Register  |  Sign In
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Dec 03, 2020 10:44 pm



Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 Jk Rowling 
Author Message
Hold the door!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Posts: 15697
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Post Jk Rowling
Can someone explain to me what’s so awful about JK Rowling’s opinions on the trans community? As far as I can tell all she has really said is that trans people’s sex is opposite from their expression of gender. What’s the problem with that? That’s true.

_________________
Image


Mon Jul 06, 2020 6:48 pm
Profile
Devil's Advocate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 32528
Post Re: Jk Rowling
JKR’s views vs the trans rights activists would have some real world applications. For example JKR would have it so transwomen can’t use women’s bathrooms or compete in women’s sports, and minors can’t be given puberty blockers or other trans related drugs, she went as far to call it becoming a form of conversion therapy in her latest tweet storm. So the trans rights people push back against that. Other than that I think half the people attacking her are just misogynists jumping on the opportunity or the outrage mob finding someone to bully/try to cancel.

_________________
I’m disagreeing with you because I love to argue, not because I dislike you.


Mon Jul 06, 2020 11:38 pm
Profile
Online
The Kramer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:36 am
Posts: 17958
Location: Classified
Post Re: Jk Rowling
For me, the question isn’t whether her views on trans women are correct (they aren’t but it is debatable.) The question is: does she know what type of response her comments will get? Is she fully aware of what she is doing? I think yes. She is being a troll, purposely annoying the cancel culture crowd for the sake of it, even if it comes at the cost of trans people feeling pretty shitty that their favorite author doesn’t respect their life choices. Maybe not full Voldemort, but that is atleast some shit Umbridge would do.

_________________
I kneel with Magnus.

Wakanda Forever. X


Tue Jul 07, 2020 12:59 am
Profile
Why is the rum gone???
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 33438
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Rowling is acting like a privileged kid who just came into money.


Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:56 am
Profile
Devil's Advocate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 32528
Post Re: Jk Rowling
She is serious, she just sees it as helping women rather than negging trans.

The radical feminists and the trans rights activists were destined to be at war. One group wants to eliminate gender because they feel it’s just stereotypes that enable the patriarchy, the other group doubles down on gender and that it’s an innate thing.

_________________
I’m disagreeing with you because I love to argue, not because I dislike you.


Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:24 am
Profile
Hold the door!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Posts: 15697
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Interesting. IMO none of those things are issues you can make a blanket statement about. Competing in women’s sports though is an obvious no for me. I think you should be able to use the bathroom of your choice as long as you are making an effort to present as that gender. And I definitely don’t think you should be able to medically transition until you are 16 or even 18. Kids can’t make a decision like that.

_________________
Image


Tue Jul 07, 2020 9:10 am
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:24 pm
Posts: 1392
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Flava'd vs The World wrote:
For me, the question isn’t whether her views on trans women are correct (they aren’t but it is debatable.) The question is: does she know what type of response her comments will get? Is she fully aware of what she is doing? I think yes. She is being a troll, purposely annoying the cancel culture crowd for the sake of it, even if it comes at the cost of trans people feeling pretty shitty that their favorite author doesn’t respect their life choices. Maybe not full Voldemort, but that is atleast some shit Umbridge would do.


First, I think many would object to "life choices" in regards to them living their truth, or whathaveyou :mer: I'll stick with "life choices" for these purposes, though.

Anyway, I find this kind of an odd position to take--that she shouldn't express her views because they "[don't] respect their life choices." Huh? She's expressing her opinion as a woman being told what women are/aren't allowed to say/think under penalty of wayward social justice (or actual civil justice of some kind). It's only receiving this constant attention because people feel the need to passionately, publicly, and dramatically scream at her that she's evil which prompts more responses from her as she clearly refuses to be cowed by vitriol. If cooler heads prevailed then simply reading what she said, disagreeing in X words, and then moving on would be the norm but "disagreeing" is becoming a thing of the past. There is no "agree" or "disagree" for many people, lately, there is only right/wrong, us/them, good/evil and the tribalism that comes with that.

