[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[AmazonQueen]

I think that if the so-called (just nominal in most respects) "majority" actually had a better/easier life, all sorts of minority issues would have been solved long ago. Which is why it is entirely counterproductive to shame the "majority" as a strategy.
If people have to worry about their own self due to lack of money/other/tragedy, they are far less likely to worry about the next person.

I firmly believe that most people would be more helpful, if they had less problems themselves. Of course there are always the psycho/sociopaths, but they are a small minority.

It's also another reason why it is a bad idea to pay attention to what celebrities think about stuff. They aren't representative of society. Very very few people will ever get to that level of financial security, for starters.

Strange then that minority issues weren't solved during the boom years or that so many of the comfortably off are racist, homophobic etc.
In my experience most working class people have far more contact with racial and religious minorities and tend to get on fine with the ones they actually know. Its noticeable that white working class racism in the UK is less common in the big cities where most of the racial minorities actually live.

 

[EnglishEdward]

I mean I don't think one can really say that they're neutral on the topic

That is the answer I expected from several posters here, but I did not wish to assume that answer.

If you're so interested in being neutral then why are you participating in this thread?

To learn things.

If you choose to insert yourself into this debate then people will examine your political positions critically.
If one doesn't like having their political positions criticised then they should not involve themselves in the debate.

Understood.

If having one's political positions criticised is enough to make one go bat for the opposition,
then they would probably end up going there anyway.

No, that, criticism of my political positions, is not why I said I would stand with Rowling.

Not really sure how anyone can be neutral on the issue of minority rights, imagine someone saying they're neutral on whether black people are equal to whites or deserving of equal rights, it'd be a red flag to me

The way I see it there are simply human rights. Minorities should have rights, in the
same way majorities should have rights; they are part of the subset of human rights.

 

[NinjaCow64]

More like care factor=0.

Bigger things in recent years to worry about/deal with. Sample of which includes mother's cancer, her death from cancer, losing job, getting a job, being sick for months, lockdown, family problems.

Trans rights are somewhere down there with the war in Yemen, poverty in Africa.

Voting for Labour/Greens they can sort it out.

First off - I am sincerely sorry for what happened to you and your mother. That's really awful and nobody should have to suffer though that.

I don't understand why people who claim to not care about an issue are posting in this thread. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. There are a lot of issues that get discussed on OT I don't give a crap about, but I don't spend time posting threads discussing them.

Sort the economic stuff out the social stuff falls into place.

I disagree with this. I don't think things naturally sort themselves out, things only happen because people push for them.

That is the answer I expected from several posters here, but I did not wish to assume that answer.

I mean I don't think one can really say that they're neutral on the topic if they actively and enthusiastically participate in a thread about the topic.

Please do not selectively edit my quotes to make it look like I said something I didn't say!

To learn things.

Cool. Have you learnt things?

No, that, criticism of my political positions, is not why I said I would stand with Rowling.

Okay I reread your post again.

Well if I am really not allowed to remain vaguely neutral on this topic,
then I must stand with J K Rowling, I enjoyed the Harry Potter films.

Which way do you think the other would be neutrals will jump?

Are you really saying that "I will remain neutral on the topic unless you ask me to support you, then I will actively oppose you."? Is that really what you are saying here?

The way I see it there are simply human rights. Minorities should have rights, in the
same way majorities should have rights; they are part of the subset of human rights.

Yes. This is true. There is a reason why "Trans rights are human rights" has become a well known phrase. Because it is true.

If you think this then why do you want to stand with Rowling who clearly wants to strip away human rights from trans people?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

More like care factor=0.

Bigger things in recent years to worry about/deal with. Sample of which includes mother's cancer, her death from cancer, losing job, getting a job, being sick for months, lockdown, family problems.

Trans rights are somewhere down there with the war in Yemen, poverty in Africa.

Voting for Labour/Greens they can sort it out.

What would your response be to someone saying, in light of what you've told us, that they don't care? Would you interpret that as a neutral act or phrase?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Not caring about strangers is a typical stance, not an affront to rights.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Not caring about strangers is a typical stance, not an affront to rights.

"I don't care about whether [insert minority here] has rights" isnt a neutral position.

 

[cardgame]

Not caring about strangers is a typical stance, not an affront to rights.

Only so much as you don't care about them as individuals. As human beings, with human rights? You should care.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Genuinely disturbed that someone can say that not caring about minorities rights isn't somehow an indication of troubling beliefs or even an act of neutrality. What makes bigots so intolerable and bad for society is their active uncaring attitude towards minorities and whilst a passive uncaring attitude isn't in the same magnitude, it's still a form of discrimination in and of itself.

