[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[gay_Aleks]

To wit: How are rights - a historically flimsy construct, as far as application goes, I think you won't disagree - are materially enforced in actual reality? The facts show that human rights are curtailed constantly, if not unenforced at all in the first place.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The OP was started by a transperson, and there is at least one other transperson, possibly two, participating in this thread. You don't think that they take this stuff personally? Or is that your equivocation talking here?

People can choose to take things personally or not, but if we accept that standard then even starting a thread about say democratic voters would be considered "personal" to a significant percentage of this subforum, and whenever someone here blasts "Trump supporters" that could then also be construed as a personal attack, or criticizing protesters becomes personal etc. Even when said posts clearly do not reference individual posters on CFC.

On the other hand, here are examples of posts that are actually personal and off topic:

The issue here is not so much that he's debating, but rather, that he fails to take in consideration the things that numerous trans people have told him in the past, and still going with the very same arguments that he came in; it would appear, that there has been a failure to understand anything that we have talked about. It shows that he is detached from it all, and for him it is some sort of an abstract topic to chat about, and not the lives of people put at stake.

Disdainful neglect sems more accurate and also seems to be the default mode of engagement. In other words, politeness makes no difference, so why bother?

At best the response I've been given is a consistant lack of interest and a complete lack of willingness to understand or entertain the fact that transpeople are an incredibly vulnerable and marginalized group whose issues require more than just an upholding of everybody's rights to in anyway adequately deal with.

I cannot convince someone who is far removed enough from the topic and issue that they think this is genuinely the way forward. I cannot convince someone who fails to grasp why for minorities NO dicussing of bigotry, legal rights and discrimination can ever be done in the truly detached or impersonal way that a white, cis straight male could do.

And this is from one page. Irony of claiming I'm the one demonstrating disdain aside, it is difficult to keep a respectful posting posture on the thread when it seems like ~half the responses or more don't address what I said, talk about me directly, or claim I made arguments I did not make. As much as others are claiming things about me, there's unfortunately minimal attempt to address arguments I make regarding the topic of transrights/JKR or analogous considerations for policy, and that makes it difficult to address posts/responses here.

All that said, I'm under the impression that if a poster wishes to talk about personal experiences regarding pretty much anything legal/within the rules to discuss, that off-topic allows for other threads to do exactly that.

 

[Yeekim]

@Yeekim May I refer you to a post I posted earlier in this thread?



To elaborate further - the framing of your question is flawed. Its not "What specific rights do or should transpeople have that cis people don't?" its "What measures need to be taken to by society to protect trans rights?". Because transpeople need specific legal mechanisms and protections to ensure that their rights are upheld, just like how people who can't use stairs need ramps in order to access public buildings.

I'm not super well versed in the UDHR but I think that what most people are talking about in the thread falls under "right to dignity".

Sure, it is a good post. In fact I had already liked it
We also agree that this framing is better - I had actually intended to get there.
And discussing specific measures would likely be more fruitful than this highly abstracted back to forth we've seen so far.

 

[NinjaCow64]

People can choose to take things personally or not,

That's absolute nonsense. The idea that someone can "choose" an emotional reaction to something is completely divorced from reality.

but if we accept that standard then even starting a thread about say democratic voters would be considered "personal" to a significant percentage of this subforum, and whenever someone here blasts "Trump supporters" that could then also be construed as a personal attack, or criticizing protesters becomes personal etc. Even when said posts clearly do not reference individual posters on CFC.

You're making a false equivocation between "personal attack" and "something taken personally". Something can be deeply offensive without being a personal attack. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding what a personal attack is, what JKR has been doing isn't a personal attack but regardless what she has said is extremely offensive, probably more so than most personal attacks.

On the other hand, here are examples of posts that are actually personal and off topic:

If you do genuinely believe that someone is capable of choosing to not have an emotional reaction to something, why are you choosing to take these statements personally? This is not a personal attack by the way, it is a rhetorical question intended to demonstrate the absurdity of your argument.

And this is from one page. Irony of claiming I'm the one demonstrating disdain aside, it is difficult to keep a respectful posting posture on the thread when it seems like ~half the responses or more don't address what I said, talk about me directly, or claim I made arguments I did not make. As much as others are claiming things about me, there's unfortunately minimal attempt to address arguments I make regarding the topic of transrights/JKR or analogous considerations for policy, and that makes it difficult to address posts/responses here.