For example, I'm a gay man. When I was single I dated other gay men. Easy enough, right? What about trans people who insist that male/female sex is a fluid construct "assigned" at birth? If that's accepted as truth then homosexuality can't really exist because "same sex attraction" becomes meaningless if "sex" also means whatever the individual decides any given day of the week. Well, according to many trans-activists the fact that I'm not interested in romantically/sexually pursuing anyone that isn't a gay man (ie a biological male sexually attracted to other biological males) makes me "transphobic." That certainly "doesn't respect [my] life choices" as someone who's got no use for the female anatomy, so how does this work? Is it okay to have any sexual preferences according to these rules? Wouldn't any group you aren't attracted to and therefore exclude from pursing be an example of a "phobia" in the same regard?


Tue Jul 07, 2020 2:46 pm
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Here’s a really handy video that points out all the things Rowling said in her blog post that are unhelpful for the trans community at best, transphobic at worst. It’s long but it cites many more studies than she does, and thoroughly debunks the only one she did.

https://youtu.be/6Avcp-e4bOs

As for pointing out biological sex is real. Most trans people - as pointed out in that video - don’t deny this. Of course it’s real. That’s not really a debate anyone is having. The problem is that a lot of the people who say “biological sex is real” are usually only doing so because they want biological sex rights to trump gendered rights. I.e. the biological distinction should be enough to restrict trans women from accessing single sex spaces. Which is transphobic.

So, much like when people say “all lives matter”, it seems like harmless common sense on the surface, but the context under which it’s being said in the current climate is problematic and potentially transphobic.


Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:21 pm
Profile
Why is the rum gone???
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 33438
Post Re: Jk Rowling
For a minute I thought it was Shack who posted that. Good to see you posting Snrub.


Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:43 pm
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
zwackerm wrote:
Interesting. IMO none of those things are issues you can make a blanket statement about. Competing in women’s sports though is an obvious no for me. I think you should be able to use the bathroom of your choice as long as you are making an effort to present as that gender. And I definitely don’t think you should be able to medically transition until you are 16 or even 18. Kids can’t make a decision like that.


Unfortunately there’s no such thing as an obvious no, yes or maybe on any of these subjects.

In sports for example, trans women have actually been allowed to compete in the olympics since 2004. No trans women have come to dominate any particular field in all that time. Generally the removal of testosterone for a year has been shown to be enough to remove a competitive advantage.

The moment there becomes a clear trend of trans women outperforming biological women, the IOC and NCAA will change and adapt their rules. And it will ALWAYS be in favour of biological women.

The catch 22 for trans women is that the moment they do win, they’re called frauds or cheats. Even if they transitioned at a young age and took puberty blockers which would have seen them develop no competitive advantage at any point in their lives.

There will always be anecdotal or individual stories that fit the narrative of trans women (note how it’s always trans women) somehow getting one over on biological women in sports or elsewhere, and these will always be used to great effect in the news and by GC people as evidence for why trans people should be excluded from sports or toilets or crisis centres.. But these individual stories shouldn’t be used to create blanket rules or legislation against trans people as a whole.


Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:53 pm
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Jack Sparrow wrote:
For a minute I thought it Das Shack who posted that. Good to see you posting Snrub.


I still lurk! I just don’t usually have that much to say on anything! :sweat:


Thu Jul 09, 2020 6:57 pm
Profile
Devil's Advocate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 32528
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Wow, a Snrub post after like 6 years. Nice to see you.

_________________
I’m disagreeing with you because I love to argue, not because I dislike you.


Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:14 pm
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:24 pm
Posts: 1392
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Snrub wrote:
Most trans people - as pointed out in that video - don’t deny this. Of course it’s real. That’s not really a debate anyone is having. The problem is that a lot of the people who say “biological sex is real” are usually only doing so because they want biological sex rights to trump gendered rights. I.e. the biological distinction should be enough to restrict trans women from accessing single sex spaces. Which is transphobic.


