All intersex people with ovaries, according to JKR: women.
I suspect she’d actually be quite angry at the amount of male-presenting people (complete with penises) that she just affirmed are women.
Its almost like this is a complicated topic that can’t be boiled down to black and white by bigots.
i don’t think she’d care too much, honestly
remember, she had no problems calling Imane Khelif a man, despite her being a (possibly intersex) cis woman
Khelif is male with a DSD
Where’s the evidence of that?
There have been several leaks of medical results, here’s a Snopes article about one of them:
https://www.snopes.com/news/2024/11/20/imane-khelif-medical-records/
Note that the article confuses sex and gender such as here:
Even if the reports published by Ait Aoudia are authentic, however, the alleged findings have been misrepresented. If true, they would not conclusively prove that Khelif “is a man.” Instead, as Snopes explains here, they would highlight the reality that, from a scientific standpoint, gender is not actually as binary as some suggest it to be.
Gender is of course not binary, but sex is. The leaked findings show that Khelif is unambiguously male, and has the same condition as Caster Semenya, who is also unambigously male and has fathered several children.
Note that nobody is disputing the leaked findings, merely talking around them, such as saying that it was unethical to leak them. It may have been, but that doesn’t change the findings. The IOC itself confirmed that it was a DSD issue. Khelif has refused to take a simple, cheap, non-invasive test that would put the issue to rest, and has even attempted legal action over implementation of sex testing for women’s sports.
The screenshots shown in Ait Aoudia’s reporting are unverified. Snopes reached out to the doctors and hospitals associated with the alleged reports. They either did not respond or would not, as a matter of policy, confirm their authenticity or if Khelif was ever a patient of theirs. Ait Aoudia did not provide Snopes with any details of his source(s).
Is this not enough to stop you from going around claiming she’s a male?
Why would it? Note that nobody is saying that the leak is fake or edited. The silence is deafening, but also not the only evidence. There’s another undisputed leak the confirms the same:
And the IOC itself saying that it’s a DSD case:
In total, there are exactly zero people saying “Khelif is female based on medical records”, and several different people saying “Khelif is male based on medical records”, combined with the IOC stating that it’s a DSD issue, which means that Khelif is male. Khelif could remove all doubt with a simple, cheap, non-invasive sex test, so why hasn’t that happened?
the IOC stating that it’s a DSD issue
The IOC did not state this, they just conflated DSD with transgender in the initial statement. Why do you keep saying the leaks are undisputed? Read my initial quote about Snopes trying to corroborate the claims and being unable to.
Khelif could remove all doubt with a simple, cheap, non-invasive sex test, so why hasn’t that happened?
What doubt is there exactly, you’re pretty convinced that they’re a male with nothing but conjecture, smoke and mirrors.
We have the technology to turn any one of your cells into pluripotent stem cells, and then differentiate them into ovarian tissues and eggs.
therefore I propose that we get samples of male transphobes, grow eggs from them, therefore transing them by their definition, also we can make sperm from JKR so she can go fuck herself
Pluribus is really doing some Baader-Meinhof shit to me with pluripotency, I swear
(complete with penises)
which type(s) of dsd causes someone to have ovaries and a penis?
It happens.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovotesticular_syndrome
Ovotesticular syndrome (also known as ovotesticular disorder or OT-DSD) is a rare congenital condition where an individual is born with both ovarian and testicular tissue. It is one of the rarest disorders of sex development (DSDs), with only 500 reported cases. Commonly, one or both gonads is an ovotestis containing both types of tissue. Although it is similar in some ways to mixed gonadal dysgenesis, the conditions can be distinguished histologically.
Physical symptoms:
- Enlargement of one or both breasts in men (gynecomastia) (present in 75% of cases)
- Small phallus midway in size between a clitoris and a penis
- Incompletely closed urogenital opening (shallow vagina)
- Abnormal urethra opening on the perineum
i saw this one but did not think it was relevant as none of the suffererers of this condition, male or female presenting, have (a pair of) ovaries. but people (plural) with ovaries (plural) can mean less than two each i suppose. seems a bit of a stretch though
That won’t end up with someone having “ovaries”. They’ll have a bit of non-functional tissue known as streak tissue.
Well yes, that’s how that works. Sex is defined around the the type of gametes your body is organized around producing. It doesn’t matter how you present.
Their point is that an intersex individual with XY gametes can develop ovaries. By jk’s definition that person is a woman. Which is wrong.
And that is the simplest of examples, before we ever get to more complicated genetics.
And THAT is only talking about gametes and chromosomes, which is distinct from the social construct of gender identity (all of the behavioral and psychological stuff which is potentially influenced by, but not solely defined by, those genetic things)
I agree that gender identity is separate, but as far as the biology goes, sex is defined by gametes, and determined by chromosomes. Various DSDs like Swyer/Klinefelter/etc are variations within a sex.
I never said otherwise. What is your point? We are discussing JK Rowling’s erroneous claim.
