Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[Hercules56]

This framing is odd; as if the trans-identified person who tricked their date is the victim.

Let's assume they simply made eye contact at a bookstore and the guy asked her out.

 

[Cat Not Included]

Why is "properly handle this" the rubric?

Its a random example thing to say along the line of "its not you, its me". What the hell do you mean a "rubric"?

The actual "current right-wing rage du jour claim" (as you imagine it) is that chicks with dicks should (a) be up front with their prospective sexual partners about it, (b) should not hold it against any such prospective partner who complains about a bait-and-switch, and (c) that chicks with dicks who dismiss (a) and (b) as valid concerns are dicks as well as having them.

If that is true, its extremely hard to distinguish from all the "transgender people cause hurricanes", "transgender people just want to get into bathrooms to assault women", "we need to exterminate all transgender people", "transgender people are all pedophiles", etc, etc, etc.

It's easy to tell someone they're a bigot when your judgement is based entirely on your fantasy about them and their concerns.

Wha..the...huh? OK, you get that this was a hypothetical scenario and not directly at you personally or something, right? I tried to give two examples of behavior. My intent was that any reasonable person should recognize that action A is NOT inherently bigoted in nature, and any reasonable person should recognize that action B IS inherently bigoted in nature.

It'd be nice if you discussed some of the ones that were more plausible.

I have no idea what you actually find implausible here. Nicely turning down someone you've realize you aren't interested in is pretty normal for a decent person. Violence against a romantic interest when a person discovers they are trans is sadly a very real thing. Part of a subcategory of: https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/member-features/gay-trans-panic-defense/

In a lot of ways, yes. But binary sex isn't really one of them. Neither is sexual attraction.

Putting aside how obviously wrong that is, I'm not really talking about the complexity of attraction here, but of "bigotry", which as I've mentioned in this case I feel is completely pointless to consider. You never owe or are obligated to date/be involved with/have sex with anyone. But that doesn't necessarily make you NOT a bigot either. You can do something entirely reasonable for reasons that are STILL bigoted. But getting outraged because "if I do this thing, some hypothetical other people that I've never met and don't know might judge me and think I'm a bigot and that's so awful!"? Good grief. That's ridiculous.

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, now that we're in this thread, I'm out. Peace, homies.

 

[Blank]

So show of hands. Who thinks the above described sequence of events would be bigoted toward the trans person?

And this is not bait, setup, or gotcha I'm honestly curious.

It can be depending on the motivation.

1) Dating/Mating preference is a choice
2) Some choices are made based on prejudiced or bigoted motive

I mean if the guy stops dating her because he feels trans person are not real or not equal or somehow worse that binaries, then it is based on prejudice and bigotry. There are however other possibilities too.

If there is no more info then the planet x is the only viable choice.

 

[Lplus]

Let's assume they simply made eye contact at a bookstore and the guy asked her out.

Let's say you meet someone and date them. And you go on some dates and are having a great time and are really attracted to them and enjoy being with them and are going on about how in love with them you are.

They you discover that they are transgender.

Lets assume you are also blind.

I'd like a show of hands who considers this scenario to be anything more than a strawman .

 

[Graham2001]

Found this archived copy of an article by the UK 'Sunday Times' regarding a video that Oxfam posted in support of Pride Week.

Oxfam has been branded “utterly shocking” for releasing an anti-trans cartoon character apparently based on JK Rowling.

The charity’s animated #ProtectThePride video was issued to mark Pride month. It said it could not “ignore the cruel backdrop” against which LGBT people marked the celebration.

The strip included a woman resembling Rowling, who was wearing a badge saying “Terf” — which stands for “trans-exclusionary radical feminist” and is used as a slur to describe those, like the Harry Potter writer, who believe people cannot change sex.

The woman, with blood-red eyes and face contorted in hate, was wearing a green dress – similar to one worn by Rowling at a film premiere – and was looking at the Pride flag. As she appeared on screen, a caption said that LGBT people were “preyed on by hate groups online and offline”.

https://archive.md/RV9NC


Jerry Coyne's commentary on the report including a screenshot of the offending scene is linked below:


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/07/oxfam-demonizes-j-k-rowling-branding-her-as-a-terf/

 

[Graham2001]

The Guardian's commentary is also worth reading...

The UK charities watchdog is assessing whether it will take action against Oxfam after receiving complaints about a cartoon published by the charity that ignited a row about transgender issues.

Oxfam International put the cartoon out on Twitter last week to mark pride month, but took it down on Tuesday after a backlash against its use of the term Terf (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) in an image depicting anti-trans “hate groups”.

