[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[TheMeInTeam]

2) Framing is important. Whether trans community is seeking "special privileges" or just "equal rights" seems largely a matter of framing. The latter is definitely a lot easier to sell.

The trans community is not a monolithic block, there are a lot of people. Some of them are pushing for equal rights, while others are pushing for special privileges. Framing correctly is beneficial, while framing incorrectly (IE representing special privileges as equal rights to demand them, or passing off equality as a demand for privileges) will create resentment.

There is reasonable basis to disagree on which category a particular thing falls under. For example, earlier in this thread there was discussion about deadnaming and what basis this has for being treated differently from bullying. Both are well-established to be harmful/offensive actions, but it was never clearly demonstrated why deadnaming is materially worse...as opposed to being a subcategory of mean actions/bullying (depending on context). Without that basis, treating one differently from the other appears to be discriminatory against one party or the other.

JKR said some ignorant stuff, but doesn't seem to reach the standard of bullying (OP quotes don't demonstrate deadnaming for example), unless I've missed stuff. The principle issue with JKR's logic more obviously unfair: her arguments attribute threat/blame to an enormous population based on a tiny fraction of people, some of which aren't even part of that population (I'd wager money that most criminal men that enter women's restrooms to commit assaults are not claiming anything at all to someone else before entry...). In contrast to the above paragraph, there is obvious basis for demonstrating that JKR's comment is unfair to transpeople in that context; arbitrarily restricted access to basic utilities in public spaces using rationale that, if taken to its logical extreme, would shut down society outright. That's an overwhelming equal rights argument.

If laws are to be reasonable, this distinction should matter and inform their creation and enforcement.

 

[cardgame]

deadnaming is more than a bullying name or insult, it is, at a certain point, a fundamental denial of their gender. It is not even comparable to the regular-grade bullying cis people receive.

 

[NinjaCow64]

A few general observations from someone whose job for the last decade has been to actually draft laws, if in entirely unrelated field:

1) If the problem is with enforcement of already existing law, changing the letter of the law is unlikely to actually fix it.
2) Framing is important. Whether trans community is seeking "special privileges" or just "equal rights" seems largely a matter of framing. The latter is definitely a lot easier to sell.

I am not a lawyer or a transperson, but from my understanding the primary legal goals of trans persons in the west is a) pushing back on laws designed to infringe upon their ability to exist safely in public spaces (e.g the bathroom bills) b) ensuring that civil rights and anti-hate bills that already cover race, sexuality ect also explicitly covers gender and transgender status c) lowering the legal requirements to legally transition (which are quite onerous even in supposedly progressive western countries) and d) same-sex marriage in countries where that is already not a thing (as generally in countries where same-sex marriage is prohibited, if a person is married when they decide to transition they will be legally prevented from doing so unless they get a divorce).

Generally a), b) and d) are "equal rights" (although TERFs and conservatives will tell you otherwise). c) is arguably a "special privilege", but its like calling a wheelchair elevator a "special privilege" - persons with no need to use wheelchair would generally have no reason to use a wheelchair and a cis person would generally have no reason to legally change their gender.

 

[NinjaCow64]

The trans community is not a monolithic block, there are a lot of people. Some of them are pushing for equal rights, while others are pushing for special privileges.

This is true for every group. I can't imagine that more than a very tiny minority (far less than 1%) of transpersons are pushing for special privileges (unless we have very different definitions of special privileges).

Framing correctly is beneficial, while framing incorrectly (IE representing special privileges as equal rights to demand them, or passing off equality as a demand for privileges) will create resentment.

Generally its TERFs and conservatives often do that to create resentment. A good example of this is when Jordan Peterson and friends blatantly misrepresented Canada's C-16 bill to make hysterical claims like that one would be arrested for accidentally misgendering a stranger. To date, not a single person has been arrested due to the C-16 bill.

There is reasonable basis to disagree on which category a particular thing falls under. For example, earlier in this thread there was discussion about deadnaming and what basis this has for being treated differently from bullying. Both are well-established to be harmful/offensive actions, but it was never clearly demonstrated why deadnaming is materially worse...as opposed to being a subcategory of mean actions/bullying (depending on context). Without that basis, treating one differently from the other appears to be discriminatory against one party or the other.

