Cont: Trans Women are not Women 3

[LondonJohn]

Agreed. I only brought it up as a tangential amusement. It's bizarre how Rowling has turned crapping on trans people into her hobby horse.

Rowling has enough money to do pretty much anything she imagines, and she spends a shocking amount of her idle time getting into anti-trans slap fights on social media. Now it's creeping into her real work.

I hope she's at least enjoying herself, it strikes me as a bit pathetic.

Ah apologies - I genuinely didn't notice that you'd only just aired exactly the same subject upthread - and with exactly the same linked article! And with exactly the same response to JoeMorgue's interpretation.....

 

[JoeMorgue]

Now that you deem me worthy of talking to again would you answer what you're cryptic comment from earlier meant?

 

[LondonJohn]

LondonJohn seems to be conflating a few different things. I fully support someone's right to identify as a woman, as a matter of their right to self-expression. But the right to self-expression does not confer an entitlement to recognition, nor an entitlement to privilege.

Emperor Norton wasn't entitled to imperial power and authority just because he expressed himself thus and people humored him.

And a man isn't entitled to enter women's spaces just because he's expressed himself that way and people humor him in other less contentious contexts.

Supporting someone who struggles with neuro-atypical delusions does not necessarily mean catering to those delusions.

I think I see your problem here........

 

[LondonJohn]

Now that you deem me worthy of talking to again would you answer what you're cryptic comment from earlier meant?

It was an expression of amazement at your position - and in particular some of the terminology you chose to employ. I kind of thought that was very clear.

Lalalalalalalaaaaa

 

[JoeMorgue]

It was an expression of amazement at your position - and in particular some of the terminology you chose to employ. I kind of thought that was very clear.

(*your)

Please expand on the "particular terminology" you feel I used.

You highlighted a word. I want to know why.

I don't like passive aggressive games trying to insinuate something.

 

[LondonJohn]

Please expand on the "particular terminology" you feel I used.

You highlighted a word. I want to know why.

I don't like passive aggressive games trying to insinuate something.

You're going large on these inventions of motive right now, huh? Is there a volume deal?

Oh, and you do know (don't you) that I'm under absolutely no literal or ethical obligation to jump to your demands? In fact, I'm not actually disposed to responding to portentous demands in general (and it's somewhat amusing that your demands in this case - "Please expand upon...." very possibly were made in a passive-aggressive manner ).

But I'll indulge you:


...without them there and getting help

(for context: "them" here refers to trans women, but here you're calling them men who are "getting help" to give them access to women's spaces)


Blokes who think they are chicks

(Fairly self-explanatory, even without context.....)


"Other" women who happened to be born without penises

(Use of quotation marks around "other", obviously employed to imply that trans women are not really women)

 

[JoeMorgue]

...without them there and getting help

(for context: "them" here refers to trans women, but here you're calling them men who are "getting help" to give them access to women's spaces)


Blokes who think they are chicks

(Fairly self-explanatory, even without context.....)


"Other" women who happened to be born without penises

(Use of quotation marks around "other", obviously employed to imply that trans women are not really women)

I have never used any of the phrases, scare quotes, or terminology you have just claimed I did. At no point in this thread, any thread, nor any other statement I have ever made has anything even resembling the bolded statements ever been uttered by me.

 

[theprestige]

"A new book penned by JK Rowling finds her private detective protagonist, Cormoran Strike, investigating a cis male serial killer who dresses as a woman to kill his cis female victims, according to an early write-up."

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/09/14/jk-rowling-new-book-cormoran-strike-troubled-blood-killer-dresses-woman/

Okay, but look here: Serial killers disguising themselves to appear innocuous is a longstanding trope in fiction and in reality.

And we do all agree that in reality, women often feel unsafe around strange men in a way they don't feel around strange women.

Therefore, it seems both realistic and narratively sensical to tell a story about a serial killer who disguises himself as a woman to prey on women. Sure, it's kind of "ripped from today's headlines", but a lot of detective stories are reflections of the time and place the author is writing in.

