• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
And there's plenty of place to discuss all of that without relation to the question of whether trans people deserve equality, dignity or accomodation.
Click to expand...

Rowling seems to favor a "separate but equal" approach, because she surely doesn't want any icky trans people in shelters with real women. I'm sure it will work out fine for trans people.
 
Belz... said:
Is that your assumption or do you have any actual reason to say that about her?
Click to expand...

Rowling routinely suggests that trans women have no place in women only spaces. She doesn't want them in shelters or jails with cis women. What else is there?
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Rowling seems to favor a "separate but equal" approach, because she surely doesn't want any icky trans people in shelters with real women. I'm sure it will work out fine for trans people.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that what she wants is to not have men in shelters with real women.

Yes, it's true. She thinks that people who are capable of causing pregnancy are, in fact, men, and people who are capable of becoming pregnant are, in fact, women.

And that is why she is called a transphobe.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Rowling routinely suggests that trans women have no place in women only spaces. She doesn't want them in shelters or jails with cis women. What else is there?
Click to expand...

Well that's not quite what you said earlier. What this suggests is that she doesn't consider trans women to be women, nothing more.

As I said earlier, one has to be able to keep more than one thouht in their head at once to discuss complex issues.
 
Belz... said:
Well that's not quite what you said earlier. What this suggests is that she doesn't consider trans women to be women, nothing more.

As I said earlier, one has to be able to keep more than one thouht in their head at once to discuss complex issues.
Click to expand...

Rowlings own position seems very unclear to me. She seems to oscillate between acceptance of trans people and a strong desire to treat them as dangerous men. It strikes me as incoherent.

I can't make heads or tails of it, other than coming to the conclusion that she has general animus against trans people.

I don't see how any reasonable person would conclude that designating trans people as some group of "miscellaneous other" would have good results for these people's civil rights.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Rowlings own position seems very unclear to me.
Click to expand...

Well, in that case can you understand why I find it dubious that you can then go on to tell me what she believes?

She seems to oscillate between acceptance of trans people and a strong desire to treat them as dangerous men. It strikes me as incoherent.
Click to expand...

This circles again back to my comment about holding more than one thought on one's head at once. Do you understand what I mean by that?
 
Rolfe said:
J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues
Click to expand...

Excellent piece, thanks. None of the detractors will read it, as usual.

SuburbanTurkey said:
Ahh yes, the long, nuanced, sympathetic essay that always follows tedious, inflammatory remarks.

Rowling is a troll.
Click to expand...

See - didn't read it.

Meadmaker said:
Hmmm...it seems to me you are mixing two issues there that are very different. I think the question of whether they should be excluded from protected female spaces is quite separate from whether they are mentally ill perverts.
Click to expand...

You know what's really funny?

The perverts are being enabled.

This is from Rowling's piece:

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
Click to expand...

And it's true. The only mistake she makes is men don't need to feel or believe he's a woman, he just has to say so. And some do just that.

Impinging further on women's rights at the expense of a few trans women is an absurd idea, to the extent that I almost wonder whether the whole trans/TERF bollocks is being driven by perverts.
 
Belz... said:
Well, in that case can you understand why I find it dubious that you can then go on to tell me what she believes?



This circles again back to my comment about holding more than one thought on one's head at once. Do you understand what I mean by that?
Click to expand...

Sure, but Rowlings positions seem to work at cross purposes.
 
The Atheist said:
And it's true. The only mistake she makes is men don't need to feel or believe he's a woman, he just has to say so. And some do just that.

Impinging further on women's rights at the expense of a few trans women is an absurd idea, to the extent that I almost wonder whether the whole trans/TERF bollocks is being driven by perverts.
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence of this being a common problem? We had the same panicked speculation about men molesting little girls in women's restrooms when there was push for unisex/nonbinary bathrooms in the US. Much of that speculative fear seems to have been misplaced and there has been no epidemic of trans people attacking children in public toilets.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Rowlings own position seems very unclear to me. She seems to oscillate between acceptance of trans people and a strong desire to treat them as dangerous men. It strikes me as incoherent.

I can't make heads or tails of it, other than coming to the conclusion that she has general animus against trans people.
Click to expand...

That's interesting. I can't see how anyone could miss it. It seems so obvious to me.


However, I'll take you at your word, and I will try to explain.

Why aren't men allowed in women's shelters, in women's locker rooms, in other women's only spaces? Is it because we are mentally ill perverts? No. That's not it. It's because we are men. In the above you referred to "dangerous men". Well, it turns out that it is impossible to tell the dangerous men from the not so dangerous men. So, all men are categorized as dangerous men if they want to be in a women's only space. We're bigger. We're stronger. We can make them pregnant, against their will. We have attributes that make us dangerous.

Most of us wouldn't actually rape or assault women, but it's impossible to know which of us would and which of us wouldn't. You can only make that judgement after the fact, and then it's too late.

So, all men are banned. Not some men. All men.

And, well, as much as many people don't like it when people say that, trans women can make cis women pregnant. Trans women are, statistically, bigger and stronger than cis women. Trans women have every single characteristic that makes men be treated as dangerous.

It's not a moral judgement. It's not a values issue. It's a practical reality.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Maybe from your perspective. Maybe from mine. But the best way to know, assuming you care to know, is to read her clarification as was suggested. Personally I don't give a toss about her or her opinions.
Click to expand...

