JKRowling's definition of a Woman

I’m not sure how I’m supposed to respond, only certain that it is wiser not to…

Anyway, being gay isn’t a big deal anymore, like it was when Dubya garnered comparisons to Hitler. Some day being trans won’t be a big deal, either. I look forward to that day, but have a healthy amount of skepticism about the approach taken by many who advocate for trans equality, who you can count me among, fwiw.

One of the reasons Maya Forstater got tarred as a "transphobe" was a complaint lodged against her with the UK Scout Association accusing of her of misgendering that caused "harm" and constituted "abuse" after she referred to a Scottish National Party politician and Dundee Councillor named Gregor Murray as "he."

This photo shows Gregor Murray exactly as he looked when Forstater committed the supposedly heinous offense of ostensibly causing grave harm by "misgendering" the chap:

At the time, Murray was saying he identified as nonbinary and expected others to use "they/them" pronouns for him. Murray also billed himself as "Scotland's first and only openly transgender councillor."

Around the time that Murray filed the complaint against Forstater with the Scout Association, he was all over social media calling women "vile," "hateful," “utter scum” and "evil TERFs" - and referring to lesbians as "uttter cxnts" for protesting their invisibility at Pride and saying no to the demand of many trans activists that lesbians show "inclusion" and "LGBT solidarity" by being open to dating and bedding heterosexual men who claim to be transwomen.

In fact, Murray had recently been suspended as a local councillor in Dundee for "their" misogynistic behaviour.

When Murray was suspended from his position as Dundee councillor in 2019, he resigned from the SNP charging it with "institutional transphobia." From May 2019 news accounts:

Gregor Murray, who is the only elected trans official in Scotland, claims to be no longer “welcome or safe” within the party.

“As a trans person, I do not feel welcome, or safe within the party’s structure."

Meanwhile, in response to Murray's complaint to the UK Scouts about Maya Forstater supposedly causing him harm by making a social media post in which she forgot he was supposedly "trans" and referred to him as "he," the Scouts Association supsended Forstater from her longtime position as a Scout leader whilst the organization carried out an investigation into Murray's list of accusations against her that took two years to complete.

In the end, the Scouts had to issue an apology to Forstater. In the their apology letter, the Scout Association acknowledged that Murray's complaint against Forstater was most likely "vexatious" and none of the charges he had levelled against her proved to be true. The Scouts said:

it is clear you did not deliberately misgender the claimant in order to cause harm, and you did not spread lies and misinformation about them, as alleged in their complaint about you.

Do you really think that Forstater's alleged "misgendering" of Gregor Murray was wrong? Do you think it amounted to harassment of him, discrimination against him, abuse of him? Do you truly think he suffered "harm" from it?

Can you genuinely not understand why women like Forstater, Rowling and me have an issue with the new authoritarian social code and rules of etiquette that trans activists invented - and no one else in society had a say about - which make it the "unwritten law" across the Western world that women today must always remember and respect the claimed gender identities and individual personal pronoun choices of men?

But he believed that gay Americans deserved the same protection as straight Americans, right?

So why did he not support their right to get married?

But... I thought physical appearance was entirely irrelevant!

Or do you agree with GD that people use pronouns based on what they visually perceive?

How are "nonbinary" people supposed to look like? Would you be willing to use "they/them" of Forstater looked differently?

Which lesser human rights do you mean? Genuinely asking. This tweet doesn't go into it.

The biggest problem with her statement here is it contradicts her other statements and actions, and even itself. She claims to be sympathetic to gender dysphoria, but then dismisses the idea of gender identity as a separate entity from biological sex. She claims she wants them to have exactly the same rights as every other person, but supports people and organisations that seek to take those rights away. She points to the lack of empirical evidence regarding male levels of criminality in trans women, but ignores the fact that there is also no evidence to the contrary. In fact, given all we know about testosterone's effects, there's a very strong argument against her point.

At the end of the day, the biggest problem with her positions is that they come from a place of misandry, not feminism. She views maleness as dangerous and of less value than femaleness, and trans women as wolves in sheep's clothing, when in reality they are just sheep in sheep's clothing, and she is the wolf.

She wasn't insulting trans people, she was insulting that subset of trans people who insist on trying to force us all to use their absurd terminology.

You're conflating "protections" with rights. And you know the answer to that question: because he believed marriage was between a man and woman. So did many other Americans at that time. Guess what? None of it matters now. Since Obergefell v. Hodges, gay marriage has been legal in all fifty states, including the ones who have majority residents who agreed or agreed with Bush.

We can relitigate almost any Presidency for it's obvious flaws. Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus and nearly lost reelection to an unapologetic racist. His "emancipation proclamation" freed exactly zero slaves (since it only applied to the northern-held territory).

Or maybe you're trying to make me out to be some great champion of our most neocon President. Either way...I'm not sure what you're getting at or where you are going. Why don't you explain your position instead of asking me to defend one I don't hold? Seriously...what is your position on this topic?

I think it is either naive or cynical to believe that marginalized groups do not need any protection from "criticism, scorn, derision, hostility or phobia."

