Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[Arcade22]

It would probably help if you could tell us with any certainty what "certain way" describes how women tend to look and act.

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.

It also seems to me as if a certain amount of prescription is necessary, at least on an indvidual level, for transsexual presentation to work. "I have to look and act a certain way, in order to qualify as a woman in my own head. I have to look and act a certain way, in order for other people to properly see me as a woman."

Practically speaking here, people who are trans try to look and act like people of the opposite sex tend to do. Obviously females tend to look and act in many different ways, and yet it is also obviously true that they tend to look and act in a certain general way compared to males. That's why we usually don't need to inspect people genetials to determine their sex.

You keep pushing this false dichotomy between either treating "woman" as a synonym for someone of the female sex or it being just a completely meaningless label that can be applied to anything. There's no reason to limit yourself to those options.

Meanwhile it is exactly this soft prescription that feminists have been trying to get away from.

Except that these "gender critical" feminists tend to have a lot of very strong opinions about how transwomen do not meet their standards of what a woman should look like and how transwomens appearance is an outrageous defilement of womanhood.

 

[caveman1917]

I read somewhere that a biologist at a university lost her job for giving a definition of sex that contradicted trans orthodoxy, and therefore making a transgender student 'feel unsafe'.

Huh. I remember Sokal remarking that he pulled his exposition of postmodern academia not because he was defending physics (which would do just fine on its own) but to defend the left from a part of itself. Looks like, after being laughed out of physics, the pomos decided to go the "New Biology" route. And if what you're saying is true, looks like biology is in worse shape than physics was a couple of decades ago.

 

[LondonJohn]

I want LondonJohn to quote the words of JKR which he regards as comparable to the disgusting invented tweet he wrote about homosexual people. I want to see exactly what he regards as the parallel.

He won't do it. All that obfuscation about "it's all there in the articles" and "I won't do your homework for you" is to obscure the fact that there is nothing comparable and he'd be exposed as a hypocrite and a fantasist if he actually quoted any of JKR's well-considered and respectful writings.





Exactly. And LondonJohn is going along with this. He knows JKR wrote stuff he considers is as bad as that horrible tweet he made up about homosexual people, and he goes on to damn her without ever revealing what it actually is that she said that he objects to.

LOL You don't get it, do you?

1) You really think that my point was to claim direct parity of comparison between a) the things Rowling has said and written about transgender issues and b) my (very deliberately hyperbolic) analogy? I mean, I realise it's given you ammunition for your selective vituperative indignation, but you really need to try to figure out the point of the analogy.

2) If you can't recognise the clear implications of anti-transgender philosophy from those quotes of Rowling that were spoon-fed to you, then you probably need to have another think about things. The fact that Rowling chose - deliberately or otherwise - to "sugar coat" her comments with professions of love for transgender people (cf: "some of my best friends are black.....") may have misdirected you, I suppose.

3) In any case, had you actually bothered to read the links, you'd have found other quotes from Rowling than the (selective? surely not!) quotes spoon-fed to you earlier. Eg:


"if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition”

(she's obviously implying here that she might have been "influenced" to believe that she inhabited a non-female gender, if she'd been an adolescent in the present day; and by extension, she's implying that many adolescents who are identifying as transgender in the present day are not "really" transgender - they're just somehow being "taught" that they are.)


"transition may be the answer for some"

(implying that transition is some sort of choice, rather than it being an innate part of the person's psyche - compare and contrast with "living as a homosexual may be the answer for some")


"Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

Well, if you can't see those first three lines as a thinly-disguised attack on transgender identity, then (again) I suggest a rethink is in order. Plus the final line is a (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the Maya Forstater tribunal (look it up if you don't know about it).


Oh and yeah, there's also the issue of Rowling deleting a tweet in which she had praised the social attitudes of the world-famous author Stephen King - almost immediately after King himself tweeted "Trans women are women".......

 

[d4m10n]

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.

Awhile back I asked whether the legal regime in California actually allows for gender segregation in public restrooms, now that state legislators have moved past sex segregation. Nobody (IIRC, YMMV) had a reply on point.

Veeeery interesting, eh?

 

[LondonJohn]

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.



Practically speaking here, people who are trans try to look and act like people of the opposite sex tend to do. Obviously females tend to look and act in many different ways, and yet it is also obviously true that they tend to look and act in a certain general way compared to males. That's why we usually don't need to inspect people genetials to determine their sex.

You keep pushing this false dichotomy between either treating "woman" as a synonym for someone of the female sex or it being just a completely meaningless label that can be applied to anything. There's no reason to limit yourself to those options.


