[RD] JK Rowling and Explicit Transphobia

[Lexicus]

TGQN (transgender, genderqueer, nonconforming)

ty for this acronym been looking for a handy catch-all term for this group

 

[Zardnaar]

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

Wasn't that urinals speed things up. And using mirrors for makeup.

My wife will use the men's bathroom if need be.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The strong evidence is transpeople telling us that violence happens against them.

That is not "strong evidence" of violence at disproportionate rate, because our measures of "violence" are not consistent. It is, however, much better than the homicide stuff.

Survey data can be strong evidence, but there's a problem. This survey had less than .02% of the population participate in it, and suggests data inconsistent with crime reports. Here's an illustration of why that matters:

https://health.usnews.com/health-ne...lege-freshmen-raped-while-incapacitated-study

If we accept the respondents as truthful in either case, a cis college freshman woman is significantly more likely to be raped than a transperson is to endure physical violence on a date across a given year, according to the 9% rate/year in your linked survey.

Similarly, the 47% data is unfortunately consistent with women in general: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...t-of-women-have-experienced-sexual-harassment ("Unwelcome sexual touching" is sexual assault by definition). Though it's notable that this % jumps around depending on website for both transperson and baseline values. Still, the transperson rate tends to be higher so that is still evidence. I wouldn't call it "strong" because it doesn't meet those standards, but there's an observable trend, and if this stuff had been emphasized and posted in the first few pages of this thread the entire thing would have looked different.

I do still have some nitpicks, such as the "kicked out of home" statistic (respondents must be 18 or older IE adults, which means kicking someone out for literally any reason can be valid...numerous people I knew directly in high school had strict contingencies for how long they would be allowed to remain with their parents after turning 18. Perhaps times were different then/there). But these aren't too important to discussion at hand.

* "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.

We're not getting random subsamples though, unless I misread the study methods. That requires each member of the population has an equal chance of being chosen. An optional survey someone opts into is not a random sample.

Though it isn't simple no matter what. The study made an effort to correct for race and ethnicity with probability sampling in that context, but there are still clear risks of both selection and non-response biases. It also avoided snowball sampling, which means it's at least avoiding some common pitfalls pretty well. It also noticed that response trends for this survey vs typical online surveys are different...and that difference will skew the results. But I don't know what they could reasonably have done against that, other than maybe weighting against that too...but it had some logistical limitations in doing so.

