[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[Robo-Star]

To what extent is this a "basic legal right"? I'm being serious here. Everything from property under construction to businesses to night clubs have different rules for who can and can't enter, when, and why. Sometimes these aren't fair, but I hesitate to call this a basic legal right.

Sometimes these rules are proscribed under the basic legal right to not be discriminated against on the basis of protected characteristics.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Sometimes these rules are proscribed under the basic legal right to not be discriminated against on the basis of protected characteristics.

It's a little more complicated than that though, because some types of discrimination are legally acceptable. For example, nobody has the right to date someone, and even if said someone is refusing them solely on the basis of their race/ethnicity/gender/etc they reasonably won't face legal consequences. In contrast, discrimination on the basis of gender or even age when it comes to employment is illegal and organizations caught doing it face rightly face legal consequences...even if the firm is private.

Some of the discussion of rights/expectations/decency here clearly falls between these two in my mind.

 

[Crezth]

Though if you want to play this game, let's play.

The hate crime and lynching statistics game, available in stores now.

This completely weird enthusiasm is also completely misplaced. I have never suggested the murder rates would be a good gauge of this violence in itself, just that violence against transgender people for the sake of their being transgendered is established fact. Official reporting is roundly considered to be insufficient. https://vawnet.org/sc/serving-trans-and-non-binary-survivors-domestic-and-sexual-violence/violence-against-trans-and s

Furthermore it’s known the US is not the only place trans people live. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiew...nd-lynched-331-trans-people-killed-this-year/
Trans crimes are also underreported due to the community’s invisibility. Many a trans person has been incorrectly profiled at death and the justice system - which is broken for everyone - doesn’t improve matters.

This should not be a game to you and you should not be eager to use the simplest most reductive statistical arguments to make a point about why targeted hate isn’t that bad. The murder rate is less than the gen pop? The violence rate is less than the gen pop? You base this on what, my handpicked count of known killings in a field that experts say is underreported?

Incredible.

 

[Crezth]

Anyway here’s your “proof” of free speech influencing policy. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/...rd-equality-act-supreme-court-discrimination/

A Republican senator quoted JK Rowling to argue against expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBT+ people and shutting down the vote.

And I want to give special thanks to everyone whose hard work defending the freedom of speech made this possible. We did it, guys. Those transpeople and their totalitarian media empire won’t be censoring anyone.

 

[innonimatu]

Anyway here’s your “proof” of free speech influencing policy. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/...rd-equality-act-supreme-court-discrimination/

A Republican senator quoted JK Rowling to argue against expanding anti-discrimination protections for LGBT+ people and shutting down the vote.

And I want to give special thanks to everyone whose hard work defending the freedom of speech made this possible. We did it, guys. Those transpeople and their totalitarian media empire won’t be censoring anyone.

While you're at it, you can thank also the people who led that woman to post her opinion online in the first place. Like, if you actually read through that wall of text you'd understand it didn't came out of the blue. Or perhaps you wouldn't because you don't wish to.
Once civ had a quote from Newton for physics. It was about a force generating an equal and opposite force.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline. This was initially triggered by a ‘like’. When I started taking an interest in gender identity and transgender matters, I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began.
Months later, I compounded my accidental ‘like’ crime by following Magdalen Berns on Twitter. Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.
I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then. [...]

Guess what: you harass someone for the crime of opinion, that one either crumbles and converts to end the persecution, or fights back and may even turn vicious. That's basic politics. Trying to shame, threat or intimidate JK Rowling into silence led instead to her making a public stand on this, and in turn, you say, to a politican using it. Congratulations.

Of course free speech influences policies. That's he whole idea of free speech! And you complaint, seeing as you continue to decry "free speech", is that JK Rowling exercised her right to free speech? If you had your way, you'd silence her by force? Or what do you wish?

 

[Synobun]

Inno's right. Rowling was forced to be transphobic.

 

[JohannaK]

It's all trans people's fault for existing, really. If we did not, we sure wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

 

[Gorbles]

While you're at it, you can thank also the people who led that woman to post her opinion online in the first place. Like, if you actually read through that wall of text you'd understand it didn't came out of the blue. Or perhaps you wouldn't because you don't wish to.

The people who lead JKR to being a transphobe, a.k.a. TERFs and general transphobic "activists"? I don't think "thank" is the right word here.

Unless you think there's another group to blame for JKR being transphobic, and then subsequently getting called out for such. Or do you think that people shouldn't condemn transphobic opinions? Perhaps if you actually came out with a concrete statement on the subject, people might understand better the things you keep only alluding to in passing.

 

[Crezth]

While you're at it, you can thank also the people who led that woman to post her opinion online in the first place. Like, if you actually read through that wall of text you'd understand it didn't came out of the blue. Or perhaps you wouldn't because you don't wish to.
Once civ had a quote from Newton for physics. It was about a force generating an equal and opposite force.

Guess what: you harass someone for the crime of opinion, that one either crumbles and converts to end the persecution, or fights back and may even turn vicious. That's basic politics. Trying to shame, threat or intimidate JK Rowling into silence led instead to her making a public stand on this, and in turn, you say, to a politican using it. Congratulations.