If you have any problem with treating them differently from other groups, I would rather turn that around and advocate for the protection of dominant groups. If cis hetero people face hostility or phobia because of their gender identity or sexual orientation, they do deserve the same protection as LGBTQ people. But how often does that happen? (Hence my sarcastic comment on heterophobia.) (I also think there is a BIG difference between "criticism" and hostility or phobia.)

Some time ago, I was reading a FB posting of a mother whose daughter just came out as "not straight." (I don't know whether that meant she was lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or whatever. That's really none of my business.) But then the mother wrote, "why don't straight people have to 'come out'?" It's always the LGBQ+ people who have to "come out" and make extra effort to make themselves understood by others. Wouldn't it be nice if all of us have to "come out" regarding our sexual orientation?

You write being gay is not a big deal anymore. I wish that were true. I don't think we are there yet, although things are much better than they were only a few decades ago.

That makes sense and thank you for answering my question. We disagree on how big a deal homosexuality is and we somewhat disagree on how to foster acceptance. I think disagreement is healthy for robust debate, so I don't feel like arguing or trying to sway you in your position. It might be interesting to hear your thoughts on what constitutes "phobia" and how best to remedy it...but that's up to you.

(And I'll hedge just a bit...around 20 years ago, I subscribed to gallup.com to see all their polls. The one that stuck with me the most was approval/disapproval of homosexuality. It was way under 50% in the 1950's and up to almost 70% by the early 2000's. That's where I get the claim that "being gay isn't really a big deal" from. Another data point: Biden's Secretary of Transportation is gay. People do judge and criticize him, but I don't see slurs or insults about his sexuality directed at him. Lastly, over 20 years ago, *conservative* pundit George Will mused, "For the younger generation, being gay is about as interesting as being left handed." None of this means that gay people have lives just as easy as straight people, but that wasn't my point. My point is something like, "You can be accepted for who you are if you are openly gay." That doesn't mean liked, admired, or respected...but no one gets that treatment automatically, in a fundamental level.)

It’s not a big deal now, only trans people wanna think so

What does J K Rowling know about what it means to be a woman? Daniel Radcliffe wants to know.

"Phobia" is irrational fear. Of course, we cannot legislate against fear. But we can legislate against actions based on fear.

And the legal protection for the marginalized groups also protects the dominant group. When we ban discrimination in employment and housing (two issues JKR mentioned) based on sexual orientation and gender identity, we are not only protecting LGBTQ people, but also cis hetero people.

As for actually dealing with irrational fear, the only real "remedy" comes from making people more informed. This involves both fighting misinformation spread by anti-trans people and dealing with the images projected by some trans activists and their allies. The latter is a really delicate question, and I don't have an answer for that. I don't think silencing those people would solve the problem.

Masterpiece Cakeshop and web designer Lorie Smith would disagree with you.

Here is the problem I have with JKR's definition.

On the one hand, she says GD is a real and painful condition and she feels sympathy. But then she does not believe in the idea that someone has gender identity that does not match their body.

For me this is like saying " I don't think Christians believe in the existence of God." It's okay not to believe in God. That's your personal belief. But saying other people don't believe in God and they are just pretending to believe is bigoted, derogatory and dehumanizing.

If JKR does not want trans women in women's prison, locker room or bathroom, that does not make her a transphobe. We can have healthy debate on those questions. But we can do so without questioning trans people's self-identity. We can debate whether prayers should be allowed in public schools without questioning the authenticity of Christians' religious belief. It's the same thing here.

"On the one hand, she says GD is a real and painful condition and she feels sympathy. But then she does not believe in the idea that someone has gender identity that does not match their body."

The two are consistent, not contradictory. The dysphoria is the result of a gender identity that does not fit their body. Her view - and that of others who share that view - is that gender is biological and not psychological. Thinking you are a woman does not make you one; your body does. That is her view. It is irreconcilable with that of those who think gender can be anything you like.

Your "Christian" analogy isn't appropriate. We may accept the sincerity of the Christians' beliefs but we reserve the right to question their truth. We may not agree with their belief there is a God. Or agree that a person who says they a "woman" is a woman simply because they believe themselves to be so. Trans gender individuals may be sincere in their belief about their gender identity but that doesn't make their belief true, that they are a "man" or a "woman" because they think they are, despite a different biological identity. To JK Rowling, gender identity isn't a personal choice, it is a fact of nature. It doesn't however require saying to the trans woman, for example, that their identity can only be male - they are trans, those biologically male who identify as female.

Gender is psychological, sex is not. (BTW, brain is a biological organ. It's not separate from our body.)

She defines sex as a function of gonads. So a woman is someone who has ovary and uterus. By this definition, someone like Alicia Roth Weigel is a "man." Yet Alicia was assigned female at birth, has been legally recognized as a female her entire life, and considers herself to be a woman.

If our "gender" does not exist independent of our gonads, why does Alicia think she is a woman? Is she "pretending" to be a woman, although she knows she was born with testes? Why was she assigned female at birth, although doctors knew she had testes? Why has no one demanded that her birth certificate be "corrected"? Why has no one demanded that she use men's bathroom? Sex is all about gonads, isn't it?

But JKR is saying a trans person is NOT sincere in her belief that she is a woman. That's different from saying "believing you are a woman does not make you a woman."