Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Boudicca90]

Another quote I a. don't see much problem with, and b. agree with wholeheartedly. You shouldn't lose your job for "saying sex is real".

She is lying about the reason all this happened.

Maya Forstater was rightfully fired due to her transphobic statements that trans women are not women, despite us legally being women in her country. That was the view Rowling was agreeing with and supporting. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...alities-act-employment-tribunal-a9253211.html

"Sex is real" is a common way transphobes like to tailor their arguments to make them seem more appealing to the masses. It is saying "It doesn't matter how you feel or what you consider yourself to be or what you look like - Ultimately you will always be a man." and that view is used to deny us equal rights as women.

 

[caveman1917]

Her assertions that we aren't real women

That's a bit rich from someone who failed/refused to properly define "woman" when making a similar assertion. As much as you may disagree with the "transwomen are not women" camp, at least they've defined their terms and argued their case, both things the "transwomen are women" camp has not even begun to do.

that transitioning is harming children

Do you have a quote for this?

And then to support conversion therapy for trans people when she doesn't for gay kids and trying to act like gender affirming therapy is the conversion therapy?!

Do you have a quote for her supporting conversion therapy?

Insane.

Even if so, so what? So was Godel. So was Cantor. So was Nietzsche. Simply stating your emotional reactions to a claim (that it's "disgusting") or appealing to the purported mental state of the claimant does not an argument make. For someone going on about bigotry you sure seem bigoted against the mentally ill (hammering on about how gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder as if that has anything to do with anything, it's an ad hominem anyway).

She tried using her past as an excuse for her bigotry towards us, but that just helped me to identify a common element with transphobes like her. She seems to have a bias against men based on the sexual assault against her, and while that would be understandable, she has extended that bias towards us trans women because she erroneously views us as men.

See the first paragraph of this post, as well as my earlier comment that no amount of crying bigotry changes the simple fact that one camp has met the given standards whereas the other hasn't but rather just whines about the standards being there.

Her bigotry has already provided our Republican enemies in Congress ammo against us due to her high-profile celebrity. And she is unfortunately beyond cancelling since she has made her fortune. But as far as myself and everyone I know, she is dead to us Harry Potter fans.

Are you in a cult? Because if "everyone you know" thinks someone should be "dead to you all" for believing that sex is real (a demonstrably true scientific fact) or that the assertion "transwomen are women" evaluates to false (demonstrably true given the mainstream definitions of the terms), and there is an institutionalized process in your group (called "canceling") that removes further access to such "erroneous information" (declared erroneous by authority alone) to in-group people then that pretty much sounds like a cult.

 

[Olmstead]

She is lying about the reason all this happened.

Maya Forstater was rightfully fired due to her transphobic statements that trans women are not women, despite us legally being women in her country. That was the view Rowling was agreeing with and supporting. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...alities-act-employment-tribunal-a9253211.html

"Sex is real" is a common way transphobes like to tailor their arguments to make them seem more appealing to the masses. It is saying "It doesn't matter how you feel or what you consider yourself to be or what you look like - Ultimately you will always be a man." and that view is used to deny us equal rights as women.

But, transwomen aren't women though. This statement isn't bigoted.

Is that really the worst she said? Because being fired for that is horrible.

 

[Elaedith]

Here's something I posted before about Maya Forstater, because people frequently misrepresent what happened (such as claiming she 'misgendered' colleagues).

 

[Boudicca90]

Do you have a quote for this?



Do you have a quote for her supporting conversion therapy?

LondonJohn provided some pretty good links earlier in the thread that discuss her views, maybe you should look at that.

Even if so, so what? So was Godel. So was Cantor. So was Nietzsche. Simply stating your emotional reactions to a claim (that it's "disgusting") or appealing to the purported mental state of the claimant does not an argument make. For someone going on about bigotry you sure seem bigoted against the mentally ill (hammering on about how gender dysphoria is not a mental disorder as if that has anything to do with anything, it's an ad hominem anyway).