Still, I am surprised to be mistaken about transgender rate varying by race. This study mentions another that suggests that minorities are transgender at a higher frequency than average. If that holds up there would be basis to go with Hygro's earlier suggestion for stratification after all, depending on what you're looking to test.

~~~

All this aside, I don't want to get too much into the weeds without making part of my position clear: violence targeted against transpeople is a fact and it's not acceptable. In that it should be stopped, it doesn't matter whether or not it's more frequent than average. The evidence that we have seen in this thread isn't rigorous enough to conclude the violence rate is disproportionate with high confidence. But I've seen enough to accept the possibility as plausible. Policy-wise, we should be trying to stop this violence no matter what.

The causal link between JKR and this violence is more of a reach, however.

 

[NinjaCow64]

Going to respond to things that I think people didn't respond to already.

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

To me this argument is like how some Libertarians approached same sex marriage i.e "Why even have the state define marriage at all?". While that's all well and good, its a completely different topic of conversation.

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.

Removing urinals and replacing them with portaloos has as much to do with helping trans people as Abe's removal of public bins in Japan was designed to stop terrorist attacks. i.e nothing. They're just using that rhetoric as an excuse to save money.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

To me this argument is like how some Libertarians approached same sex marriage i.e "Why even have the state define marriage at all?". While that's all well and good, its a completely different topic of conversation.

In the issue of segregation vs rights and how it impacts people it is useful to question if it is valid under any circumstances, not just in the case a particular subset of the population.

And if we conclude that it's invalid in general, then it is *necessarily* invalid in the case of the population subset by extension.

Removing urinals and replacing them with portaloos has as much to do with helping trans people as Abe's removal of public bins in Japan was designed to stop terrorist attacks. i.e nothing. They're just using that rhetoric as an excuse to save money.

Yeah. I'm not sure why urinals came up at all.

 

[Seon]

Policy-wise, we should be trying to stop this violence no matter what.

The causal link between JKR and this violence is more of a reach, however.

yeah that would be why people want explicit protection for transgender people written into the legal code, as opposed to an implied one by the Civil Rights Act.


Because one of the most lasting and pernicious rhetoric against transgender people is doubting whether they even truly exist. JKR, as per my understanding, constantly attempts to push this rhetoric through suggesting that majority of transpeople choose to detransition and through scaremongering re risk of sexual assault by man who may be pretending to be a woman.

While being a transwoman or a transman may (now) be protected under the Civil Rights Act, they are still at potential risk of people arguing that they are either mentally ill or some kind of sexual deviant. JKR implies in her essay that they are indeed, usually one of these two categories. This threatens to erase trans identity and justifies hostile acts against their persons by people who may believe JKR to be well-informed on the subject, and have no reason to believe otherwise.

The backlash against her seeks to inform as many people as possible that she is indeed, wrong or possibly even actively malicious. Either way, the current outcry against her would be entirely justified.

 

[NinjaCow64]

I do still have some nitpicks, such as the "kicked out of home" statistic (respondents must be 18 or older IE adults, which means kicking someone out for literally any reason can be valid...numerous people I knew directly in high school had strict contingencies for how long they would be allowed to remain with their parents after turning 18. Perhaps times were different then/there). But these aren't too important to discussion at hand.

You're seriously doubting that people get kicked out of their homes for being LGBT at an extremely high rate? Seriously?

We're not getting random subsamples though, unless I misread the study methods. That requires each member of the population has an equal chance of being chosen. An optional survey someone opts into is not a random sample.

Though it isn't simple no matter what. The study made an effort to correct for race and ethnicity with probability sampling in that context, but there are still clear risks of both selection and non-response biases. It also avoided snowball sampling, which means it's at least avoiding some common pitfalls pretty well. It also noticed that response trends for this survey vs typical online surveys are different...and that difference will skew the results. But I don't know what they could reasonably have done against that, other than maybe weighting against that too...but it had some logistical limitations in doing so.

Its a lot easier to nitpick statistics provided to you than it is to find the statistics in the first place. The fact of the matter is that transgender persons make up approximately 0.6% of the United States. Of course its going to be easier to find more accurate data on the 50.2% ciswomen in the United States. Of course there is going to be problems in data surveying a tiny minority that is subjected to a lot of crap and may be reluctant to talk to people trying to make data about them. These facts don't disprove Crezth's points at all.

This is one of the reasons why people are deeply frustrated at your behaviour in the thread and have been reluctant to provide you statistics. Because they know you were going to do this. Because we've all done this song and dance with hundred people who act in the same way as you.

The causal link between JKR and this violence is more of a reach, however.

It really isn't. Already Republican politicians are quoting JK Rowling to justify the opposition of pro-LGBT legislation.

Do you really find it so hard to believe that a famous author posting a widely read blog post filled with rhetoric explicitly designed to vilify an already heavily vilified minority is extremely dangerous and could very well result in an increase of violence against said vilified minority?

 

[Crezth]

That is not "strong evidence" of violence at disproportionate rate, because our measures of "violence" are not consistent. It is, however, much better than the homicide stuff.

Survey data can be strong evidence, but there's a problem. This survey had less than .02% of the population participate in it, and suggests data inconsistent with crime reports. Here's an illustration of why that matters:

Small sample size is easily accounted for. Sexual assault is known to be underreported.

