Without wanting to get bogged down in this whole hornets nest, it's pretty funny that JK Rowling takes issue with people wishing to identify themselves as female.
This is the same JK Rowling - an Englishwoman living in Scotland - who had absolutely no issue with people biologically born in Scotland identifying themselves as British and not Scottish!
Complete hypocrisy...
Still puzzled over why what people think or say affects anybody else anyway. Who gives a shite?
shareSeriously, her opinion didn’t hurt anyone except maybe someone’s feelings and they need to get over it. The current administration says things that I don’t like on a daily basis and you don’t see me bitching.
shareexactly! I hear/see/read "OFFENSIVE" things every day too, but I understand life on Earth and how to get along with everyone.
I want her to have the FREEDOM to say whatever she wants to say or think, as opposed to the opposite of that, which is silencing/cancelling/censoring things.... EVERYTHING could be cancelled eventually. It's so dumb.
I'm beginning to think hypocrisy is the most misused word on the internet!
In general I agree. That's why it's good to have a perfect example of it here...
shareI admire your ambition , although i have a couple of slight niggles
given that England and Scotland are in Britain , is anyone allowed to identify as British?
or am I missing the point ?
As per the OP, I don't want to start swimming in the whole murky waters of the debate but JK Rowling was a very vocal exponent of that very thing - i.e. someone who was biologically born, or in her case lived, in Scotland having the right to proudly identify as being British.
In other words, someone who was born of Type A say, was perfectly entitled to identify as being of Type B.
However, when it comes to gender, she apparently does not believe in people having that exact same right. In my book that makes her a complete hypocrite one way or the other...
What on Earth are you talking about? Whether you are English or Scottish, you are British. Did you do geography at school?
Absolutely nothing like science deniers thinking they can change gender.
ok , leaving the murky waters out ...
Your analogy seems a little flawed:
People born in England OR Scotland have the right to identify as British , because English and Scottish are subsets of "British"
In the same way that both males and females are allowed to identify as human.
People born in England OR Scotland have the right to identify as British , because English and Scottish are subsets of "British"
i think your point has truly come off the rails now .
I mean , even if we presume to guess which natianality JK might choose to "identify" in the hypotetical scenario that Scotland left the UK ,
the whole thing is irrevelvent.
It doesent compare to the trannie thing
Apples and oranges
its not even a fruit comparison
apples and cannonballs
because:
National boundaries are entirley esoteric constructs invented by people and subject to change - along with the rules on wether you can have citizenship of said fabricated nation.
Wether you are (born)male or female is set in stone
(but without getting into the murky water ... )
Its like saying she's a hypocrite because she painted her garden gate a different color and now identifies it as "blue"
I'm not sure what you imagine the phrase 'biologically born in Scotland' might mean. Presumably you've crowbarred the word 'biologically' in there in a vain effort to make your analogy seem more directly parallel.
Or are you making a distinction between those who are 'biologically born in Scotland' and those whose foetuses were grown in a bag... in Scotland?
I don't know of any Scots who identify as 'British and not Scottish'. It isn't either/or. Unionist Scots tend to identify as British and Scottish. You know this. You're allowed to disagree with them politically, but should probably refrain from misrepresenting their views.
And even if you could find someone who identified as 'British and not Scottish', the idea that this has anything to do with transgender issues is a complete nonsense. They're two completely separate things.
Incidentally, I disagree with Rowling on both issues. But she isn't hypocritical for holding these positions. Criticise her views if you want to, but make it make sense or it undermines your argument.
I used the phrase "biologically born in Scotland" simply as a fun way of further exposing JK Rowling's "whatever suits" ethics.
i.e. Rowling lives in Scotland, may well identify herself as Scottish (as anyone living in a country but not born there is indeed entitled to do so) yet was vehemently opposed to Scots born in the country (and indeed those not but still of similar thinking) being free to identify themselves as uniquely Scottish. She wished all Scots to be able to identify themselves as British
And yet she would oppose those biologically born male as being able to identify themselves as female!
You mean she is opposed to Scottish independence. I don't think she's running around the country with a cattle prod forcing anyone who says 'I'm not British, I'm Scottish' to recant. It isn't an 'identity politics' issue; it's simply being in favour of continuing a historic legal agreement between two sovereign nations.
But, of course, if you phrase the argument in a more normal way -- perhaps as: 'JK Rowling's unionism contradicts her views on transgender issues' -- it instantly reveals that the equivalency is deeply spurious. Which is why you don't do it.
As I said, I disagree with her on both issues. But, regardless, the two positions simply are not in conflict.
It's interesting that you mentioned continuing historical views as that's fundamental to the hypocrisy.