I think you should do some self reflection on why it’s so important to you that this conversation shift away from the OP towards everyone acknowledging your point the definition of biological sex. Nobody here ever disagreed with you on the meaning of the words in scientific contexts.
You were incorrect to state this, and why I clarified:
By jk’s definition that person is a woman. Which is wrong.
Some people want to define woman as something other than “adult female human”, but it’s incorrect to rely on a redefinition of the word to declare her wrong, when she wouldn’t agree with that redefinition in the first place.
TBH the meme in the OP is silly anyways, because it’s clear that she was talking about humans in this context, unlike the original “behold a man” reference. When talking about about humans, Rowling is entirely correct.
No. She’s very much wrong. Human men can be born with non-functional ovaries. Her statement is factually inaccurate. She didn’t say anything about gametes or chromosomes. She said “born with egg producing equipment, even faulty”. That is a VERY specific phrasing and she is wrong.
You are obviously just trying to force a conversation about term usage and insisting that the words we use for both gender and sex should only ever be considered under the sex-based definition.
Language changes constantly. It’s all made up, literally. Words mean what the populace uses them to mean.
Lastly, nobody in this thread is arguing the science. If you’re talking to me, talk to me instead of building a straw man that’s easy to feel superior to. I get that calling trans women women makes you uncomfortable. Get over it. Stop trying to shift the conversation to a framing that puts you on sturdier ground when it isn’t what people are talking about.
JK Rowling’s a TERF. She makes factually inaccurate statements (e.g. the tweet in the OP). That isn’t up for debate. It’s self evident. If you want to have a conversation about science deniers, do it somewhere else. Because nobody here is denying the science except Rowling.
Language changes and that’s great. It’s intellectually dishonest to rely on a redefinition that someone wouldn’t agree with to “prove” them wrong. You’re essentially saying “If I define equals as not equals, then your statement that 1 + 1 = 2 is clearly false, ha!”
Our language changing doesn’t affect the reality of biological sex, and relying on a redefinition of “woman” that isn’t based on biological sex to “prove” someone wrong that wouldn’t agree with that redefinition in the first place isn’t a serious argument. She’s clearly using the common definition as “adult female human” that most people still use.
The core idea she’s presenting is wrong, (even in your interpretation) because biological sex is not binary. Computers are binary, biology rarely is.
There are biological males, biological females, and there are perfectly normal people who fit into ‘biologically neither’ (intersex people). Just because you have ovaries, does not make you female. Women typically have ovaries, but not always. Women typically have cells containing two X chromosomes, but not always. According to the current definition and overwhelming scientific consensus in the relevant fields, having neither of those things does not preclude you from being a female or a woman.
JKR seeks to rewrite terminology to exclude a significant swath of the population from the definition, not the other way around. From many, many statements and actions she’s taken, her primary drive to do this seems to be hatred and bigotry.
Sorry, but that’s simply incorrect. The overwhelming consensus in the field of biology is that sex is entirely defined by gametes and nothing else. Intersex people are either male or female with DSDs. Here’s a biologist stating the obvious
Across anisogamous species, the existence of two—and only two—sexes has been a settled matter in modern biology. […] Here I synthesize evolutionary and developmental evidence to demonstrate that sex is binary (i.e., there are only two sexes) in all anisogamous species and that males and females are defined universally by the type of gamete they have the biological function to produce—not by karyotypes, secondary sexual characteristics, or other correlates.
That’s the point of separating the idea of gender from sex. Gender captures the complex social aspects of sex, which remains binary and immutable.
And if you don’t like that guy, here’s a statement affirming the same signed by lots of people:
So, according to her… there are no human women? After birth humans do not produce eggs.
Given the nature of her trauma induced bigotry, I doubt she has the biological knowledge required to be aware of this simple fact.
What trauma caused her to be a bigot? Never heard that before now
I know several women who have survived domestic abuse and assaults.
Almost none of them are bigots. The only couple I can think of that are were shitty humans before they got married.
I think she has just always been trash.
Are you saying I’m making a hasty generalization?
I’m not claiming “survivors become bigots.” I’m talking about this case: it’s plausible her assault left her with fear that she later converted into ideology. Becoming extremely wealthy then gave her the platform and the insulation to reinforce that fear in an echo chamber until it hardened into vitriol. None of which removes her responsibility.
Bigots come from all kinds of backgrounds for all kinds of reasons. In her case, trauma + power + echo-chambering instead of healing seems like a plausible pathway.
And to be clear: none of us has the information to know whether she held these views before the assault, and we definitely can’t know the counterfactual of who she would’ve become without it.
No, I’m saying “trauma induced bigotry” isn’t a thing.
And honestly I don’t care to debate whether a bigot got their bigotry honestly or if something in their life might “better explain” it, at the end of the day a bigot is a bigot.
Just because I know (insert genocidal dictator here) was mistreated as a child doesn’t mean I take pity on them when they decide that’s a good reason to genocide.
I agree on the moral bottom line: bigotry is bigotry, and it isn’t excused by someone’s past.
