The JK Rowling Podcast

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the PPs who are saying "they're not 'less than,' they're just different" and "it's just recognizing biology!" would you be ok replacing "transwomen" in your statements with "infertile women?" For example:

it is also the primary difference between biological women and infertile women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and infertile women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

and

Infertile women are their own category, I will honor their right to protection safety and the right to a great life but stop snatching and stealing what is not yours! Women are different from infertile women, it’s NOT the same and we are NOT bigots to take and claim our rights and fight off those who will erode them!

If not, why not?

Were infertile women born as men?

Why is that relevant? Infertility is biology, just as being "born a man" is biology.

Yup. There is a range of “biology” even for cisgender people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all the PPs who are saying "they're not 'less than,' they're just different" and "it's just recognizing biology!" would you be ok replacing "transwomen" in your statements with "infertile women?" For example:

it is also the primary difference between biological women and infertile women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and infertile women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

and

Infertile women are their own category, I will honor their right to protection safety and the right to a great life but stop snatching and stealing what is not yours! Women are different from infertile women, it’s NOT the same and we are NOT bigots to take and claim our rights and fight off those who will erode them!

If not, why not?

"Infertile women" isn't really a category. Couples experience infertility, not women individually.

Some women have medical conditions that make fertility challenging or impossible, but this is actually a tiny, tiny group. Most women who experience infertility are actually dealing with a temporary setback, male fertility concerns, infertility due to advanced age. Not a biological fact but a circumstance. Whereas being a trans woman is not a "circumstance" and most trans women would be offended to have it viewed that way.

Being a trans woman is an identity. Dealing with infertility, as any gender, is a medical condition.

I find the phrase "infertile women" to be kind of offensive because infertility isn't really something specific to women (of any kind) and there is a long history of blaming women for infertility that is rooted in misogyny and violence against women. Infertility has long been used as an excuse to discard, even kill women for not performing what others view to be their sole purpose in life.

In other words, there is a long history of society using women's reproductive status against them, to justify violence, discrimination, even murder. Which is precisely why removing the biological implications of the word "women" in order to be inclusive of a group that cannot and will never be subject to that kind of violence or discrimination is concerning.

Now, to be clear, I understand that trans women are at risk of violence and discrimination for other reasons, specific to them. I support laws and protections that will protect trans women and trans kids. 100%. But I object to eliding the categories of trans women and biological women as though they don't exist, because I think it puts biological women at risk. There is a lot at stake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem saying trans women are women, socially speaking. But I strongly disagree with “women period”. Because that is then used to argue that biology doesn’t make us women and womanhood is something that you can declare, and not an intrinsic part of our being. Something is deeply wrong when society asks itself “what’s a woman” and we are being told from the outside - once again - what defines a woman and how we should feel about it.

You are free to define it however you want. Bring a woman means different things to different people.

It should not.

Trans extremists are telling women "trans-women are women and what you thought made you a woman doesn't. In fact, there is nothing that makes you a woman". They are also telling us "you can't use the words that define you and your body because it's not inclusive". Yet trans-women are women, and we aren't anymore. Even when in our most biologically female functions we are not women anymore, we are pregnant people who chest-feed (medically wrong, by the way Cleveland Clinic). Even the violence we suffer is not "against women" anymore, it is "gender-based" now and it sounds much more vague.

Citation? Who are these “trans extremists”?

A prime example is the PPs who are arguing that biology doesn't make someone a woman.

Timestamp?

Pps have literally said that biological functions do not define women, that being a woman means different things to different people, that anyone can define themselves as a woman, that here isn’t an universal experience for women.

And those are “trans extremist” views in your opinion?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the PPs who are saying "they're not 'less than,' they're just different" and "it's just recognizing biology!" would you be ok replacing "transwomen" in your statements with "infertile women?" For example:

it is also the primary difference between biological women and infertile women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and infertile women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

and

Infertile women are their own category, I will honor their right to protection safety and the right to a great life but stop snatching and stealing what is not yours! Women are different from infertile women, it’s NOT the same and we are NOT bigots to take and claim our rights and fight off those who will erode them!

If not, why not?

Were infertile women born as men?

Why is that relevant? Infertility is biology, just as being "born a man" is biology.

Does being infertile grant a woman superior strength and a penis?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem saying trans women are women, socially speaking. But I strongly disagree with “women period”. Because that is then used to argue that biology doesn’t make us women and womanhood is something that you can declare, and not an intrinsic part of our being. Something is deeply wrong when society asks itself “what’s a woman” and we are being told from the outside - once again - what defines a woman and how we should feel about it.

You are free to define it however you want. Bring a woman means different things to different people.

It should not.

