Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I've decided to try to acquire a greater understanding of an issue which continues to grab headlines, and which is still surrounded by quite astonishingly virulent toxicity on both sides (but mostly one particular side) of the debate. Call it a new year's resolution if you like.

The issue is that of gender identity. I freely admit that it's an issue which I have consciously and consistently pushed to the margins of my political consciousness, precisely because of the associated toxicity. I'd sort of decided it was too hard, complex, difficult and/or toxic for me to spend much time engaging with it. JK Rowling has expressed her view on it in a long and very reasoned, considerate essay on her website (which I have just made myself read diligently (two years ago when it was published I read most of it but had resorted to skim-reading towards the end), for which she has suffered a remarkable, virulent (and unjustified , in my view) backlash.

As I understand it, the argument centres on proposals to reform the Gender Recognition Act of 2004. The Act decrees that trans people in the UK can apply for a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). To do so, they must prove they have lived in their “acquired gender” for at least two years, and provide medical evidence from a doctor to confirm they are suffering from gender dysphoria. If they are married, their spouse must give permission. A Gender Recognition Panel (which doesn’t meet them) considers their application and, if satisfied, grants a GRC which enables the trans person to change the gender recorded on their birth certificate from male to female or vice versa.

Obtaining a GRC is the path to changing a birth certificate, but is not a pre-requisite to changing gender identity more widely. Trans people can lawfully change their names, appearance and the gender markers on their other UK identification documents (including driving licences and passports) simply by choosing to do so.

Legislation to reform the Gender Recognition Act was proposed in both England and Scotland. In England, the proposals were scrapped in September 2020 in favour of a reduction in the costs of acquiring a GRC. In Scotland, the similar proposed legislation has been stalled - apparently because of the Coronavirus pandemic. Both proposed legislative changes would scrap all of the existing criteria and make obtaining a GRC contingent simply upon individual declaration of gender.

There are (in my view, valid) concerns about simple declarations of preferred or acquired gender to obtain a GRC (not confined to JK Rowling). These focus on spaces - reserved women's spaces - changing rooms, toilets, sports, refuges, prisons, women-only candidate shortlists :

All these have been established in response to the sex-based disadvantages faced by women – whether the threat of voyeurism from creepy men, the unequal physical size and strength of the sexes, or the under-representation of women in professions and politics. The fact that an individual is unhappy with their sex does not necessarily mean that sex becomes irrelevant for all purposes.

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/jk-ro ... ture-war/

Finally, I do recommend taking some time to read Joanne Rowling's very considered and thoughtful essay on the topic. Here is what the author of the New European piece linked to above said :

It was an intimate and considered piece of writing that should have inspired sympathy even among those who disagreed. Instead, it lit a bonfire of condemnation. By the end of 2020, all three main Harry Potter stars had either directly condemned or unambiguously distanced themselves from Rowling: none offered support to her as a victim of domestic violence.

I think I very much agree with that, as I agree considerably with the views that Ms Rowling expresses in her essay.

The other thing that I really struggle to understand on this issue is the level of sheer, vitriolic, hateful toxicity that it attracts. I do understand the equality/non-discriminatory aspects of the argument, and, like Rowling, I have absolute sympathy with trans people and their right to self-determination, and I believe entirely that like other groups, they need protection in law. Why is there so much hatred for people like Rowling who demur from the absolutist position ?

Again from the New European article :

Rowling’s beliefs are that sex is real, that male violence is a problem, that women should be able to talk about themselves in clear language, and that no woman should lose her job for expressing such opinions. No critics have convincingly explained why believing these things hurts trans people.

Finally, here's the link to Joanne Rowling's piece :
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/
Now, I'm not looking for an argument in this thread. I'm trying to understand, and to develop a personal point of view. Perhaps you lot can help by discussing the issue calmly and rationally. I'm counting on you.

I think I'm with you, but I haven't read Rowling. I'll get back.

I had read the Rowling piece, I'd forgotten, but the other one was new to me.

I must say that I find myself fully aligned both with you and the two essays. Furthermore I can't see any logical or other reason not to be.

I cannot understand the angriness and bitter retuperation that is caused by this issue - remembering Kobel. That's what I'd like explained.

It does seem a very strange hill for many unconnected people to die on. Didn't we have a former member who left over this very issue?

His handle was “Lord Kobel”.

Further to JK Rowling, it’s interesting that the actors from the Harry Potter fillum series all distanced themselves from Ms Rowling, saying things like “trans women are women” - when as far as I can tell, Rowling has never denied this, and in fact is very supportive of trans-gendered people.

They know that the Kobels of this world can blight a career.

But Rowling is emphatically not a Kobel.

