JKRowling's definition of a Woman

Straight men, gay men, bisexual men, queer men date trans women. To suggest only gay guys date trans women is ignorance.

I like Rowlings' fiction (Harry Potter) better than I like her fictional understanding of science and biology.

Stay in your lane, b!tch.

Meh. Now what we really oughta discus is, what is JK Rowling's best 5K and who would be in the fastest 4 x 800m of British female authors.

I love how the people with the least understanding of sex never have any trouble when it comes to sexism.

Reading this, I don't understand what the issue for her is.

So, if she thinks what they feel is real and is fine with them dressing and presenting how they wish, then why does she take issue at all? Why does she refuse pronouns and label their presentation as stereotypes? Why does she back employees in tribunals who've been dismissed for harassing transgender colleagues?

If she was genuinely fine with it, these would not be problems for her. Why does it matter for her that hormones and surgery cannot change your gametes? I've not given one thought to mine or anyone else's gametes 🤷‍♂️

I can’t tell which posts to upvote/downvote bc I can’t tell who’s being sarcastic and who actually believes in their fantasy worlds 😆

I do, however, instinctively downvote anything from that weirdo Femboi or Lenny Leonard. Is that dude really a teacher? Yikes…..

Bravo JK Rowling. Don’t really know or care where she falls on the political spectrum but it’s nice to see the occasional moment of common sense and reason from celebrities.

You do realize that she is using verbal irony here, right? If I have to explain how to read something at a 7th grade level for you, I don’t have the time.

I sense you hate people you can’t bully.

The trans madness is a joy to behold. Literally nothing can stop it's biblical destruction of "Western values".

No, they do not. Gay men go with trans woman. It’s really that simple.

"I believe a woman is a human being who belongs to the sex class that produces large gametes."

You think that's a normal sentence for a person to say/think?

Yes. That is literally the definition of gay.

Which tribunals exactly are you referring to?

AFAIK, all the employees whose cases have led to tribunals - and lawsuits and hearings before professional licensing boards - that JK Rowling has supported in the so-called "terf wars" are women (the female kind) who were unfairly dimissed, disciplined, smeared, bullied, hounded out or otherwise unlawfully discriminated against in the workplace for lawfully expressing views about sex and gender which aren't in line with the newly fashionable gender identity ideology and enthusiasm for so-called "transition" that a certain segment of elite society strongly endorses and seems to believe everyone else is obliged to get on board with and express fealty to.

The names of the women in these cases I can recall off the top of my head are: Maya Forstater, Allison Bailey, Kathleeen Stock, Sonia Appleby, Jo Phoenix, Rachel Meade and Amy Hamm.

None of these women got in trouble in their workplaces for "harassing transgender colleagues" because not a single one of them ever harassed any transgender colleagues. Some them didn't even have any trans-identified colleagues in their workplaces.

All these women got targeted, smeared, harassed and sanctioned in their workplaces for activities that are entirely lawful. Such as:

publicly stating biolgical facts about sex and saying they believe sex matters in many important areas of life and in law;

standing up for the hard-won rights of women and girls (the female kind), and same-sex attracted people;

advocating for the safeguarding of children and vulnerable adults;

supporting female-only sports, spaces and services;

using clear, factual language related to sex;

objecting to the dehumanizing terms that trans rights campaigners use for women (menstruators, bleeders, birthing people, uterus owners, cervix havers, persons with the capacity for pregnancy, non-men) and our body parts (such as caling the human vagina/birth canal a front hole and bonus hole);

pointing out that there are conflicts between the demands being made in the name of "trans rights" and the hard-won rights and protections afforded to other groups of people;

expressing the view held by many women that today's gender identity ideology is sexist, consumerist, misogynistic, male supremacist, homophobic, unhealthy and harmful to children;

refusing to repeat the mantra "transwomen are women" and saying they don't believe it's true.

Please give the names of the people JK Rowling has backed in employment tribunals who were "dismissed for harassing transgender colleagues."

Ha ha ha, hypocrisy much. Most of those terms seem clear, factual language related to sex.

Maya Forstater, in her court submission: “I reserve the right to use he and him pronouns for male people. No one has the right to compel others to make statements they don’t believe.”

If JK Rowling thinks "gender dysphoria is a real and very painful condition... I want them to be free to dress and present themselves however they like and I want them to have exactly the same rights as every other citizen regarding housing, employment and personal safety."

Then why would she support this? If she thinks they should not to suffer discrimination in the workplace, then why back someone who would refuse to use the presented name and pronouns of a colleague? Why say that trans people presenting themselves in a feminine way is a stereotype of a woman, if she's okay with them dressing as they please?

Yep, GCs use weirdly biological language such as "women are a sex class that produce large gametes".

But then have a problem with "birthing person" (not that I've heard anyone use that term outside of the internet).

I guess they'd be cool with "large gamete holder"? 🤷‍♂️

Those demeaning terms that trans activists have devised solely for the female half of the human race seem like clear, factual terms only to misogynists who believe it's fitting to use dehumanizing language for women, girls, our female body parts and female biological processes because they/you have never seen us a fully human in the first place.

It's telling that trans activists have not coined corresponding terms that dehumanize males the same way they dehumanize women. They don't call boys and men (the male kind) semenators, jizzers, impregnators, prostate owners, scrotum havers, persons with the capacity to cause pregnancy, non-women.

