[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[uppi]

Back when the gym I went to had a unisex changing / locker room, I always went to that one, because it was ventilated much better. But it seemed to be frequented mostly by men. Women were only very occasionally in there.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And changing rooms?

Is there solid or even internally consistent reasoning to segregate them?

In past discussions, lacking substantive data people who argued this mostly talk about how they'd "feel" if placed in the scenario. Just as I'm not sympathetic to that nonsense when it's used here, I'm unsympathetic with that standard when it comes to reasoning for policy, regardless of who attempts to use it. You can and do find situations where people have opposing preferences and someone will necessarily feel bad if they're not met. We need a better basis than that to compel something with law.

As such, treating transpeople as sexual offenders in bathrooms over a small percentage of criminals is akin to generally treating men as rapists or gun owners as murderers. It's the same reasoning in each case, and it sucks. Had the conversation not randomly deviated into the inaccurate realm of homicides, it would have been trivial to demonstrate an objective imbalance in how the law treats transpeople in some contexts. Eventually someone did that anyway, but there doesn't seem to be much disagreement about it here.

One thing that continues to bother me in this thread is that people often decry same lack of standards they advocate in other cases, and that's especially true with law. It's the same reasoning mistake across the board with these, and if people were accepting of any such laws it would be incoherent to reject the assertion that driving should be allowed, because a small percentage of people who drive also choose to use vehicles illegally (either by accident or intention) and kill people. If "common sense driving law" to ban most non-public transportation to "protect the people" sounds like a bad idea to you, telling transpeople it's illegal for them to walk into a toilet with a door in front of it and use it should also sound like a bad idea to you, same for changing. If privacy is an issue, places can use curtains or something for people who want them.

The bathrooms are particularly annoying because best I can tell the current practices seem less efficient outright, on top of all the internally inconsistent legal issues that operate to the detriment of transpeople and no apparent objective benefit to anyone. Other than maybe people directly profiting from strife.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Had the conversation not randomly deviated into the inaccurate realm of homicides

See, it's all a debate with you, it's all statistics and numbers whilst you ignore the real life experiences of transpeople because they don't neatly fit into your compartmentalized view of violence.

Transpeople are subjected to violence and the implict threat of it more often than you'd think, it's such a big concern at this point that transwomen have to be careful when dating men, particularly straight men, because society still labels men who date transwomen as gay and they panic and get violent towards transwomen, especially if they're on the downlow or are percieved as such

I've had multiple incidents of violence directed at myself because i am visibly trans and im talking violent enough that i could have been permanently injured, so when you start telling me it's all inaccurate i have to ask what ****ing world or universe are you talking about because it doesn't comport with my reality nor does it comport with the transcommunity as a whole.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

This is a forum for debate, yes. Risk of bodily harm, including long-term, is not the same thing as homicide.

Do you have dating abuse statistic rates for transpeople vs the national average handy? My impression is that young women in general are one of the most commonly targeted demographics for dating abuse/violence. I could certainly believe it is higher still for transpeople, but given the previous abuse of statistics/unsubstantiated claims in this thread I'd be interested to see the data supporting it.

 

[Samson]

The bathrooms are particularly annoying because best I can tell the current practices seem less efficient outright, on top of all the internally inconsistent legal issues that operate to the detriment of transpeople and no apparent objective benefit to anyone.

I am a little hesitant, but if you are referring to the trend of having only portaloos and not urinals in large entertainment events, then I agree. I do not see the downside of providing urinals for anyone able and willing to use them (which includes cis-women with shewee's) and portaloos for anyone able and willing to use them. It seems the most important thing to do for everyone is separate drunk men urinating from anyone who wants to sit down. By not providing urinals you are hurting everyone, the 'standers' by making them queue and the 'sitters' by making them use facilities used by drunk 'standers', and not helping anyone. I was told this change was something to do with trans rights, but noone could tell me how it helped trans rights.

 

[REDY]

I agree that urinals are essential for efficency. On the concerts here its not quite uncommon that all men are on urinals why women take over all portaloos. Removing urinals also lowers my comfort, I do not want to touch toilet when its not necessary. And right or wrong, we men do not want spend there any time, while for women its some meeting place where they make different activities requring privacy, it would be quite bizarre to have room where men are peeing and women are having makecup.