Intentional* deadnaming is worse than normal bullying because it is, as Cardgame said, a fundamental refutation of a core aspect of one's identity. Its like if one said to a gay or bi person "You aren't actually attracted to persons of your own gender, you're just confused.".

I would consider the statement "harassing someone due to a core aspect of their identity or denying said core aspect of their identity is morally worse than bullying" to be an axiomatic belief that I hold. I suspect that many of the posters and activists who agree with me share said or similar axiomatic belief (although they may not phrase it as such). It is not something that can be proved nor should require proving.

JKR said some ignorant stuff, but doesn't seem to reach the standard of bullying (OP quotes don't demonstrate deadnaming for example), unless I've missed stuff. The principle issue with JKR's logic more obviously unfair: her arguments attribute threat/blame to an enormous population based on a tiny fraction of people, some of which aren't even part of that population (I'd wager money that most criminal men that enter women's restrooms to commit assaults are not claiming anything at all to someone else before entry...). In contrast to the above paragraph, there is obvious basis for demonstrating that JKR's comment is unfair to transpeople in that context; arbitrarily restricted access to basic utilities in public spaces using rationale that, if taken to its logical extreme, would shut down society outright. That's an overwhelming equal rights argument.

I would argue that JKR's rhetoric meets a far worse standard than mere bullying - I believe it reaches the standards of vilification.

Vilification is a public act that could incite hatred, serious contempt or ridicule towards a group of people who have a particular characteristic.

I am unsure if vilification is a legal term outside of Australian law, but from my reading of your paragraph I am sure that you would agree with me that there is a strong argument that JKR's statements meets this definition.

If laws are to be reasonable, this distinction should matter and inform their creation and enforcement.

Distinction between bullying and...? I am unsure what you are saying here.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Intentional* deadnaming is worse than normal bullying because it is, as Cardgame said, a fundamental refutation of a core aspect of one's identity. Its like if one said to a gay or bi person "You aren't actually attracted to persons of your own gender, you're just confused.".

Bullying does this too sometimes, and it's not clear why verbal rejection of "core identity" is materially worse than other forms of bullying in terms of harm. For example, targets of bullying can be attacked physically or have false allegations made about them. A bully is generally disliked by the target, so it's still not clear what special about having a bully reject someone's identity vs outright attacking them in various ways.

It is not something that can be proved nor should require proving.

If you are to legally regulate it differently than bullying, it should require proving. If you are to simply disagree on the extent of harm, there's no need for proof.

I would argue that JKR's rhetoric meets a far worse standard than mere bullying - I believe it reaches the standards of vilification.

I disagree that it meets that standard (you would have to accept such a broad interpretation as to indict most people), and question why any behavior that can be demonstrated to cause direct harm should be treated more lightly.

Distinction between bullying and...? I am unsure what you are saying here.

Bullying vs deadnaming/specific things that upset a group of people. Just to give an example or two, when I was in high school one of the kids was tied up with jump rope to the point where he couldn't move (by walking) or untie himself, then tossed head first into a garbage can + left there for some time. In the adult world, this is obviously assault and battery, but this sort of story wasn't too uncommon in the school. Same for extensive social ostracization over a fake story (one of the girls allegedly had a book of everyone she'd slept with, and the strain this caused on her was high). It didn't matter that the number of people was large enough to strain plausibility, or that prior to that book she didn't have that kind of reputation despite that sleeping with like 1/3 to half of the boys in a class of > 300 would be a hard secret to keep. Well, some of us doubted the story at least, for obvious reasons.

The targets of this stuff suffered a lot. Enough that I cast doubt that deadnaming someone in one on one conversation is necessarily worse.

 

[Yeekim]

deadnaming is more than a bullying name or insult, it is, at a certain point, a fundamental denial of their gender. It is not even comparable to the regular-grade bullying cis people receive.

Erm ... I'm not sure what you think of when you write of "regular-grade bullying", but when I think back to, say, middle and high school, "regular bullying" would certainly include physical violence, extortion, destruction or damage to victim's property and so. Never mind verbal insults or ostracization of the victim, of course.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's impossible to quantify the damage done by deadnaming. On the plus side, it's super easy to identify as a problem.

