[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[Zardnaar]

It absolutely is the message. That's why this thread exists.

Wasn't referring to thread.

Left is failing in a lot of the world. Right seems to be intent on snatching defeat from victory.

 

[Gorbles]

Observation. The left seems to like losing a lot of elections.

It's not so much the message but the messaging.

Observation. You say this in every thread, and in most threads it has very little to do with anything.

 

[Crezth]

I'm referring to the thread. This thread exists as a testament to the problem people have not with the respectability of trans rights but with the very concept of trans rights itself. The contention is basic: do trans people have a right to identify as their chosen gender? I contend that even if trans people and those who advocate their rights were perfectly polite and respectable according to your standards, they would still receive exactly as much pushback from people who are skeptical about their rights.

In general respectability politics never works. You cannot "respectable" your way to humanity.

 

[Zardnaar]

Observation. You say this in every thread, and in most threads it has very little to do with anything.

It's because more than a few people here don't get democracy.

Eventually the other side will win. Assuming your nation has somewhat free and fair elections.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm referring to the thread. This thread exists as a testament to the problem people have not with the respectability of trans rights but with the very concept of trans rights itself. The contention is basic: do trans people have a right to identify as their chosen gender? I contend that even if trans people and those who advocate their rights were perfectly polite and respectable according to your standards, they would still receive exactly as much pushback from people who are skeptical about their rights.

In general respectability politics never works. You cannot "respectable" your way to humanity.

You can identify however you like. Your doctor though will sort it out because at the end if the day some medications for example your biological gender is going to matter.

Can't change DNA either.

Doesn't mean you go around beating on trans people or otherwise making trouble for them.

I'll refer to anyone however they want except when it comes to titles and the like.

When your reality colludes with science it's kinda funny.

Am I wrong with the medicine thing?

 

[Crezth]

You can identify however you like. Your doctor though will sort it out because at the end if the day some medications for example your biological gender is going to matter.

Can't change DNA either.

Doesn't mean you go around beating on trans people or otherwise making trouble for them.

I'll refer to anyone however they want except when it comes to titles and the like.

When your reality colludes with science it's kinda funny.

Am I wrong with the medicine thing?

Yes, you are actually absolutely, completely wrong. No doctors are fussing about DNA. Likewise, doctors consider it more rigorous not to administer medical decisions based on gender but on the specific circumstances of the individual in question. Particular details are a matter of biochemistry, not gender. A transgender patient who takes hormones is going to have a biochemistry that certainly can't be slotted all one way. Good doctors are fully aware of this. So, in fact, this matter of a "medical classification" misunderstands how medicine actually treats this issue.

Go and ask any doctors you know. Do you administer medical advice on the basis of gender? You'll find they answer "it depends."

That having been said it's entirely fair to point out transwomen are trans. But doctors don't treat those patients like they're men, like you seem to think they do.

 

[Gorbles]

It's because more than a few people here don't get democracy.

Eventually the other side will win. Assuming your nation has somewhat free and fair elections.

And yet, this still has nothing to do with JKR associating with transphobes, repeatedly coming out with transphobic talking points, and then being upset when she's inevitably called a transphobe (and harmful to trans people).

 

[Zardnaar]

And yet, this still has nothing to do with JKR associating with transphobes, repeatedly coming out with transphobic talking points, and then being upset when she's inevitably called a transphobe (and harmful to trans people).

I suppose if you're an old school feminist they see men becoming women as a problem.

I'm not even a fan of her books.

Twitter etc hasn't been good for well much of anything.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm referring to the thread. This thread exists as a testament to the problem people have not with the respectability of trans rights but with the very concept of trans rights itself. The contention is basic: do trans people have a right to identify as their chosen gender?

The contention goes beyond that. An key facet of the discussion is to what extent trans people should or shouldn't be treated differently than non-trans people from a policy perspective.

In this context the bathroom example becomes more interesting. Absent social constructs about it and feelings of comfort, it doesn't matter. You go into one or the other and there's a toilet + sink in there. One person claims they're more or less comfortable with X type of people in there, the other person claims they're more or less comfortable with Y type of people in there. What is our basis for adhering to EITHER of their preferences in that context? I'd argue that in a public space there's no clear reason to bias toward either person's preference.