I see some benefits of unisex changing rooms and bathrooms for cis people, for example if you have small children of opossite sex.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I certainly don't advocate removing convenient/efficient facilities. Urinals in a unisex restroom are fine by any reasonable measure, as long as they're not the only thing there.

 

[Zardnaar]

I agree that urinals are essential for efficency. On the concerts here its not quite uncommon that all men are on urinals why women take over all portaloos. Removing urinals also lowers my comfort, I do not want to touch toilet when its not necessary. And right or wrong, we men do not want spend there any time, while for women its some meeting place where they make different activities requring privacy, it would be quite bizarre to have room where men are peeing and women are having makecup.

I see some benefits of unisex changing rooms and bathrooms for cis people, for example if you have small children of opossite sex.

I've seen women in men's bathrooms at rock concerts.

Lines to long at the women's bathroom.

 

[Yeekim]

Like Jessica Yaniv?

Hadn't heard of her before.
But no, she appears to be genuinely trans.
Just kind of an a-hole irrespective of that.

 

[AmazonQueen]

I've seen women in men's bathrooms at rock concerts.

Lines to long at the women's bathroom.

A lot of public buildings devote more space to men's facilities than women's, a relic of attitudes when they were built.

 

[Crezth]

See, it's all a debate with you, it's all statistics and numbers whilst you ignore the real life experiences of transpeople because they don't neatly fit into your compartmentalized view of violence.

"Randomly deviated" yes, the conversation just magically took a detour in that direction, there wasn't some guy tilting at windmills trying to prove statistical points with bad statistical arguments at all.

You've made this exact point about transpeople being subjected to myriad harm multiple times, and every time the retort has been an appeal to some homebrewed homicide rate; it's been shown each time, then, that the homicide rate cannot actually be known with any confidence under the current reporting regime, although the experience of the trans community still bears out a perceived threat of violence; at which point the homicide rate is again pushed as "proof of no proof." Repeat.

It's a bit like saying China reported only 2 deaths in the Hong Kong protests, so there must only be 2, which is less than have happened in the George Floyd protests, ergo America kills more than China.

 

[Seon]

This is a forum for debate, yes. Risk of bodily harm, including long-term, is not the same thing as homicide.

Do you have dating abuse statistic rates for transpeople vs the national average handy? My impression is that young women in general are one of the most commonly targeted demographics for dating abuse/violence. I could certainly believe it is higher still for transpeople, but given the previous abuse of statistics/unsubstantiated claims in this thread I'd be interested to see the data supporting it.

have you ever considered the possibility that if you cannot be bothered to look up data and statistics yourself you shouldn’t be debating something

 

[Cloud_Strife]

"Randomly deviated" yes, the conversation just magically took a detour in that direction, there wasn't some guy tilting at windmills trying to prove statistical points with bad statistical arguments at all.

You've made this exact point about transpeople being subjected to myriad harm multiple times, and every time the retort has been an appeal to some homebrewed homicide rate; it's been shown each time, then, that the homicide rate cannot actually be known with any confidence under the current reporting regime, although the experience of the trans community still bears out a perceived threat of violence; at which point the homicide rate is again pushed as "proof of no proof." Repeat.

It's a bit like saying China reported only 2 deaths in the Hong Kong protests, so there must only be 2, which is less than have happened in the George Floyd protests, ergo America kills more than China.

Nevermind that no transperson wants to out themselves if they feel in danger...

Just sick and tired of listening to people who clearly don't have the interests of minorities in mind tell me how simultainously things aren't that bad and that the real bigotry is being against bigots

 

[TheMeInTeam]

"Randomly deviated" yes, the conversation just magically took a detour in that direction, there wasn't some guy tilting at windmills trying to prove statistical points with bad statistical arguments at all.

The amusing thing about quoted statement is that it's blaming a refutation of exactly the thing it decries - a faulty statement with still no statistics to back it dozen+ pages later.