And I am finding it extremely difficult to maintain a respectful posting posture when you refuse to directly engage in my counter arguments! You have done this at least twice now. I make an argument quoting your post that directly contradicts your argument and then you refuse to acknowledge it and then just go engage with someone else! How can you honestly expect for people to extend you the same courtesy that you are not extending to me (and potentially others)?

 

[gay_Aleks]

So, either three trans people have banded together to impinge the reputation of poor TMIT, as woke mobs are oh-so typical on the Left, or maybe there's something to the whole thing that we've been trying to get through your head.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Sure, it is a good post. In fact I had already liked it
We also agree that this framing is better - I had actually intended to get there.
And discussing specific measures would likely be more fruitful than this highly abstracted back to forth we've seen so far.

Well has I have already gone over there are some pretty simple and specific measures relating to reducing the difficulty of legal transition that could be implemented. Ones that should be extremely uncontroversial among those accept LGBT people. Of course this the situation is different on the ground of each country, this is just a broad overview.

Generally governments should remove onerous requirements for transpeople to transition legally. Example of onerous requirements vary from country to country and include (but are not limited to):

1) Proving that one is "actually trans" to multiple psychologists and other medical professionals (from my understanding this is annoyingly time consuming and expensive).
2) Having to live as one's preferred gender for multiple years (when one would have the embarrassment and danger of presenting as a different gender to one's ID).
3) Being forced to undertake surgical procedures.

There were proposals in the UK to remove steps 1) and 2) and replace the process with a much more reasonable process. From my understanding, the new process would have just involved proving that one understands the full implications of transitioning and intend to live as their preferred gender for the rest of their life in front of a panel of medical and legal experts appointed by a judge. This process, to me, seems infinitely more reasonable than the current process (sidenote I cis, not British and not extremely familiar with the new proposal so I may be wrong on that point). However, thanks to JKR her allies spreading their bigoted garbage, they caused a backlash against this movement and apparently the UK government are now planning to drop these reforms. Utterly vile.

Other specific measures include opposing laws designed to humiliate transpeople and put them in danger (e.g the bathroom laws). Another simple measure would be to implement same sex marriage. While this is a good thing in general, most countries that don't have same sex marriage do not allow married transgender people to legally transition without divorcing their spouse, even in cases where the couple wish to remain married.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's absolute nonsense. The idea that someone can "choose" an emotional reaction to something is completely divorced from reality.

No. Both emotions and responses based on them are within people's control. With emotion it is not easy admittedly.

You're making a false equivocation between "personal attack" and "something taken personally". Something can be deeply offensive without being a personal attack. Unless I'm severely misunderstanding what a personal attack is, what JKR has been doing isn't a personal attack but regardless what she has said is extremely offensive, probably more so than most personal attacks.

I was pointing out the false equivocation. Something deeply offensive, such as JKR's comments, doesn't mean it's personal. Nor does it mean it necessarily must be or should be taken personally. It's true that JKR does not appear to be making personal attacks and there is no way anything she's said is directed specifically at posters on this forum.

If you do genuinely believe that someone is capable of choosing to not have an emotional reaction to something, why are you choosing to take these statements personally?

For starters, because they actually are personal attacks (they are discussing a specific person) taking them personally would be reasonable. I'm not too emotionally shifted by childish drivel though. The main problem for me is the frustration this creates when attempting to actually discuss anything. I'm also pointing out that they are a few examples among an enormous quantity in this thread of unambiguous violations of RD rules outright, which again erodes the topical purpose of this thread.

And I am finding it extremely difficult to maintain a respectful posting posture when you refuse to directly engage in my counter arguments! You have done this at least twice now. I make an argument quoting your post that directly contradicts your argument and then you refuse to acknowledge it and then just go engage with someone else! How can you honestly expect for people to extend you the same courtesy that you are not extending to me (and potentially others)?

I've had some lag times between posts here and the thread has advanced multiple pages between my visits. Could you cite specifically which ones I'm ignoring so I can properly address them? I'd like to honor the request to stay on topic, but if I can answer while doing so I will.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Oh wow apparently JKR retweeted a tweet about bills opposing LGBT "Conversion Therapy" in Canada. Her male pen name is Robert Gilbraith. I think it is a little too convenient that that name is shared with Robert Gilbraith Heath, a repulsive human being who pioneered electro-shock "therapy" for gay men and forced a gay patient to have sex with a female prostitute as part of his "treatment".

Let this be an eye-opener for any LGB people who think that throwing transpeople under the bus to transphobes is a good idea - not only is it repulsive to throw your allies unde the bus, but cishet transphobes hate you too and will attack you as soon as it is politically convenient.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is the bill in question https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

I'm confused by JKR's logical proposition here. That said, there are some real issues with children making this choice at a young age and I'm not sure how to resolve it. https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

Conversion therapy doesn't have any credible basis that I see, at the same time it's not clear that kids won't regret their choice in this regard no matter which choice is made. And it's a permanently life-altering choice either way too.

 

[El_Machinae]

There's a deeper question about rights vs privileges, and I've touched on it previously. It's hard to explain quickly to people. The analogy about ramps is a good one. We need ramps built, but you'd build a ramp and allow anyone to use it. This is then a 'right' that catches the people for whom stairs weren't sufficient. And because it's impossible to actually perfectly create sufficient ramps, you have specific regulation that gives preferential access to people who cannot use stairs. We're all familiar with the "rights are equal, rights aren't pie where giving someone rights takes rights away from someone else" meme. It's a stupid meme, because it's not true. But people understand the gist.

Making the ramp makes the pie bigger, giving preferential access to the ramp divides the pie such that some people lose from the whole. The win/win arrangement is to make the pie bigger in such a way that even after 'unfair' division, everyone has more pie. This is often impossible, but it's the goal that should be shot for whenever possible, because it creates the greatest likelihood of long-term sustainability of the Common Law.

 

[NinjaCow64]

No. Both emotions and responses based on them are within people's control. With emotion it is not easy admittedly.

I am not going to get too into the weeds with this as I will inevitably go extremely off-topic, but I think the claim that someone can choose to find something that is offensive not offensive is utterly laughable. While one may be able to influence their emotions, no one is fine tuned to the point where someone can look at something that is designed to offend them and not take offense. And being offended == taking something personally.

I was pointing out the false equivocation. Something deeply offensive, such as JKR's comments, doesn't mean it's personal. Nor does it mean it necessarily must be or should be taken personally.

JRK's comments are virulently transphobic and designed to humiliate and degrade transpeople. Of course transpeople and people who care about trans rights are going to be offended.

It's true that JKR does not appear to be making personal attacks and there is no way anything she's said is directed specifically at posters on this forum.

Yes, but what she posted is still deeply offensive and the people taking offense in this forum are completely justified in taking offense.

For starters, because they actually are personal attacks (they are discussing a specific person) taking them personally would be reasonable. I'm not too emotionally shifted by childish drivel though. The main problem for me is the frustration this creates when attempting to actually discuss anything. I'm also pointing out that they are a few examples among an enormous quantity in this thread of unambiguous violations of RD rules outright, which again erodes the topical purpose of this thread.

I cannot directly respond to this statement without violating the rules of CFC.

I've had some lag times between posts here and the thread has advanced multiple pages between my visits. Could you cite specifically which ones I'm ignoring so I can properly address them? I'd like to honor the request to stay on topic, but if I can answer while doing so I will.

Here and here and here. I will point out that for the latter two you did say that you thought that aspects were beyond the scope of this thread, but you did not respond to arguments that were clearly in the scope of the thread.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

This is the bill in question https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

I'm confused by JKR's logical proposition here. That said, there are some real issues with children making this choice at a young age and I'm not sure how to resolve it. https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

Conversion therapy doesn't have any credible basis that I see, at the same time it's not clear that kids won't regret their choice in this regard no matter which choice is made. And it's a permanently life-altering choice either way too.

Yikes.

So what is the alternative then? Deny trans kids hormone blockers and force them to undergo a humiliating, degrading and harmful puberty whilst taking away the option to wait until they're older to transition?