I have read it. My read of her position is that "trans people are great and valid, but womanhood is sacred and disguised men will victimize us, so keep out".

How do you interpret her position?
 
Meadmaker said:
That's interesting. I can't see how anyone could miss it. It seems so obvious to me.


However, I'll take you at your word, and I will try to explain.

Why aren't men allowed in women's shelters, in women's locker rooms, in other women's only spaces? Is it because we are mentally ill perverts? No. That's not it. It's because we are men. In the above you referred to "dangerous men". Well, it turns out that it is impossible to tell the dangerous men from the not so dangerous men. So, all men are categorized as dangerous men if they want to be in a women's only space. We're bigger. We're stronger. We can make them pregnant, against their will. We have attributes that make us dangerous.

Most of us wouldn't actually rape or assault women, but it's impossible to know which of us would and which of us wouldn't. You can only make that judgement after the fact, and then it's too late.

So, all men are banned. Not some men. All men.

And, well, as much as many people don't like it when people say that, trans women can make cis women pregnant. Trans women are, statistically, bigger and stronger than cis women. Trans women have every single characteristic that makes men be treated as dangerous.

It's not a moral judgement. It's not a values issue. It's a practical reality.
Click to expand...

That's my read of her position too. Basically, trans women are out of luck, because they are dangerous men, so they're not welcome.

And this is why people call her a transphobe.

perhaps the model of sex segregated spaces is outdated. We have already accepted homosexuality. What about women fleeing domestic abusers who are also women? What about lesbians in women's jails? There are way more lesbians in this world than trans women.
 
d4m10n said:
As you may recall, I asked about people showing brain differences "prior to any medical interventions such as HRT" but here you are not talking about that. Indeed, most of that paper isn't talking about that. I don't think you're taking the science nearly as seriously as you seem to think you are here, since you fail to differentiate between the sort of differences that are inborn and the sort which result from treatment.

Let's talk about those "subtle deviations from the natal sex...observed in MtF adolescents in the direction of adolescents sharing their gender identity" though. Which of those are most predictive?
Click to expand...

Said I was leaving, but I can't let this one go because it is SO indicative of the general conversation here.

You were, factually and specifically, completely wrong here and not a single poster was going to notice. 'Most of that paper' isn't talking about post hormonal treatment. More importantly that citation (Hahn et al., 2014) was conducted with trans men and women before ANY hormone treatment specifically.

But people were just going to assume you were correct. That you had taken the science seriously enough to check that you were right. Even people who WISHED they were taking this seriously would fail to notice the massive error. It's the same as when Meadmaker argued that Blanchard's hypothesis wasn't completely discredited because the data that completely disproves his hypothesis was in Blanchard's OWN data and was replicated later. It's completely wrong and no one noticed.

Then we come to the framing where you again declined to acknowledge that the other cited traits met you standard already, that those weren't even the only ones in that article already linked to, and instead focus in on some other aspect. This Trumpian 'say it with confidence and people won't notice it's ********' tactic really does work, even on the skeptics here. Hell it even works on the people DEPLOYING that tactic. You really think you're taking this seriously but failing. It's the same reason Belz thinks honestly thinks I was arguing for emotional and ideological based reasoning while I was literally arguing for people to do as they SAID they were doing instead. Even with this you'll pick out one point, ignore the rest, and ask another question that gives the impression your previous points hadn't been addressed.

I met your standard. If you want to learn and discuss more then actually read those linked studies for comprehension and not just looking for the parts you think you can steer in the direction you want.

And because this straw man looks like it's coming up, being right on some aspects of this issue doesn't mean people have to agree with you (general 'you' this paragraph) when you're wrong. The '100% with us or against us' works the other way too. Being critical of something you're wrong about doesn't mean they're saying you're 100% wrong on anyone else.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I have read it. My read of her position is that "trans people are great and valid, but womanhood is sacred and disguised men will victimize us, so keep out".

How do you interpret her position?
Click to expand...

Well as I said I don't give much of a toss about her, and I don't know why people bother with each other's opinions so much, but from what I understand she supports trans people but not if it's going to, in her opinion, harm women in general. It might be just a matter of numbers: putting extra effort to help minority groups is one thing, but not to the detriment of 50% of the population.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
That's my read of her position too. Basically, trans women are out of luck, because they are dangerous men, so they're not welcome.

And this is why people call her a transphobe.
Click to expand...

Which is ridiculous. "Transphobe" doesn't mean "doesn't agree with every single claim or demand from trans activists." And in a way, trans people are kind of disadvantaged by their very nature and despite our best efforts the outcomes may never be perfectly balanced.
 
tyr_13 said:
But people were just going to assume you were correct. That you had taken the science seriously enough to check that you were right. Even people who WISHED they were taking this seriously would fail to notice the massive error. It's the same as when Meadmaker argued that Blanchard's hypothesis wasn't completely discredited because the data that completely disproves his hypothesis was in Blanchard's OWN data and was replicated later. It's completely wrong and no one noticed.
Click to expand...

Ummm…...no. But that was a long time ago and I don't care to go back to it. Someone else will have to look it up and provide more info if we want to revisit that one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom