Cont: Transwomen are not women - part 13

[lionking]

A fundamental part of the Harry Potter series was that the villains claims and motivations were based in large part on promoting hatred and violence against "inferior" people - muggles and non-humans. Its a very clear parallel to real-world groups that have derived power from stirring up hated and animosity against a group of "others". There's also strong links to policies associated with such hate groups such as repressing education and controlling the media narrative, and a bureaucracy that refuses to acknowledge that problems exist. People tended to assume that since Rowling portrayed such attitudes as villainous, she would find the overall concept to be villainous, not simply based on which subgroup you happened to be attacking.

Every group that attacks people based on their identity has always claimed its based on legitimate reasons. The blacks are godless savages. The Jews have secret plans to control the world. The homosexuals are child molesters. Transgender people just secretly want to assault women. Its always claimed to be about safety or defense and its always, always been a load of bull trying to cover the same premise of "make an enemy for people to hate to get them to support you".

Wow. Every writer of fantasy books is now transphobic. Good to know.

 

[Cat Not Included]

Wow. Every writer of fantasy books is now transphobic. Good to know.

That's certainly an incoherent and random conclusion.

Especially since I specifically pointed out that one would have inferred from the Harry Potter books that the author was opposed to racial/religious/orientation/gender persecution.

 

[lionking]

Especially since I specifically pointed out that one would have inferred from the Harry Potter books that the author was opposed to racial/religious/orientation/gender persecution.

Where? It’s not specifically pointed out in the post I quoted.

 

[Matthew Best]

That's certainly an incoherent and random conclusion.

Especially since I specifically pointed out that one would have inferred from the Harry Potter books that the author was opposed to racial/religious/orientation/gender persecution.

I'm pretty sure Rowling IS opposed to racial/religious/orientation/gender persecution. So I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[theprestige]

That's certainly an incoherent and random conclusion.

Especially since I specifically pointed out that one would have inferred from the Harry Potter books that the author was opposed to racial/religious/orientation/gender persecution.

It's exactly her opposition to gender persecution that moves her to speak out about the gender persecution that's happening in the name of transgender rights.

 

[d4m10n]

Every group that attacks people based on their identity has always claimed its based on legitimate reasons.

Sometimes those reasons are truly legitimate, though.

Some people identify as minor attracted persons (MAP) and argue for loosening certain social and legal taboos.

Some people identify as Hamas and argue that all Jews in the region formerly known as Roman Palestine ought to be pushed into the Mediterranean Sea.

Some people identify as white supremacists and argue that people of non-European ancestry must be forcibly subordinated to those of pure European stock.

Not every identity is harmless, questions of harm reduction should be settled on other grounds than the one you suggest here.

 

[Samson]

It's exactly her opposition to gender persecution that moves her to speak out about the gender persecution that's happening in the name of transgender rights.

Exactly.
There is a way to walk and chew gum simultaneously.

 

[Roboramma]

It's exactly her opposition to gender persecution that moves her to speak out about the gender persecution that's happening in the name of transgender rights.

Exactly.

Cat Not Included wants us to equate something that Rowling has said with "promoting hatred and violence against "inferior" people". But what exactly? Is saying "men are not women" promoting hatred and violence? Is thinking that we should have sex segregated spaces promoting hatred and violence?

I am personally horrified by hatred and violence toward trans-people. Rowling is as well. There is nothing she has said that suggests otherwise.

This doesn't mean that every claim made by trans-rights activists is true, nor does it mean that we should adjudicate every dispute in their favor.

 

[Samson]

Exactly.

Cat Not Included wants us to equate something that Rowling has said with "promoting hatred and violence against "inferior" people". But what exactly? Is saying "men are not women" promoting hatred and violence? Is thinking that we should have sex segregated spaces promoting hatred and violence?

I am personally horrified by hatred and violence toward trans-people. Rowling is as well. There is nothing she has said that suggests otherwise.

This doesn't mean that every claim made by trans-rights activists is true, nor does it mean that we should adjudicate every dispute in their favor.

There is no hatred toward trans people.
My opinion only.

 

[theprestige]

Exactly.

Cat Not Included wants us to equate something that Rowling has said with "promoting hatred and violence against "inferior" people". But what exactly? Is saying "men are not women" promoting hatred and violence? Is thinking that we should have sex segregated spaces promoting hatred and violence?

I am personally horrified by hatred and violence toward trans-people. Rowling is as well. There is nothing she has said that suggests otherwise.

This doesn't mean that every claim made by trans-rights activists is true, nor does it mean that we should adjudicate every dispute in their favor.

The annoying thing is that I bet if you had a frank exchange of views with CNI about biological sex, they'd probably end up in broad agreement that some things should be sex-segregated.

 

[Emily's Cat]

It would be silly to attribute such a groundswell of anti-trans sentiment in the UK to any one person. Rowling's liberal-feminist coded bigotry (1) is merely representative of a larger social trend occurring on TERF island (2), which is undergoing a nasty right wing swing (3) into extreme austerity and bitterness generally. Be it privatizing what remains of the meager social democracy of the UK, champing at the bit at the idea of machine gunning refugees in dinghies crossing the channel (4), openly embracing a more austere, hopeless economic future (5), or frothing at the mouth with transphobia (6), the UK appears to be going down quite the dark path.

Whatever reputational suicide Rowling may be committing (7) by aligning herself with this modern reactionary right wing social cause (8), Rowling's is only one, admittedly famous, voice among many. It would be incredibly reductionist to suggest her role was so decisive.

(1) Well poisoning, baseless assertion without support
(2) Ad hominem, albeit large scale
(3) Well poisoning, baseless assertion without support
(4) Well poisoning, baseless assertion without support
(5) Malicious opinion
(6) Well poisoning, baseless assertion without support
(7) Well poisoning, baseless assertion without support
(8) Well poisoning, baseless assertion without support

(1) through (8) Blatant appeal to emotion without logic or rationale

 

[Emily's Cat]

Is this a serious question?

Premature birth.

In-utero surgery, for example, to repair a hole in the heart.

Also, gene therapy to correct genetic diseases.

Fair point.

How about a slight revision? How can a perfectly healthy infant be born, with no congenital or acquired conditions, and require massive medical and pharmaceutical intervention so they can be "their true self"?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Rowling has penned an entire anti-trans manifesto outlining her views. (1) It's been posted several times before. (2) Whether or not various posters find this as acceptable "evidence" is not really worth rehashing again. Most decide it doesn't count for whatever reasons, mostly because, unlike Linehan, Rowling is much more polite and less direct. She has a much more refined sense of reputation management than Linehan, who seems happy to be known as the frothing at the mouth bigot. So you have to give that to Rowling, she's not a total nutter.

(1) False. Rowling has not penned a manifesto of any sort, nor has Rowling produced any document that a rational person can demonstrate as being anti-trans
(2) It has been posted, but not a single person who has claimed that it is "anti-trans" has been able to explain what about it constitutes "anti-trans" in any way - including you, who haven't even bothered to try.

 

[Emily's Cat]

I really don't get what is so hard about it. I'm not wasting my time examining her stance because it's not complicated.

She doesn't think people with a penis can be a woman. Her stance is pretty clear and people's opposition to her stance is pretty clear.
It's basically the title of the thread we're now on the 13th continuation off that we're both talking in right now, the base question of whether or not transgenderism is a valid concept.

Whether or not Rowling is correct or not is the topic (well this subsection of the argument.) People pretending like it either it or the opposition to it needs to be explained yet again is, well let's just say something else.

Slightly more nuanced than that. Rowling's position is that people with a penis can be "women" in an exclusively social sense - wear whatever they want, express themselves however feels best to them, love whoever they love. But Rowling also holds that such social trappings do not replace the reality of objective sex, and that as a result of this material reality, efforts to subvert legal and social protections formed on the basis of sex into being on the basis of self-declared subjective gender identity are in direct conflict with the rights of females.

In short, Rowling supports Izzard calling themself a woman and wearing dresses and lipstick, but does not support Izzard using female showers, being admitted to a female hospital or nursing ward, or being housed in the female prison.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's interesting to note that this is the same view held by nearly every gender critical poster in this thread, and is the view that TG and LJ use to engage in invective and the spewing of hate toward fellow posters. Yet neither of them can actually specify what exactly is "transphobic" about wishing to maintain the distinction between sex and gender. And neither of them can defend why anyone should be expected to relinquish all sex-based rights entirely in order to avoid being branded as an apostate with the term "TERF".

 

[Emily's Cat]

Orson Scott Card is not Rowling famous, and his conservatism is not evident in the text his most famous books.

I take this as a tacit admission that you've never actually read Ender's Game.

 

[Emily's Cat]

A fundamental part of the Harry Potter series was that the villains claims and motivations were based in large part on promoting hatred and violence against "inferior" people - muggles and non-humans. Its a very clear parallel to real-world groups that have derived power from stirring up hated and animosity against a group of "others". There's also strong links to policies associated with such hate groups such as repressing education and controlling the media narrative, and a bureaucracy that refuses to acknowledge that problems exist. People tended to assume that since Rowling portrayed such attitudes as villainous, she would find the overall concept to be villainous, not simply based on which subgroup you happened to be attacking.

Every group that attacks people based on their identity has always claimed its based on legitimate reasons. The blacks are godless savages. The Jews have secret plans to control the world. The homosexuals are child molesters. Transgender people just secretly want to assault women. Its always claimed to be about safety or defense and its always, always been a load of bull trying to cover the same premise of "make an enemy for people to hate to get them to support you".