Trans extremists are telling women "trans-women are women and what you thought made you a woman doesn't. In fact, there is nothing that makes you a woman". They are also telling us "you can't use the words that define you and your body because it's not inclusive". Yet trans-women are women, and we aren't anymore. Even when in our most biologically female functions we are not women anymore, we are pregnant people who chest-feed (medically wrong, by the way Cleveland Clinic). Even the violence we suffer is not "against women" anymore, it is "gender-based" now and it sounds much more vague.

Citation? Who are these “trans extremists”?

A prime example is the PPs who are arguing that biology doesn't make someone a woman.

Timestamp?

Pps have literally said that biological functions do not define women, that being a woman means different things to different people, that anyone can define themselves as a woman, that here isn’t an universal experience for women.

And those are “trans extremist” views in your opinion?

I do believe that the view that our biology doesn't make us women is extremist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the PPs who are saying "they're not 'less than,' they're just different" and "it's just recognizing biology!" would you be ok replacing "transwomen" in your statements with "infertile women?" For example:

it is also the primary difference between biological women and infertile women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and infertile women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

and

Infertile women are their own category, I will honor their right to protection safety and the right to a great life but stop snatching and stealing what is not yours! Women are different from infertile women, it’s NOT the same and we are NOT bigots to take and claim our rights and fight off those who will erode them!

If not, why not?

"Infertile women" isn't really a category. Couples experience infertility, not women individually.

Some women have medical conditions that make fertility challenging or impossible, but this is actually a tiny, tiny group. Most women who experience infertility are actually dealing with a temporary setback, male fertility concerns, infertility due to advanced age. Not a biological fact but a circumstance. Whereas being a trans woman is not a "circumstance" and most trans women would be offended to have it viewed that way.

Being a trans woman is an identity. Dealing with infertility, as any gender, is a medical condition.

I find the phrase "infertile women" to be kind of offensive because infertility isn't really something specific to women (of any kind) and there is a long history of blaming women for infertility that is rooted in misogyny and violence against women. Infertility has long been used as an excuse to discard, even kill women for not performing what others view to be their sole purpose in life.

In other words, there is a long history of society using women's reproductive status against them, to justify violence, discrimination, even murder. Which is precisely why removing the biological implications of the word "women" in order to be inclusive of a group that cannot and will never be subject to that kind of violence or discrimination is concerning.

Now, to be clear, I understand that trans women are at risk of violence and discrimination for other reasons, specific to them. I support laws and protections that will protect trans women and trans kids. 100%. But I object to eliding the categories of trans women and biological women as though they don't exist, because I think it puts biological women at risk. There is a lot at stake.

PP, you're evading the issue and splitting hairs. I'm talking about women who, individually, are experiencing a biological inability to bear children. I'm happy to name the category whatever you'd like. And yes, it's a tiny fraction, but guess what? So are transwomen. Being a transwoman is a medical condition just as being a woman-who-individually-cannot-bear-children is a medical condition. That you think it's different suggests 1) that you don't really understand trans issues and 2) you've bought into the propaganda that transwomen are just "men who decided one day to throw on a dress."

So, can you please try again here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the PPs who are saying "they're not 'less than,' they're just different" and "it's just recognizing biology!" would you be ok replacing "transwomen" in your statements with "infertile women?" For example:

it is also the primary difference between biological women and infertile women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and infertile women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

and

Infertile women are their own category, I will honor their right to protection safety and the right to a great life but stop snatching and stealing what is not yours! Women are different from infertile women, it’s NOT the same and we are NOT bigots to take and claim our rights and fight off those who will erode them!

If not, why not?

"Infertile women" isn't really a category. Couples experience infertility, not women individually.

Some women have medical conditions that make fertility challenging or impossible, but this is actually a tiny, tiny group. Most women who experience infertility are actually dealing with a temporary setback, male fertility concerns, infertility due to advanced age. Not a biological fact but a circumstance. Whereas being a trans woman is not a "circumstance" and most trans women would be offended to have it viewed that way.

Being a trans woman is an identity. Dealing with infertility, as any gender, is a medical condition.

I find the phrase "infertile women" to be kind of offensive because infertility isn't really something specific to women (of any kind) and there is a long history of blaming women for infertility that is rooted in misogyny and violence against women. Infertility has long been used as an excuse to discard, even kill women for not performing what others view to be their sole purpose in life.

In other words, there is a long history of society using women's reproductive status against them, to justify violence, discrimination, even murder. Which is precisely why removing the biological implications of the word "women" in order to be inclusive of a group that cannot and will never be subject to that kind of violence or discrimination is concerning.

Now, to be clear, I understand that trans women are at risk of violence and discrimination for other reasons, specific to them. I support laws and protections that will protect trans women and trans kids. 100%. But I object to eliding the categories of trans women and biological women as though they don't exist, because I think it puts biological women at risk. There is a lot at stake.

