This argument is just linguistic fuckwittery that adds no value.
The whole conversation is linguistic fuckwittery that adds no value, that's literally my point. It's not an argument over science and facts, it's an argument over language and how we treat people. And the more I say that the more you all just make that point for me over and over.
The ”people that menstruate” thing that set JKR off is dehumanising to women, at least in her view. It’s a legitimate point of view. Not at all hateful.
I'm perfectly fine with JKR having editorial opinions as a writer. This doesn't make the conversation "scientific." That's my point.
You don’t win arguments in the long term just by redefining language, it eventually collides with reality.
Language changes all the time. But we have been gendering people socially by how they "seem" rather than by what's in their chromosomes or whether or not the bleed from their snatch for a very loooooong time.
Transwomen have been allowed to change their gender on their birth certificate, use whatever bathrooms, marry people of the opposite sex, and have been gendered as women for decades and decades. The efforts to tie the meaning to chromosomes is new and doesn't really reflect how we gender people irl.
Even now, I never see anyone misgender transwomen when they're high passing and moderately attractive. No one ever misgenders Kim Petras or Harisu or whatever, but when someone ugly and mannish asks for their pronouns people lose their shit. I get why that wouldn't be intuitive, and that not everyone who misgenders someone who is low-passing is doing it to be a dick on purpose, but I think the whole thing exposes what this is really about.
love to see all the anger 
.