Sort of like "Females who object to having exposed penises in their presence against their will or consent are evil bigoted transphobe TERFs" closely followed by blatantly expressed sentiments like "I Punch TERFs" or "Kill TERFs" or "Decapitate TERFs" or any number of openly hateful calls to intimidate, injure, rape, or murder females who don't give way to penises?

TERF is a Slur

 

[Emily's Cat]

The signs of Rowling's bigotry were there from the start. Otherwise, Hogwarts would have accepted muggle magical students who identify as witches or wizards, and required students and faculty to be accommodating by pretending to be petrificus totalus-ed or expelliarmus-ed or whatnot whenever any student performed it at them.

I heart this post.

 

[Emily's Cat]

NAMBLA is a group. An organization with goals. It is not a "people who exist". Unless you are claiming that what, transgender people are part of a secret worldwide organization dating back for all of recorded history, that somehow organized themselves back in the days prior to global communication in order to...umm...what exactly?

Give me one example of history where oppressing and abusing a type or subset of people has turned out to be not awful.

Stonewall
Mermaids
WPATH
TGEU
National Center for Transgender Equality
... and many more!

Pedophiles are just "people who exist". NAMBLA is an organization founded to further the interests of pedophiles. And I would argue that societies that oppose the interests of pedophiles routinely turn out to be not awful.

Um, yes. Yes, a "transphobic bogeyman" is exactly what it is. Along with 'trans people cause natural disasters and school shootings' and 'trans people are trying to groom children to rape them'. The anti-trans groups started with those and has been throwing all the feces they can at the wall to get stuff to stick. It no secret that some political groups are claiming some policies proposed by...I guess the secret trans rulers of the world? are harmful, but a severe lack of actually showing it. And you'll forgive me if I'm more than a bit skeptical about the accuracy coming from the groups that are JUST horrified that a trans woman finished 7000th place in a woman's marathon and got a participation medal, or have outright said that they want to exterminate trans people.

Incidentally, with all the 'trans women are a danger to women', what is exactly has been the explanation for the murder and brutality directed toward trans woman who are into men? Are they a danger to men to? Is being interested in men just a secret cover for...um...something?

It's almost like... somehow... there's a problem with violence from males of the human species.

If transgender identified males are at risk of violence from males, how is this the fault of females? And how does the eradication of female sex-based rights fix that?

 

[Samson]

Fair point.

How about a slight revision? How can a perfectly healthy infant be born, with no congenital or acquired conditions, and require massive medical and pharmaceutical intervention so they can be "their true self"?

Thank you for making this idea clear. It is so fundamental and a perfect starting point for a discussion. We know that Richard/Rachel Levine is the highest ranking strong advocate for sterilizing (puberty blocking) and removing body parts of children in the world . We also know that it is a statistical high probability that Levine's issues are autogynephilia.
I would like Levine's answer to the question as posed by your phrasing. There should be a clear logical and scientific structure to the answer.
Of course people here can give it a go too.

 

[LondonJohn]

Yeah and it works the other way too. Every group that has ever had any degree of resistance put ON them plays the "we're just a poor widdle oppressed group" card.

"It's valid to oppose you" versus "No it's not" is the defining factor in every debate ever of all time. It's a truism, pointless.

NAMBLA tries to paint opposition to child rape as just being bigoted against a sexual choice.

Not every person claiming aggrieved status is right.

In the "First they came for the so and so and so's" metaphors there has to be an actual group that is doing the "coming for" that needs to be opposed.

There are substantive and substantial differences though.

To take your example of NAMBLA: they are advocating for something which a) is viewed as a mental disorder by modern mainstream medicine, and b) is criminalised by all progressive legislatures.

To take the example of transgender people: they are a group whose identity a) is viewed as valid (ie not a mental disorder) by modern mainstream medicine, and b) is protected by law in most progressive legislatures.

Which is why transgender identity is here to stay (unless/until mainstream medicine changes its view on the matter, which I'd judge as extremely unlikely). It's up to legislatures, judiciaries, experts and the general public to work out - in a fair and proportionate manner - exactly how (and how far) transgender rights are protected/provided in areas where they come into potential conflict with the rights of other groups in society (including, but not limited to, cis women in general, cis elite sportswomen, and cis lesbians). I fully expect this to happen over the next decade or two. I also fully expect further iterations in the therapies provided to transgender people (especially transgender minors and minors presenting with GD) over the next decade or so.

And I confidently predict that extremists on both sides will find themselves marginalised in favour of a consensus that's workable and as respectful as possible to all interested parties. But of course this thread will probably be on Chapter 47, still full of righteous (and self-righteous) anger by then, from one end of the extreme. Thankfully the thread will be as irrelevant to the real world then as it is now.