Except that these "gender critical" feminists tend to have a lot of very strong opinions about how transwomen do not meet their standards of what a woman should look like and how transwomens appearance is an outrageous defilement of womanhood.

Oh I think there is a reason. It's just that the motivation behind the reason is faulty and improper.......

 

[LondonJohn]

Awhile back I asked about whether the legal regime in California actually allows for gender segregation in public restrooms, now that state legislators have moved past sex segregation. Nobody (IIRC, YMMV) had a reply on point.

Veeeery interesting, eh?

I mean, you do know that there will inevitably be a period of negotiation, acceptance & give-and-take concerning each bit of granular policy or guidelines, as the practical real-world implications of an overarching transgender recognition/rights law are introduced..... right?

 

[Paul2]

"Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

Well, if you can't see those first three lines as a thinly-disguised attack on transgender identity, then (again) I suggest a rethink is in order.

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.

 

[Earthborn]

* Some prominent postmodern gender theorist (I think it was Judith Butler) had declared that the science of biology should be replaced with a "New Biology" where the conclusions should be subservient to ideological requirements, and hence sex should be declared a social construct rather than empirically real.

I think it is safe to say that Judith Butler has never in her entire career written anything ever remotely as clear and straightforward as that. When it comes to clearity to express academic concepts, she makes Derrida look like Carl Sagan.

 

[d4m10n]

I mean, you do know that there will inevitably be a period of negotiation, acceptance & give-and-take concerning each bit of granular policy or guidelines, as the practical real-world implications of an overarching transgender recognition/rights law are introduced..... right?

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

 

[caveman1917]

I think it is safe to say that Judith Butler has never in her entire career written anything ever remotely as clear and straightforward as that. When it comes to clearity to express academic concepts, she makes Derrida look like Carl Sagan.

Yeah it very well might have been someone else, I vaguely remember a quote about it being pointed out by someone but I'm not sure whose quote it was. It did say the "New Biology" thing literally, and then a bunch of rationalizations for why this new biology should be made to support ideological goals (this wasn't said literally) and hence proclaim sex to be a social construct (this was said literally).

 

[Elaedith]

A different perspective on Rowling from a trans woman (who does not believe she is a woman).

 

[Matthew Best]

In any case, had you actually bothered to read the links, you'd have found other quotes from Rowling than the (selective? surely not!) quotes spoon-fed to you earlier.

It's a bit rich to complain about someone "selecting" the Rowling quotes to consider when you refused to do so yourself.

The easy way past this would have been for you to quote Rowling's words and say what you think is objectionable about them.

I see you've tried to do this now, but really - is this the worst you can come up with?

"Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

If it is, then we're really through the looking glass here.

 

[Aber]

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.

You are really way behind on the context of this thread.

Most posters accept that there is legislation for people to change their gender and don't want to repeal it.

The issue is what is currently being lobbied for eg

In the UK the introduction of Self-ID, which would be a disaster for womens' rights.
Stonewall is campaigning against World Rugby's ban on transwomen playing women's rugby.

EDIT: and it becomes even clearer that you are underestimating the amount many key posters know about the issues.

 

[MisAndreG]

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.



Practically speaking here, people who are trans try to look and act like people of the opposite sex tend to do. Obviously females tend to look and act in many different ways, and yet it is also obviously true that they tend to look and act in a certain general way compared to males. That's why we usually don't need to inspect people genetials to determine their sex.

You keep pushing this false dichotomy between either treating "woman" as a synonym for someone of the female sex or it being just a completely meaningless label that can be applied to anything. There's no reason to limit yourself to those options.



Except that these "gender critical" feminists tend to have a lot of very strong opinions about how transwomen do not meet their standards of what a woman should look like and how transwomens appearance is an outrageous defilement of womanhood.

A women is a person of the female sex. Period. There is no room for interpretation there - there is no dichotomy, false or otherwise.

I refuse to accommodate Trans in any way that erodes sex-specific gains women have made or messes with the development of children. If some weirdo wants to mutilate himself, call himself Sally and use she/they pronouns - fine; if he wants to use female facilities, or play in female sports, or get female scholarships or Awards, or promote this literally self-destructive identity as a way for children to live — that’s a no from me.

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

 

[d4m10n]

https://twitter.com/NEWS1130/status/1304938409312555009

...and its gone.

 

[Boudicca90]

A different perspective on Rowling from a trans woman (who does not believe she is a woman).

I find a woman like this especially sad, since I've noticed internalized transphobia like this is especially prevalent among older transgender people. They bought into the old dangerous and destructive idea of GID and the Benjamin SOC and can't see themselves as they truly are. I've seen this also with gay people who have internalized homophobia and do everything possible to sabotage gay rights.