We're not getting random subsamples though, unless I misread the study methods. That requires each member of the population has an equal chance of being chosen. An optional survey someone opts into is not a random sample.

No, you misunderstood my point. That was with respect to one element of the model I was using.

Policy-wise, we should be trying to stop this violence no matter what.

The causal link between JKR and this violence is more of a reach, however.

The history of hate does not bear out a zero-relationship between hate speech and hate violence.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Small sample size is easily accounted for. Sexual assault is known to be underreported.

So is the transperson population itself! And the underreporting of sexual assault is a global problem, which further complicates a comparison of rate statistics because we then have to figure out how much, if at all, transpeople report differently from the global average.

No, you misunderstood my point. That was with respect to one element of the model I was using.

Ah, okay.

The history of hate does not bear out a zero-relationship between hate speech and hate violence.

It's also not black and white though. At minimum, we should suspect that language that ostracizes, blames, and advocates harm outright to to a population contributes more to hate violence than unfairly disagreeing about the nature of that population. Even if we call both "hate speech" or accept that both are wrong, these are fundamentally different propositions and we should expect different consequences for allowing them. Enough of a difference that our law should treat them differently.

 

[NinjaCow64]

In the issue of segregation vs rights and how it impacts people it is useful to question if it is valid under any circumstances, not just in the case a particular subset of the population.

And if we conclude that it's invalid in general, then it is *necessarily* invalid in the case of the population subset by extension.

The issue of "should we have male and female toilets?" is only tangentially related to the issue discussed. While eliminating gender segregated bathrooms may very well fix the issue of transpersons being unable to safely go to bathroom in public, its a topic with far wider implications than that and I really doubt it would be happening any time soon.

To use another analogy, I think it is very important to improve the status of refugees in my home country. I am also not a huge fan of national borders. While abolishing national borders would arguably solve the problem of refugees being treated terribly, it is much easier to advocate for the former rather than the latter. You will get more people on board for "improving the conditions of refugees" than "lets abolish borders". You will have to answer far fewer complicated questions. I also think that improving the status of refugees is far more realistic goal in the short term than abolishing national borders and improving the conditions of refugees is a really good thing.

What I'm advocating for is choosing one's battles wisely. Its an important thing to do as our time on Earth is limited.

 

[Seon]

It's also not black and white though. At minimum, we should suspect that language that ostracizes, blames, and advocates harm outright to to a population contributes more to hate violence than unfairly disagreeing about the nature of that population. Even if we call both "hate speech" or accept that both are wrong, these are fundamentally different propositions and we should expect different consequences for allowing them. Enough of a difference that our law should treat them differently.

As it happens, the courts have clearly agreed that JKR does not deserve to be censured for her words as her words remain open and available to read without a legal challenge.

Indeed, I would agree that as far as our law stands the case against her remains weak. I also don’t particularly believe she should be censured aside from being removed from as much public platforms and discourse as possible—but non-state actors are more capable of that then the state.

What I do believe, however, is that laws should be amended to specifically include protection for trans people. JKR’s rhetoric tends to argue against this and is used by her compatriots world wide to defend their transphobia.

I also do tend to believe that the state should be more proactive than it currently is with regards to suppression of hate speech in order to promote free speech, but obviously this needs to be approached carefully.

 

[Crezth]

So is the transperson population itself! And the underreporting of sexual assault is a global problem, which further complicates a comparison of rate statistics because we then have to figure out how much, if at all, transpeople report differently from the global average.

True.

It's also not black and white though. At minimum, we should suspect that language that ostracizes, blames, and advocates harm outright to to a population contributes more to hate violence than unfairly disagreeing about the nature of that population. Even if we call both "hate speech" or accept that both are wrong, these are fundamentally different propositions and we should expect different consequences for allowing them. Enough of a difference that our law should treat them differently.

Again I'm not sure about that. Most of the most significant ostracizing speech in the anti-semitic tradition is unfair disagreement about the nature of the population; i.e. asserting they killed Christ, asserting they are lizards, etc. Asserting transwomen should be excluded from women's spaces - something that also offers protection which transwomen themselves should benefit from - and then going on to say sexual predators use transwomen rights to shield themselves: that is irresponsible and possibly dangerous speech.

You don't need to take my word for it per se. Let laws and courts of the People decide this, not just my own personal whim.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The issue of "should we have male and female toilets?" is only tangentially related to the issue discussed. While eliminating gender segregated bathrooms may very well fix the issue of transpersons being unable to safely go to bathroom in public, its a topic with far wider implications than that and I really doubt it would be happening any time soon.

To use another analogy, I think it is very important to improve the status of refugees in my home country. I am also not a huge fan of national borders. While abolishing national borders would arguably solve the problem of refugees being treated terribly, it is much easier to advocate for the former rather than the latter. You will get more people on board for "improving the conditions of refugees" than "lets abolish borders". You will have to answer far fewer complicated questions. I also think that improving the status of refugees is far more realistic goal in the short term than abolishing national borders and improving the conditions of refugees is a really good thing.