Oxfam International, which commissioned the cartoon as part of its gender justice campaign strand, subsequently published a re-edited version. It apologised for the “offence it caused” and said it had “made a mistake”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jun/07/oxfam-pride-month-cartoon-charities-watchdog

 

[Samson]

Found this archived copy of an article by the UK 'Sunday Times' regarding a video that Oxfam posted in support of Pride Week.





https://archive.md/RV9NC


Jerry Coyne's commentary on the report including a screenshot of the offending scene is linked below:


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/07/oxfam-demonizes-j-k-rowling-branding-her-as-a-terf/

Certainly a hateful depiction of JK Rowling, who on this thread is ok with that?
Is it within the rules of this game?

 

[lionking]

Found this archived copy of an article by the UK 'Sunday Times' regarding a video that Oxfam posted in support of Pride Week.





https://archive.md/RV9NC


Jerry Coyne's commentary on the report including a screenshot of the offending scene is linked below:


https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2023/06/07/oxfam-demonizes-j-k-rowling-branding-her-as-a-terf/

I simply cannot understand how TRAs and fellow travellers continue to demonise Rowling. If anyone bothers to look at her comments (yes, I know that many won’t) they will find nothing transphobic. She supports women’s rights for sure, but she is no bigot.

Oxfam should be ashamed of itself, but righteous warriors like them are beyond shame.

 

[Elaedith]

The fact that a 'co-head of influencing' at Oxfam was formerly a campaign officer at Stonewall might have something to do with this.

 

[Lplus]

I simply cannot understand how TRAs and fellow travellers continue to demonise Rowling. If anyone bothers to look at her comments (yes, I know that many won’t) they will find nothing transphobic. She supports women’s rights for sure, but she is no bigot.

Oxfam should be ashamed of itself, but righteous warriors like them are beyond shame.

That's it right there - she supports women's (females') rights not trans gender (male) rights.

 

[Samson]

The fact that a 'co-head of influencing' at Oxfam was formerly a campaign officer at Stonewall might have something to do with this.

Jesus wept.

 

[lionking]

That's it right there - she supports women's (females') rights not trans gender (male) rights.

That’s not true. She has gone out of her way to support the rights of the trans community. What she does not support is when trans people and their supporters declare “rights” which compromise the safety and well being of biological women. I shouldn’t have to list them yet again.

 

[Lplus]

That’s not true. She has gone out of her way to support the rights of the trans community. What she does not support is when trans people and their supporters declare “rights” which compromise the safety and well being of biological women. I shouldn’t have to list them yet again.

[quote]she supports women's (females') rights not trans gender (male) rights.[/quote]

Basically the same thing.

 

[lionking]

[quote]she supports women's (females') rights not trans gender (male) rights.

Basically the same thing.[/QUOTE]

Don’t agree at all. Since when is it a “right” for biological men to access women’s sports, locker rooms, prisons etc?

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I simply cannot understand how TRAs and fellow travellers continue to demonise Rowling. If anyone bothers to look at her comments (yes, I know that many won’t) they will find nothing transphobic. She supports women’s rights for sure, but she is no bigot.

Oxfam should be ashamed of itself, but righteous warriors like them are beyond shame.

It's pretty funny that even this low detail drawing is pretty immediately recognizable as Rowling. She certainly has earned a certain reputation that does a lot of heavy lifting here.

Rowling is especially notorious among British TERFs in aggressively using the UK's very censorious libel laws to silence critics (can only wonder why the "cancel culture" warriors haven't objected). I'm curious if this drawing would qualify as actionable, even in the UK's litigant friendly environment. It doesn't specifically attribute Rowling as a TERF.

 

[Lplus]

Basically the same thing.

Don’t agree at all. Since when is it a “right” for biological men to access women’s sports, locker rooms, prisons etc?

She doesn't think it is! that's why she supports women's rights and NOT trans (male) "rights" which are in opposition to womens' rights.

 

[lionking]

She doesn't think it is! that's why she supports women's rights and NOT trans (male) "rights" which are in opposition to womens' rights.

Maybe I’m misinterpreting you, if so I’m sorry. I thought you were criticising Rowling’s opposition to trans rights which compromise women. If not, ignore me.

 

[Samson]

It's pretty funny that even this low detail drawing is pretty immediately recognizable as Rowling. She certainly has earned a certain reputation that does a lot of heavy lifting here.

Rowling is especially notorious among British TERFs in aggressively using the UK's very censorious libel laws to silence critics (can only wonder why the "cancel culture" warriors haven't objected). I'm curious if this drawing would qualify as actionable, even in the UK's litigant friendly environment. It doesn't specifically attribute Rowling as a TERF.

JK Rowling has a very simple message for you, but you choose to react like a litigant in a long running case.

 

[Lplus]

Maybe I’m misinterpreting you, if so I’m sorry. I thought you were criticising Rowling’s opposition to trans rights which compromise women. If not, ignore me.

No, I was just pointing out that was why the trans lobby consider her a bigot. I guess I wasn't too clear on that.