By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues

sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

She just has a different opinion on what sex is and what makes a woman. She's never advocated for stripping trans rights or anything of that sort. Im not saying i agree eith her or anything cause honestly I dont cate that much but its its something I always see on Twitter. People have a different opinion thats not necessarily hateful and everyone tries to cancel them because its not what tbe mainstream sees as the proper opinion. 

She pretty explicitly advocated for the segregation of "biological" women and trans women when speaking about spaces traditionally segregated by sex (ie bathrooms and changing rooms), as well as supporting legal distinctions between sex and gender. While you could make an argument about whether you think these rights should be granted, you cannot make an argument that this isn't a question of trans rights. It is.

There's no such thing as 'trans' tho.

You either make eggs or egg crackers.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network

If I lose my dick in a road cycle accident, that doesn't make me a woman.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Pyro as Bill said:
sundin13 said:

She pretty explicitly advocated for the segregation of "biological" women and trans women when speaking about spaces traditionally segregated by sex (ie bathrooms and changing rooms), as well as supporting legal distinctions between sex and gender. While you could make an argument about whether you think these rights should be granted, you cannot make an argument that this isn't a question of trans rights. It is.

There's no such thing as 'trans' tho.

You either make eggs or egg crackers.

This linguistic argument is altogether fruitless both in its nature as strictly semantic and in its nature as idiotic.

"Trans" certainly exists in a linguistic sense. The terms "cis" and "trans" are utilized in several areas, one of which being Chemistry. These two terms are utilized to speak of different forms of the same molecule and how they are conformed in space. This is similar to how they are utilized to speak about trans identity. It speaks to different forms of the same concept.

That said, the utter irrelevance of your ravings strikes me. I explicitly stated that I was not making an argument which was predicated on any personal opinions regarding the validity of trans identity, so I will leave you here to tilt at windmills.

Have a night.



Cisalpine Gaul and Transalpine Gaul



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

sundin13 said:
Pyro as Bill said:

There's no such thing as 'trans' tho.

You either make eggs or egg crackers.

This linguistic argument is altogether fruitless both in its nature as strictly semantic and in its nature as idiotic.

"Trans" certainly exists in a linguistic sense. The terms "cis" and "trans" are utilized in several areas, one of which being Chemistry. These two terms are utilized to speak of different forms of the same molecule and how they are conformed in space. This is similar to how they are utilized to speak about trans identity. It speaks to different forms of the same concept.

That said, the utter irrelevance of your ravings strikes me. I explicitly stated that I was not making an argument which was predicated on any personal opinions regarding the validity of trans identity, so I will leave you here to tilt at windmills.

Have a night.

I'm a chem grad from the naughties so I was using cis and trans exactly as it was supposed to be used, thanks.

Identify as whatever you want but don't attempt to change reality for everybody else.



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
Pyro as Bill said:

Trans women aren't women. That's why we use the trans-prefix
Trans = NOT eg trans women = NOT a woman

What's so hard to understand?

Sorry (not sorry) if it's offensive but that's reality.

Trans does not mean not. It's also not being used as a prefix, but short for transgender, which is an adjective (although it is a prefix within that adjective).

https://www.oed.com/viewdictionaryentry/Entry/247649;jsessionid=5EE84F821DF046846F76120C822898E7

This argument makes as much sense as saying a transnational corporation is not a corporation or that an interstate railroad is not a railroad.

I don't feel qualified to speak on the biological aspect of this, but I actually do have a degree in English and am confident in saying this linguistic argument is incredibly dumb.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 20 June 2020

sundin13 said:
jason1637 said:

She just has a different opinion on what sex is and what makes a woman. She's never advocated for stripping trans rights or anything of that sort. Im not saying i agree eith her or anything cause honestly I dont cate that much but its its something I always see on Twitter. People have a different opinion thats not necessarily hateful and everyone tries to cancel them because its not what tbe mainstream sees as the proper opinion. 