You've made this exact point about transpeople being subjected to myriad harm multiple times, and every time the retort has been an appeal to some homebrewed homicide rate;

Dishonesty.

1. Homicide was expressly brought up by more than one person, including the false assertion.
2. The non-homicide harm was acknowledged and not contested at the time, which made quoting the posts concerning homicide and talking about other harm non-sequitur to the quoted material.

Now we get another claim of disproportionate violence more recently, again with no statistical backing presented for it. Yet "magically" the burden of proof disappears in this context.

it's been shown each time, then, that the homicide rate cannot actually be known with any confidence under the current reporting regime

If you acknowledge the actual rate isn't known then you are admitting that the claim of disproportionate rate has no basis in that context.

Perhaps there is basis for disproportionate violence. If there is let's see it. The claim that JKR's nonsense is widespread enough to normalize this violence does depend on there actually being a heightened rate of violence to at least some extent.

It's a bit like saying China reported only 2 deaths in the Hong Kong protests, so there must only be 2, which is less than have happened in the George Floyd protests, ergo America kills more than China.

Are you claiming US government crime data to be inaccurate? I don't think so. But we don't have figures for transpeople specifically, which is different from false reports. The correct conclusion is that we don't know the actual rate of violence in the context of dating etc, unless we have evidence to support it.

have you ever considered the possibility that if you cannot be bothered to look up data and statistics yourself you shouldn’t be debating something

--> The burden of proof for an assertion is on the person making the assertion. If I were to claim my posts here have single-handedly reduced violence against transpeople by 0.5% globally, I don't think you'd be dropping whatever you're doing to confirm my claim. You'd probably insist that I provide some basis for making it. So on that note:

"have you ever considered the possibility that if you cannot be bothered to look up data and statistics yourself you shouldn’t be debating something"?

Just sick and tired of listening to people who clearly don't have the interests of minorities in mind tell me how simultainously things aren't that bad and that the real bigotry is being against bigots

Still waiting on data to substantiate the disproportionate violence rate in the earlier context. Especially given previously unsubstantiated claims in this thread. A good way to convince people of how bad something is would be to show how the rate statistics actually look between populations. Earlier in the thread you agreed with the concept of stratifying the data this way. Is there a reason your present argumentation deviates from that approach?

 

[Seon]

I’m not the one casting doubt on testimonials of trans people here, you know. Why should I believe that you have a better handle on the subject than people who have actually lived through it?

Either debunk their claims with actual data or stop wasting people’s times.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I’m not the one casting doubt on testimonials of trans people here, you know. Why should I believe that you have a better handle on the subject than people who have actually lived through it?

Anecdotes and rate statistics are different things. It is not argumentatively sound to use a small sample of anecdotes to predict rate statistics for a general population or sub population.

I do not deny individual experiences listed here, I refute that these can be used as valid basis to support claims that the general population experiences heightened violence rates consistent with the claim made.

I was hit in the head with a pipe by someone I was dating once. Does this mean women are disproportionately violent towards men when dating? No, it does not. But if you are self-consistent, you would not only suspect it does based on my story, but demand that other people who question such an assertion to go out and find stats to prove a negative. Good luck in your search I guess.

Either debunk their claims with actual data or stop wasting people’s times.

Either support claims with coherent reasoning supported by data or stop wasting people's times.

 

[Seon]

I’m not supporting any claims and notably neither are you. Nobody further needs to prove anything to you. Stop trying to derail the thread with ad hominem attacks on people’s sincerity and start talking about what you think should be a proper response to transphobia in our society.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I’m not supporting any claims and notably neither are you. Nobody further needs to prove anything to you. Stop trying to derail the thread with ad hominem attacks on people’s sincerity

lol the irony. Ad hominem has been spammed against my posts in this thread, in flagrant disregard for RD rules. And when I call out dishonesty, I do so in the context that a post made is demonstrably a false representation of what was said...not calling the person themselves disingenuous, bigoted, or attempting to minimize their position based on factors they can't control. It's the content of the posts that I emphasize, and yes that *IS* a contrast to many responses I've had here.

Lots of ad hominem has been going on in this thread, but to assert it's coming from me is absurdity crossing the line into comical.