It's important to note that we only fail to see any equivalency as a result of that. For example, if you were to take JK Rowling's statement that a person of Type A should be free to identify as being of Type B in terms of a Scot being British back a few hundred years it would be a controversial (albeit at the time nonsensical) argument.
By the same token if you took JK Rowling's statement that a person of Type A should NOT be free to identify as Type B in terms of gender forward a few hundred years it would again be controversial - and possibly viewed by society in that more progressive time as nonsensical.
So again without wishing to start wading through the whole gloopy swamp of the issues, it is funny to note that what we view as being acceptable is very much shaped by the society we currently stand in. JK Rowling clearly likes that current society but argues the exact opposite in terms of her morality around people's rights to align with a particular identify when it suits.
Well, I didn't mention continuing historical 'views'. I mentioned continuing with a historical legal agreement. Y'know, that pesky little 1707 one. You can take a view on whether there should be a union, but not one on whether there is one.
But you're being wilfully obtuse, which is boring. So I'll leave you to it.
Well it's a shame you choose to take it that way, I thought it was an interesting analysis of the mental thought process...
However, there's no "pesky"-ness re the union. It exists and that is fine. The point was merely that prior to that a Scot would not have been able to identify as British, although Rowling would have supported their right to do so. Much like I'd guess she'd also support a Brit's right to identify as a European...
she'd also support a Brits right to identify as a European..
omg !
really?
Thats a whole other discussion where you would be as completely and totally wrong as you are in this Scotland / Britain thing .
LOL 😂 It isn't another discussion, it's EXACTLY the same thing! i.e. JK Is completely happy for people to identify themselves as belonging to another type of people.
Maybe your mind is getting scrambled because you think I have some hardened personal belief in thinking this is right or wrong but I don't particularly care - all I'm doing is pointing out that Rowling herself believes in that principal.
Let's take your brain on a journey elsewhere to see if it helps:-
Northern Ireland. You could have two neighbours in the same street. One man identifies as being British, one absolutely does not. They were both born there, in the same hospital, let's just say on the same day. Utterly no difference. Is one right and one wrong? No, of course not - they are both entitled to choose how they identify.
JK Rowling backed that exact same principle in the Scottish Independence debate. However if one of those two Northern Irish men wished to identify as a Woman, this very same JK Rowling would be against that!
Is one right and one wrong? No, of course not - they are both entitled to choose how they identify.
No , they are both right because Northern Ireland is in both Northern Ireland and Britain.
If one chose to identify as French , he would be wrong .
...unless he achieved French citizenship, which goes back to a point I made earlier about how this analogy bears no resemblance to JKs controversy as these are just lines drawn on a map
Sorry, I've tried my best but I appreciate that this is a pretty complex abstract concept that not everyone is going to have the mental dexterity to properly comprehend.
I think me spending any further time on this would therefore be as much of a waste of time to me as it would be to you.
Good luck to you Sir 👍
No.
A person born in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales or England can choose to identify as Scottish, Northern Irish, Welsh or English or British or both as they were born in Great Britain.
It is a completely different scenario when someone decides to identify as a different gender.
If you are born male you have an X chromosome and a Y chromosome. If you are born female you are born with two X chromosomes. This defines what gender you are and no man or woman choosing to identify as the opposite sex changes the fact that you are indeed the sex you were born.
Now I don't care if some big hairy arsed rugby player wants to put on a dress and call himself Susan, that's his business, but it does not make him a woman. That isn't my opinion, that is scientific fact. It doesn't make me or anyone else who believes this to be transphobic, homophobic, racist or anything else people want to throw out. It shows how far we as a society have gone the other way that people cannot have a view or opinion for fear of upsetting the right on brigade.
What? Scottish people *are* British. Scotland is part of the British Isles.
shareI've discussed this in more detail further up in the thread.
In short though, if Scotland had voted for independence Scottish people would not have been British people in a geopolitical sense any more...
Being independent or not they would still be within the British Isles and still be British.
If they ever get there independence it would just mean they are self governing and would receive no funding from central government (London) but they would still be geographically in Great Britain and so be British. The political side of things has no bearing on there geographical location.
Also no self respecting Scotsman and Englishman would say they are British. They would already refer to them as Scottish or English.
Great Britain is no longer in the European Union but that doesnt take away they are still in Europe and so European.
Also your point with JK rowling is an absolute stretch and takes some mental gymnastics to even get to. You are using very specific words like "Identify" and "Biological" to make it sound like the Trans arguement when it isn't even close to the same thing.
Yeah but that's why I said in a "geopolitical sense". e.g. North America is a land mass but no American or Canadian would identify themselves as a "North American" because that as a political construct does not exist...