JK Rowling ending up as a TERF was something that was especially hurtful considering I have been a Harry Potter fan for a long time (Ravenclaws represent!). Her assertions that we aren't real women and that transitioning is harming children are disgusting and wrong ("But I have trans friends!", is a common excuse). And then to support conversion therapy for trans people when she rightfully doesn't for gay kids and trying to act like gender affirming therapy is the conversion therapy?! Insane.

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.

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.

 

[Boudicca90]

You are really way behind on the context of this thread.

Most posters accept that there is legislation for people to change their gender and don't want to repeal it.

The issue is what is currently being lobbied for eg

In the UK the introduction of Self-ID, which would be a disaster for womens' rights.
Stonewall is campaigning against World Rugby's ban on transwomen playing women's rugby.

EDIT: and it becomes even clearer that you are underestimating the amount many key posters know about the issues.

Self ID is the law in a number of places right now, like here in California, with no issues. Hell, you don't even have to travel very far from the UK, look at Ireland: https://www.thejournal.ie/transgender-laws-in-ireland-explainer-4453493-Jan2019/

I fully support it and it doesn't affect women's rights one bit except help protect us transgender women under those same rights as cisgender women. Giving and protecting rights for one group doesn't take them away from another.

Thankfully Self ID looks to become the norm more and more in the future, as transphobes often overinflate their numbers to make their views seem more widespread and accepted. Much like the conservatives in the US with their "silent majority" excuses.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

Oh Jesus ******* Christ people stop playing "No you say it first! No you say it first!"

Here: https://www.glamour.com/story/a-com...e-jk-rowling-transgender-comments-controversy

“People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?,” - June 6th, Twitter

"If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth." - June 6th, Twitter

"The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women - ie, to male violence - ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences - is a nonsense." - June 6th, Twitter

"I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so." - June 6th, Twitter

"I've never felt as shouted down, ignored, and targeted as a lesbian *within* our supposed GLBT community as I have over the past couple of years." - Shared Article from a "Anonymous Lesbian" on Twitter, June 6th.

I... don't see how any of those tweets are horrible enough for people to break down and resort to name-calling and censorship instead of just calmly explaining to her why they think she's wrong.

The first one, I get. Just writing "women" does just fine. "People who menstruate" is incredibly stilted, and makes things needlessly complicated. Sure, I get the point, that there should be some easily-accessible word for "people who menstruate" or "people with functional vaginas who have not yet hit menopause", but that doesn't exactly make Rowling's sarcastic tweet transphobic or hateful.

The secondone was kinda hard to follow. I disagree (I think), but it's mostly just hair-splitting and semantics to me.

The third one, I don't know if I disagree with too much. "Hate" is a strong word. She has a different opinion than trans activists. That doesn't make her phobic or hateful. I've yet to really see anything hateful or phobic from her that would warrant the degree of hostility she's receiving from trans activists.

"My life has been shaped by being female". Oh my, what a hateful thing to say. I am so triggered. Where is the nearest safe room? Okay, I get the other part, though. Trans people are discriminated against. Still up for interpretation and nowhere near hateful or phobic. Pretty stupid, sure, but not hateful.

And a shared article that someone feels shouted down, ignored, and targetted. Wow. High level hatred. I bet she'll join the Neo Nazis next.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

It's a bit rich to complain about someone "selecting" the Rowling quotes to consider when you refused to do so yourself.

The easy way past this would have been for you to quote Rowling's words and say what you think is objectionable about them.

I see you've tried to do this now, but really - is this the worst you can come up with?

"Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?"

If it is, then we're really through the looking glass here.

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".

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I decided not to mention Rowling specifically, but yes she's a good example. Look at what she has actually written. None of it should be contentious at all...

Oh, there's plenty of contentious material in her books. The lack of ethnic representation, the way fans don't believe her when she said she always intended for Dumbledore to be gay, certain descriptions of certain characters and creatures, and so on. Then again, I suppose that's to be expected of a many-thousand pages long book series that was written by a single person in the nineties.

The one example that I actually almost find a bit chilling (and the only one relevant to this thread) is how she describes Rita Skeeter. Skeeter is described as a woman with male traits, like "abnormally large/manly hands" or whatever it was. Skeeter, as a character, turns into a beetle to enter the school grounds, where she is not allowed, to spy on the students, observing events and eavesdropping on them to learn their secrets.

Given Rowlings' feelings towards trans people, this could be interpreted as Rowling trying to sneak a trans, or trans-like character into her book, alluding to the way trans people allegedly pretend to be the opposite gender to gain access to locker rooms and bathrooms.

If this was her intent, it's pretty sinister and, needless to say, unbecoming of a childrens' book author.