Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Matthew Best]

And as I say, if you're either unwilling or unable to parse Rowlings words in order to understand their intended meaning,

As I thought, it's mind-reading time.

 

[LondonJohn]

"Give and take" implies that each side gets something, yeah?

Yes, it does. For example (and as I have stated several times already within the previous few pages of this thread), it should be clear that in the well-worn issue of gender-specific changing rooms, there should be at the minimum a social contract for trans gender people to take care to avoid causing distress, embarrassment or other dignity issues to cis gender people. This - to me at least - is something that cis gendered people should expect as their right, and something that transgendered people should consider a reasonable imposition upon them. Whether that might ever require any legislative force is - I'd suggest - something that would depend on how a non-legal framework works in practice.

 

[Boudicca90]

For me, it's very clear that the combination of context and previous form (on the part of Rowling) leads to the obvious overall intention of those words: Rowling is saying that transgender people are free to dress and act as they want, and sleep with anyone they want (provided the feeling is mutual)....

.....but.....

.... at the same time, she is denying the very authenticity of transgender identity.


In other words - she's saying - a person can do all those things (dress, acting, sex with whomever) entirely independent from any valid gender identity considerations. For example (she might say), a very camp male might choose to dress somewhat like a woman, act somewhat like a woman, and sleep with whatever men or women "would have him" - but none of those things require a belief in the authenticity of any transgender issues.

I think Rowling knew exactly what she was writing there, and exactly why she was writing it. I also realise that those who reflexively rally to Rowling's cause (most of whom, unsurprisingly, also have *certain* views on transgender issues....) can choose to paint those words as nothing more than a bland, generalised statement at worst - and even a tacit endorsement of transgenderism at best(!). And I wonder if that also occurred to Rowling as she wrote those words....

After reading the argument more closely, I think I agree. I guess I just saw "who will have you" as an unfortunate reality of dating as a trans person.

It's not right, but it's how it goes. Finding a guy (or girl if that is your orientation) that is fine with your past and doesn't consider you damaged or flawed in some way due to not having lived as that gender all your life.

After seeing the context she used it in her other writings, it illustrates her contempt of us.

 

[LondonJohn]

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".

No, you shouldn't. But that's not what that tribunal case was about at all. As Rowling cannot have failed to know.

And I'd further suggest that Rowling wrote those words believing full-well that the average reader (who didn't know much about that tribunal case) would similarly interpret her words in exactly the way you did: a) of course nobody should lose their job simply for saying "sex is real"; and b) if that's why that woman lost her job (and why should we doubt it when Rowling is stating it as fact...?), then maybe Rowling is right about this "trans activism" stuff getting completely out of control

 

[Boudicca90]

Leaving the transwomen vs. women debate aside for a moment, do you think someone can have a sexual orientation that excludes transgender people?

I think you can have one that excludes some trans people based on their genitals and that is acceptable, like a gay man who wouldn't want to have sex with a man with a vagina. I know I would be hesitant to, since vaginas are not my preference and would limit what I would be able to do sexually. But if that same gay man wouldn't have sex with a man with a penis because he was born female, I see that as discriminatory.

 

[LondonJohn]

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

Oh no, no, no - apparently the self-proclaimed rules of this game are that posting links to articles (articles which give supporting context and commentary - both of which help the reader to understand the quotes more fully) is effectively of zero value. For reasons which continue to elude me (but which I'm sure make some sort of sense to those issuing the pompous demands...)

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.

Oooh you want to be careful with talk like that, y'know! After all, referring to the concept that DSM-5 has now defined gender dysphoria as an authentic condition in itself, and is not a disorder (or product of a disorder), is just an appeal to authority. Shame on you!

 

[caveman1917]

After reading the argument more closely, I think I agree. I guess I just saw "who will have you" as an unfortunate reality of dating as a trans person.

It's not right, but it's how it goes. Finding a guy (or girl if that is your orientation) that is fine with your past and doesn't consider you damaged or flawed in some way due to not having lived as that gender all your life.

I was thinking about that recently in regards to some transwoman I know. I'm bisexual (so I don't care about the genital configuration down there) and I think gender is stupid anyway (so I don't care about living or having lived "as a gender") so I had no objection to imagining a relationship with that person, except for the one thing of penetrative sex with a neo-vagina, I couldn't stop myself from thinking "you're ******* a surgical wound." To be clear, I'd have no problem with penetrative sex anally or orally or any other problem with the idea of dating said person either sexually or non-sexually, just that one specific act that I couldn't be comfortable with.

Then I suppose that you also get the opposite issue, plenty of fetishists chasing transwomen, so I can imagine that indeed the dating reality isn't all that bright for trans people.

After seeing the context she used it in her other writings, it illustrates her contempt of us.

Which would be relevant if we were out to judge characters instead of claims, the latter being independent of the contempt or otherwise manner with which they've been made.

 

[LondonJohn]

As I thought, it's mind-reading time.

You do know that human beings parse and analyse words and phrases every single day, in order to interpret their intended meaning. Don't you?

Or maybe you don't know.

Or maybe because a) you do that sort of thing numerous times a day without even thinking about it, and b) you're, shall we say, not particularly inclined to want to do it in this particular instance.... it's easy for you to reach the above conclusion?

 

[Matthew Best]

You do know that human beings parse and analyse words and phrases every single day, in order to interpret their intended meaning. Don't you?

Yes, though it usually helps to have the words in front of you, rather than having to jump through various hoops to find them, but maybe that's just me being unreasonable.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yes, though it usually helps to have the words in front of you, rather than having to jump through various hoops to find them, but maybe that's just me being unreasonable.

Maybe it is, yes.


