[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[Senethro]

Hokay, I'm just saying

I'm just saying is all.

If you are more concerned about discussing your hypotheticals over and instead of some peoples actuals

then you better be prepared for some blowback.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

If you are more concerned about discussing your hypotheticals over and instead of some peoples actuals

then you better be prepared for some blowback.

To some people, other people's rights, experiences and existence is something to debate, not to acknowledge.

 

[cardgame]

How many times has this actually happened in the thread?

How many posts have you made?

 

[Lexicus]

Sure, if you're operating in fantasy land.

I'm not operating in fantasy land. You are literally making an argument against the concept of a hate crime, not on the basis of any real-world consequences of hate crime laws, but on the basis that the concept of a "hate crime" constitutes a logical inconsistency.

In reality, the law is allowed to be logically inconsistent because the purpose of the law is not to produce 'a harmony of mathematical precision' but to lead to just real-world outcomes. And I know you don't like the messiness implied by the word "just" because of course we can spend years arguing about what a just outcome is, but the point is that the law is a tool to help humans live together. Its purpose is not to form a logically-consistent whole. Never has been, never will be.

What about letting the courts judge each case on its own specifics? Murder is murder, and the general laws on murder everywhere already allowed for aggravation or leniency depending on the intent.

Yeah...and hate crime is basically just another item on the list of aggravating factors. Anti-hate-crime people are always arguing as if (for example) any time a 'protected category' person is the victim of a crime, it is automatically treated as a hate crime, but that is far from being the case.

Hate crime legislation are at best useless and at worst a ready tool for the kit of oppressors in power. I told you already: you're arming your future enemies.

IMO this is simply foolish. It is simply not true that hate crime laws provide any particular avenue for the right in the US to further attack and hurt marginalized people.
One point I will concede is that hate crime laws are a very small part of a larger trend of overpolicing society, but to single out hate crime laws in that respect is pretty ridiculous too.

 

[RobAnybody]

@TheMeInTeam Regarding Hate Crime laws. My view is that they rest on intent. In that the intent of the Crime is not jut to harm the victim, but to "send a message" to those that share the characteristics of the victim. It's very similar to terrorism, in that the actual victims don't matter, but the intent is the message to the greater community. That's why they carry a greater sentence. We can certainly debate whether that should matter or not, but that's the logical reason. A "murder" is treated different than a "murder with the intent to intimidate a community".

Currently the Hate Crime statutes apply only to "protected classes". I agree that a debate could be had on whether or not religion is different than "baseball fan". But that's the easiest target to pick, because both are a choice. I believe that a) neither should be a "protected class" but also that b) if some cult decides to systematically murder either one the murderers should be charged with a Hate Crime. But whether or not "protected class" is logically defined doesn't really speak to whether or not an extra penalty should apply to crimes that are committed solely against a specific class in an effort to intimidate others in that class.

@those in this thread advocating for Hate Speech Laws, just imagine how the Trump administration would use your laws against BLM. What do you think they would do if "Speech That Causes Harm" was a criminal offense. And if your response is "that wouldn't be allowed under my law" then ask yourself who would stop them.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: The OP has requested that we return to topic, and I even asked the same thing on the last page. If you cannot do that then I will derail the thread big time. Am I understood here? If you want to debate hate crime legislation, then make a new thread. This thread is about transphobia and JK Rowling.

I am not going to repeat this again.

 

[NinjaCow64]

If anyone has any good faith questions about Rowling’s terrible blog post or TERF rhetoric in general I’d be happy to answer them. I’m not trans myself but I am unfortunately familiar with TERF rhetoric and how to debunk it. As a bisexual I feel its important to show solidarity with other LGBT people and be familiar with their issues.

 

[Robo-Star]

From most to least likely: because he's a voyeur; because that's his idea of a prank; because he wants to set an anti-trans example of why it is "wrong" to let people identify as another gender.
EDIT: Finally, I forgot the one JKR alludes to: he might be a sexual predator trying to avoid detection and/or wanting to have an excuse in case he's stopped. That one is getting really contrived though.
Clearly none of these are a sufficient reason to exclude trans people from bathrooms/changing rooms of their choice - but I'd bet money we'll see instances of some of these happening.