You've said lots of sensible stuff (almost exclusively), but the bolded portion I do find inaccurate. I, myself, have had *several* exchanges with trans people (or at least they claim to be online) who take the stance that sex is "assigned" at a birth, a"fluid construct," and not "biological." A close family member (a millennial) is one of the "sex is all made up, you can't tell me what I am, BIGOT!!!" crowd whose identifiers/pronouns change occasionally (though doesn't consider herself trans). So, while that may not be what most trans people think there are certainly plenty of loudmouths pushing the "my sex is whatever I feel, period" angle.


Thu Jul 09, 2020 7:34 pm
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Malcolm wrote:
You've said lots of sensible stuff (almost exclusively), but the bolded portion I do find inaccurate. I, myself, have had *several* exchanges with trans people (or at least they claim to be online) who take the stance that sex is "assigned" at a birth, a"fluid construct," and not "biological." A close family member (a millennial) is one of the "sex is all made up, you can't tell me what I am, BIGOT!!!" crowd whose identifiers/pronouns change occasionally (though doesn't consider herself trans). So, while that may not be what most trans people think there are certainly plenty of loudmouths pushing the "my sex is whatever I feel, period" angle.


I get that, and I should have qualified it a bit. It's a debate anyone sensible isn't having. If there's an opinion to be had on a subject, there's always going to be SOMEBODY who's going to have it. So yes, a small number of trans people and activists argue that biological sex isn't real. It's unhelpful, and predictably, those are the ones people like JK Rowling tend to shine a spotlight on to point out how unreasonable the "trans lobby" is. When the reality is, those people - like, hopefully, the more extreme elements of the trans-exclusionary lobby - are actually in a very small minority.

The "real" debate is not whether biological sex is real (it is), it's whether biological sex should be the determining factor in who gets to be called a woman or a man, and who gets to have all the legal protections and rights that come with it. And unfortunately there's not really an answer to this debate that's going to please everyone.

The best we can do is come up with a solution that keeps those most at risk of persecution, prejudice, and assault safe and able to live their lives, while not putting others in harm's way as a result. And we need to do it in a way that is driven by facts, research and peer-reviewed studies... not broad generalisations based on supposed common sense, anecdotal evidence, and one-off cases.


Fri Jul 10, 2020 7:39 am
Profile
Devil's Advocate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 32528
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Snrub wrote:
The best we can do is come up with a solution that keeps those most at risk of persecution, prejudice, and assault safe and able to live their lives, while not putting others in harm's way as a result. And we need to do it in a way that is driven by facts, research and peer-reviewed studies... not broad generalisations based on supposed common sense, anecdotal evidence, and one-off cases.


I think one of the issues is that the bathroom debate for example is a no-win situation. I'm fairly certain there are more biologically born women with PTSD from sexual assault than there are trans women, so how do we find a solution where nobody feels unsafe? Either trans women or women who are afraid of anyone with a penis are going to be put in a situation they're not comfortable with.

_________________
I’m disagreeing with you because I love to argue, not because I dislike you.


Fri Jul 10, 2020 8:57 am
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Shack wrote:
I think one of the issues is that the bathroom debate for example is a no-win situation. I'm fairly certain there are more biologically born women with PTSD from sexual assault than there are trans women, so how do we find a solution where nobody feels unsafe? Either trans women or women who are afraid of anyone with a penis are going to be put in a situation they're not comfortable with.


If a woman has been sexually assaulted by a man and feels unsafe sharing a bathroom with one, then she is still protected in single sex spaces because - and I'm talking entirely from the perspective of the UK law here - men cannot use women's toilets. Trans women are not men.

It is an irrational fear that is rooted in transphobia, i.e., the belief that a trans woman is and always will be a man.

Trans people have been legally using their gendered toilets for years, most of the time you would never ever know it. Because most trans women present as women, and their penises aren't out for everyone to see when they use a toilet. And none of them are going into those toilets to attack women, they're going into those toilets so that THEY don't get attacked by - you guessed it - men.