Nothing wrong with having a mental disorder, I take medication for depression and anxiety myself, but gender dysphoria is a medical and physiological issue, not a mental disorder.

 

[Arcade22]

You can think of me as the worst person in the world. I don’t care.

There plenty of worse things one can be than a transphobic bigot so spare me your gratuitous victim playing. Stop acting like you are subject to some kind of intolerable injustice just because people find your spiteful and mean bigoted opinions to be unacceptable.

 

[TomB]

If the tomato was medically diagnosed as a fruit, and wished to live its life as a fruit on a non-discriminatory basis..... and you then told the tomato that it was a vegetable and not a fruit..... then yes, it is.

Just to point out, the tomato would not have been medically diagnosed as a fruit, but as having a morphological dysphoria. So it could arguable still be allowed to live life as a fruit on a non-discriminatory basis. Even if some people consider it a trans-fruit which, though usually treated the same is not exactly the same as fruit because it can still be used to make ketchup.

(But neither would it be the same as a vegetable.)

Now we can start the Is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable debate.

 

[Boudicca90]

But, transwomen aren't women though. This statement isn't bigoted.

Is that really the worst she said? Because being fired for that is horrible.

Yes we are. Transwomen are women. I am a woman. And more importantly, the UK government considers us to be women and rightfully considers what she said to be hate speech.

Like the judge in the case rightfully stated: “If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something Ms Forstater is entitled to ignore. Ms Forstater’s position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

 

[Olmstead]

Yes we are. Transwomen are women. I am a woman. And more importantly, the UK government considers us to be women and rightfully considers what she said to be hate speech.

Like the judge in the case rightfully stated: “If a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), that person is legally a woman. That is not something Ms Forstater is entitled to ignore. Ms Forstater’s position is that even if a trans woman has a GRC, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.

“Even paying due regard to the qualified right to freedom of expression, people cannot expect to be protected if their core belief involves violating others’ dignity and creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for them.”

You realise you could use the same argument to deny the reality of anything? Basically, what you're telling me is: transwomen are women because the law says they are women. This sets a wonderful precedent.


I have something of a personal question for you. Do you think post-op transwomen/transmen should disclose to potential sexual partners that they are transwomen/transmen? Do you think they are doing anything wrong if they don't?

 

[TomB]

Yeah because we hear every single day about how women, real genuine biological females, suffer continuously from having to deal with these crossdressing men who can perv up on them in public changing rooms with impunity. Why women don't even dare use such facilities these days! Women won't stand for this travesty anymore! Well, except that they voted for it and continue to support it.

I think the point is not that this is widespread. The point is that self-ID allows an opening that could be abused with little recourse until a tangible crime can be proven. While the number of incidents are few, it does demonstrate that the loophole exists.

I think most of the natal women on this board have expressed a willingness to allow trans women into their spaces as long as some sort of criteria is met. Even Rolfe at one point expressed this, though her views may have changed.

 

[Boudicca90]

You realise you could use the same argument to deny the reality of anything? Basically, what you're telling me is: transwomen are women because the law says they are women. This sets a wonderful precedent.


I have something of a personal question for you. Do you think post-op transwomen/transmen should disclose to potential sexual partners that they are transwomen/transmen? Do you think they are doing anything wrong if they don't?

Nope, they don't have to tell them if they don't want to. Pre-op or non-op is another matter, it's better to let them know since they may not prefer the genitals they have. But even that's a matter of when, since we all have our own opinions about when the best time is.

I had a guy ghost me a few weeks ago when I told him I am trans and still have my original equipment when we were planning a date. It was devastating to me at the time, but I understood it as I also have my preference when it comes to genitals (he didn't have to do it like he did though.) But it is nobodies business if there is no issue normally.