And so what if Rowling is contributing to those headlines? Obviously it's a topic that's on her mind. Why shouldn't it find its way into her work? I bet a close examination of the personal affairs of authors going back to the beginning of written fiction would show that authors very often write fiction that's related to the controversies they're embroiled in, and even the controversies they're stoking.

Oh no! Rowling is writing fiction about social issues and current events! And she's also publishing her own opinions about these issues and events! How dare she! Where is the Chinese Wall between her life and her work? Michael Crighton! Eleventy!

 

[Boudicca90]

I don't believe that trans women should be permitted to compete in high- or medium-level sports (strictly speaking, those sports in which anatomy and/or physiology play an advantageous role).

Furthermore, I don't believe that trans women will ever be allowed to compete in those competitions/sports as described above.

And pursuant to that, I think that all moderate transgender people or moderate trans-activists will accept this as a reasonable push-back point.

I have agreed with much you have said, but I definitely have to disagree with you on this.

A reasonable compromise is the one we already have, where trans women are allowed to compete with cis women provided our hormone levels are not too far off from each other. We will never accept banning us from sport at any level.

You unfortunately illustrate that even our allies want to put a cutoff on our rights at some point. I said before I find compromise effective in situations like this where biology plays more of a factor. I will never support segregation and discrimination of us.

 

[Boudicca90]

Okay, but look here: Serial killers disguising themselves to appear innocuous is a longstanding trope in fiction and in reality.

And we do all agree that in reality, women often feel unsafe around strange men in a way they don't feel around strange women.

Therefore, it seems both realistic and narratively sensical to tell a story about a serial killer who disguises himself as a woman to prey on women. Sure, it's kind of "ripped from today's headlines", but a lot of detective stories are reflections of the time and place the author is writing in.

And so what if Rowling is contributing to those headlines? Obviously it's a topic that's on her mind. Why shouldn't it find its way into her work? I bet a close examination of the personal affairs of authors going back to the beginning of written fiction would show that authors very often write fiction that's related to the controversies they're embroiled in, and even the controversies they're stoking.

Oh no! Rowling is writing fiction about social issues and current events! And she's also publishing her own opinions about these issues and events! How dare she! Where is the Chinese Wall between her life and her work? Michael Crighton! Eleventy!

It's an old and disgusting anti-trans trope. That we are mentally disturbed and are portrayed as perverts and/or killers because of it. You look at any media from before 2000 and that's how we were typically portrayed in movies and TV.

Thankfully that isn't the case anymore other than with transphobes like her.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have never used any of the phrases, scare quotes, or terminology you have just claimed I did. At no point in this thread, any thread, nor any other statement I have ever made has anything even resembling the bolded statements ever been uttered by me.

Oh wait. That was a different poster. Apologies.

Though what "cryptic comment from earlier" were you referring to?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Oh wait. That was a different poster. Apologies.

Though what "cryptic comment from earlier" were you referring to?

Post 3087-3089.

 

[theprestige]

I think I see your problem here........

Neuro-atypical delusions? I hope everybody sees the problem with those. I assume all your actual discussion and argument is contained within your lengthy elision.

 

[Matthew Best]

It's an old and disgusting anti-trans trope. That we are mentally disturbed and are portrayed as perverts and/or killers because of it. You look at any media from before 2000 and that's how we were typically portrayed in movies and TV.

Thankfully that isn't the case anymore other than with transphobes like her.

I'm only just reading about this for the first time, but all I've seen refers to the villain of the story as "a cis male", not a trans woman.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Okay, but look here: Serial killers disguising themselves to appear innocuous is a longstanding trope in fiction and in reality.

And we do all agree that in reality, women often feel unsafe around strange men in a way they don't feel around strange women.

Therefore, it seems both realistic and narratively sensical to tell a story about a serial killer who disguises himself as a woman to prey on women. Sure, it's kind of "ripped from today's headlines", but a lot of detective stories are reflections of the time and place the author is writing in.

And so what if Rowling is contributing to those headlines? Obviously it's a topic that's on her mind. Why shouldn't it find its way into her work? I bet a close examination of the personal affairs of authors going back to the beginning of written fiction would show that authors very often write fiction that's related to the controversies they're embroiled in, and even the controversies they're stoking.