The idea that men are sneaking into women's toilets disguised as women to attack cis-women just simply isn't true. And to believe it and attempt to stop trans women from using toilets because of this false belief is transphobic.

To put it another way... change the roles of cis-women and trans-women in the argument to white women and black women. Imagine someone saying they felt uncomfortable using a toilet with a black person because they were assaulted by someone black once. That may be a real trauma, and it genuinely may trigger them when they see a black person in a space where they feel vulnerable. But that's not a reason to stop all black people from using toilets. That would be hella racist, no?


Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:48 am
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:24 pm
Posts: 1392
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Trans-women/men can use a women's/men's room all they want, I don't care, but I do find the "trans-women ARE women" POV a bit too simplistic. A biological woman is different from a trans-woman so while they might identify/live as woman (and shouldn't be subject to discrimination etc), I don't think it's unfair to make the distinction.

So, is it fair to say there are men, women, trans-men, and trans-women?


Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:22 pm
Profile
Devil's Advocate
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am
Posts: 32528
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Snrub wrote:
The idea that men are sneaking into women's toilets disguised as women to attack cis-women just simply isn't true. And to believe it and attempt to stop trans women from using toilets because of this false belief is transphobic.


Unsavoury males who are exploiting the trans movement exist, the only question is how many of them. Clearly my guess would be a lot higher than yours. For me it’s just logic that with the amount of incel, MRA, PUA, pornsick, lesbian porn addict, etc. type guys out there, some of them are going to get ideas of how to use the trans movement to fulfill their fantasies. Whether it’s pedos who want to go into change rooms with 14 year old girls, guys who have a fantasy to sleep with lesbians, incels who realized nobody wants their ugly male selves so what if they turned female and tried to prey on woke girls? etc. When there’s 200 times as many cis males as trans women it doesn’t take that many to be creeps. It’s not having a low opinion of trans people to say this, it’s having a low opinion of our worst cis males. The bottom 10-20% of cis males in terms of shittiness, are beyond shitty and capable of all shittiness.

In addition to the cases being out there like Jessica Yaniv or trans rapists in women’s prisons, JK Rowling’s replies are full of trans women sending her dick pics, telling her to suck their dick, or threatening violence on her. In an ideal world wouldn’t none of these people be allowed to use female bathrooms? In all likelihood these are not REALLY gender dysphoric people. If you tell a woman who’s opinion you don’t like to suck your dick, it’s fair to assume you’re a male inside.

There’s also some people that are just narcissists and may join the trans movement solely for the validation. Being trans is pretty popular these days and allows you to be not like the other boys and girls. You’re likely to get more twitter followers from people who want to support the trans community. Yes some people are that desperate for attention, or just deeply confused. I don’t think trans women who change sex due to social validation instead of being gender dysphoric would be using female bathrooms in an ideal world. The problem with all of this is it’s impossible to tell from someone identifying as trans alone whether they have real gender dysphoria. Identifying as trans is an action, being trans is innate, but we have no way of separating them in the law.

Quote:
To put it another way... change the roles of cis-women and trans-women in the argument to white women and black women. Imagine someone saying they felt uncomfortable using a toilet with a black person because they were assaulted by someone black once. That may be a real trauma, and it genuinely may trigger them when they see a black person in a space where they feel vulnerable. But that's not a reason to stop all black people from using toilets. That would be hella racist, no?


One of my problems with the trans and race comparison in general is there’s a much bigger difference biologically between males and females, which is why we segregate sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc. but don’t for races. There’s nothing that could make you more scared of black people than white people unless you thought black people were more dangerous, which means you’re racist. But a woman fearing trans women because on average they’re much stronger than her and have a penis seems closer to justified. Or at least after considering some of the points in the rest of my post about why a woman having a fear of predators infiltrating the trans women community could be somewhat justified.