Of course free speech influences policies. That's he whole idea of free speech! And you complaint, seeing as you continue to decry "free speech", is that JK Rowling exercised her right to free speech? If you had your way, you'd silence her by force? Or what do you wish?

Major “Hitler’s hand was forced” energy coming off this post.

By the way I know free speech influences policy. That’s kind of why I called it a weapon. Many queers were slain by Hitler after he came to power exercising his free speech. Many blacks were slain in America by demagogues exercising their rights to free speech. In not a single one of those cases was the speaker left with no choice, and yet you are happy to absolve Rowling of her responsibility in using her speech? Who is harassing whom? If Rowling’s remarks are a valid retort to trans harassment, then are the transpeople in this thread’s remarks not a valid retort to being slandered as predators? Or is your only concern the preservation of your propriety, whereby any number of vile remarks are perfectly acceptable as long as not a single person is kept from speaking their mind, with the exception of the dead, who cannot speak.

This ultimately is where your appeal breaks down. There’s nothing unreasonable about criticizing ideas; nothing shameful in denouncing hate. Nobody has seriously proposed limiting speech until you made it clear you see the very tendency to criticize Rowling’s ideas also as an attack on free speech. They are calling for ideas to be reviewed, seen for the lies they are, and discarded. To couch this in terms of censorship is the most cowardly position imaginable: it is not censorship to challenge ideas - or is it? If we can censor Rowling by harassing her, and thereby elicit her issuing libelous hate speech by way of return, have we not therefore invited counter censorship? And furthermore, since this is all done without the benefit of government power in any way, merely the court of opinion, does this not mean free speech itself furnishes the instruments of censorship, making its use therefore fundamentally a matter of responsibility? And if that is true, doesn’t it imply a responsible power should be used responsibly, or else it becomes harmful? And in that case what use does free speech have, if in fact when used freely it can be used irresponsibly?

Indeed everyone already knows free speech must be used responsibly. Libel, slander, false advertising, inciting panic. Inciting hate hardly seems like a dramatic step in the wrong direction unless you think, against all the lessons of the 20th century, hate can neither be incited nor violent. Your ideal is only an illusion and your opposition to this critique of Rowling a thinly veiled justification to keep ideas around you can’t even offer a cogent intellectual defense of.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

While you're at it, you can thank also the people who led that woman to post her opinion online in the first place. Like, if you actually read through that wall of text you'd understand it didn't came out of the blue. Or perhaps you wouldn't because you don't wish to.
Once civ had a quote from Newton for physics. It was about a force generating an equal and opposite force.

So literally this then

 

[gay_Aleks]

Considering J.K Rowling's continued crusade (at this point) against trans people, I am ready to grab the proverbial bull by the horns, and say: Yes, actually, maybe J.K Rowling does need to be censored, if she continues to demonize a certain percentage of the population at such a level, with rather devastating consequences.

But this really reveals the nature of the so-called "free speech" within our current society. Where it is supposedly posited to be equal, it is in reality not so; the platforms that Crezth and J.K Rowling, and the reach that they have are - unfortunately - hardly comparable. Therefore, how can even one really censor J.K Rowling, as our friends seem to be assuring us is about to happen any moment now? Indeed! It seems as if any dissenting opinion is shut down, called out, etc, and that's in the good case, where it doesn't result in violence - not that speech in itself isn't violence.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Sorry transpeople, some of you weren't so nice to me so i'm now going to advocate against you, equate you to sexual predators to deny you access to toilets and obsess over your genitals

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This should not be a game to you and you should not be eager to use the simplest most reductive statistical arguments to make a point about why targeted hate isn’t that bad. The murder rate is less than the gen pop? The violence rate is less than the gen pop? You base this on what, my handpicked count of known killings in a field that experts say is underreported?

Nothing about my posts suggest that this issue is a game. It's a forum for discussion. The "transpeople are murdered disproportionately" was a non-evidence based claim, and so I worded it that way based on the context.

Anyway here’s your “proof” of free speech influencing policy. https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/...rd-equality-act-supreme-court-discrimination/

Thank you for posting this. Looks like I held elected officials in too high a regard. Again. Keep digging with a shovel to find how low their bar is, and they'll keep driving it further into the ground.

But this really reveals the nature of the so-called "free speech" within our current society. Where it is supposedly posited to be equal, it is in reality not so;

People choose who they listen to, for good or ill. The rabbit hole suggested by censoring speech you don't like is deep. That is not a position that is respectable. You get arbitrary standards and unfair enforcement as a result of that policy choice, fast.

Since when did it stop being okay to simply disagree on something?

By the way I know free speech influences policy. That’s kind of why I called it a weapon. Many queers were slain by Hitler after he came to power exercising his free speech.

This suggests a very...unique...interpretation of what "free speech" means.