No one is suggesting giving kids hormones, usually it's after 18+ that they begin taking them and it's still reversible before a certain point but what isn't reversible is puberty, but people like JK fight to stop even puberty blockers

 

[NinjaCow64]

This is the bill in question https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/43-1/bill/C-8/first-reading

I'm confused by JKR's logical proposition here. That said, there are some real issues with children making this choice at a young age and I'm not sure how to resolve it. https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

Conversion therapy doesn't have any credible basis that I see, at the same time it's not clear that kids won't regret their choice in this regard no matter which choice is made. And it's a permanently life-altering choice either way too.

That's because she isn't making a logical proposition, she's throwing bigoted claptrap.

Overwhelming (>99%) number of activists aren't advocating for children to undergo irreversible medical procedures. From my understanding all medical options legally available to trans children (e.g puberty blockers) are reversible. Most of the discourse around trans kids is completely unfounded hysteria. And as Cloud pointed out, puberty is irreversible.

There's a deeper question about rights vs privileges, and I've touched on it previously. It's hard to explain quickly to people. The analogy about ramps is a good one. We need ramps built, but you'd build a ramp and allow anyone to use it. This is then a 'right' that catches the people for whom stairs weren't sufficient. And because it's impossible to actually perfectly create sufficient ramps, you have specific regulation that gives preferential access to people who cannot use stairs. We're all familiar with the "rights are equal, rights aren't pie where giving someone rights takes rights away from someone else" meme. It's a stupid meme, because it's not true. But people understand the gist.

Making the ramp makes the pie bigger, giving preferential access to the ramp divides the pie such that some people lose from the whole. The win/win arrangement is to make the pie bigger in such a way that even after 'unfair' division, everyone has more pie. This is often impossible, but it's the goal that should be shot for whenever possible, because it creates the greatest likelihood of long-term sustainability of the Common Law.

I mean theoretically cishet people would be able to take advantage of all the measures I have proposed. Definitionally thought, cis people wouldn't want to legally change their gender.

And as a wise man once said, freedom is merely privilege extended unless enjoyed by one and all.

 

[Crezth]

That said, there are some real issues with children making this choice at a young age and I'm not sure how to resolve it. https://www.psypost.org/2017/12/many-transgender-kids-grow-stay-trans-50499

What issues?

And it's a permanently life-altering choice either way too.

No, not really. Especially during youth you can apply hormone blockers and supplemental hormones at will. They are reversible.

Here's a parenting resource page video about it.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

What issues?

It makes cis people uncomfortable

 

[Crezth]

Have they tried not being uncomfortable about it? That seems like the most logical response.

 

[gay_Aleks]

They're too emotional about it, unfortunately. I think that, if one looks at the objective truth, there is nothing to be afraid of.

 

[El_Machinae]

I mean theoretically cishet people would be able to take advantage of all the measures I have proposed. Definitionally thought, cis people wouldn't want to legally change their gender.

Hmmm, that's still a privilege and not a right. Not that I object in principle to the underlying goal, just to the framing.

I don't know if you're too young, but during the gay marriage debate pushback was "we already have the same freedoms! I am allowed to marry people of the opposite gender and so are gay people!". It was BS, and we have to look at the legal solutions that worked. Every region that said "gay people are allowed to marry people of their gender" created unsustainable Common Law privileges. Most sensible regions just created a more sweeping right "you're allowed to marry anyone, regardless of gender". Not a privilege, but a right.

The way to get properly funded treatments that created rights, but not privileges, is to create universal healthcare akin to the UK's framing. In healthcare, we use something called DALYs, which essentially measure the efficacy of a treatment based on how much it improves the quality of life of the recipient. It's not just adding pure lifespan, because everyone know that extended years of suffering aren't the same as extended years of health. The UK buys DALYs for its people based on an efficiency ratio, which (having in worked in the field) I rather like on a theoretical level but with the caveat that it was the first economic theory on delivering sustainable healthcare I was truly immersed in, so I'm hella biased.

So, if you frame it as a right to healthcare based on need, then it universally works A cishet person never will need that specific therapy (unless it's to access some insane privilege in a progressive location that doesn't write sustainable laws wisely), but it doesn't matter, because the creation of that net catches them in whatever way back luck gets them.