_________________
I’m disagreeing with you because I love to argue, not because I dislike you.


Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:54 pm
Profile
Ocarina of Time
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2010 1:21 pm
Posts: 7913
Location: Hyrule
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Leave Rowling alone, it’s her fucking opinion, like it or not; so annoying to see people criticizing someone who does not share their political and social views. That’s the problem in current society, you are pointed out as a disgraceful person for not thinking the way “I” do :disgust:

_________________
Most Anticipated 2021

1. Zack Snyder’s Justice League
2. Dune
3. Luca
4. Godzilla vs. Kong
5. The Suicide Squad
6. Mission Impossible 7
7. Space Jam A New Legacy
8. No Time to Die
9. The Conjuring 3
10. The Matrix 4


Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:18 am
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Malcolm wrote:
Trans-women/men can use a women's/men's room all they want, I don't care, but I do find the "trans-women ARE women" POV a bit too simplistic. A biological woman is different from a trans-woman so while they might identify/live as woman (and shouldn't be subject to discrimination etc), I don't think it's unfair to make the distinction.

So, is it fair to say there are men, women, trans-men, and trans-women?


Again, no one (apart from the aforementioned few who will ALWAYS argue the sky isn't blue) is saying biological sex isn't real. Biological (or cis) women exist. The argument is whether trans women should be considered women in the eyes of the law and have the same rights and protections as cis women.

Those arguing for the definition of woman to be strictly biological women are doing so to allow themselves the right to misgender trans women as men, and, vice versa, trans men as women. They want to deny trans women the right to gender themselves as women.

The video I posted earlier describes it nicely. Imagine the term woman to be an umbrella, and underneath that umbrella is an array of different types of women: cis women, trans women, small women, tall women, black women, white women... all different, all with different needs medically and in society, but ultimately... all women.


Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:23 am
Profile
Vagina Qwertyuiop
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm
Posts: 8767
Location: Great Living Standards
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Shack wrote:
Unsavoury males who are exploiting the trans movement exist, the only question is how many of them. Clearly my guess would be a lot higher than yours. For me it’s just logic that with the amount of incel, MRA, PUA, pornsick, lesbian porn addict, etc. type guys out there, some of them are going to get ideas of how to use the trans movement to fulfill their fantasies. Whether it’s pedos who want to go into change rooms with 14 year old girls, guys who have a fantasy to sleep with lesbians, incels who realized nobody wants their ugly male selves so what if they turned female and tried to prey on woke girls? etc. When there’s 200 times as many cis males as trans women it doesn’t take that many to be creeps. It’s not having a low opinion of trans people to say this, it’s having a low opinion of our worst cis males. The bottom 10-20% of cis males in terms of shittiness, are beyond shitty and capable of all shittiness.

In addition to the cases being out there like Jessica Yaniv or trans rapists in women’s prisons, JK Rowling’s replies are full of trans women sending her dick pics, telling her to suck their dick, or threatening violence on her. In an ideal world wouldn’t none of these people be allowed to use female bathrooms? In all likelihood these are not REALLY gender dysphoric people. If you tell a woman who’s opinion you don’t like to suck your dick, it’s fair to assume you’re a male inside.

There’s also some people that are just narcissists and may join the trans movement solely for the validation. Being trans is pretty popular these days and allows you to be not like the other boys and girls. You’re likely to get more twitter followers from people who want to support the trans community. Yes some people are that desperate for attention, or just deeply confused. I don’t think trans women who change sex due to social validation instead of being gender dysphoric would be using female bathrooms in an ideal world.


There's a lot to unpack in there. But basically, everything you've said boils down to "a lot of men are scum and want to take advantage of women". And the fear is that by making it easier to identify as trans, more abusive men will do so to abuse women. Oy.

First of all... saying you're trans doesn't just give you a license to abuse women. If you say you identify as a woman to get into a toilet and attack a woman... you'll still go to jail. It's not an invisibility cloak. Men don't need to go to the effort of transitioning to attack women. They'll do it whether trans people are allowed to use their genders toilets or not.