ETA: that may be the first time I've ever seen "clicking on the supplied links to reports" described as "having to jump through various hoops"

 

[Aber]

*checks patronising, hectoring tone of above post*

How did you think I'd address a male big-city lawyer?

 

[Boudicca90]

Yes, it does. For example (and as I have stated several times already within the previous few pages of this thread), it should be clear that in the well-worn issue of gender-specific changing rooms, there should be at the minimum a social contract for trans gender people to take care to avoid causing distress, embarrassment or other dignity issues to cis gender people. This - to me at least - is something that cis gendered people should expect as their right, and something that transgendered people should consider a reasonable imposition upon them. Whether that might ever require any legislative force is - I'd suggest - something that would depend on how a non-legal framework works in practice.

Yep, and that is something I've never disagreed with and has worked well as a compromise. As well as my view that there should be more consideration of privacy in our society in general. It has never required a legal force behind it before, just basic societal expectations of behavior that we all should adhere to.

Oh no, no, no - apparently the self-proclaimed rules of this game are that posting links to articles (articles which give supporting context and commentary - both of which help the reader to understand the quotes more fully) is effectively of zero value. For reasons which continue to elude me (but which I'm sure make some sort of sense to those issuing the pompous demands...)

Oooh you want to be careful with talk like that, y'know! After all, referring to the concept that DSM-5 has now defined gender dysphoria as an authentic condition in itself, and is not a disorder (or product of a disorder), is just an appeal to authority. Shame on you!

We never do seem to present the "right" evidence or arguments for them, do we?

 

[caveman1917]

Oh no, no, no - apparently the self-proclaimed rules of this game are that posting links to articles (articles which give supporting context and commentary - both of which help the reader to understand the quotes more fully) is effectively of zero value. For reasons which continue to elude me (but which I'm sure make some sort of sense to those issuing the pompous demands...)

Yeah how dare people so pompously demand evidence for these claims.

Oooh you want to be careful with talk like that, y'know! After all, referring to the concept that DSM-5 has now defined gender dysphoria as an authentic condition in itself, and is not a disorder (or product of a disorder), is just an appeal to authority. Shame on you!

No it's just a stupid ad hominem: "the claimant does not have a disorder therefor whatever she claims is true."

 

[caveman1917]

We never do seem to present the "right" evidence or arguments for them, do we?

You haven't presented any evidence or arguments for them, heck you haven't even properly defined your terms yet

 

[Olmstead]

I think you can have one that excludes some trans people based on their genitals and that is acceptable, like a gay man who wouldn't want to have sex with a man with a vagina. I know I would be hesitant to, since vaginas are not my preference and would limit what I would be able to do sexually. But if that same gay man wouldn't have sex with a man with a penis because he was born female, I see that as discriminatory.

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that your gender vs. sex distinction has some merit. You're basically telling others which one should apply to their sexual orientation regardless of personal feelings. You are prescribing that everyone's sexual orientation needs to consider gender instead of sex and thereby erasing the people that are attracted to the opposite/same sex. You are telling lesbians who say that they are only attracted to the same sex that they are wrong. You are basically trying to put them through conversion therapy.

 

[Boudicca90]

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. Let's suppose for the sake of argument that your gender vs. sex distinction has some merit. You're basically telling others which one should apply to their sexual orientation regardless of personal feelings. You are prescribing that everyone's sexual orientation needs to consider gender instead of sex and thereby erasing the people that are attracted to the opposite/same sex. You are telling lesbians who say that they are only attracted to the same sex that they are wrong. You are basically trying to put them through conversion therapy.

No, a lesbian can be with who they want. I'm not one to gatekeep labels like that.

But a if a lesbian is dating and having sex with a post-op trans woman, and they see them as a woman in every way, and they get disgusted when they find out that the woman they love and are attracted to used to be male at one point, that is bigotry against trans people. I would be a bigot if I did the same to a post-op trans man I was seeing.

You're not judging them on who they are, but who they used to be.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah how dare people so pompously demand evidence for these claims.

Ah, I see. Maybe you can explain to me - exactly - in what way the evidence had not been provided already? (that's kind of the point here)

No it's just a stupid ad hominem: "the claimant does not have a disorder therefor whatever she claims is true."

Yes, well....wait....what?

Maybe go back, re-read the part of Boudicca90's post to which I was responding; re-read my response; then re-read your *critique* of my response.

 

[TomB]

I think your disagreement makes sense (for the time being, before I hear from the other side) for those who have not transitioned surgically nor hormonally. There is a sense in which those folk are different from natal women that is not insignificant, even if their similarities to natal women - in terms of their internal sense of which gender they are - is very significant.

Just a comment regarding the highlighted. I'm not really on a side. I see good (and bad) points on both sides, which is what makes this a difficult...and interesting... issue.

 

[TomB]

I did notice this from yesterday's link.

http://www.profkramer.com/assets/lawrence-2017-on-autogyn.pdf

page 3



So the Autogynephilic theory is still correct because - transsexuals, you just can't trust'em.

Yes, that's a stupid statement that, absent some tangible and defensible reason, amounts to dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis.

I haven't waded through that one yet.

 

[caveman1917]

Ah, I see. Maybe you can explain to me - exactly - in what way the evidence had not been provided already? (that's kind of the point here)

Simple, several claims were made about assertions JKR supposedly made, quotes were requested but not provided.

Yes, well....wait....what?

Maybe go back, re-read the part of Boudicca90's post to which I was responding; re-read my response; then re-read your *critique* of my response.

Not interested in your games. Let me know when you've decided whether you're a type A or a type B person. Or when you figure out what a tautology is for that matter.