The ferocious transgender dispute is framed by the language of gender identity. To reach any resolution, though, we need to understand what everyone has at stake and to question our own basic assumptions. The truth about what it means to be transgender is a window into human nature, sexual desire, and the limits of language.
‘Persone che mestruano’: Sono sicura che esiste un termine per queste persone”. Con queste parole JK Rowling si è addentrata nel dibattito più febbrile della società contemporanea. Nemmeno il Covid-19 è servito per attenuare il furore della discussione sulle persone transgender. Mentre due visioni del mondo collidevano, alcune verità fondamentali che generazioni prima si consideravano indiscutibili sono state messe in discussione.
At her employment tribunal, two years ago, Maya Forstater was told that her views ‘were not worthy of respect in a democratic society.’ That was after Forstater had been cancelled by the Centre for Global Development think tank, an institute that had employed her, when she was caught preaching the gospel of science and reason on the internet. Some of her colleagues grumbled about her gender critical beliefs, and Forstater’s contract was not renewed.
The House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee launched yet another inquiry into Gender Recognition Act reform last week. Either they are gluttons for punishment, or this really matters to someone. This is the third time since 2015 that Westminster has asked the public what they think about gender recognition. When you add this to the two separate Scottish consultations, it becomes apparent that transgender inquiries are now an annual event.
We are in dangerous times when adults who should know better allow student politicians to play the trans card so they can act with impunity. On campuses across the country, the pink and blue flag is being used to excuse the bullying and harassment of anyone who does not adhere to gender identity ideology, and its catechism, “trans women are women”.
The heated transgender debate is aggravated by muddled language that has obfuscated discussion and clouded understanding. Dispute resolution requires clarity of thought, which in turn needs precision of language. In transgender politics, that starts by unravelling sex and gender, description and definition, and even the verbs to be and to do.
“‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people.” With those words, JK Rowling threw herself into perhaps the most febrile debate in contemporary society. Even Covid-19 has not dampened the furore over transgender rights. As two world views collide, fundamental truths that previous generations thought were self-evident have been cast into doubt. What is a woman? what is a man? and how can we tell them apart?
“‘Personas menstruantes’. Estoy segura de que solía haber un nombre para estas personas”. Con estas palabras, JK Rowling se lanzó al que probablemente es el debate más febril de la sociedad contemporánea. Ni siquiera la covid-19 ha servido para atemperar el furor en torno al debate sobre los derechos de las personas transgénero. Conforme dos visiones del mundo colisionaban, algunas verdades fundamentales que generaciones anteriores consideraban indiscutibles han empezado a ponerse en duda. ¿Qué es una mujer? ¿Qué es un hombre? ¿Cómo podemos diferenciarlos?
For nearly a week now, the mob has had JK Rowling in its sights. Her crimes against trans ideology seemed relatively minor but like some authoritarian quasi-religious cult, trans rights activism demands total compliance to its dogma.
Following a series of courageous tweets last Saturday in which the children’s author defended biology and reclaimed the word ‘woman’ to describe those now seemingly called ‘people who menstruate‘, her critics went berserk.
To readers about to switch off from yet another dose of transgender nonsense comes a warning. Coffee House readers may pride themselves in knowing that biological sex is real and, no, we can’t change it. But too many people have stayed silent for too long.
Covid-19 has put many things on hold, but not the transgender thought police. JK Rowling had been in their sights since Christmas when she tweeted her support for Maya Forstater, who had lost her job at a think tank after questioning whether trans women were women (spoiler: we are not — we are the other sex).
When the children’s author accidentally tweeted the contents of her clipboard last Friday the thought police reached new levels of apoplexy. Not for anything Rowling had said: the tweet was swiftly deleted and an explanation given. She was condemned for what she had been reading.
Debbie Hayton