11% of women isn’t a tiny, tiny group.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/infertility/conditioninfo/common

That’s ballpark 4-5 million women.

They have a different experience and different biology than women who don’t have infertility.

They are still women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem saying trans women are women, socially speaking. But I strongly disagree with “women period”. Because that is then used to argue that biology doesn’t make us women and womanhood is something that you can declare, and not an intrinsic part of our being. Something is deeply wrong when society asks itself “what’s a woman” and we are being told from the outside - once again - what defines a woman and how we should feel about it.

You are free to define it however you want. Bring a woman means different things to different people.

It should not.

Trans extremists are telling women "trans-women are women and what you thought made you a woman doesn't. In fact, there is nothing that makes you a woman". They are also telling us "you can't use the words that define you and your body because it's not inclusive". Yet trans-women are women, and we aren't anymore. Even when in our most biologically female functions we are not women anymore, we are pregnant people who chest-feed (medically wrong, by the way Cleveland Clinic). Even the violence we suffer is not "against women" anymore, it is "gender-based" now and it sounds much more vague.

Citation? Who are these “trans extremists”?

A prime example is the PPs who are arguing that biology doesn't make someone a woman.

Timestamp?

Pps have literally said that biological functions do not define women, that being a woman means different things to different people, that anyone can define themselves as a woman, that here isn’t an universal experience for women.

And those are “trans extremist” views in your opinion?

I do believe that the view that our biology doesn't make us women is extremist.

If you define women by biological function then you will exclude some cisgender women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was actively supporting LGBTQI rights until they decided to walk all over women's rights, at a time when hard-won gains are being reversed all over the world. Women are being marginalized, quite literally, pushed to the side, told to be quiet and make space. The words to describe us are disappearing from our lexicon, from article, and studies. We have become merely "people". While the violence against us and the hate of women continue to claim our lives and destroy our spirits.

Spot on.

Can't believe how much I was manipulated by this extreme gender ideology for years. Kinda angry with myself for letting them walk all over my boundaries, while also marginalizing my own abuse experiences.

YES. If I read about "pregnant people " anymore I will lose it.

Why? What’s the harm is there being inclusive? It doesn’t affect you. You can still say woman.

It doesn't affect me ? Yes it does affect me. The way people refer to me affects me. I am a woman and would like to be called a woman. People are coming up with all sorts of pronouns they want others to use but women have to suck it up and be called people because it makes others more comfortable?

We are all people. Nothing wrong with that.

This is gaslighting and you know it.

Yes, this is akin to "all lives matter". This inclusiveness nonsense is only used as a tool to deprive women or minorities of their sense of identity.

I like this analogy.

I really think an analogy could be made. Women, like black people and other groups have a sense of identity and belonging that is perceived as a threat by the "oppressor" (for lack of better word).

Transgender women certainly know what it’s like to be oppressed. Just look at this thread.

No one is disputing that. Instead PPs are disputing if transwomen are oppressed in exactly the same way as biological women and whether it therefore make sense to see the same groups as identical in all respects.

Nobody sees them as “identical in all respects” so…

They don't? I think you're the one who is confused.

Who sees them as “identical in all respects”? Even cis-women aren’t all “identical in all aspects”.

Transwomen are women. PERIOD. What does that mean to you? Kind of like women, but not really?

Sure, the kid raised as a privileged male who goes off to college, changes their name and starts wearing dresses totally gets the experiences, the attitudes, the expectations, the hormonal events that have shaped my life as a woman. Totally.

There isn’t one universal experience for women.

Going through female puberty is pretty close to universal and the implications are far reaching.

No it’s not.

How so? How would a biological woman who identifies as a woman in adulthood not have gone through female puberty?

My niece, to give you one elementary example, did not go through puberty on her own. An endocrinologist had to intervene because of an autoimmune disorder.

My cousin never had puberty due to chemotherapy as a child, they had hormone replacement therapy that never really worked.

But these are medical anomalies due to medical conditions or treatment. That's not the same as a biological woman who simply never menstruates. Your niece received treatment for her autoimmune disorder that enabled her body to go through puberty. Your cousin was receiving a treatment that causes all kinds of abnormal physical consequences, including disrupting puberty. These are exceptions that prove the rule.

Are they still women if they don’t have the “typical” experience with puberty?

Yet another straw man. When did anyone, including Rowling, argue that all women have a "typical" experience? Rowling's arguments are almost entirely rooted in her experience as a sexual violence survivor, an experience that no one would ever call "typical".

