Poll of the Day > Is JK Rowling catching heat for saying something about trans women?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Am I missing something here? As far as I know she responded to a tweet that referred to women as people who menstruate and she was like wtf, just say theyre called women. And I think she had another tweet after that, but shes catching heat for that string of tweets.

What am I missing here?

---

people can't say facts if it hurts others feelings
---

FatalAccident posted...

As far as I know she responded to a tweet that referred to women as people who menstruate and she was like wtf, just say theyre called women.

She was responding to a headline that called people who menstruate "people who menstruate". See, there are non-binary people who menstruate. There are trans men who menstruate. The article to which the headline referred was, if I recall correctly, about investing in improving access to hygiene products for all those who menstruate, and Rowling got all "gender critical" about it. (Without reading the actual article at all.)

---

Not a fan of her writing personally so didn't follow this but even Harry potter basically spoke out about it, so she probably said something. I basically think she stated the only real women are the ones who menstruate or something like that.

Could just be mis-info but if that is the case she really needs to hire a better PR person cause that is pretty much what is being spread around.

---

She's a hack writer and poor reader. The only reason I might appreciate the opinions of her characters is that her best characters were not hers to create, but rather to implement.

---

Shes a TERF

---

I love her books

---

She tried to be woke AF but then people found out she wasn't as woke as they thought she was so now they hate her.

---

Zareth posted...

She tried to be woke AF but then people found out she wasn't as woke as they thought she was so now they hate her.

Its fucked up cause its so cringey that even I feel that embarrassment chill run down my spine.

---

What, can't you be an LGBTQ+ ally and still mention that cis people exist?

---

I heard that hagrid is trans now

---

Zareth posted...

She tried to be woke AF but then people found out she wasn't as woke as they thought she was so now they hate her.

the worst thing about it, the writing was on the wall since day zero

---

Bulbasaur posted...

I heard that hagrid is trans now

Ya, a transgiant - he's really just a fat dude

---

Lokarin posted...

What, can't you be an LGBTQ+ ally and still mention that cis people exist?

I'm pretty certain the original article (which Rowling essentially laughed at) was the one being inclusive and using specific language.

The article was talking about how access to hygienic facilities and sanitary products continues despite the pandemic. This effects people who menstruate. The only inclusive and specific language to use here is "people who menstruate."

It would be incorrect to say "women" or "females" in this context. Not all women menstruate. Every if you want to be a trans-person denialist, not all people assigned female at birth menstruate. i.e. those who have not reached puberty, those in menopause, or those with amenorrhea.

JK was mocking the use of specific and intentional language. Her suggestion of saying "women" instead of "people who menstruate" was, at best, medically or scientifically exclusionary and inaccurate. At worst, she was intentionally casting aside transpersons from being part of the discussion.


---

Clench281 posted...

I'm pretty certain the original article (which Rowling essentially laughed at) was the one being inclusive and using specific language.

The article was talking about how access to hygienic facilities and sanitary products continues despite the pandemic. This effects people who menstruate. The only inclusive and specific language to use here is "people who menstruate."

It would be incorrect to say "women" or "females" in this context. Not all women menstruate. Every if you want to be a trans-person denialist, not all people assigned female at birth menstruate. i.e. those who have not reached puberty, those in menopause, or those with amenorrhea.

JK was mocking the use of specific and intentional language. Her suggestion of saying "women" instead of "people who menstruate" was, at best, medically or scientifically exclusionary and inaccurate. At worst, she was intentionally casting aside transpersons from being part of the discussion.

ahh...

I might let it slide if it was in casual conversation - but the context suggests otherwise

---

What_The_Chris posted...

the worst thing about it, the writing was on the wall since day zero

and yet people believed dumbledore was gay, and it wasn't just some pr move.
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

and yet people believed dumbledore was gay, and it wasn't just some pr move.

Too bad Fantastic Beasts never really anywhere with it to make it feel more legitimate and not shallow words.

---

Doesn't she regularly get backlash for stuff she posts online? Maybe a PR person would do her some wonders

---

I like her wizard stories

---

she made a perfectly reasonable statement, and the trans community had a trump-style freakout because her opinions didn't exactly match theirs, ok?

typical behavior for them, but i wish they'd be a little more open minded, like they want others to be, ok?

---

Aculo posted...

she made a perfectly reasonable statement, and the trans community had a trump-style freakout because her opinions didn't exactly match theirs, ok?

typical behavior for them, but i wish they'd be a little more open minded, like they want others to be, ok?

No, she didn't. Because she didn't even read the article, where the terms "woman", "women"," and "girls" were used a significant number of times.

---

Clench281 posted...

I'm pretty certain the original article (which Rowling essentially laughed at) was the one being inclusive and using specific language.

The article was talking about how access to hygienic facilities and sanitary products continues despite the pandemic. This effects people who menstruate. The only inclusive and specific language to use here is "people who menstruate."

It would be incorrect to say "women" or "females" in this context. Not all women menstruate. Every if you want to be a trans-person denialist, not all people assigned female at birth menstruate. i.e. those who have not reached puberty, those in menopause, or those with amenorrhea.