 

[TomB]

I have to say as well: I find it extremely interesting how nobody (IIRC) who's arguing the invalidity of transgenderism has ever cared to mention the two elephants in the room wrt their position: the fact that a) the global authority in mental health conditions has now determined transgenderism to be an authentic lived condition (and specifically not a disorder), and b) legislators in many major countries (including the US and UK) now recognise transgender people (and their rights) in law.

Verrrrrrrrr in-ter-esting.........

In fairness...is anyone arguing against the validity of transgenderism? Because that doesn't seem to be the point at all. No one has said trans-genderism is invalid. The question seems instead to be "are trans-women the same as (cis/natal) women in the context of_____________?" And even you answer that question as "no" in at least one context. (sports)

So I'm not sure those documents really speak to that.

 

[Boudicca90]

In fairness...is anyone arguing against the validity of transgenderism? Because that doesn't seem to be the point at all. No one has said trans-genderism is invalid. The question seems instead to be "are trans-women the same as (cis/natal) women in the context of_____________?" And even you answer that question as "no" in at least one context. (sports)

So I'm not sure those documents really speak to that.

If you say "Transwomen aren't women" or that we aren't "real" women, it is denying transgenderism and gender dysphoria exists. If we aren't actually women, then this is all a delusion that you put up with to a certain point. And that's where most people here have their views, that we are women up to a certain point.

We are saying we are women, and deserve to be treated like all other women, not as men who think we are women.

 

[caveman1917]

LondonJohn provided some pretty good links earlier in the thread that discuss her views, maybe you should look at that.

I was looking for actual quotes of her making these assertions rather than discussions by others about her views. When asked to support a claim you made about some "cancelled" person's views you do not refer to the actual statements made by said person but to discussion by in-group members of said person's (purported) views. Is this because you are unfamiliar with evaluating evidence (primary source > secondary source) or because there's an institutionalized process in your social network such that the determination of what the views of cancelled people are is made on the basis of second-hand information by in-group members, instead of on the basis of the actual statements made by said person?

Nothing wrong with having a mental disorder, I take medication for depression and anxiety myself, but gender dysphoria is a medical and physiological issue, not a mental disorder.

Sure, I just don't see how it's relevant. If someone were shouting during a psychotic break that 1+1=2 and a proof of that from the Peano axioms then that would not stop 1+1 from being 2 nor that proof from being correct. Similarly, if someone in their right mind was claiming that 1+1=3 and refused to support it then that would not make 1+1 equal 3. The truth value of a claim is independent of the mental state of the claimant, so who cares anyway whether it's a disorder or not?

 

[Olmstead]

Nope, they don't have to tell them if they don't want to. Pre-op or non-op is another matter, it's better to let them know since they may not prefer the genitals they have. But even that's a matter of when, since we all have our own opinions about when the best time is.

I had a guy ghost me a few weeks ago when I told him I am trans and still have my original equipment when we were planning a date. It was devastating to me at the time, but I understood it as I also have my preference when it comes to genitals (he didn't have to do it like he did though.) But it is nobodies business if there is no issue normally.

See, this is the kind of stuff where you start losing me.

I think we both agree that an androgynous-looking cis-man pretending he's a woman in a lesbian bar to make out with a girl would be wrong.

But a transwoman not informing a girl beforehand that she is a transwoman would be perfectly acceptable?

I just can't understand this.

 

[TomB]

If you say "Transwomen aren't women" or that we aren't "real" women, it is denying transgenderism and gender dysphoria exists.

Respectfully disagree.

One can say transgenderism exists, dysphoria is real and transitioning is the best (or only) treatment and still believe that after transitioning the resulting person is different than natal women.

Largely, this is a semantics issue as you recognize those differences as cis/trans under the larger group "women." Others might recognise this a women/trans-women (or women/women' or whatever) under the larger group "people who identify as women."

 

[TomB]

We see it on this thread, where any mention of Bailey or Blanchard triggers links to the usual hatchet-job web pages and pious declarations that their science has been "discredited" so may be dismissed.