That may be an example of why it's a hard thing to get your head around. It's not mental gymnastics as such - it's all about an individual's belief in their "self". That's made up all kinds of things including gender and nationality. One isn't excluded.
Here's another example of how these things are wrapped up intrinsically with our societies current position in time:-
If you had a family who came to America from Mexico - or anywhere else - nowadays with kids say five or six years old. This kids would grow up in America and may very well identify as being American, as would be their right
However if you went back to say the 50s or 60s then you can bet that the majority of the population would not accept their right to identify as being American.
That's how stupid arguing against the right to gender self identification is going to seem say fifty, sixty years down the line from now.
You can play with semantics all you like, but it doesn't change the fact that you're still wrong.
Brit·ish
/ˈbridiSH/
adjective
1. relating to Great Britain or the United Kingdom, or to its people or language.
2. of the British Commonwealth or (formerly) the British Empire.
I can't believe I went to the trouble of giving that North American example, etc in an attempt to try and make expand your thought process and then you replied by simply regurgitating the same thing relating to the current geopolitical state of Great Britain...
I clearly can't add anything further of value here...
It's as if we have a color called "black" and everyone agrees with what it is, except you. You now want to call what we have been calling "black", "gray". And for some reason you are surprised that anyone would object to this. Where did you ever get your education? You might want to go back and request a refund.
shareLOL. It's almost as if there actually was a Scottish independence referendum and 45% of the people voted in favour of no longer wanting Scots to be be identified as British...
But hey ho, apparently it's a black and white issue. Poor me and my terrible education for not being able to understand that 😂.
... As I said, nothing further of value to be said here.
I am talking about the dictionary and permanence. No idea why there is any reason to discuss a temporal moment like a vote. No one but no one can change who they are.
shareLOL. It's almost as if there actually was a Scottish independence referendum and 45% of the people voted in favour of no longer wanting Scots to be be identified as British...
You might want to check your 'ahem' facts. the referendum wasn't about not wanting to be identified as British it was about not being governed by and being part of the United Kingdom.
Great Britain is a geographical term form the British Isles whereas the United Kingdom is a political term for the Union and government of said Isles.
No American or Canadian would identify themselves as a "North American"
Interesting. Never came across that. But nonetheless interesting...
shareSo, there's quite a bit to unpack here, and I'll undoubtedly retread some ground covered by my fellow posters, but here's my two cents.
First, it's an odd request to say that you don't want to "get bogged down" by a particular topic and then *immediately* comment on the topic. If you don't want to discuss something like this, or get pulled into the broad picture and small nuances of the discussion and argument, a message board is not the place you're looking for. Perhaps a self-rant in a journal? This confuses me, because it seems that you want to speak in the public forum, but not have anybody able to reply.
Second, these two things aren't analogous. Somebody's nationality is not the same thing as their biology. This is why somebody can be born on foreign soil, but still be considered a countryman of their parents' home, and why people can immigrate. Biology is different from these things, and whatever one's stance on immigration or transgenderism, they aren't a good comparison choice. There are some points that intersect, but for the most part, it's not a good way to point out your perceptions of her hypocrisy.
Third, many have said this, but it bears repeating: England and Scotland are two countries in the United Kingdom, brought together as part of the British Empire. They are both British. Here, the analogy chosen isn't only inapplicable, but it also doesn't even measure up, factually-speaking, since the geographical assertions are wrong.
I'm happy to discuss the hypocrisy of her directly contradicting views with regards to different elements of identity.
What I was saying though was that I don't what get drawn into a discussion with regards to these views in themselves. There are however plenty of other threads on this JK Rowling board doing just that if that is your desire...
Okay, I think I understand better now. The wording was a bit sparse in the original post, so it sounded like you brought up something you didn't want to discuss. You mean that you want to discuss your perception of Rowling's hypocrisy, not transgenderism.
That's as may be, but I still don't think the two things - nationality and transgenderism - are analogous, so I don't think differing views on these subjects belies a hypocrisy in someone.
That's fair enough if you believe that 👍 I've expanded elsewhere on this thread re why I don't think that's the case so won't add anything further here...
shareI can appreciate your brevity. I haven't read every word, but I've read enough of the thread to know that I disagree with you on your points.
shareUmmmmm Scottish people are British. Scotland is literally in Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales).
shareThis is the same JK Rowling - an Englishwoman living in Scotland - who had absolutely no issue with people biologically born in Scotland identifying themselves as British and not Scottish!
I've discussed this in more detail further up in the thread.
In short though, if Scotland had voted for independence Scottish people would not have been British people in a geopolitical sense any more...