Like Jessica Yaniv?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Like Jessica Yaniv?

@Robo-Star The existence of bad people within minority demographics doesn't justify excluding the totality of transpeople.

No one in good faith would make the argument that because there are black females who are violent or potentially predatory therefor we should ban the entirety of black females from the changing rooms or toilets of their gender, but i see it brought up about transpeople, even though the argument usually goes that it's a cisman in a dress doing it, not a transperson.

Christ, the same bull**** arguments were made about allowing gay men into male toilets and changing rooms, because they might prey upon little boys and vice versa with lesbians in female spaces and those were arguments rooted in bigotry and ignorance, as are the arguments of JK Rowling and anyone else advocating this discriminatory crap that transpeople are somehow a risk.

It was wrong and bigoted back then and it's wrong and bigoted now, to entertain the argument is to entertain bigotry and I'm not going to allow anyone to insinuate that transpeople are somehow inherently predatory or dangerous without some major pushback, just like i wouldn't allow it for LGB people.

 

[gay_Aleks]

Personally, I've never trusted white cismen after Jeffrey Dahmer was convicted. What if one of them kills me and eats me in a remote cave?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

This whole talk of defending women, defending women from what? Transwomen are women too and face disproportionate amounts of violence, especially if they're forced into male prisons, toilets or changing rooms, if the terfs want to eliminate or ease potential violence they'd be including transwomen into their equation but they don't because they're fundamentally malicious towards us and view us as men in dresses or sick perverts or akin to predators.

JK doesn't have to come out and use the word "Tranny" or "shemale" or "heshe" for her rhetoric to be bigoted, the consequences of her rhetoric being advocated or put in place are enough to classify as discrimination and bigotry, so i don't care much for people coming in to talk about how "well she didn't say anything wrong/she wasn't rude/she said she cares about transpeople!" when she has no issue liking people who equate me to a sexual predator or pervert, has no problems espousing and repeating rhetoric that would bar me from using the toilet or changing room of the gender i identify as and has no issue using her platform to spread her message to millions of people, some of whom may never have met a transperson and are being unduly influenced by her warped views of us.

 

[Robo-Star]

This whole talk of defending women, defending women from what?

Again, why even have segregation; typically it's "male violence", which seems somewhat nebulous?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Again, why even have segregation; typically it's "male violence", which seems somewhat nebulous?

I definitely think unisex toilets should be a thing.

 

[Robo-Star]

I definitely think unisex toilets should be a thing.

And changing rooms?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And changing rooms?

I'm pretty sure those already exist in some places.

 

[Zardnaar]

@Robo-Star The existence of bad people within minority demographics doesn't justify excluding the totality of transpeople.

No one in good faith would make the argument that because there are black females who are violent or potentially predatory therefor we should ban the entirety of black females from the changing rooms or toilets of their gender, but i see it brought up about transpeople, even though the argument usually goes that it's a cisman in a dress doing it, not a transperson.

Christ, the same bull**** arguments were made about allowing gay men into male toilets and changing rooms, because they might prey upon little boys and vice versa with lesbians in female spaces and those were arguments rooted in bigotry and ignorance, as are the arguments of JK Rowling and anyone else advocating this discriminatory crap that transpeople are somehow a risk.

It was wrong and bigoted back then and it's wrong and bigoted now, to entertain the argument is to entertain bigotry and I'm not going to allow anyone to insinuate that transpeople are somehow inherently predatory or dangerous without some major pushback, just like i wouldn't allow it for LGB people.

Good counter to this is all the white male serial killers.

 

[Robo-Star]

I'm pretty sure those already exist in some places.

I've heard about one in Scotland.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Good counter to this is all the white male serial killers.

Transphobes don't care, they're not arguing in anything remotely approximating good faith

 

[gay_Aleks]

The changing booths in the thrift store I went to - mind you, that's in Bulgaria! - were unisex, and you could enter in any of them regardless of your gender.

 

[Robo-Star]

The changing booths in the thrift store I went to - mind you, that's in Bulgaria! - were unisex, and you could enter in any of them regardless of your gender.

Oh yeah, most of those here only have one booth. I was thinking more locker-rooms though.