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

[zooterkin]

The current system allows any insincere non trans woman to use it now.

You would need to specify which current system you mean, since they are different in different places.

However, I'm not sure what you're adding, since that's pretty much what Rowling is saying regarding simple self-identification.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You would need to specify which current system you mean, since they are different in different places.

However, I'm not sure what you're adding, since that's pretty much what Rowling is saying regarding simple self-identification.

The system in place for decades doesn't prevent non trans people from entering a restroom of their sex for ulterior motives. It is weird to be concerned about that now.

 

[zooterkin]

The system in place for decades doesn't prevent non trans people from entering a restroom of their sex for ulterior motives. It is weird to be concerned about that now.

Don't be obtuse. What has changed is that, in some places, a man can claim legitimate access to female changing rooms and toilets merely by claiming to be a woman. Prior to this, someone presenting as a man would be obviously out of place and could be dealt with appropriately.

 

[Belz...]

Don't be obtuse.

Are you serious?

 

[Earthborn]

On a cellular level, sex in humans is binary. It's genetic.

Unless you are talking about reproductive cells, is it even meaningful to call it "sex" instead of a genetic influence on sex?

Even though that's a fascinating avenue for research, it's basically off limits.

How is it "off limits" ?

Conservatives don't have much pull in universities and it's not a priority for them anyways, and liberals shy away from anything with even a whiff of biological determinism.

Politics is kind off a spectrum too, you know. There is more than just "conservative" and "liberal".

To my way of thinking, people who produce sperm are more biologically male than people who produce ova, without exception.

I don't think there are many people who would disagree with that.

It seems to me that people who talk about a "spectrum" of sex always end up refusing to actually consider how to make measurements that might place a given individual at any particular point on the spectrum.

It is only rarely relevant at which particular point on the spectrum someone should be placed, and likely none of any else's business.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Don't be obtuse. What has changed is that, in some places, a man can claim legitimate access to female changing rooms and toilets merely by claiming to be a woman. Prior to this, someone presenting as a man would be obviously out of place and could be dealt with appropriately.

We've had our fair share of trans bathroom panic here in the US too. Reporting at the time revealed that there is no evidence to support this fear. However, there is ample evidence of trans people being attacked or otherwise confronted in or around restrooms by bigots.

I've never seen any evidence to backup this hypothetical fear, or evidence that making accommodations for trans people will lead to an explosion of perversion or crime in these spaces.

There is overwhelming evidence that trans people need protection from bigots who use violence and harassment to make their lives hell.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Don't be obtuse. What has changed is that, in some places, a man can claim legitimate access to female changing rooms and toilets merely by claiming to be a woman. Prior to this, someone presenting as a man would be obviously out of place and could be dealt with appropriately.

What do you want to do about women going into women's bathrooms for nefarious purposes? Or do you only care about nefarious purposes if it comes from a cis male?

 

[Garb]

What bathroom should trans men use, in this case?

So much kerfuffle about potential "predators" pretending to be trans women, which leads to the argument that biology should determine what bathroom you use, but I find it hard to believe someone like Rowling would be willing to allow a passing trans man to enter a woman's bathroom, either.

 

[theprestige]

Unless you are talking about reproductive cells, is it even meaningful to call it "sex" instead of a genetic influence on sex?

Yes, it is meaningful. Sex is an expression of one of two genetic pathways. Which pathway your body takes is a binary genetic choice. There is no third pathway. There is no continuum of pathways. There is no infinitude of finely-shaded "sexes" between hypermasculine and hyperfeminine extremes. There is a binary choice of pathways for the body to follow. Everything after that is a matter of how far your body travels down one of those two pathways.

Even rare conditions like 46, XX intersex and 46, XY intersex are variations of those two pathways, not third and fourth sexes of the human body. There's a huge difference between Caster Semenya choosing to identify as a woman* and Bruce Jenner choosing to identify as a woman**.

---
*Did Semenya actually choose? Or was the choice made by parents and doctors in her infancy, and she was simply raised that way? I haven't followed her situation closely, and I might be wrong about its details and relevance here.

**Did Bruce choose, or did Caitlyn choose? The way I see it, the choice to stop identifying as a man had to have been made by the man. Identifying as a woman can't happen before the choice to do so. Therefore I say Bruce chose, and Caitlyn is the result of that choice.

 

[Garb]

Also here is a long Twitter thread in response to the letter JK Rowling wrote:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270787941275762689.html

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Also here is a long Twitter thread in response to the letter JK Rowling wrote:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270787941275762689.html

It's a long thread, but i think the point about dogwhistling is spot on.

Rowling herself may avoid saying anything explicitly transphobic, but she sure does seem to wink and nod towards transphobic tropes and personalities a lot.

individually her statements don't seem that bad, but as a body of work, you can smell a rat.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What bathroom should trans men use, in this case?

So much kerfuffle about potential "predators" pretending to be trans women, which leads to the argument that biology should determine what bathroom you use, but I find it hard to believe someone like Rowling would be willing to allow a passing trans man to enter a woman's bathroom, either.

Yes, this is a question. The following is a picture of trans pornstar Buck Angel:

He has not undergone gender reassignment surgery. He has a vagina.

Would he be welcome in a women's shelter? Would he be welcome in women's bathrooms? If you take Rowling et. al at their word, then yes. I suspect, were it to be tested, that the practice might not end up quite like the theory.