No she's not, but the Kobels are trying to wreck her.

Who was the other one on here that sang the same tune - the Corbynite troll?

David Baddiel has an excellent documentary on online anger and hate on iplayer at the moment. It seems to fit.

Yeah the demonization of Rowling is horrorfic. One other thing I've noticed is that this is mainly being driven by Americans who have accused Rowling of all manner of crimes from racism to fatphobia. It's also part of an obsession that this country is TERF Island.

I know people who are transitioning. None of them are doing it "for a laugh", claiming to be a penguin, trying to infiltrate women-only shortlists or anything else. In fact, given the amount of hassle and grief the average trans person gets, I take it as a compliment that someone trusts me and our friendship enough for them to trust me not to be a prick to them.

From my limited experience, all I can say is that trans people want to be able to live their lives on their own terms and to have their preferred identity accepted by society. In most cases this shouldn't be an issue - just because someone's wearing a dress doesn't mean they're "fair game", nor does it impact on someone's ability to do their job, perform a task, or most other things.

If there is an issue, it's around "women only" spaces (funnily enough you never hear about trans men 'invading' men's changing rooms or toilets, which may be a clue to the real problem here - read on). In which case I'm inclined to agree that the problem here is less trans people and more arsehole men. If a man wants to get into a women-only space to perv or worse, they'll not be dissuaded by a sign. And as anyone who has encountered a stag night or rugby club pub crawl can attest, sticking a dress and tights on does not make you trans. If anything my limited experience has told me is true, a trans person is likely the most nervous and self-conscious person in the changing room or ladies' toilet.

Trans is not just a case of outward presentation, but about psychological, emotional and intellectual identity as well. The safe spaces issue is best addressed by better policing of those spaces, castrating male sex offenders, and cubicles.

Critics of Rowling see her as part of a wider attempt to fundamentally deny trans people recognition and, ergo, their humanity. I frankly don't know if that's fair in her case, I have not kept up with the ins and outs.

But that's the general impetus: that prevarication or denial about someone's choice is a denial of their selfhood, and is if course tied to wider feeling about many identity issues and the need/desire to protect people from unthinking hegemony. Take that online and you have a worthy cause and you also have an avalanche of bile to go with it.

@Andy McDandy Agree with all of that, especially the part about arsehole men.
For me it comes down to men not being able to self-identify as women without any criteria. That's what Rowling has been attacked for and I really don't see what's wrong with it.

Why such anger over what seems to me to be a relatively small issue? What a hill to choose to die on.

Some half-formed thoughts.

The language around this issue could do with some work. Take the word "choice". Do people really wake up one morning and think " hmm. I want to be a man"? Trans people are born the way they are. It's not a "lifestyle choice" they've made. Transphobes use this language to obfuscate the issue. By deliberately implying that trans people choose to be as they are is to " other" them, to deny the seriousness of their situation, and to undermine their basic right to be who they are. Even to deny their basic humanity. (See Nazi rhetoric about Jews for a classic example of this).

This guff about trans women being pervy men who want to access women-only spaces for their own nefarious purposes is just that. A load of guff. Data from countries which already have these laws in place shows this just doesn't happen. It's more propaganda from the alt-right dehumanisers, trying to shit-stir and frighten those who don't know what the issues are.

The "debate" about Trans Rights. Why should there be a debate? Why is it considered acceptable to discuss whether a group of human beings are worthy of having human rights? Would the transphobes be happy with a debate about transphobe rights? About Black rights?* The rights of old people? We're back to dehumanising trans people.


*Actually, yes. They *would* be happy debating the rights of black people, seeing how they're right-wing scumbags funded by American far-right and Christian fundamentalist groups (Look up the LGB Alliance (note the lack of T and Q), current membership of three, funded by American fascists, and one of the groups our Equalities Minister has been consulting about Trans Rights).


In short, trans people are human beings. Why can't they just be treated as such?

Cyclist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:45 am Some half-formed thoughts.

The language around this issue could do with some work. Take the word "choice". Do people really wake up one morning and think " hmm. I want to be a man"? Trans people are born the way they are. It's not a "lifestyle choice" they've made. Transphobes use this language to obfuscate the issue. By deliberately implying that trans people choose to be as they are is to " other" them, to deny the seriousness of their situation, and to undermine their basic right to be who they are. Even to deny their basic humanity. (See Nazi rhetoric about Jews for a classic example of this).

This guff about trans women being pervy men who want to access women-only spaces for their own nefarious purposes is just that. A load of guff. Data from countries which already have these laws in place shows this just doesn't happen. It's more propaganda from the alt-right dehumanisers, trying to shit-stir and frighten those who don't know what the issues are.

The "debate" about Trans Rights. Why should there be a debate? Why is it considered acceptable to discuss whether a group of human beings are worthy of having human rights? Would the transphobes be happy with a debate about transphobe rights? About Black rights?* The rights of old people? We're back to dehumanising trans people.


*Actually, yes. They *would* be happy debating the rights of black people, seeing how they're right-wing scumbags funded by American far-right and Christian fundamentalist groups (Look up the LGB Alliance (note the lack of T and Q), current membership of three, funded by American fascists, and one of the groups our Equalities Minister has been consulting about Trans Rights).


In short, trans people are human beings. Why can't they just be treated as such?

Yes, my use of the word choice was poorly-conceived, you are quite correct.

Sorry @RedSparrows , I wasn't singling you out. "Choice" is a widely-accepted part of the language surrounding this issue. It shouldn't be. It's one of the TERFs victories. I used to use it myself until quite recently, when a trans lady on a cycling forum I frequent patiently explained why it's wrong.

Aye, I know you weren't - but you're quite right nevertheless!

Cyclist wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 10:45 am
This guff about trans women being pervy men who want to access women-only spaces for their own nefarious purposes is just that. A load of guff. Data from countries which already have these laws in place shows this just doesn't happen.

There is a problem with this, which is that it does happen, and has, actually happened. This is from Sarah Ditum's article in the New European that I linked to in the OP :

Experience has shown the legitimacy of such concerns. Cases such as that of Karen White – a male rapist who identified as a woman and was placed in a women’s prison (despite not having a GRC), and who went on to sexually assault women inmates – show that the embrace of gender identity can have real and damaging consequences for women.

Clearly it's not a concern that applies to every trans woman, or something that happens in any volume or with any regularity, but I think that it is wrong simply to dismiss the legitimacy of the concern.

RedSparrows wrote: ↑Tue Jan 04, 2022 9:25 am Critics of Rowling see her as part of a wider attempt to fundamentally deny trans people recognition and, ergo, their humanity. I frankly don't know if that's fair in her case, I have not kept up with the ins and outs.

I don't think it is, or was, fair. The actors from the Harry Potter fillum series, who to a person have all publicly sought to "distance " themselves from Rowling's opinions, have all done so using such generalised assertions as "Trans women are women" without engaging with any of the (in my view very legitimate) concerns that Rowling raises' JK Rowling does not deny the veracity of trans women being women - in fact she has a record of support for trans people.

But that's the general impetus: that prevarication or denial about someone's choice is a denial of their selfhood, and is if course tied to wider feeling about many identity issues and the need/desire to protect people from unthinking hegemony. Take that online and you have a worthy cause and you also have an avalanche of bile to go with it.

An illustration of the insidiousness of social media in the modern digital age, I feel. The ready accessibility of social media tools as expressors of outrage, whether real or manufactured, is, I think on balance, more of a blight than a boon, certainly in the context of this matter.

Karen White. I thought someone would bring this up.

It's wrong to make this a huge issue based on one case. And it's not a given that Karen White is actually a trans woman, rather than a nasty piece of work who thought he'd found the perfect way to carry out his offences even while in prison.

If there are lots of these people out there, as the TERFs would have you believe, why aren't they offending now? After all, the only thing there is to stop them entering women-only spaces is a sign on the door. Why are they waiting for a change in the law to allow them to do what they want when there's nothing physically stopping them now?

One case does not an argument make.

I'm afraid it does, as the law must apply to all cases.

And we have seen implications in sport and other activities which may impinge on equal opportunities.

In this case a very specific aspect, that of self-identification with no verification.

I came to this issue very early in the 80s. Mrs A was one of the founding trustees of a Women's Centre and a major contributor to its development. Many troublesome issues were raised for a women-only space.

Some wanted all males barred, no matter what their status. A problem in the days when female plumbers et al were in short supply. There was a creche - should male children be allowed? Within the centre the locations of the local women's refuges were available, so there was a real danger if men could come in (this wasn't paranoia, abusive men were not above getting in as tradesmen to be able to attack their wives in what should have been secure places).

Then there was the case of a man who was in the early stages of transition, and was in a relationship with one of the key organisers. The question was whether or not a person who was biologically male but presented as female could be a full participant. The decision of the group, which I agreed with (not that anyone asked me) was that as she was transitioning and was in a relationship she should be considered to be female and granted the privileges thereof. A pragmatic decision, and I believe she later had surgery.

I still think that those principles apply, and to do so isn't 'guff' - poor language in a delicate discussion - it's setting a boundary, a test if you like. And I'm pretty certain that the vast majority would agree.

Whilst we're at it can we please not chuck terms like 'TERF' around. Not nice.