Might be this is the kind of thing you’re looking for: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-complete-breakdown-of-the-jk...

> On June 6, 2020, Rowling retweeted an op-ed piece that discussed “people who menstruate,” apparently taking issue with the fact that the story did not use the word women. “‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

I'm still not convinced this is anti-trans. I mean it's reality so for people to want to cancel her over this is ridiculous (which sums up the woke-ideology pretty much).

This pulled quote, in isolation, might not be, sure. The question about this particular complaint is whether its meant exclusively or inclusively. Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman? Is a woman who has never menstruated and never will, in fact, not a woman? What if these people feel in their person like women? How one reads Rowling's comment in light of these questions informs one's sense of her intent.

If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.

> Does a woman who has stopped menstruating stop being a woman?

Equally does a man who wears women's clothes make them a woman? I'm happy for them to call themselves a trans-woman, and "she", but we have to have language that separates the sexes at the biological level.

> What if these people feel in their person like women?

The word "feel" in this context is extremely woolly. This is how we have gotten ourselves into this ridiculous situation where no-one can agree on anything to do with gender / sexes.

> If you read Rowling's comment inclusively then it's a clumsy, ambiguous complaint about shifting language norms that is harmless and warrants a clarification. If you read the comment exclusively -- which I think is fair given Rowling's other statements over the years -- then I find it hard to read in a charitable light. It is, I admit, entirely possible that Rowling doesn't hold trans-exclusionary views and has merely, accidentally chosen ambiguous wording over the years and is pig-headed enough to be unwilling to clarify but I do find this _unlikely_ considering that she's a famously clear author who is willing to clarify (and extend) her body of work for years after the fact.

So you might be partly right on this - but given her contribution to literacy and the arts and woman's rights we know she is a thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate person. Given all her positive contributions to society the hostile reaction from the trans-side is telling really.

Do you know of any other group of people who are menstruating and are not women?

Some trans men and non binary people. And many women don't menstruate.

>Some trans men and non binary people.

Those are biological females (women).

>And many women don't menstruate.

What is your point here?

Woman most commonly refers to gender. Very few people know the sex of most people they meet.

The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.

What sort of answer to your original question did you expect?

>Woman most commonly refers to gender. Very few people know the sex of most people they meet.

If one would do a general survey, most ordinary people would consider sex and gender the same thing. Most of them would also say that they know the sex of somebody they see for the first time. Which is statistically true, because people whose sex and gender don't match are truly a small minority.

>The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.

For the pedantic I guess she should have said: women who are in their fertile age without health problems or taking medications which prevent menstruation.

>What sort of answer to your original question did you expect?

A possible medical breakthrough.

Guessing right most of the time isn't knowing. And people not knowing how sex and gender differ doesn't change the fact that they rely on gender markers lots and chromosomes never.

People who menstruate is much shorter than your suggestion.

>Guessing right most of the time isn't knowing. And people not knowing how sex and gender differ doesn't change the fact that they rely on gender markers lots and chromosomes never.

"gender markers" and "chromosomes" are the same thing for 99% of the population. So guessing really is knowing.

> People who menstruate is much shorter than your suggestion.

Women is even shorter and everybody in the whole world understands it.

I think most people understand chromosomes are too small to see.

People who menstruate is more accurate.

> Very few people know the sex of most people they meet.

This is false.

> The point is women isn't a synonym for people who menstruate even if you ignore trans people.

It was until it was high jacked.

The tl;dr of it is that she's commented about biological femininity as a real experience distinct from trans-females. That offends the ideological extreme of the trans movement which has labelled her a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist).

Weird. The trans people I know and speak to have no problem with the acknowledgement of biological femininity. Actually they mostly factor that fact of world into part of what defines their identity..

JKR is much more clearly TE than RF.

why is it TE to have an opinion?

That’s like asking “why is it racist to have an opinion?”

It’s not. Its TE (or racist, or whatever) to have a TE (or racist, or whatever) opinion.

Is it in some absolute sense for all time?

Or is it only ‘TE’ within the theoretical framework of Trans activists?

Excluding people is exclusionary. It doesn't mean justified or unjustified.

Excluding people from a category is just a way of thinking about something.

Trans people exclude CIS people from the category of Trans.

Do we call them CIS exclusionary?

Just saying someone else is exclusionary is meaningless.

Excluding someone from a domestic violence shelter isn't just a way of thinking about something. Imprisoning people more likely to be raped with people more likely to rape them isn't just a way of thinking about something.

Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.

> Excluding someone from a domestic violence shelter isn't just a way of thinking about something. Imprisoning people more likely to be raped with people more likely to rape them isn't just a way of thinking about something.

True, but the relevance is not obvious because these aren’t problems caused by so called TERFs.

It’s also not true that censoring JK Rowling is required as part of solving them, either.

> Cis and trans are opposites by definition. They existed long before they were applied to gender.

Does that mean that you think that cisgender women are not in the same category as transgender women?

TE people advocate policies that create those outcomes. I've seen none support creation of separate but equal facilities for trans people. It's too costly for such a small minority they say.

Rowling hasn't been censored.

Cis women and trans women are in the category of women.

> TE people advocate policies that create those outcomes.

This just isn’t true.

> I've seen none support creation of separate but equal facilities for trans people. It's too costly for such a small minority they say.

TERFs don’t say this. People controlling budgets do. They are are the ones withholding services from trans people. Not TERFs.

> Cis women and trans women are in the category of women.

Only according to certain trans perspectives.

You have clearly agreed there are two kinds of women. It is reasonable for them to not see one another as members of the same category.

Trans exclusionary people advocate excluding trans women from women's shelters. This leads to trans women being excluded from women's shelters.

Most trans exclusionary people say trans women are men. Some say they should be treated like cis men in all respects including imprisonment. Others accept keeping them apart from cis women means putting them with cis men in practice.

It shouldn't surprise you politically active people have opinions about tax and how it's spent. I've seen it myself. Even people who say they support separate but equal facilities start hedging when asked about funding.

Cis women and trans women being categories of women isn't just a trans perspective. And don't play games. You asked a question. I answered.

There are many more than 2 kinds of women!

> Trans exclusionary people advocate excluding trans women from women's shelters. This leads to trans women being excluded from women's shelters.

Yes, but being allowed into women’s shelters is not the only solution to violence against trans people.

> Most trans exclusionary people say trans women are men.

Do they? And if they see them as men, isn’t that their business?

I am not aware of TERFs arguing against services being provided for trans people.

> Some say they should be treated like cis men in all respects including imprisonment.

So TERFs in general do not.

> Others accept keeping them apart from cis women means putting them with cis men in practice.

Yes, agreed, and this is a terrible outcome but lack of services for trans people is not a consequence of TERFs.

> It shouldn't surprise you politically active people have opinions about tax and how it's spent.

This irrelevant statement to anything either of us have said so far.

> I've seen it myself. Even people who say they support separate but equal facilities start hedging when asked about funding.

What do you mean by ‘start hedging’?

> Cis women and trans women being categories of women isn't just a trans perspective.

Of course not, but that doesn’t make it universal.

As far as I can see your argument is just based on there not being enough money for trans services.

That’s absolutely correct, but has nothing to do with TERFs.