That same rationale extends to other situations too. People don't like each other for a wide variety of reasons, and in many cases they're not fair. But what, if anything, should be done about that from a policy perspective? We already have laws against physical harm, and those are broadly considered good laws (even if their consistency of enforcement leaves something to be desired).

Yes, you are actually absolutely, completely wrong. No doctors are fussing about DNA.

Actually they do, though the context has nothing to do with this thread. Genetic disposition to a wide variety of diseases is useful information and genetics is an area where medicine continues to improve. Not really relevant here but I felt like clarifying this.

Hormones that influence biochemistry do force consideration of how that interacts with genetics as you say though.

Doctors do consider background information of course, but ultimately evaluations must be catered to the individual. It's a specialist job for a reason. Not just men vs trans vs women etc, you can't even treat two cis men or women the same way safely. Needs more nuance than that.

And yet, this still has nothing to do with JKR associating with transphobes, repeatedly coming out with transphobic talking points, and then being upset when she's inevitably called a transphobe (and harmful to trans people).

There does need to be some distinction between someone being a jerk and harm. Especially when the jerk comments are broad/non-specific.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I suppose if you're an old school feminist they see men becoming women as a problem.

You're letting the mask slip, you're on really thin ice.

 

[Arwon]

There does need to be some distinction between someone being a jerk and harm. Especially when the jerk comments are broad/non-specific.

A big part of this distinction is deliberate and obtuse repetition and refusal to listen or learn, as we can see happening across this and other threads.

 

[Gorbles]

@TheMeInTeam

I agree. I consider JKR's invoking of autistic people as an argument against trans validity to settle this quite nicely (nevermind literally anything else she has said, or done prior to her blog post). It's caused quite a lot of outcry amongst both autistic people and trans people, for the harm done to both (especially considering JKR is both cis and not on the spectrum).

I suppose if you're an old school feminist they see men becoming women as a problem.

I'm not even a fan of her books.

Twitter etc hasn't been good for well much of anything.

There are plenty of old-school feminists that don't happen to be transphobic.

Trans women are women. It's not "men becoming women", just for the general record. That's an offensive reduction of trans peoples' lives. You don't have to mean offense, I'm just telling you so you're aware and can hopefully use more inclusive language in the future.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A big part of this distinction is deliberate and obtuse repetition and refusal to listen or learn, as we can see happening across this and other threads.

Again, that's nothing new even outside the context of trans discussion. It's standard human jerk behavior against preferences. Lots of similarities to being a "nerd" in the 90's for example. Social shunning/ostracization, bad feelings, and in more extreme cases someone being physically attacked with varying degrees of severity. There has to be a line somewhere in there between "person is a jerk" and "harm being done".

 

[Zardnaar]

You're letting the mask slip, you're on really thin ice.

I'm not any sort of feminist.

If you're a hardcore nutter the world very quickly becomes us vs them.

@TheMeInTeam

I agree. I consider JKR's invoking of autistic people as an argument against trans validity to settle this quite nicely (nevermind literally anything else she has said, or done prior to her blog post). It's caused quite a lot of outcry amongst both autistic people and trans people, for the harm done to both (especially considering JKR is both cis and not on the spectrum).


There are plenty of old-school feminists that don't happen to be transphobic.

Trans women are women. It's not "men becoming women", just for the general record. That's an offensive reduction of trans peoples' lives. You don't have to mean offense, I'm just telling you so you're aware and can hopefully use more inclusive language in the future.

I'm very very blunt IRL. I inherited it from my uncle.

 

[Gorbles]

Again, that's nothing new even outside the context of trans discussion. It's standard human jerk behavior against preferences. Lots of similarities to being a "nerd" in the 90's for example. Social shunning/ostracization, bad feelings, and in more extreme cases someone being physically attacked with varying degrees of severity. There has to be a line somewhere in there between "person is a jerk" and "harm being done".

Why does there have to be a line? Being a jerk will, in various cases, hurt people.

Besides, the context for this discussion is harm done to trans people. Zardnaar's comments about elections (which is what my comment to Zardnaar was pushing back again) had basically nothing to do with it.

I'm very very blunt IRL. I inherited it from my uncle.

I eagerly await all the people with their theories on chromosomes and DNA in this thread to jump on how inheritance doesn't work like that

You can be "blunt" all you want. I'm telling you you were being inaccurate and also offensive. Being blunt isn't an excuse for being inaccurate.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Anyone crossing the line gets my usual suggested punishment.