JK was mocking the use of specific and intentional language. Her suggestion of saying "women" instead of "people who menstruate" was, at best, medically or scientifically exclusionary and inaccurate. At worst, she was intentionally casting aside transpersons from being part of the discussion.

Fair enough. Can see why shed be getting heat for this then

---

Aculo posted...

the trans community had a trump-style freakout because her opinions didn't exactly match theirs

There's being upset because one's opinion is that the Star Wars sequel trilogy is better than the original trilogy, and then there's being upset because one's opinion is that your existence and life experience are illegitimate and don't deserve recognition or acceptance. "Opinion" is a very broad term. Some opinions are rather meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and being upset over differences is indeed silly. Other opinions form the basis for full-on systematic oppression, and being upset over differences in those opinions is mandatory to secure passable quality of life for those affected.

Dismissing anything as "just an opinion" without putting any thought into the significance of that opinion is lazy at best and outright malicious at worst. But then thinly-veiled anti-trans posts are your thing, so nobody's really surprised.

Clench281 posted...

JK was mocking the use of specific and intentional language. Her suggestion of saying "women" instead of "people who menstruate" was, at best, medically or scientifically exclusionary and inaccurate. At worst, she was intentionally casting aside transpersons from being part of the discussion.

And given her history of insisting that transgenderism isn't legitimate, there's a pretty good chance it's the latter. Bonus points where it seems like this was purely a cry for attention because nobody had been talking about her in the wake of the more important things going on in the world.

---

People are going to say things you don't like.

ChimeraBlue posted...

People are going to say things you don't like.

They certainly are. They just shouldn't be surprised when saying things people don't like results in those people not liking them. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

---

I think JKR is getting what she deserves, she is a writer yet she doesn't really care about the way she talks to other people. Her recent post didn't relate to me, but I can see why some folks would be upset over such statement she made.

Anyone who is displaying their opinion or thoughts on public or social media should make sure it doesn't offend anyone and it has some moral standards.

Famous people should learn that before they open their mouth or they should find another job. No excuse.

---

adjl posted...

Dismissing anything as "just an opinion" without putting any thought into the significance of that opinion is lazy at best and outright malicious at worst. But then thinly-veiled anti-trans posts are your thing, so nobody's really surprised.

i think the only people saying jk's posts are honestly and legitimately "anti-trans" are those who want that narrative. is she a spokesperson for the trans community and their lifestyle? of course not. is she actively "anti-trans" and trying to stop their lifestyle? obviously not. she has her own opinion on the matter, and quite honestly, it's such a mild take, i don't understand why people are even giving it any energy, ok?

but if you'd rather call me undeserved names, and ignore the actual topic at hand, that's fine i guess. your prerogative, ok?

---

"She's not anti-trans, she just doesn't consider trans people to be legitimate."

Riiiiight...

---

adjl posted...

"She's not anti-trans, she just doesn't consider trans people to be legitimate."

Riiiiight...

and that's the problem with most of you. the slightest deviation from your way of thinking, and you're labelled anti-trans. bully whoever doesn't match your viewpoint. harass anyone who doesn't think just like you, ok?

---

adjl posted...

They certainly are. They just shouldn't be surprised when saying things people don't like results in those people not liking them. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.

Do not feel obligated to feel outraged at every expressed opinion that you don't agree with.

Social media makes it possible for people to share their opinion instantly, and given the variety of beliefs out there, some are bound to offend. Even from people you may respect.

On that note. It's best not to venerate anyone. Always assume that every living person may believe something you would find objectionable.

Aculo posted...

and that's the problem with most of you. the slightest deviation from your way of thinking, and you're labelled anti-trans. bully whoever doesn't match your viewpoint. harass anyone who doesn't think just like you, ok?

Claiming someone's very existence is illegitimate isn't a "slight deviation", it's a denial of who someone is. That's a pretty big deal. Also, the vast majority of harassment I see comes from the anti-trans side pal.

Valkenhyne posted...

Claiming someone's very existence is illegitimate isn't a "slight deviation", it's a denial of who someone is.

i don't remember jk ever claiming anyone's existence isn't legit, except maybe trump's, ok?

Valkenhyne posted...

...the vast majority of harassment I see comes from the anti-trans side pal.

i have no idea about that, since i don't follow/listen/watch any of these people. if trans activists did the same, it would ultimately hurt them a whole lot more than responding to every single post of every single person who's doing it though, ok?

---

ChimeraBlue posted...

Do not feel obligated to feel outraged at every expressed opinion that you don't agree with.

Social media makes it possible for people to share their opinion instantly, and given the variety of beliefs out there, some are bound to offend. Even from people you may respect.

On that note. It's best not to venerate anyone. Always assume that every living person may believe something you would find objectionable.

If I remember correctly , aren't there a rules that outline what you can say on public and not ?
Some expressed believes and opinions can bring people to a court even.
Not all unethical things are forbidden yet , but it doesn't mean people should use them.

---

adjl posted...