Nobody "needs" to do anything, including post in this thread. That said, a claim was made and not substantiated, which is an awkward thing to have happen repeatedly in a RD thread. Asking for evidence to back a claim is not a personal attack, it is practice of debate/discussion.

start talking about what you think should be a proper response to transphobia in our society.

Talking about transphobia includes what its consequences are and are not. Recently, an assertion was made about something it is, and that assertion has yet to be supported. This is a RD thread. It is reasonable to ask someone to substantiate when claims are made, in contrast to numerous posts with borderline (or sometimes outright) non-sequitur responses to me.

Instead, I get flagrant ad hominem like post 583 while somehow simultaneously being accused of committing it. It's a joke, but not a particularly good one.

 

[Seon]

That just sounds like a long winded admission that you have no perspective, no opinion, nor anything positive to contribute to the discussion to me.

 

[Crezth]

If you acknowledge the actual rate isn't known then you are admitting that the claim of disproportionate rate has no basis in that context.

Perhaps there is basis for disproportionate violence. If there is let's see it. The claim that JKR's nonsense is widespread enough to normalize this violence does depend on there actually being a heightened rate of violence to at least some extent.

The correct conclusion is that we don't know the actual rate of violence in the context of dating etc, unless we have evidence to support it.

No, there's still a basis. Even if we had no official stats at all there'd still be a basis in the form of victim reporting. The homicide rates cannot be known because there is no evidence that the reported number of transgender deaths matches the actual number; particularly there's no evidence that victims are always gendered correctly and there's no evidence that victims even if they are gendered correctly are correctly apprehended to be trans. For this reason the data you cited is weak evidence for any particular claim.

The strong evidence is transpeople telling us that violence happens against them. As a matter of fact the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey, which was quoted to you and which you've promptly forgotten, provides the hard numbers of that transgender reporting. I'll also cite the CDC.

Note:

• Nearly half (46%) of respondents were verbally harassed in the past year because of being transgender.
• Nearly one in ten (9%) respondents were physically attacked in the past year because of being transgender.
• Nearly half (47%) of respondents were sexually assaulted at some point in their lifetime and one in ten (10%) were sexually assaulted in the past year. In communities of color, these numbers are higher: 53% of Black respondents were sexually assaulted in their lifetime and 13% were sexually assaulted in the last year.
• 72% of respondents who have done sex work, 65% of respondents who have experienced homelessness, and 61% of respondents with disabilities reported being sexually assaulted in their lifetime.
• More than half (54%) experienced some form of intimate partner violence, including acts involving coercive control and physical harm.

Now, in the lack of any verified hard data, we would have to create a data model, where we make two assumptions:

1. the baseline homicide rate against transgender people is probably* the genpop homicide rate.

2. the actual homicide rate is this baseline rate plus or minus any factors for being transgender.​

* "Probably" in the sense that it could be different, but can only be known to some confidence level. A random subsample, however, is always representative. So we are assuming a random subsample baseline and modifying that according to possible factors inherent to the group.

It is not strictly necessary to stick to the homicide rate stat except to say that these factors reveal an increased risk of homicide due to the possibility of hate crime. So, a 9% respondent rate for hate-related physical assault is an indicator of possible violent factors due to being transgender. It must be proven, but the logic behind the model is sound.

Moving along, the other stats reveal elevated risks of violence, and we'll cite RAINN as well:

43% of heterosexual women report being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (CDC)
75% of bisexual women report being sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (CDC)
47% of transgender/binary non-conforming people report having been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (Trans Survey)
21% of straight men report having been sexually assaulted in their lifetimes. (CDC)

21% of TGQN (transgender, genderqueer, nonconforming) college students have been sexually assaulted, compared to 18% of non-TGQN females, and 4% of non-TGQN males. (RAINN)

In the gen-pop, 0.13% of people are sexually assaulted per year. (RAINN)
Among transgender/binary non-conforming people, 9% reported being assaulted in the span of a single year. (Trans Survey).

I could go on but the message is clear. One last word from Violence Against Women dot Net: As always, listening to and believing survivors is critical.