JK Rowling And The Definition Of Sex

JK Rowling is in trouble. She tweeted that a person's sex is what you are born with and that trans women are not real women. If the sex of a person is a physical thing then she is right. No matter, what a person feels on the inside they remain the physical sex they were born with. If, on the other hand, the sex of a person is purely an emotional thing then she is wrong but, this understanding of sex would mean that the femaleness of many lesbians could be disputed. Such lesbians are often the most ardent of feminists so I do not think they would like this option in the slightest.

Maybe we should make the definition of "man and women" different from that of "male and female," with the former being related to the physical and the latter related to the emotional.

Personally, my hope is that one day nobody will give a damn whether they are labelled as male or female, black or white, gay or straight, abled or disabled, because everybody sees everybody else primarily as people. This is not my idea. Saint Paul came up with it a couple of thousand years ago. Worryingly his great idea never did catch on. People seem intent on being protective of both the privilege and the victimhood of their particular group identities; the latter, in my opinion, being the cause of Rowling's exclusion of trans women from the women group.

Whatever, it is an interesting discussion and it is a shame that it is going to be shut down by those who believe it is not a subject for discussion shaming those who think it is.

Comments are closed.