And if you say - well they'll probably get into a woman's prison, which will just give them even more women to abuse! There are checks and balances in place to ensure people are actually trans, have been living as trans, have diagnoses in place, etc before they get into their gendered prison of choice... and even then, if they're shown to be a risk to other women, that too is taken into consideration. Karen White is an example of where these checks and balances weren't properly done, but someone doing a shitty job of ensuring Karen White was incarcerated properly doesn't mean all trans women should be therefore put in men's jails. Karen White is still an exception.

But more importantly... [i]none of what you've said is happening[/]. Not in a way that justifies taking rights away from trans people. People like Jessica Yaniv and Karen White are the exceptions... they're not representative of all trans people, the VAST majority of whom are just trying to live their lives not attacking women. There's a reason you can name the trans people who are assaulters and abusers... because there are so few of them. And they're not abusers because they're trans, they're abusers because they're abusers. They just also happen to be trans or are lying about being trans. Which, as we've seen, is incredibly unfortunate for the regular trans people just trying to live their lives in peace.

It's no different to stopping ALL gay men from being teachers because a couple of gay teachers turned out to be paedophiles. They aren't paedophiles because they're gay... they're paedophiles who also happen to be gay. To think otherwise is homophobic.

If you think trans people are all just paedos, rapists, and lesbian fetishists... then that is transphobic. In the same way that many people used to (and some still do) lump paedophiles and gay men together.

Quote:
The problem with all of this is it’s impossible to tell from someone identifying as trans alone whether they have real gender dysphoria. Identifying as trans is an action, being trans is innate, but we have no way of separating them in the law.


This isn't really true. In the UK, if someone has been arrested and says they're trans to justify why they - a man - were hanging around in a woman's toilet, the burden of proof would be on them to prove they're trans. They would have to show that they have been living as a woman in their day-to-day life in a meaningful way. You can't just say "I'm trans" click your fingers and have legal protections. And again, saying you're trans or even BEING trans doesn't mean you can't still be locked away for assault.

But also, this is where GRCs come into play. At the moment, the process of getting a gender recognition certificate in the UK is incredibly difficult. You have to have a medical diagnosis, and to have been living in your 'acquired gender' for two years, and convince a panel of legal experts before you can get the certificate. It's expensive and bureaucratic, and it helps no one. Making the process easier (like reforms have been trying to - and like JK Rowling opposes) would still require a six month wait, having to prove you've been living your day-to-day life as a trans person, and it would carry with it the threat of a prison sentence if it turns out to be lying.

Doing this would make it easier to wean out these mostly non-existent perverts lying about being trans. Because real trans people would have an easier, cheaper, less humiliating way to prove that they are authentically trans.

Quote:
To put it another way... change the roles of cis-women and trans-women in the argument to white women and black women. Imagine someone saying they felt uncomfortable using a toilet with a black person because they were assaulted by someone black once. That may be a real trauma, and it genuinely may trigger them when they see a black person in a space where they feel vulnerable. But that's not a reason to stop all black people from using toilets. That would be hella racist, no?


One of my problems with the trans and race comparison in general is there’s a much bigger difference biologically between males and females, which is why we segregate sports, bathrooms, prisons, etc. but don’t for races. There’s nothing that could make you more scared of black people than white people unless you thought black people were more dangerous, which means you’re racist. But a woman fearing trans women because on average they’re much stronger than her and have a penis seems closer to justified. Or at least after considering some of the points in the rest of my post about why a woman having a fear of predators infiltrating the trans women community could be somewhat justified.[/quote]

There are hundreds of equivalencies out there, none are perfect, but all basically are just meant to let you see the situation in a different light. I'm just trying to find the one that connects with you. The gay paedophile teachers one I mentioned earlier is another.

