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

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'll go through it one more time, but after that I'm just going to reiterate that if you want to comment on my posts then the best advice I can give you is to read them first.

The article was about menstrual health. It was addressed to "people who menstruate", because what it was discussing was menstrual health. Rowling made the point that they should have used the term "women" instead.

Even ignoring the fact that trans people exist at all, her point is stupid and wrong because the term "women" includes people who do not menstruate. My female relative who had a hysterectomy in her 20s did not stop being a woman when her womb was removed, even though she stopped menstruating.

It's also stupid and wrong because the term "woman" excludes people who do menstruate. My ex-girlfriend who started menstruating when she was 9 did not become a woman when her period started, even though she was menstruating.

Rowling was making the point that the author of the article shouldn't have used a term which was accurate and precise, and instead contended that they should have used a term that was inaccurate and imprecise. This is stupid and wrong. An author should use the terms that are the most accurate and precise. In this case it was "people who menstruate" because the article was about menstrual health and "women" includes people outside the scope of the article and excludes people inside the scope of the article. Therefore Rowling's comment was stupid and wrong.

Incidentally, yes if you were wondering, this means that your point about menstruation being unique to adult human females is also stupid and wrong - although I'm open to hearing your argument that a 9 year old schoolgirl should be considered an adult, if that's an argument you really want to make.

And all of that is before considering the fact that trans people do exist, and that Rowling's history with trans issues means that I don't give her the benefit of the doubt on this one and instead assume that her statement was prompted by bigotry.

 

[Meadmaker]

The conclusion I reach is that you haven't been paying attention to the conversation, or to the links I've provided. Because you're completely wrong about this. The people who run women's shelters report that they do accept transwomen, and that they have done for a long time, without any issues.

I ended up saying exactly the opposite of what I meant. Bad editing. The first version of the sentence was phrased negatively, but when I edited that, I didn't change "accept" to "exclude".

 

[Meadmaker]

See, this is exactly it. I post evidence that that's not the case. You assert without evidence that it is.

When a group of girls go to the school board and ask that the trans-girl not be allowed to use their locker room, I think of that as evidence that the girls are uncomfortable.


These objections happen all the time. They are the point of this thread. That's evidence. Feel free to dismiss it.

 

[Rolfe]

I object to the term trans-girl. It has a lot more baggage than "transwoman" and carries overtones of the person actually being a girl when the whole point is that he is not. Effeminate youth is more like it.

 

[d4m10n]

The article was about menstrual health. It was addressed to "people who menstruate", because what it was discussing was menstrual health. Rowling made the point that they should have used the term "women" instead.

Because "women" is (or rather was) a convenient term for the sort of people who do menstruate or have done so, and are therefore in a good position to advocate for various women's health issues related to fertility. You are not even beginning to address the actual argument here (re: the political utility of sexual solidarity between human females in a patriarchal polity) despite repeatedly attempting engaging the issue. Instead, you've pointed out that the boundary between girlhood and womanhood is fuzzy (as if semantic vagueness^WP somehow makes categorical terms useless) along with a few other problems of overinclusion or underinclusion, which aren't actually that important if your goal is to bring (future) women together for the sake of issue advocacy.

ETA: Do you (or anyone) sincerely believe that Rowling is unaware of the fact that "people who menstruate" more accurately captures the set of people who menstruate than other words or phrases? If not, can you begin to consider that there may be values other than linguistic precision in play here? Perhaps Rowling (whom I've yet to see you quote) has values other than those you are saying she should maximize, based on how you believe she ought to operate as a woman in the world.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

When a group of girls go to the school board and ask that the trans-girl not be allowed to use their locker room, I think of that as evidence that the girls are uncomfortable.


These objections happen all the time. They are the point of this thread. That's evidence. Feel free to dismiss it.

Nobody is claiming that every single girl and woman on the planet will be comfortable around trans women and girls.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Because "women" is (or rather was) a convenient term for the sort of people who do menstruate or have done so, and are therefore in a good position to advocate for various women's health issues related to fertility. You are not even beginning to address the actual argument here (re: the political utility of sexual solidarity between human females in a patriarchal polity) despite repeatedly attempting engaging the issue. Instead, you've pointed out that the boundary between girlhood and womanhood is fuzzy (as if semantic vagueness^WP somehow makes categorical terms useless) along with a few other problems of overinclusion or underinclusion, which aren't actually that important if your goal is to bring (future) women together for the sake of issue advocacy.

ETA: Do you (or anyone) sincerely believe that Rowling is unaware of the fact that "people who menstruate" more accurately captures the set of people who menstruate than other words or phrases? If not, can you begin to consider that there may be values other than linguistic precision in play here? Perhaps Rowling (whom I've yet to see you quote) has values other than those you are saying she should maximize, based on how you believe she ought to operate as a woman in the world.

Sent from my SM-T560NU using Tapatalk

All you're really saying here is that Rowling highlighted this article about menstrual health written by three experts in menstrual health in order to pointedly exclude trans people from anything even relating to women's issues. It seems odd that you think I'm unaware of that. It's even odder that you think that this somehow makes what she said less stupid or less wrong.

This blog post about the importance of saying "people who menstruate" rather than "women" was cited in an open letter to Rowling, posted by a menstrual health charity, and tweeted by the authors of the article in question. Now, who do you think is likely to know best what terminology people working in the field of menstrual health should be using - JK Rowling, or people who work in the field of menstrual health?

BTW, unless you're really keen on advertising for Samsung, you should be aware that you can turn off the Tapatalk signature in settings.

 

[Darat]

Thread needs a continuation thread, see: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13132482#post13132482 as ever copy from and reference this thread as needed.

Posted By: Darat