The science of medical intervention to assist transpeople is still in its total infancy. We have a variety of opinions on what may help and what people feel helps, but we have no long-term data. Assigning the DALY model means that we get ratcheting improvements overtime. Any intervention we fund runs the risk of being suboptimal, so if we fund specific interventions instead of the model we create a bad system where bad treatments get locked in. The American health R&D system is pretty terrible, and full of perverse incentives, and you don't want to stack more bad policy onto old bad policy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So what is the alternative then? Deny trans kids hormone blockers and force them to undergo a humiliating, degrading and harmful puberty whilst taking away the option to wait until they're older to transition?

No one is suggesting giving kids hormones, usually it's after 18+ that they begin taking them and it's still reversible before a certain point but what isn't reversible is puberty, but people like JK fight to stop even puberty blockers

Overwhelming (>99%) number of activists aren't advocating for children to undergo irreversible medical procedures. From my understanding all medical options legally available to trans children (e.g puberty blockers) are reversible.

What issues?

It seems to depend how long it's taken and when it's started: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases...horia/in-depth/pubertal-blockers/art-20459075

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2444866417301101

This is not an easy choice, and it is a significant break from pretty much every other legal pattern to have children under the age of 12 making serious medical decisions...to take something that is still being considered "off label" by FDA and seems far from consensus among physicians regarding long-term medical effects on the patients who take them. Though children's wishes should still matter, and as it's been pointed out puberty itself also has consequences. To treat this as an issue with a clear/obvious answer seems reckless.

Discussing ramifications is important, hopefully without that being done or construed as "conversion therapy".

It makes cis people uncomfortable

Have they tried not being uncomfortable about it? That seems like the most logical response.

They're too emotional about it, unfortunately. I think that, if one looks at the objective truth, there is nothing to be afraid of.

Straw, and yet more examples of why it's difficult to have actual discussions.

And being offended == taking something personally.

Actually no. I find animal abuse to be very offensive for example, but I don't have any pets and there's no clear logic whereby one would conclude animal abuse offending me is doing so because it's "personal". Similar deal for other offensive language - it doesn't need to be taken personally to be offensive.

I believe you're also misrepresenting the extent to which humans can control their behaviors and to a lesser extent their emotions. This is a skill our society would benefit great from rediscovering in larger numbers.

Yes, but what she posted is still deeply offensive and the people taking offense in this forum are completely justified in taking offense.

I'm not disputing that though. Her logical inconsistency and willingness to lash out in spite of it bother me too. It does also bother me when arguments which decry her reasoning turn around and use similar reasoning (or lack thereof) though.

Here and here and here. I will point out that for the latter two you did say that you thought that aspects were beyond the scope of this thread, but you did not respond to arguments that were clearly in the scope of the thread.

Ah okay. I chose not to cover a lot of that because in order to build my argument properly I'd have had to go back to things we were already asked to stop doing. I mulled over starting a new thread as I mentioned earlier, and once it is possible to have a RD thread that adheres to RD rules I might do so.

Though to clarify a few things based on those links:

• Conversion therapy is bad (causes harm without any apparent/demonstrable benefit), so I'm not inclined to argue it further because it doesn't seem anyone here disagrees with that.
• In the US it can take months to get any non-emergency procedure. Even routine and safe procedures like gallbladder removal, which has unqualified medical acceptance and is roughly as safe as you can get in terms of surgery, can still take longer than a month and multiple physicians to get done. So transition surgery does not appear to be special/singled out in that regard.
• Blocking transitioning before divorce is just as arbitrary as the grouping I complained about earlier, unless the marriage/divorce laws are similarly draconian (I don't know which countries you are referencing, but in some the problem would not be that they're arbitrary, but rather that they're consistently oppressive).
• I thought legal definitions were sex rather than gender? If countries care about gender at all...the better question is why they care.
• Police/laws ignoring constitutional rights should be punished consistently and transpeople are no exception.
• Applying laws consistently to everyone should be the main goal, and the fact that they aren't being fairly applied to transpeople is one of the principle issues in this thread. You fix that by enforcing the law, or if it isn't applying rights to everyone to fix the law because it's broken. This usually is not improved by throwing extra kludge rules on top of an already kludged system.

 

[Seon]

I think you might find that animal abuse and people who enable and apologize for animal abusers might be a more personal issue if you were an animal.