There was another one I read in an article today that I quite liked, in an interview with a trans professor at the Open University, which I'm probably going to leave this discussion on. I'll check in to read responses, and I may reply, but I'm already engaged with several other people in my real life at the moment on this very conversation and it's getting kinda exhausting. Even if your mind is set on this subject, I hope someone else might read what I've said and it might give them pause to think. Anyway, here's the quote:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/jul/11/uks-only-trans-philosophy-professor-to-jk-rowling-harry-potter-helped-me-become-a-woman

"In Chappell’s view, the argument about trans rights has become polarised partly because so many individuals on both sides have suffered deep trauma, often going back many years. Rowling wrote about the domestic abuse in her own life, and Chappell has trauma stretching back into her childhood.

But the bottom line, for Chappell, is this: “I think we can liken it to adoption. Trans women are like adoptive parents, who want to be accepted as being the same as biological parents. And they are accepted as such, despite the differences in how they became parents in the first place; and if society could do the same for trans women, we’d be in a better place.”"


Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:17 am
Profile
Indiana Jones IV
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 8:24 pm
Posts: 1392
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Snrub wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Trans-women/men can use a women's/men's room all they want, I don't care, but I do find the "trans-women ARE women" POV a bit too simplistic. A biological woman is different from a trans-woman so while they might identify/live as woman (and shouldn't be subject to discrimination etc), I don't think it's unfair to make the distinction.

So, is it fair to say there are men, women, trans-men, and trans-women?


Again, no one (apart from the aforementioned few who will ALWAYS argue the sky isn't blue) is saying biological sex isn't real. Biological (or cis) women exist. The argument is whether trans women should be considered women in the eyes of the law and have the same rights and protections as cis women.

Those arguing for the definition of woman to be strictly biological women are doing so to allow themselves the right to misgender trans women as men, and, vice versa, trans men as women. They want to deny trans women the right to gender themselves as women.

The video I posted earlier describes it nicely. Imagine the term woman to be an umbrella, and underneath that umbrella is an array of different types of women: cis women, trans women, small women, tall women, black women, white women... all different, all with different needs medically and in society, but ultimately... all women.


Well, that's where I (and many women I speak about this) differ with you ;)

"Woman" being redefined as an umbrella term to include "trans-woman" as if it's no different than being tall/short/black/white seems disingenuous. "Trans" is also rather unclear because it doesn't automatically mean that person had surgery to fit their identified sex--they could easily be a biological male who simply lives life as they perceive "woman" to be (I know *several*). I'm not saying that person is dastardly with some ulterior motive beyond living happily as themselves just as others are able, by any means. However, if you have a dick and identify as a "woman" then you are fundamentally different from a biological woman so I'm not sure why it's unfair to say biological women are different than trans-women without being accused of wanting to deny people rights--that seems like a 2+2=5 scenario.

Trans people shouldn't be discriminated against or have less rights etc (all that obvious stuff), but whatever happened to "celebrate our differences" and whatnot? Is it now "pretend we're all just the same, or else"? Anyway, I know you're done discussing this so see you around :mer:

EDIT: Oh, and re: the adoptive parent comparison, we as a society are accepting/encouraging of adoptive parents (socially & legally) while also being aware they aren't biological parents--that doesn't sound like a horrible goal for trans-people ;)


Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:05 pm
Profile
Hold the door!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 01, 2014 10:26 pm
Posts: 15697
Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Post Re: Jk Rowling
With all the controversy surrounding her new book and the Hogwarts Legacy game, I still stand by my belief that there’s no weight to the arguments calling JK or anything she’s created transphobic.

_________________
Image


Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:28 pm
Profile
Online
The Kramer
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:36 am
Posts: 17958
Location: Classified
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Just read this:

In Order of the Phoenix, Dumbledore calls Voldemort by his birth name -Tom. This foreshadows that JK Rowling will not respect people’s chosen identities.


:funny:

_________________
I kneel with Magnus.

Wakanda Forever. X


Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:57 am
Profile
Why is the rum gone???
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 8:15 pm
Posts: 33438
Post Re: Jk Rowling
Absolutely she is the devil :funny:


Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 30 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware for PTF.