as about women would be wrong and the conclusions would be wrong. Do you think it should be replaced by "women who menstruate"? But that, as I am sure you know would not include trans men and non-binary folk, so again would be misleading and change the meaning re the group the research related to.
Some may think what I've said is absurd.
I think the idea that "terf" is a gendered insult used to silence women is absurd. "Shut up terf" is the equivalent of saying "duck off racist". Many think you shouldnt "debate" racists. Many feel that there is no point debating "gender critical" feminists. Their views are legitimised by being deemed worthy of debate, those views are very entrenched and not open to change and you will end up exhausted, hsving wasted your time and possibly given platform to a trsnsphobe in the process.
Apologies for all the typos/wrong tenses used above - had only just woken up and didn't read it back before posting.
JKR said in her piece that she had read widely on this issue and sought to present herself as a neutral outsider who had read stuff from "both sides".
However the language she used was a red flag that this was not the case.
If you read FB post and the poster repeatedly said "moslem" instead of muslim would that set of alarm bells? Their defence would be that it is a correct alternative traditional spelling. If you suggested they were racist they may say "Islam isn't a race". I have only seen racists insist on using the term "moslem". If they insisted they weren't racist I think oh I got it wrong . I don't think that racists get to self define - someone saying they are not racist is not going to persuade.
Similarly someone saying "I'm not transphobic but..." does not mean I think that person could not possibly be transphobic.
As for the language - I haven't got the blog to hand but JKR's repeated references to trans activists (posting on twitter, especially posting offensive insults is not activism) and her saying "biological" and "natal" women. This is not neutral language. It is the language of "gender critism" aka transphobia. The term Rowling wants is cis. Cisgender is in the OED. The refusal to use a neutral non loaded term is, again, to me indicate that JKR has being read transphobic material.
Comments on "people who menstruate" are dishonest. How often have you seen that or similar terms in the wild? The phrase is used, as I'm sure you all know, to be inclusive. What should it be replaced by? Women? But we know not all women menstruate so discussion of, for example medical research relating to those who menstruate then being relabelled as about women would be wrong and the conclusions would be wrong. Do you think it should be replaced by "women who menstruate"? But that, as I am sure you know would not include trans men and non-binary folk, so again would be misleading and change the meaning re the group the research related to.
Some may think what I've said is absurd.
I think the idea that "terf" is a gendered insult used to silence women is absurd. "Shut up terf" is the equivalent of saying "duck off racist". Many think you shouldnt "debate" racists. Many feel that there is no point debating "gender critical" feminists. Their views are legitimised by being deemed worthy of debate, those views are very entrenched and not open to change and you will end up exhausted, hsving wasted your time and possibly given platform to a trsnsphobe in the process.
Apologies for all the typos/wrong tenses used above - had only just woken up and didn't read it back before posting.
Last edited:
Cis is absolutely not a “neutral, non-loaded term”. It’s not.
As I woman, I can say hand on heart that I have never once felt that my identity or struggles as a woman have ever been threatened, invalidated or compromised by the existence of trans women.
I’ve also never felt like I am more of a “woman” than a trans woman because I have a menstrual cycle. I don’t understand why some women are so obsessed with that (periods are tit anyway).
I’ve also never felt like I am more of a “woman” than a trans woman because I have a menstrual cycle. I don’t understand why some women are so obsessed with that (periods are tit anyway).
It's not women who are obsessed with periods. It's TRAs and those that gave JKR dogs abuse that are. This whole issue arose from her correctly stating that women have periods. Not all women have periods but only women can. Biological women
@Mselvista you can be GC without being a transphobe. I'm GC but I don't hate trans people. And I absolutely won't use the word cis female in regard to myself or others, doesn't matter if it's in the OED. There are plenty of words in the OED that I won't use. I will not reduce women to subcategories of our own gender
Go tell it to the Oxford English Dictionary.
I’m not a fan of JK. Not since I read that she liked a tweet that likened trans women to ‘men wearing dresses’.
That’s transphobic enough for me and gross. They’re not biological women, no, and they’re aware of that and don’t need telling, but to call them men is demeaning and invalidating their identity.
That’s transphobic enough for me and gross. They’re not biological women, no, and they’re aware of that and don’t need telling, but to call them men is demeaning and invalidating their identity.
That’s a facile argument. Nazism is in the OED. Paedophilia is probably in there. It doesn’t mean either of them is an acceptable tenet by which to live.
And in regards to periods; I think there are definitely women hung up on that. If there wasn’t, why would people have an issue with saying ‘people who menstruate’ in some contexts? That phrase is only really ever used in contexts that need/allow for it but when it is used, there’s usually some kind of negative response to it.
I consider "gender critical" to be a euphemism.
But I actually don't wish to argue in bad faith.
What *does * "gender critical" mean? I have only seen it used as a counter to trans rights. I'm assuming "gender critical" feminism is not wholly about trans people, what is a gc take one other issues facing women? If you don't want to write long posts, can you point me in the direction of GC feminists or articles? Please bear in mind I am familiar with Bindel, Janice Turner, Hadley Freeman and journalists on this, so will not learm anything new from them.
Cis is not a tenet it is an adjective.
It is a legitimate term.
The definition of Nazism, though dry is not exactly glowing.
None of the definitions of biological or natal are analagois to the definition of of cisgender.
As a writer JK Rowling should know this. Their use was delibrate.
Neither is "gender critical".