Where we disagree is whether the “why” matters. I’m not asking for pity or moral credit; I’m talking about causality because prevention requires understanding how these beliefs form and get reinforced. “Explanation” isn’t “justification.”
If you’re claiming trauma can’t be a contributing factor in any case, that’s a stronger claim than “it doesn’t excuse it,” and I don’t think it’s self-evident. Fear and threat-perception can shape ideology, and some people channel that into scapegoating. Especially so when insulated by wealth, platform, and echo chambers.
Also, bringing up genocide shifts the topic from mechanisms of prejudice to extreme hypotheticals. The point stands without that comparison.
If you don’t want to discuss causes at all, that’s your call. If so, we’re not actually disagreeing about accountability, just about whether analysis is worth doing.
no , she was scorned by a woman/man that was cheating in her family.
rowling is possibly not human.
Definitely not human. Show me a billionaire that is human. In order to be a billionaire your humanity must be stripped away from you at some point.
Wait 'til they learn that the ovaries and the testes differentiate from the same structures meaning technically speaking you could say trans women were born with “faulty egg producing equipment” just by virtue of it not differentiating into the correct equipment. lmao
Yep, these testosterone-and-sperm-producing danglies are just faulty egg-producing equipment.
Guess I really am a lesbian after all. Guess we all are, really.
deleted by creator
Woman inherits the Earth.
Oh, you love women? Name every dinosaur.
Albert, Jeff, Sara, Rom, Nyx, Chuck, Moka, Dolly, Vera.
so rowling is a chicken.
Why did she turn her entire brand into Hater? What a weirdo
Something happens to a person when they got rich. Money induced brain parasites or something
The parasites are part of the billionaire induction ceremony.
transphobia is a mental illness. all bigotry is, to varying degrees, but something special about transphobia just consumes people’s entire soul and personality. there’s paranoid delusions that come with it, and inevitably leads to transvestigations and just falsely accusing people of being trans because that becomes literally all they think about.
Seems like it.
Then everyone is a woman. Since we’re going with “however faulty” ; testicles are just extremely faulty ovaries.
The only way not to be a woman is to be born with not genitalia whatsoever, according to this idiotic definition. I’m not sure that’s even possible, but I don’t know a lot about intersex people 🤷🏻♀
yeah I’m sure we’re going to see jowling kowling rowling defend the right of intersex people with dicks to be in women’s bathrooms as long as they have ovaries too.
I’m glad she regularly embarrasses herself in public now just in case you were too young to realize from her stupid writing that she’s a fucking idiot.
Haters gonna hate but I would love to read a book by JK Rowling about a repressed male detective who finally establishes his masculinity through secretely developing the ability to lay eggs with his prostate and using that power to disrupt the stranglehold radical feminism had over Victorian England and usher in the era of the Modern British Family.
I wouldn’t pay money for it out of principle but it would be a good page turner and well within her wheelhouse of terfdom.
Please explain what a “Hen Do” is.
Adult human chicken? Like in Family Guy?
What a giant, extra-crispy bucket of stupid. Here’s what makes a woman: Intent.
Remember intent? It’s kind of a big thing in criminal law. It’s the difference between manslaughter and murder. We treat killing people very differently depending on the killer’s intent. Murdering for a life insurance payout? Very bad. Manslaughter with a car? No biggie. Killing an enemy in war? Laudable.
Point is, intent matters, in this and lots of other ways. So if a person intends to be a woman, she is a woman.
(And, yes, if a hen could conceptualize and express intent to be a human woman, I say that we should consider her as such. Shit, The Android Who Wants to be Human is a well-worn sci-fi trope, so why not a biological organism, too?)
Rich entertainment fucks sure pick the god damned weirdest hills to die on.
Los Pollos Hermanos is woman?
She’s gorgeous and probably smells amazing.
* Alive, this isn’t some roast chicken innuendo.
No I’m here for the roast chicken innuendo
I like my women like I like my chicken. moist.
I mean, the cocks don’t lay eggs. 🤷
she cant lay eggs, you know hens that cant lay eggs in farms, they go to the pastures.
And what a hot chick she is.
Wait… Does a woman have to be human? Is my bitch (like, literal dictionary definition bitch) not a woman just because she’s a dog? 🤔
It’s a reference to Diogenes’ famous “Behold, a man!” where he held up a shaved chicken in protest of attempts to define what a human is.
Yes. And one of the implications they are sarcastically trying to make with the chicken is that the other person would say an animal (or at least a chicken) can’t be a woman just because it lays eggs, in contrast to their previous statement defining what a woman is.
I agree a chicken isn’t a woman just because it lays eggs. But is there any other reason why a chicken couldn’t be a woman?
Because only people can be men and women.
Our sexes are called female/male, so a chicken which has no concept of gender but is of the female sex would be called a hen or described as female.
But what about dogs and cats that think they’re people? Won’t you think of the kittens? Won’t somebody PLEASE think of the kittens?
Don’t be silly, dogs and cats can never be men or women, they’re only good boys and good girls.
… Generally speaking, we define a woman as a human.