Oh no! Rowling is writing fiction about social issues and current events! And she's also publishing her own opinions about these issues and events! How dare she! Where is the Chinese Wall between her life and her work? Michael Crighton! Eleventy!

I don't think it's a great scandal, it just shows how infected with anti-trans brainworms Rowling has become. Seems that she's becoming more and more of an anti-trans warrior each day.

Much like the Michael Chricton dig at his critic, the inclusion of such ham-fisted literary stand-ins shows that the criticism has clearly put a dent in the author's psyche.

 

[theprestige]

Nobody is allowed to write a detective thriller about a killer who disguises himself as a woman to allay the fears his victims might have about strange men, because of Silence of the Lambs and that one movie with Robert Downey Junior. Oh, and didn't John Lithgow do one? So yeah, that well is dry, and no other authors are allowed to go back to it.

Though, leaking a central characteristic of the villain's MO in a detective novel seems counter-productive. That makes me think that Rowling is acting in bad faith and isn't actually trying to write such a story for publication.

 

[LondonJohn]

I have agreed with much you have said, but I definitely have to disagree with you on this.

A reasonable compromise is the one we already have, where trans women are allowed to compete with cis women provided our hormone levels are not too far off from each other. We will never accept banning us from sport at any level.

You unfortunately illustrate that even our allies want to put a cutoff on our rights at some point. I said before I find compromise effective in situations like this where biology plays more of a factor. I will never support segregation and discrimination of us.

But it's an unarguable point that people born in the male sex develop anatomy and physiology that is, in general, very significantly different from biological females. In terms of critical areas such as skeletal development, muscle physiology, cardiovascular strength/stamina, and suchlike.

And hormone levels are only one element: even when a trans woman (a biological male) has hormone treatment to reduce her levels to female averages, she still - on average - benefits from those things like a better musculo-skeletal system and a better cardiovascular system compared with the women in the field who are biological females (where "better" means "offering a competitive advantage").

This is the entire basis of my argument about trans women in women's sport in high- and medium-level competitions.

And you just have to look at the factors influencing the (very difficult and highly nuanced) debate over the likes of Caster Semenya to see the inevitable (IMO) way things will go wrt trans women in women's sport. Time will tell of course, and I am open to persuasion that in fact trans women do not (on average) possess natural advantages over biological females in areas such as skeleton, muscle, heart and lungs. I'm just not of the belief at this moment that trans women do not (on average) benefit from those sorts of natural advantages.

 

[LondonJohn]

I'm only just reading about this for the first time, but all I've seen refers to the villain of the story as "a cis male", not a trans woman.

No, there's no suggestion that the murderer is a trans woman.

Rather, the book appears to be about a cis man "pretending" to be a woman in order to murder cis women.

Now you may hopefully appreciate the interest and the widescale discussion around this topic.

 

[Ziggurat]

Awful lot of words where you could just have written: "We pretend that professional sports has a fair and level field despite the fact that doping has been a problem for the past decades. But now let us claim that ManWomen will totally destroy this fair and level field"

How do you destroy a sport? By making the playing field not level?

No. That isn't how you destroy a sport. You destroy a sport by making people lose interest in it. A lack of a fair and level playing field may cause people to lose interest, but it might not. The level of unfairness over the last few decades has not sufficed to make the audience lose interest. And not all kinds of unfairness will be viewed the same way by audiences.

Why is women's sport even a thing? With a few notable exceptions, women's sports just aren't as good as men's sports. They're slower, less athletic. But people watch them anyways. Why? Because some people want to watch women specifically competing in them, not just whoever is the best.

If transwomen athletes come to dominate a woman's sport, will the audience lose interest? I suspect so. I suspect that in that case, they will come to be viewed as simply an inferior version of men's sports. I can't prove that unless transwomen are allowed to dominate a sport, but it's a little late for the sport if that happens and I'm right.

 

[LondonJohn]

Neuro-atypical delusions? I hope everybody sees the problem with those. I assume all your actual discussion and argument is contained within your lengthy elision.

Slick!

No, my discussion and argument is entirely around your apparent implication that transgender people are suffering from neuro-atypical delusions.