Can't edit the above as it's tagged onto my earlier post which is now too old. By saying *neither* is...I am not agreeing that "cis" not neutral. It is a descriptive term which is no way loaded.
I don't understand objections to it personally.
Last edited:
Because it obviously needs spelling out again, I’ll say it another way. Something being in the OED doesn’t mean that it (the thing) is acceptable. You know this, and I think you’re teasing.
I understand gender critical feminism to be exactly that; criticism of gender. (Not of transsexual people.) For women, sex is the *reason* we are oppressed, and gender roles are *how* we are oppressed.
I understand gender critical feminism to be exactly that; criticism of gender. (Not of transsexual people.) For women, sex is the *reason* we are oppressed, and gender roles are *how* we are oppressed.
I'm not teasing. I use the term cis to describe myself. But let's park that.
Ok, I understand what you've said so far about criticism of gender. So where can I read or otherwise learn more critiquing gender by so-called GC feminists. Is there anyone in particular that you would recommend?
Ok, I understand what you've said so far about criticism of gender. So where can I read or otherwise learn more critiquing gender by so-called GC feminists. Is there anyone in particular that you would recommend?
That's kinda the point. Many people, including JK Rowling are saying that transwoman aren't a threat, men are. Of course while transphobic people do exist wanting to preserve women's spaces from random predatory men (not transwomen) isn't transphobic. Trans people have bee using the bathroom and changing rooms of their preferred gender for years without people taking issue, the issue is that certain people want to open up much needed single sex spaces to ay and all men who simple says "I identify as a woman". I'm sure you can understand there are many abusive men in the world who would take advantage of this. You cannot deny biological women and girls face many threats purely down to their biological sex.
Edit to add: I've ever felt threatened by a transwoman either and do not see them as a threat. I have however felt and been threatened and attacked by men and the idea that those very men could be allowed to come into female changing rooms, bathrooms, refuges etc is terrifying.
I've put a relevant quotation from JK Rowling's essay below:
"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."
@RosePetals I understand that some women have been made to feel worried and scared about this possibility.
But if a man wants to go into women's toilets or changing rooms they can do that now. They can just walk in.
And that had nothing to do with trans people who, as you say, have been using the appropriate toilet/changing room for years.
Changes to the GRA won't affect access to toilets or chsnging rooms as far as I know. You don't need to show id to get into the ladies' loos.
But if a man wants to go into women's toilets or changing rooms they can do that now. They can just walk in.
And that had nothing to do with trans people who, as you say, have been using the appropriate toilet/changing room for years.
Changes to the GRA won't affect access to toilets or chsnging rooms as far as I know. You don't need to show id to get into the ladies' loos.
Last edited:
True but they can be challenged and removed. If self ID came in as law they would be allowed to stay there as long as they claimed to identify as a woman. Also certain places such as refuges are heavily protected to stop men gaining access. And of course sports (although this is a bit more variable and is currently being challenged), awards, placements, scholarships, programmes, clubs, gym sessions etc that are women only for valid reasons would be open to any man who said they were a woman under self ID law.
That is not an accurate description of how an amended GRA would work.
It would not be a case of simply saying "I'm a woman". It would be a legal declaration. It is simply a streamlining of the process meaning it would be less onerous and would not require "validation" from a medical professional.
All proposals I have seen, include a provision criminalising a false declaration.
But surely if a man wants to harm/sexually assault/grape a woman, most of these men probably don’t feel the need to go down the long, detailed route of posing as a trans woman to gain access to a women’s bathroom or changing room. There are a million other scenarios where they can harm someone.
Are we led to believe these monsters are willing to grape women but draw the line at entering a female only space when they’re clearly male? I don’t know about you but I’ve never seen anyone manning the doors of any public bathroom or changing room, checking the validity of people’s gender, ever.
It frustrates me that the issue here is men, not trans women. Honestly the news I’m seeing lately is just making me hate so much of straight, white, male population.
But do you suggest proving something is a false declaration?
Fro the Stonwwall site regarding the legal consultation:
"Requires no medical diagnosis or presentation of evidence for trans people to get their identity legally recognised"
So what evidence does there need to be, if not medical. Presumably if someone was taking medications or pursuing surgery that would be medical evidence. I can't think what else could be "policed" for something to be proven as false. I guess maybe a name change or some such? But again that is very simple to do with little consequence, meanwhile the consequences of certain men being allowed into female only spaces could be devastating. It already has been for some woman
But legally you can’t ask for a GRA as proof so it would effectively be a self-declaration. And women would then be unable to challenge men who were in a toilet/shower/grape crisis centre. This is the issue here - of course men can enter these spaces if they want to attack women, however, if I’m in a changing room and a man walks in I know to challenge them or try to leave and report it. If self-ID goes through I can’t do that. Or in a worst case, it becomes a hate crime...
You've actually potentially inadvertently agreed with me in your first paragraph. Yes, it is unlikely a man would follow the current requirement to gain a GRC under the current legislation. That's the point of the legislation and what the self ID consultation wished to dismiss. If Self ID became law there wouldn't be a long, detailed route for a man to have to go down, it would be far more simpler.
And you're right, no one mans the doors for most single sex establishments but currently if there was a man faffing round in the women's changing room at my gym I could have him removed. It would not be so simple if Self ID came into law.
And I 100% agree with your last statement. If male privilege was systematically addressed this thread most likely wouldn't exist. Men really are the problem
- Status