"She's not anti-trans, she just doesn't consider trans people to be legitimate."

Riiiiight...

if someone thinks they are jesus, do you hate that person if you don't cater to them?
---

Dreamgamer_lgbt posted...

If I remember correctly , aren't there a rules that outline what you can say on public and not ?
Some expressed believes and opinions can bring people to a court even.
Not all unethical things are forbidden yet , but it doesn't mean people should use them.

I am talking about how one reacts personally to different opinions, not the legality, ethics or value of opinions.

You state "Not all unethical things are forbidden yet, but it doesn't mean people should use them". Whether or not someone should or should not say something is irrelevant. People are going to say things you don't like. Period.

How you react to these opinions is entirely up to you. It can be beneficial to look directly at something that upsets you and examine it holistically and honestly. Remove your personal feelings from the equation and just look at it.

If I tell a furry that they aren't actually a wolf am I illegitimizing they're existence?

---

ninja_lootz posted...

If I tell a furry that they aren't actually a wolf am I illegitimizing they're existence?

@ScritchOwl
---

Zareth posted...

She tried to be woke AF but then people found out she wasn't as woke as they thought she was so now they hate her.

i dont think anyone thought she was woke

her whole thing was trying to retroactively claim woke points on things she didn't write into her books, e.g. dumbledore being gay. then that didn't work so she just went full mask-off terf

---

She basically called out overly cumbersome, politically correct language as appealing only to hypersensitive people.

And then a bunch of hypersensitive people got offended.

---

Aculo posted...

i don't remember jk ever claiming anyone's existence isn't legit,

When you deny somebody's identity, you are refusing to accept that their existence is legitimate. That's the simple reality of the situation. Dismissing that reality as "a slight deviation from how most of you think" doesn't change the fact such dismissal is in direct opposition to the fundamental concept of transgenderism. Labeling that as anything other than "anti-trans" (recall that the prefix "anti-" means "in opposition to") would be dishonest.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

if someone thinks they are jesus, do you hate that person if you don't cater to them?

Are you really going to try to equivocate something as broad as gender identity to something as specific as identifying as a specific person? Because that kind of equivocation should probably have some form of practical justification behind it, which I can't help but notice you're missing.

ninja_lootz posted...

If I tell a furry that they aren't actually a wolf am I illegitimizing they're existence?

Furries are generally role-playing, rather than being a matter of personal identity. Doing that would be roughly the same as telling somebody playing Zelda that they aren't actually Link. That's not a question of de-legitimizing their existence so much as it a matter of you trying to ruin their fun for no reason. You'd still be a tool, but in a different way.

---

faramir77 posted...

She basically called out overly cumbersome, politically correct language as appealing only to hypersensitive people.

And then a bunch of hypersensitive people got offended.

The phrase "people who menstruate" is the shortest way to express that specific subset of people. It's not politically correct, it's biologically correct.

---

Clench281 posted...

The phrase "people who menstruate" is the shortest way to express that specific subset of people. It's not politically correct, it's biologically correct.

"Menstruating people" would be slightly shorter, but does create some ambiguity because it sounds more like it's referring to people who are currently menstruating, not simply those that do so periodically. "Menstruaters" would be both shorter and less ambiguous, but it's not actually a word (though its morphology makes obvious what it's supposed to mean). But yeah, within the constraints of extant, unambiguous language, I don't think it's possible to say it any less cumbersomely.

---

I had those exact thoughts and was about to post them as a joke, but you beat me to it.

---

There are few who can be needlessly pedantic faster than I. Don't feel bad.

Also, "period-havers." Probably the actual fastest option, but very much not formal/professional language.

---

If we're accepting of creating new words, could go with menorrheacs.

---

It's an option, and it rolls off the tongue nicely, but the meaning is less morphologically self-evident, which I consider to be vital in any act of linguofabrication. If it needs to be explicitly defined for people to understand it, it's not a well-crafted word, and you aren't saving any time over using multiple words to communicate the point.

---

TheWitchMorgana posted...

i dont think anyone thought she was woke

her whole thing was trying to retroactively claim woke points on things she didn't write into her books, e.g. dumbledore being gay. then that didn't work so she just went full mask-off terf

As I said, she "tried" to be woke AF.

---

adjl posted...

When you deny somebody's identity, you are refusing to accept that their existence is legitimate. That's the simple reality of the situation.

says who? i don't have to agree with my co-worker marrying his anime fuck pillow, but i'd never deny him as a human, a person, or a friend, ok?

you're taking one thing, and making it about something else entirely, just like the reactionary people who are bombarding rowling with death threats, ok?

---

God, I'm glad I was raised in a place that's still normal.

---

Aculo posted...

says who? i don't have to agree with my co-worker marrying his anime fuck pillow, but i'd never deny him as a human, a person, or a friend, ok?

you're taking one thing, and making it about something else entirely, just like the reactionary people who are bombarding rowling with death threats, ok?

Don't stress too hard trying to think of an argument that doesn't rely on absurdity, ok?

You might shock yourself if you activate more than a handful of neurons, ok?

---