The overall problem is that transpeople are being treated unduly differently than people in general. At some point, fixing this implies avoiding treating people differently based on gender, and instead constraining different treatment to when biological differences are what justifies it (which is a tiny % of different treatment now).

What I do believe, however, is that laws should be amended to specifically include protection for trans people.

No. Fundamentally, transpeople should be treated like all people are treated. The fact that they are not is the issue right now.

Again I'm not sure about that. Most of the most significant ostracizing speech in the anti-semitic tradition is unfair disagreement about the nature of the population; i.e. asserting they killed Christ, asserting they are lizards, etc.

Even in the subcategory of "unfair disagreement", an assertion like "x population killed somebody" is different from "x population has y property". Even when y is false, it's pretty different from calling x murderers.

You don't need to take my word for it per se. Let laws and courts of the People decide this, not just my own personal whim.

Of course that's what will happen. I would very be surprised if anything said here specifically informs law. And I agree on the exclusion of spaces (I gave some analogies earlier and pointed out that they all suck).

 

[Seon]

1. Obviously in a fantasy world where transpeople win full acceptance and are no longer considered an aberration in our society you may have a point. Until then, groups of people with local supremacy in politics may use pernicious and sinister rhetorics to justify denying transpeople their rights. Explicitly protecting their rights tends to deny them these options or at least limit their options to extrajudicial or circumspect ways.

2. Yes, hence the need for both positive rights for transpeople to defend against societal discrimination and negative rights against the state to defend against state violence.

3. I do not believe that anti Semitic rhetoricians were literally claiming that all Jews are guilty of murdering Jesus. But this is irrelevant. Hate speech is speech designed to intimidate, degrade, and humiliate minorities for their characteristics, and so both your examples would likely fall under hate speech category.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

1. Obviously in a fantasy world where transpeople win full acceptance and are no longer considered an aberration in our society you may have a point. Until then, groups of people with local supremacy in politics may use pernicious and sinister rhetorics to justify denying transpeople their rights. Explicitly protecting their rights tends to deny them these options or at least limit their options to extrajudicial or circumspect ways.

When you explicitly protect rights, you *by definition* must also be protecting transpeople's rights. If you're not doing so, you're not explicitly protecting rights.

2. Yes, hence the need for both positive rights for transpeople to defend against societal discrimination and negative rights against the state to defend against state violence.

There is no such need, and I suspect that doing it builds undue resentment that undermines the stated goal.

3. I do not believe that anti Semitic rhetoricians were literally claiming that all Jews are guilty of murdering Jesus. But this is irrelevant. Hate speech is speech designed to intimidate, degrade, and humiliate minorities for their characteristics, and so both your examples would likely fall under hate speech category.

There is an implication of guilt in claiming "Jews murdered Jesus", false guilt used to justify treating them differently despite being citizens. It is not irrelevant; we can and should expect different types and contexts of hate speech to have different effects. JKR equating transpeople to murderers or people that generally support murder of innocents would be more egregious and deserving of even greater blowback. JKR advocating harm to transpeople directly would be even worse still (and would tip into being actually illegal at that point as incitement of violence). You can call all of these examples "hate speech" or whatever else you want, but we should anticipate different consequences for each of them regardless.

And if we agree that two things have different effects (or degrees of the same effect), it is reasonable to treat them differently.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

There is no such need, and I suspect that doing it builds undue resentment that undermines the stated goal.

People hate transpeople regardless of their legal status, so don't give me this crap okay and who the hell are you to determine that the status quo for transpeople is in anyway acceptable or morally tenable?

Just another cisdude telling us how we should shut up, sit down and accept our lot in life.

Your opinion isn't valid, your opinion isn't wanted by the transcommunity and your opinion is actively harmful, despite what you may think and claim.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Did I say the status quo is okay? No, I did not say that, and I have extensively argued otherwise in this thread.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Did I say the status quo is okay? No, I did not say that, and I have extensively argued otherwise in this thread.

There is no such need, and I suspect that doing it builds undue resentment that undermines the stated goal.

Transpeople face issues that are exclusively unique to them, to argue that they should be treated, in terms of the law, exactly the same as cispeople ignores that fundamental fact and reality.

So to argue against an increase in rights and laws that assist them is to very much argue for the status quo, especially when such laws are already variable according to what state you live in, not all of us live in California or New York, some of us live in the south and in other areas where we're still explicitly discriminated against precisely because no allowances are made for us, be it in terms of healthcare, access to hormones, work-related issues, education, housing etc.

 

[Seon]

1. Rights are not actually something that exist out of nothing. It must be created. While Rights for most people exist now after several millenia of development in legal and judicial philosophy, rights of transpeople are in question. You fix this by creating more rights, not defending old ones.

2. Dialectic materialism states that any given action will inspire reaction. Resentment and hate is something that will be created anyways for any given progress made.

Only solution that worked in the past is to aggressively defend gains made, and doing so in the courts, legislative body, and the public space is a much more peaceful and productive way of defending rights than with guns and swords as in nature.

3. Certainly there can be different consequence for hate speech, but they would still be hate speech.

 

[Crezth]

Even in the subcategory of "unfair disagreement", an assertion like "x population killed somebody" is different from "x population has y property". Even when y is false, it's pretty different from calling x murderers.

Mmm. Lies about the Jewish population's control of wealth has also been highly productive anti-semitic propaganda.