Which links to "hatchet-job web pages" are you referring to?

You brought up autogynephilia in post 2665. I pointed out the blatant cause effect error in post 2668. I noted this problem independent of anyone's criticism, merely from reading material you had provided in this or another thread several months ago. I consider it blatantly obvious.

You brought it up again in post 3038.

I was curious if others had noticed the same problem that I consider blatant. So I did a search and Psychology WIKI was the first link I clicked on. Sure enough, the issue I noted was mentioned. So this time I posted that link. (3045) I have no clue as to the politics of Psychology WIKI and it's not my intent to cite them as a reliable source. It just illustrates that people other than myself see the cause/effect problem.

In post 3050 Elaedith posted three links addressed Blanchard's overall hypotheses. One was critical, but not dismissive. One is largely a criticism of the criticisms, I think. (So pro Blanchard..I haven't made it through that one yet.) The third describes research that might support Blanchard, though I think it needs more complete controls.

So where are all these links to hatchet job web sites you are referring to?

 

[Elagabalus]

I confess, I do not see the first three lines as a thinly-disguised attack on transgender identity. Can you explain how they are? I'm absolutely open to hearing that.

I was going to say that I think it comes down to the phrase "who'll have you" so I looked it up and found this.

http://donaldesimpson.blogspot.com/2020/06/wholl-have-you-freak-jk-rowling-and.html

Now, I’m still not sure whether sex is real or gender is immutable, but I do know that something very cruel is being said here. And I think it has to do with the phrase “who’ll have you.” Let’s do a little close reading and unpacking.
Rowling is clearly addressing some hypothetical person, presumably a transgendered individual, or the transgendered community in the abstract. Her words, on their face, are encouraging: “Dress however you please.” In other words, your attire may not be to my liking (Jo seems to be saying), but suit yourself. “Call yourself whatever you like.” Presumably her hypothetical addressee wants to be thought of as a woman, and accordingly addressed as “she”; clearly, neither Jo herself nor any right-thinking person would see things that way, and will continue to speak the truth. “Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.” Here’s where we get down to it, and I’ll get to that sentence momentarily. “Live your best life in peace and security.” Well, you can’t argue with that. Jo personally has no intention of beating this person with a stick; a backhanded well-wish if there ever was one. Please go on with your existence; it will certainly have nothing to do with my reality.
Now, let’s unpack the key phrase: “Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.” One can imagine a first draft of that line: “Sleep with anyone you like.” But, heaven forbid, someone should take that literally as a license to molest anyone of their choosing—so the disclaimer must be added that the person must be an adult, and a consenting one; a bit redundant, since only an adult may give give their consent to sleeping with you. But Jo clearly does not wish to be misunderstood, given the type of person she is speaking to.
For me, it all really comes down to the phrase “who’ll have you.” And, after all, who would have one such as the likes of you?*
This is something you would say to someone who is loathsome, unattractive, unworthy, and unappealing in every way, or someone you just broke up with. Go ahead, sleap with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life, you Thing Undeserving of Love.
It’s certainly not “I hope you find the love of your life, and live happily ever after” (presumably the sentiment of the forthcoming fairytale, The Ichabod).

 

[theprestige]

How about this: go outside to some well trafficked public area and then at first try to determine whether the people you see look like a male or a female human, then afterwards ask them whether they are male or female.

I live in Portland. If I did that I'd get my teeth kicked in for applying gender stereotypes.

 

[Matthew Best]

I was going to say that I think it comes down to the phrase "who'll have you" so I looked it up and found this.

http://donaldesimpson.blogspot.com/2020/06/wholl-have-you-freak-jk-rowling-and.html

That seems like a stretch.

There seems to be quite a bit of "I don't object to what she said, it's what she meant that I object to". Here on a skeptics' board, we usually frown on mind-reading.