Trans activists don't call the human penis dehumanizing and imbecilic terms like front pole, pelvic protuberance or fleshy forepart.

Coz the people trans activists have the most contempt for, are most intent on degrading, and want to stick it to the most are those of us who are female.

Funny dat.

Forgive me for speculating, but I have a hunch that the reason you haven't heard anyone use the term "birthing person" outside the internet is because like most LRC posters you're a bloke - a bloke who doesn't pay much or any attention to news, literature, training and clinical care related to pregnancy, childbirth, maternity, maternity-related deaths and women's post-partum health.

Planned Parenthood published a style guide last year that advises,

“Birthing people” rather than “pregnant women” is a more inclusive way to refer to individuals who give birth.

Many Planned Parenthood branches use this language in some of their official literature.For example, in 2022,Planned Parenthood of Illinois announced it was launching "a new program to break down barriers to prenatal and postpartum care for Black birthing people."

On May 6, 2021, US Representative Cori Bush of Missouri gave testimony in Congress in which she said that "Every day, Black birthing people and our babies die because our doctors don’t believe our pain."

US Representative Alexandria Ocasio Cortez has used the term "birthing people" in public statements given to the press and, IIRC, in Congressial proceedings.

Even news outlets that are usually on board with "inclusive" language that makes it seem as though words like women and female are too "exclusionary" to be used in most contexts nowadays have expresssed misgivings about the trend of using "birthing people" and "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women" in discussions direcely related to reproduction. A New York Times published in June 2022 noted that in published literature and official documents pertaining to pregnancy, maternity, abortion and women's reproductive health

Today, “pregnant people” and “birthing people” have elbowed aside “pregnant women.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a section on “Care for Breastfeeding People,” the governor of New York issued guidance on partners accompanying “birthing people” during Covid, and city and some state health departments offer “people who are pregnant” advice on “chestfeeding.”

Last year the Biden administration put out budget documents that reflected the gendered discourse of progressives and referred to “birthing people.”

Also in 2022, CNN reported:

Across the US, mainstream institutions such as the American Civil Liberties Union, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and CNN are increasingly opting for gender-neutral terms such as “pregnant people,” “people who get abortions” and “birthing parent” in favor of “women” when referencing pregnancy, fertility and abortion.

In 2023, the Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a paper "The Power of Language in Hospital Care for Pregnant and Birthing People" which said that in order to advance "critical social justice" and show greater respect for "marginalized communities," new sex-neutral terms such as "pregnant and birthing people" should be used in clinical care related to pregnancy, childbirth, miscarriage, abortion. Some passages:

In the context of clinical care, language has power and meaning and reflects priorities, beliefs, values, and culture. Stigmatizing language can communicate unintended meanings that perpetuate socially constructed power dynamics and result in bias. This bias may harm pregnant and birthing people by centering positions of power and privilege and by reflecting cultural priorities in the United States,

The consequences of marginalization for pregnant and birthing people have been documented in the literature. Latinx birthing people report feeling vulnerable because of their immigration and limited English proficiency statuses,12 and Black birthing people report negative experiences related to assumptions that they are single, are multiparous, have high pain tolerance, and have low socioeconomic status.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Power of Language in Hospital Care for Pregnant and Birthing People: A Vision for Change

Stigmatizing language is commonly used in obstetric settings and can be changed to promote pregnancy and birth with a spirit of care, partnership, and support.Language is commonly defined as the principal method of human comm...

Open link

In November of 2023, the Biden-Harris administration followed up the "White House Blueprint for Addressing the Maternal Health Crisis" it released in 2022 in response to the fact that "America’s maternal mortality rates are the highest in the developed world" by announcing the launch of something called the ‘Birthing-Friendly’ Designation on Web-Based Care Compare Tool." In the original press release, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra was quoted as saying,

“Tackling the maternal health crisis is a top priority for the Biden-Harris Administration. We are doing everything in our power to help pregnant, birthing and postpartum people find high-quality maternity care. The hospitals and health systems that are designated as ‘Birthing-Friendly’ are an important tool for consumers in their search for first rate care."

I don't think Rowling is a transphobe, and I feel like people who want to apply that label to her aren't really engaging with her argument. The entire controversy started after a UK government worker was fired for writing "men cannot change into women" on her social media and JK's response was:

In other words, she doesn't have a beef with trans people. She just finds it ridiculous to the point of offense when someone loses their job for having a dissenting opinion on the matter.

Elsewhere, Rowling has been a clear ally to the LGBT movement, telling her readership that one of the main characters in her Harry Potter series, Albus Dumbledore is gay.

I wanted to provide the context, but try to stop somewhere short of the tongue-clucking that naturally follows any defense of Rowling. I think the question "Are trans women really women?" is irrelevant, and that the answers don't really matter. (And understand why people would disagree, but am fine with the competitors themselves and the governing bodies sorting out their views on competitive advantage.)

I think there is a much meatier issue here, and I'd like to draw it to the foreground: if you are a member of a social group that faces criticism, scorn, derision, hostility, and even phobia, does it serve a healthy purpose for an outside entity to protect you from those things? I understand why people will answer emphatically "Yes!" But the best answer I think I've ever heard came from former President George W Bush when he was asked why he opposed hate crime legislation...

I think that quote does the best job I've seen of explaining how a lot of neutral-to-benign (or even provocative) thoughts on this very heated topic are cast as hatred, when it simply isn't so.