If someone was to tell you that they don't care about rights for black people or Jewish people, what exactly are you supposed to take from that other than a disregard for those two groups? Someone who cares for those groups, as well as for their rights wouldn't say something like that.

Not caring about minority rights is literally what had led to their historical systematic oppression and in some cases; their outright killing and removal.

This is how it begins, continues and ultimately, ends. So yes, not caring about minority rights is infact an affront, one that you, @TheMeInTeam seem to be quite blase about, which worries me because it makes me wonder what else you'd tolerate.

 

[Crezth]

Not caring about strangers is a typical stance, not an affront to rights.

A complete lack of empathy?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"I don't care about whether [insert minority here] has rights" isnt a neutral position.

"I care about rights in general and don't concern myself with arbitrary subgroups", however, is a neutral position.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

"I care about rights in general and don't concern myself with arbitrary subgroups", however, is a neutral position.

Uh, no? Are you for real?

 

[JohannaK]

Remember the old saying.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

I see here some people whom I can't tell whether they are good or not but whom are obviously invested in doing nothing.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If a right is worth protecting, it's worth protecting for everyone. That includes transpeople, but is obviously not limited to transpeople.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If a right is worth protecting, it's worth protecting for everyone. That includes transpeople, but is obviously not limited to transpeople.

But not transrights or rights that specifically apply to minorities?

 

[Crezth]

Uh, no? Are you for real?

Yeah he is, remember he said the Jews were an arbitrary target of the Holocaust.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

But not transrights or rights that specifically apply to minorities?

If a right is worth protecting, it is worth protecting for everyone. What isn't clear about that statement?

Yeah he is, remember he said the Jews were an arbitrary target of the Holocaust.

I would appreciate if you wouldn't lie about the context of my usage of a tangential hypothetical earlier in the thread.

 

[Gorbles]

If a right is worth protecting, it is worth protecting for everyone. What isn't clear about that statement?

Because it arose out of your claim that not concerning yourself with "arbitrary" subgroups is a neutral position so long as you care for rights for all. The entire point of inequality is that we need to care for the groups that are discriminated against because they suffer in ways other groups necessarily don't. Which means if you do not concern yourself with these subgroups, you are not in fact being neutral at all.

It doesn't even make logical sense, because you cannot provide equal treatment in the eyes of the law without examining where that law is failing marginalised and disadvantaged people.

 

[cardgame]

If a right is worth protecting, it is worth protecting for everyone. What isn't clear about that statement?

What's clear to me is that you mean to say you don't care about minorities.

You probably don't think of yourself as racist, but think about why, in our perception, you have an objection to fixing racism

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If a right is worth protecting, it is worth protecting for everyone. What isn't clear about that statement?

So no to minority rights then.

So functionally, what is the difference between your stance and that of a bigot who believes minorities get too many rights? What is the material difference? And why should we continue to give you the benefit of the doubt, even as people more diplomatic and smarter than me have tried to explain to you why your stance borders on bigotry? If not in intention than in function?

What's clear to me is that you mean to say you don't care about minorities.

You probably don't think of yourself as racist, but think about why you have an objection to fixing racism

Hey, he can't help it if his views coincidently functionally allow for the continuation of bigotry and systemic opression by ignoring the fact that each group often faces issues unique to them.

I'm sure it's totally logical to treat the LGBTQ community exactly like the cis, straight community, after all a gay man can marry a woman, right?

I jest, but that's the sort of nonsense that was used to justify denying equal same sex marriage for decades...

Yeah he is, remember he said the Jews were an arbitrary target of the Holocaust.

Wow.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Because it arose out of your claim that not concerning yourself with "arbitrary" subgroups is a neutral position so long as you care for rights for all. The entire point of inequality is that we need to care for the groups that are discriminated against because they suffer in ways other groups necessarily don't. Which means if you do not concern yourself with these subgroups, you are not in fact being neutral at all.

Discrimination against people on factors they can't control is a violation of their rights, and when that law is broken it's worth enforcing it. I don't see how transpeople should be an exception to this.

Not concerned in the slightest for arbitrarily chosen subgroups, no. When an individual faces injustice, I'm in favor of the law taking care of that. And reforming it when it is failing to do so. Since transpeople are people, it follows they are included in this argument.

It doesn't even make logical sense, because you cannot provide equal treatment in the eyes of the law without examining where that law is failing marginalised and disadvantaged people.

If it is legitimately demonstrated the law is failing to protect rights equally that should be punished for the violation of law that it is, each time someone can be demonstrated to violating it this way.

What's clear to me is that you mean to say you don't care about minorities.

Minorities are people though. At least from my perspective. Reading my argument and responding with such a post as you just made appears to imply you feel otherwise, which is a strange way to make an argument.