She pretty explicitly advocated for the segregation of "biological" women and trans women when speaking about spaces traditionally segregated by sex (ie bathrooms and changing rooms), as well as supporting legal distinctions between sex and gender. While you could make an argument about whether you think these rights should be granted, you cannot make an argument that this isn't a question of trans rights. It is.

Is there a reason why the word 'biological' has quotation marks around it?



KLAMarine said:
sundin13 said:

She pretty explicitly advocated for the segregation of "biological" women and trans women when speaking about spaces traditionally segregated by sex (ie bathrooms and changing rooms), as well as supporting legal distinctions between sex and gender. While you could make an argument about whether you think these rights should be granted, you cannot make an argument that this isn't a question of trans rights. It is.

Is there a reason why the word 'biological' has quotation marks around it?

Indeed there is. The reason is because biology is a lot more complex than a lot of people make it out to be and simplifying it into a binary is overly and misleadingly reductive. Thanks for asking.



Cis means near side and trans means across. They're latin prefixes, for example: Transalpine Gaul and Cisalpine Gaul refers to designated regions.

So, anyway, in gender terms
Trans means someone who has crossed to another gender, so a trans woman would be someone who wasn't a woman before.
Cis means someone who hasn't, so a Cis woman is someone who has always been a woman.

Although, I don't know any transgender people, or really anyone who has an opinion on it. So I am not actually sure if I have the accurate definitions here.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Personally, I'm inclined toward agreeing with this take on the matter because I'm the resident "terf" here. I don't get the phenom of gender identity, which is because I don't buy into the notion that "gender" is a real thing. In other words, I don't know what it even means to "feel female". That whole notion to me seems like a load of bullshit and the more I read about it, the more convinced I become that it is bullshit.

I freely admit to not knowing any trans-identified people offline personally and that that could very well be a factor in my persuasion. I'll also concede to being influenced by a woman I know who de-transitioned because she found gender identity to be bullshit too. And furthermore, I won't kid anyone here: personally, I find it kind of insulting that society takes such issue with cultural appropriation when it comes to everything from as serious as blackface down to matters as unserious as hairstyles and twerking, but somehow manages to find the idea of men going around claiming to actually be women and making an entire lifestyle of that totally unobjectionable and in fact offensive to criticize. Maybe I just lack the right kind of sensitivity and the fullest information that's available, but just being straightforward here about the impact of this stuff viscerally on me.

But look, all this said, I've got nothing against trans people as people. I don't dislike such persons and in fact have trans-identified friends online. (And yes, they're aware of my opinions.) I'm inclined to live and let live. But there is a movement of people out here who clearly don't feel the same way and that's where we really start running into problems.

J.K. Rowling is trying to craft out a nuanced position here that recognizes gender identity, but in a way that also acknowledges the socio-political significance of biological sex. I'm not sure that's a tenable position. I don't think the transgender movement will permit her any nuance on this subject. You either have to go along with their entire program of sex-neutralizing everything, all spaces, institutions, language, everything, or you're a bigot in their eyes. Women cannot have privacy rights or be in any way sheltered from "male-bodied persons", be it in contact sports, shelters for battered women, or even in prisons as far as the transgender movement is concerned. Women's privacy and safety has to be completely sacrificed on all levels on the alter of politeness. Neither, for that matter, can anyone de-transition, or necessarily even just be lesbian (as in not sexually attracted to penises) for that matter to be in the clear with this movement. THAT belligerent attitude is why us "terfs" exist.

Were there any room, any socially acceptable space, for the J.K. Rowlings of the world to have their nuanced views, their concerns for the sex-based rights of women in addition to the safety and well-being of trans people...if women were allowed to embrace complex views like those of J.K. Rowling without being labeled "terfs" or transphobes or what have you...I don't think many feminists would continue to care about people's pronoun preferences. But that's not the world we live in, is it?