Indeed everyone already knows free speech must be used responsibly. Libel, slander, false advertising, inciting panic. Inciting hate hardly seems like a dramatic step in the wrong direction unless you think, against all the lessons of the 20th century, hate can neither be incited nor violent.

It's actually a very dramatic and broad step compared to those laws. Just as an example, there have been multiple overt instances of by-definition hate speech in this thread done almost in the same breath as denouncing JKR's statements. While I don't appreciate the open hypocrisy and would prefer if the RD standards were upheld, it would be a serious mistake as a matter of policy to drop protections for broadly defined behavior in a legal sense.

Also, the claim "transwomen are not women" does not necessarily meet the definition, since such a statement can be made in genuine ignorance or as an attempt at defining terms for a particular discussion. JKR has done enough to make those explanations implausible, but having people dictate the intent of others without a consistent basis is already a problem in law. This goes back to why I initially insisted on establishing direct harm caused by statements...you would need such a standard to make a law similar to riot incitement viable.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It's actually a very dramatic and broad step compared to those laws. Just as an example, there have been multiple overt instances of by-definition hate speech in this thread done almost in the same breath as denouncing JKR's statements.

I'm sure you can quote them then, right?

 

[Hygro]

Under the current administration, transpeople are murdered at a rate significantly below the average murder rate for all people. That doesn't make the charged rhetoric acceptable, but murder rates don't support what you say.

If we normalized murder rates for demographic and occupational (whats the rate of transpeople involved in violent drug trade enforcement compared to cis population?) and relationship status markers (whats the rate of transpersons in relationships with cis-men? aka the usual suspects in non-occupational murders), would the murder rate stay lower? Or, is for example a college educated white transperson with a conventional job actually more likely to get killed than their cis counterpart? I don't think taking an aggregate murder rate tells you there's a lower murder rate when compared accurately.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If we normalized murder rates for demographic and occupational (whats the rate of transpeople involved in violent drug trade enforcement compared to cis population?) and relationship status markers (whats the rate of transpersons in relationships with cis-men? aka the usual suspects in non-occupational murders), would the murder rate stay lower? Or, is for example a college educated white transperson with a conventional job actually more likely to get killed than their cis counterpart? I don't think taking an aggregate murder rate tells you there's a lower murder rate when compared accurately.

The correct answer to this is "we don't know". I don't think we even know the rate at which transpeople participate in stuff like violent drug trades compared to average. You can make conjecture, but there's nothing to really back it.

I'm also not comfortable with stratifying populations to fit a narrative, when the issue at hand is implications on transpeople as a whole. Lives and causal effects should still matter, even if a trans or cis person didn't go to college. Asserting arbitrary stratifications of the populations is more "accurate" seems strange.

Anyway the answer to your question is still probably "yes" to the murder rate being lower. Most homicides are not committed by strangers with bias, but rather for more personal reasons/motivations (as noted in the linked FBI data). Absent a good reason to expect a drastic shift in motivation for the most common murder type, it is reasonable to anticipate homicide rates for educated people to still follow general trends.

Interesting that you brought race into it though.

I'm sure you can quote them then, right?

I'd prefer not to quote overt violations of CFC RD rules, but post #335 is a good example.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Interesting that you brought race into it though.

Black transpeople are at significant risk of violence and murder.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Black transpeople are at significant risk of violence and murder.

So are black people in general, per the statistics. There does not appear to be any evidence that being trans adds additional homicide risk beyond the baseline for any particular race, so it was strange to bring up race specifically in the post above.

 

[Crezth]

Nothing about my posts suggest that this issue is a game. It's a forum for discussion. The "transpeople are murdered disproportionately" was a non-evidence based claim, and so I worded it that way based on the context.

You said "I'm game," and proceeded to invent a stance I held and tilt at it with unexamined statistics. You couldn't have attempted to argue in more bad faith if you tried.

This goes back to why I initially insisted on establishing direct harm caused by statements...you would need such a standard to make a law similar to riot incitement viable.

But before riot incitement was the criteria, the criteria was that any speech which advocated violence could be made illegal. The criteria changed when a KKK leader was brought to trial for advocating the destruction of Jews, blacks, etc. The new criteria was that the incitement had to be of imminent lawless action, and "likely."

I think we can create a new criteria as well, for hatred:

Whosoever, in a manner capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against a national, racial, religious group, a protected group, or a group defined by their ethnic origins, against segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or
2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning an aforementioned group, segments of the population or individuals because of their belonging to one of the aforementioned groups or segments of the population, or defaming segments of the population,

shall be liable to imprisonment from three months to five years.
​

And there is precedent for this in US common law: State v Brady (1890), Jones v State of Texas (1897), People v Spielman (1925), Beuharnais v Illinois (1950).

The tendency in more recent decades has been for more conservative courts to be more pro-free speech. I cannot see this as anything but hypocrisy. Defending cross-burning as protected speech, Justice O'Connor wrote: "a State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm." Most likely according to whom, indeed?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

I'd prefer not to quote overt violations of CFC RD rules, but post #335 is a good example.

Is it because you see yourself reflected in that image?