 

[caveman1917]

Nope. To take one example from the "signatories": "Richard Seager. BSc Information Science and PGDipSci Climate Science, Otago University, NZ. 2019 Dunedin Mayoral candidate."

Here:



He was a mayoral candidate who ran on a platform that included de-funding research into gender dysphoria and on censoring "trans activists". His (seemingly since deleted) twitter bio included the line "Pro-LGB, drop the T".

He's a randomly-picked example. And, again, is part of the "signatories" list.

As I said, it seems like it's more about getting supportive numbers than it is people with expertise.

Again, the fact that you can find signatories who, for one reason or other, fail to meet your (double) standards does not make it false that there is a list of relevant experts who have signed the statement. I'm counting many PhD's in developmental biology, genetics, neuroscience, etc.

Even if that weren't true a list of people who agree with a particular POV is inherently less convincing than an article in a non-political journal which cites a number of scientific sources.

Nonsense, any student can write a badly argued opinion piece and cite a number of scientific sources which don't support the claims made, that's hardly convincing. A list (ie numerous people vs a single person) of experts (ie actually having a PhD vs being a doctoral candidate) in the field under consideration is inherently more convincing - and it certainly doesn't harm that it also happens to be backed up by independent sources such as textbooks referenced by the relevant Wikipedia article. Your confirmation bias is showing.

 

[Rolfe]

Hah, that would be the Buck Angel who's being lambasted as a terf, right?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

J.K. Rowling’s transphobia shows it’s time to put down the pen

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ings-transphobia-shows-its-time-put-down-pen/

Yet Rowling’s fall from literary darlinghood reveals more than a disappointing turn to the dark arts of bigotry. This world-builder has long refused to relinquish control of the world she built. Among her generation, she’s hardly alone.

Interesting opinion piece that covers a variety of topics around Rowling's bizarre online persona beyond being a TERF-warrior.

To be honest, I'm hoping her fall from grace might reduce how often these Harry Potter books are referenced as some sort of cultural touchstone. It's become cliche to the point of cringe inducing how often some people frame real life in the terms of Harry Potter. It's a children's book about clear cut good and and bad guys, it's obnoxious the way it's used to try to explain the much messier real world.

This simplicity has also made it easy for children and grown-ups alike to turn the Harry Potter books into a frame for analysis beyond the fictional realm; there’s politics that progressive and progessive-ish Muggles of all ages can agree on, too. Recent years especially have offered a black-and-white template ripe for analogy: President Trump is Voldemort, his critics have cried out. Kellyanne Conway is Dolores Umbridge! The Parkland kids at the March for Our Lives are the real-life version of Dumbledore’s Army, spunkily leveling expelliarmuses at the Death Eaterly NRA!

To quote the common internet reply to these people: "Please read another book"

 

[BobTheCoward]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ings-transphobia-shows-its-time-put-down-pen/



Interesting opinion piece that covers a variety of topics around Rowling's bizarre online persona beyond being a TERF-warrior.

To be honest, I'm hoping her fall from grace might reduce how often these Harry Potter books are referenced as some sort of cultural touchstone. It's become cliche to the point of cringe inducing how often some people frame real life in the terms of Harry Potter. It's a children's book about clear cut good and and bad guys, it's obnoxious the way it's used to try to explain the much messier real world.



To quote the common internet reply to these people: "Please read another book"

Death of the author is over 50 years old now. Why are we still caring about what they think?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Death of the author is over 50 years old now. Why are we still caring about what they think?

Dorks gonna dork. Just like all these Star Wars nuts who quibble over canon and the extended universe, blah blah blah. In these "who shot first" arguments, it doesn't help to have an author who delights in poking the hornet's nest of fandom.

 

[theprestige]

Even if that weren't true a list of people who agree with a particular POV is inherently less convincing than an article in a non-political journal which cites a number of scientific sources.

Have you actually followed up on those citations?

A common feature of woo arguments is that they appear to cite supporting information, but when you look into the cite you discover that either it is irrelevant to the claim, or flatly contradicts the claim.

I'm not saying that's what's going on here. I am saying that needs to be considered and ruled out before basing your argument on an appeal to the presence of citations.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Also here is a long Twitter thread in response to the letter JK Rowling wrote:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270787941275762689.html

Thanks for that.

I may comment more as I read more, but I wanted to comment on 2c:

The majority of women have no issue with trans women (or trans people in general, though JK is addressing trans women in this post).

He then goes to cite a chart that shows how women (and men) feel about transgender people using the bathroom of their gender rather than their sex. That's relevant, but not quite the same thing.

I'd like to offer up a somewhat different piece of evidence that is also relevant, but also not quite the same thing.

Reddit has two lesbian subreddits (as in subreddits intended for and populated by lesbians, as opposed to ones which fetishise them): Actual Lesbians, and True Lesbians. The former is very trans inclusive and has 252,999 subscribers. The latter is very trans uninclusive and has 14,368 subscribers.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Again, the fact that you can find signatories who, for one reason or other, fail to meet your (double) standards does not make it false that there is a list of relevant experts who have signed the statement.

I'd be interested in why you think that my standards are double. But I didn't say that there weren't relevant experts who signed the statement. I said that the list was clearly driven by ideology, which the inclusion of numerous non-experts and non-relevant people can attest to.

i can find you climate scientists who argue against anthropic climate change, if you like. Making a list of them will tell you nothing about how true anthropic climate change is.