It's a problem that's easy to identify and correct. People who aren't at risk of being dead named might be jealous that they don't have that problem that they can ask other people to correct, but that's just shallowness

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's impossible to quantify the damage done by deadnaming. On the plus side, it's super easy to identify as a problem.

It's a problem that's easy to identify and correct. People who aren't at risk of being dead named might be jealous that they don't have that problem that they can ask other people to correct, but that's just shallowness

This still doesn't separate it from bullying in general, however.

 

[Seon]

How does it not?

 

[Synobun]

I don't know why you guys keep engaging with someone who thinks it's all a game. You will outright never convince him even if you go down to his level.

 

[El_Machinae]

This still doesn't separate it from bullying in general, however.

Sure. It can be captured within the entire concept of "bullying", so what?

It is an identifiable aspect of society that is harming people that you are not jealous of. That makes it something where you can help stop people from punching down

 

[Cloud_Strife]

This still doesn't separate it from bullying in general, however.

I'm going to ask you politely to leave this thread if you continue to insist that deadnaming isn't any different from bullying.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I have scanned the wikimedia thread

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadnaming

for "bull"

and not found it.

 

[Yeekim]

I'm going to ask you politely to leave this thread if you continue to insist that deadnaming isn't any different from bullying.

You posted this immediately after liking the post where El Mach (imho, correctly) said that deadnaming can be captured within the entire concept of "bullying", so I'm getting a bit confused.

 

[Seon]

El Machinae appear to be saying that while ‘deadnaming’ can fit into a categorization of bullying overall, it is an identifiable act that is in need of our specific attention than simply calling people by the wrong name, which should be corrected, even if by law.

TMIT appears to be arguing that deadnaming should not be a separate subcategory of bullying and should be treated the same as calling people by the wrong name.


Obviously I’m of the opinion that physical abuse is worse than verbal abuse, even deadnaming, but I think insisting that there is no need for subcategorization is ignoring observable pattern of behavior and unhelpful to discussion.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You posted this immediately after liking the post where El Mach (imho, correctly) said that deadnaming can be captured within the entire concept of "bullying", so I'm getting a bit confused.

Except it can also be classified as being similar to bullying whilst having distinct qualities that differentiates it from bullying in other ways it's not any different than using g a slur.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TMIT appears to be arguing that deadnaming should not be a separate subcategory of bullying and should be treated the same as calling people by the wrong name.

To clarify, I would argue it's similar to making up an unflattering nickname for someone and refusing to call them anything else. In both cases, someone is denied the same aspect of the identity (their valid name). The more people that do it (or the closer they are to the person being bullied) the worse it gets.

 

[Seon]

To clarify, I would argue it's similar to making up an unflattering nickname for someone and refusing to call them anything else. In both cases, someone is denied the same aspect of the identity (their valid name). The more people that do it (or the closer they are to the person being bullied) the worse it gets.

QED.

What Cloud Strife and many others object to is the idea that Deadnaming is a similar practice as calling people by unflattering nickname, rather than part of systemic abuse motivated to deny transgender people equal rights in society and law.

An AFAB person have comparatively less problem changing their name to Charlotte. An AMAB woman attempting to change her name to Charlotte would face backlash and ridicule. This constitutes observable gender discrimination, which is worse than simply attempting to ridicule someone.

 

[Yeekim]

To clarify, I would argue it's similar to making up an unflattering nickname for someone and refusing to call them anything else. In both cases, someone is denied the same aspect of the identity (their valid name). The more people that do it (or the closer they are to the person being bullied) the worse it gets.

Hm. I think @Seon has a valid point here.
Intentionally deadnaming a transperson can be interpreted as a refusal to accept identity of all transgendered people, rather than the single individual. Therefore, it has characteristics of a hate crime.
EDIT: I do not think that deadnaming requires involvement of criminal justice system, but I think that the same general principle (why hate crimes are considered "worse" and punished more harshly than "regular" crimes) applies.

 

[El_Machinae]

It's bullying and it's gender-based bullying. This makes it something that HR has an easier time noticing and then telling employees to stop doing.

If I insist on calling my black co-worker "Stumbles" cuz I dislike him and am bullying him, the explicit complaint on my file involving HR is a bit vague. But if I insist on calling him 'boy', then HR has a bit more ammunition about me creating a hostile workforce environment.