That punishment being throw all the nutters into a stadium once a year. Add weapons and let them sort it out. Use machine guns and napalm on any survivors.

I bet within 5 years sanity prevails and people start treating each other better.

Government enforced be nice to each bother. Or else.

is it just me or does anyone else find it absolutely delicious when people openly reveal their power fantasies?

No, you're misreading me. And I cannot figure out why. Even my analogy very clearly distinguishes between those who present the (perceived) threat and those who are injured by the protections from that threat.

The issue is one of conflation. People are phobic of transpeople, and part of that is because they're cautious about something else that they associate with transgenderism. You cannot encourage their enlightenment until you're able to tease apart the concerns.

We used to live in a world where people had too much discretion with regards to who they could expel from certain locations. That's a Type 1 problem. The Type 2 is people not being able to nip a potential problem early enough to prevent a victim.

It's the masks-in-a-bank problem. There will be a ratio of people who bare the injuries either way.

I can't really fault Syns for misunderstanding you, it took you like 4 paragraphs to say "We need to make people aware trans people aren't inherently predatory before we can move on". at least I hope that my reading of your post was correct.

I used it as an example where the trans community is alienating people for no good reason.

All I know with pregnant women and women with infants is give them what they want it will make your life easier.

So when a transperson writes an opinion piece on some ****** irrelevant baby party that is somehow alienating and "a climate of fear", but when actual transpeople are dragged out of bathrooms violently you shrug and say "well I dun care which bathroom you use!"

color me ****** surprised.

People don't like being lectured, preached to, spoken down to or insulted.

okay, then how about you stop explaining trans issues to trans people for a while, bucko? the mother ****** irony..

 

[Cloud_Strife]

okay, then how about you stop explaining trans issues to trans people for a while, bucko? the mother ****** irony..

It's basically this picture, except replace the word "white" with cis:

 

[Synobun]

I can't really fault Syns for misunderstanding you, it took you like 4 paragraphs to say "We need to make people aware trans people aren't inherently predatory before we can move on". at least I hope that my reading of your post was correct.

TBH I don't see how the correction should change what I said. Treating the viewpoint of a transphobe as a legitimate debate is ridiculous and a colossal waste of time. "I'm just concerned" isn't a valid reason for dehumanization, and their inclination towards such behaviour doesn't invoke a societal requirement to cater to their bottom-barrel opinions. The more you try and convince these people you're a real human being who isn't deranged, the more they'll move the goalposts.

See: Zardnaar claiming the actions of a few trans people somehow convince centrists to throw their lot in with the far right. It is peak "You know, I was going to support your cause/people, but then someone was mean to me, so now I guess I have to support genocide..."

"Allowing trans people to use the bathroom that best represents their gender" equaling "Cis women will be assaulted by men" is not a situation where you earnestly sit that person down and try to convince them trans people aren't fakers with a penchant for violent crime. The premise fails the moment they state it, and treating their filth as a valid position to hold simply legitimizes their regressive attitudes. Nobody accidentally comes to the conclusion that trans people are predators, inherently monstrous and unstable. There's a lot of steps involved, and there's no reason to think a trans person giving them a smile and saying, "Yes, your worry is fair," is a winning strategy. Their worry is not fair. Their worry is an excuse. This tactic is used by every anti- group out there, and I can't believe people still argue the approach should be taken at face value.

 

[Robo-Star]

"Allowing trans people to use the bathroom that best represents their gender" equaling "Cis women will be assaulted by men" is not a situation where you earnestly sit that person down and try to convince them trans people aren't fakers with a penchant for violent crime.

More or less than the one with "allowing trans people to use the bathroom that best represents their gender" equaling "allowing people to use the bathroom of the gender they declare themself to represent", d'you think? Goal-posts within goal-posts...

 

[Synobun]

More or less than the one with "allowing trans people to use the bathroom that best represents their gender" equaling "allowing people to use the bathroom of the gender they declare themself to represent", d'you think? Goal-posts within goal-posts...

If you seriously think cis men will publicly declare they're women so they can go into the women's washroom to assault them, you have both never met a cis man and fail to realize that cis men already assault women in their washrooms and don't need to pretend they're trans to do it.