Trans women and biological women are both women and have shared concerns and experiences. But they are also distinct, and just as an example, biological women have female reproductive organs therefore, with very few exceptions, go through female puberty, menstruate, must factor risk of pregnancy into all sexual choices, etc. Are there some exceptions? Sure. Is there a great deal of variety in how biological women experience this aspect of womanhood? Absolutely. For instance, some biological women are also trans men. They are men in all ways EXCEPT that they have the experience of a biological woman. Which matters, since they can get pregnant, give birth, and are vulnerable to medical issues specific to biological women.

But it is also the primary difference between biological women and trans women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and trans women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

Right. So there are no universal experiences and the context is important.

No. Context does not change the fact of biological sex.
Context changes the gender roles/expectations ascribed to biological sex.

Context matters.

For specific situations where biology actually does matters, Pap smear or prostate exam, sure.

For other situations, not really.

What about dating/romantic relationships? Are heterosexual men transphobic for not considering transwomen women?

I wouldn’t say that. No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all the PPs who are saying "they're not 'less than,' they're just different" and "it's just recognizing biology!" would you be ok replacing "transwomen" in your statements with "infertile women?" For example:

it is also the primary difference between biological women and infertile women. It is a real difference with real consequences, especially consequences related to sex, pregnancy, childbirth, and also motherhood. Acting like there is NO DIFFERENCE between biological and infertile women is dangerous because so many of the protections and rights that women have spent centuries fighting to get and maintain are related to these things that only biological women experience.

and

Infertile women are their own category, I will honor their right to protection safety and the right to a great life but stop snatching and stealing what is not yours! Women are different from infertile women, it’s NOT the same and we are NOT bigots to take and claim our rights and fight off those who will erode them!

If not, why not?

"Infertile women" isn't really a category. Couples experience infertility, not women individually.

Some women have medical conditions that make fertility challenging or impossible, but this is actually a tiny, tiny group. Most women who experience infertility are actually dealing with a temporary setback, male fertility concerns, infertility due to advanced age. Not a biological fact but a circumstance. Whereas being a trans woman is not a "circumstance" and most trans women would be offended to have it viewed that way.

Being a trans woman is an identity. Dealing with infertility, as any gender, is a medical condition.

I find the phrase "infertile women" to be kind of offensive because infertility isn't really something specific to women (of any kind) and there is a long history of blaming women for infertility that is rooted in misogyny and violence against women. Infertility has long been used as an excuse to discard, even kill women for not performing what others view to be their sole purpose in life.

In other words, there is a long history of society using women's reproductive status against them, to justify violence, discrimination, even murder. Which is precisely why removing the biological implications of the word "women" in order to be inclusive of a group that cannot and will never be subject to that kind of violence or discrimination is concerning.

Now, to be clear, I understand that trans women are at risk of violence and discrimination for other reasons, specific to them. I support laws and protections that will protect trans women and trans kids. 100%. But I object to eliding the categories of trans women and biological women as though they don't exist, because I think it puts biological women at risk. There is a lot at stake.

11% of women isn’t a tiny, tiny group.
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/infertility/conditioninfo/common

That’s ballpark 4-5 million women.

They have a different experience and different biology than women who don’t have infertility.

They are still women.

NP. I’m sorry, but a woman who doesn’t have viable eggs, or whose cervix doesn’t allow for a full term pregnancy doesn’t have “different biology” in the same way as someone who was born a man. You know this. Quit your bullshit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have no problem saying trans women are women, socially speaking. But I strongly disagree with “women period”. Because that is then used to argue that biology doesn’t make us women and womanhood is something that you can declare, and not an intrinsic part of our being. Something is deeply wrong when society asks itself “what’s a woman” and we are being told from the outside - once again - what defines a woman and how we should feel about it.

You are free to define it however you want. Bring a woman means different things to different people.

It should not.

Trans extremists are telling women "trans-women are women and what you thought made you a woman doesn't. In fact, there is nothing that makes you a woman". They are also telling us "you can't use the words that define you and your body because it's not inclusive". Yet trans-women are women, and we aren't anymore. Even when in our most biologically female functions we are not women anymore, we are pregnant people who chest-feed (medically wrong, by the way Cleveland Clinic). Even the violence we suffer is not "against women" anymore, it is "gender-based" now and it sounds much more vague.

Citation? Who are these “trans extremists”?

A prime example is the PPs who are arguing that biology doesn't make someone a woman.

Timestamp?

Pps have literally said that biological functions do not define women, that being a woman means different things to different people, that anyone can define themselves as a woman, that here isn’t an universal experience for women.

And those are “trans extremist” views in your opinion?

I do believe that the view that our biology doesn't make us women is extremist.

If you define women by biological function then you will exclude some cisgender women.

No. Their biology is still female. They still have female genitalia, chromosomes, chemistry, hormones and whatnot.

[jsteele]

The podcast has not been discussed for several pages.