Cont: Trans Women are not Women II: The Bath Of Khan

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
What in the blue hell is she talking about?

Re pornography, does she think that the performers in those are conscripted slaves? What is she on about?
Click to expand...

The porn part is the bit I'm least aligned with. A lot of feminists view pornography as continued objectification of women and a problem. But I rather like objectifying men in my porn, so I figure it's okay.

More the shift over the past decade that is eroding women's progress. There's the obvious stuff, like body autonomy issues with some states making it harder and harder to get abortions, excluding abortions from ACA coverage, etc. But there's also the whole incel thing. It's easy to laugh at it as ridiculous and sad... but it represents a similar threat to women that white supremacy represents to black people. I don't want to overplay it of course, and definitely don't get all outrage happy... but it also can't really just be ignored either. Then you get into politics, and you've got tons of men (and some women) judging female politicians based on their looks rather than their competency. When you add some of the trans activism that starts encroaching on things like women's sports and safe spaces, it feels a lot like women are slipping backwards. That's not even getting into the exaggerated feminization that many transwomen engage in, drag queens, and the very caricatured gay men who call each other "sister" and behave in very over-the-top feminine ways - all of that reinforces gender roles and gender biases that are a real barrier to women.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I have a hard time balancing my absolute sympathy and support for transwomen against the anger I feel when a person who was raised with male privilege comes in and tries to force their wants on me, to cast their desires as more important than mine, and to browbeat and threaten people with cervixes into giving them their way.
Click to expand...

That should be the end of the discussion.

But it won't be.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
Rowlings own position seems very unclear to me. She seems to oscillate between acceptance of trans people and a strong desire to treat them as dangerous men. It strikes me as incoherent.

I can't make heads or tails of it, other than coming to the conclusion that she has general animus against trans people.

I don't see how any reasonable person would conclude that designating trans people as some group of "miscellaneous other" would have good results for these people's civil rights.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's that hard. One doesn't need to see men as the "miscellaneous other" to want to keep them out of women's shelters. One doesn't need to hate men to still want to have some women's only spaces. She simply thinks that, when it comes to women's only spaces, they should be classified based on sex, not gender.

That doesn't require hating anyone.

I think there are arguments to be made about at least some of those women's only spaces. It's not only one side or the other here that conflates sex with gender, and at least some cases the reason for the separation is probably one based more on gender than sex. But the reverse is also true (sport being the clearest example).
 
The Atheist said:
I find it amusing you start with that, yet it's not what I said.

What I did say was:
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. What an odd attempt at a rebuttal, to simply repeat your straw man as if I hadn't pointed out that it was a straw man.

It obviously includes women who have menstruated, or even will menstruate.
Click to expand...

Does it? Why would an article focusing on menstrual health - and which specifically identified itself as addressing people who mensturate - be including women and girls who don't menstuate?

Rowling is a TERF in the same way Germaine Greer's a TERF.
Click to expand...

Well, on that we agree.

Women in general have the same position as me - they're not women, and the further you go down the feminist path, the more strongly that view is held.
Click to expand...

Argument from popularity. it's not even worth checking whether your statement is accurate, because it's simply a fallacy.

Don't believe me? Well, people in general have a certain position - one or more gods exist. Does that mean that you'll be changing your name to "The Theist"? No? Then you understand why an argument ad populum is bollocks.

I don't have any prejudices against trans women or trans men.
Click to expand...

You just express prejudices you don't hold for fun?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
Oh and if we're doing "science by opinion piece" anyway, have an opposing opinion piece by another group of experts as well. Heck, some of these even actually have a PhD.
Click to expand...

I think that saying the signatories here are "a group of experts" on the subject is stretching it rather. Very few signatories are developmental biologists and it's padded out with people like archaeologists, anthropologists, physiotherapists, linguists, politics students, french students, lawyers, climatologists, ecologists, vets, dentists, mathematicians, and more besides. It seems like numbers are more important than relevance to or knowledge of the subject.
 
Meadmaker said:
And, maybe, Rowling was making a point about language and communication, which come to think of it, may very well be something that is actually within the realm of expertise of a writer.
Click to expand...

She was. And that point was wrong. An article about menstruation talking about people who menstruate makes more sense than talking about women because, even if trans people didn't exist, not everybody who menstruates is a woman, and not every woman menstruates. She was insisting that more accurate and precise language be replaced with less accurate and precise language.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I think that saying the signatories here are "a group of experts" on the subject is stretching it rather. Very few signatories are developmental biologists and it's padded out with people like archaeologists, anthropologists, physiotherapists, linguists, politics students, french students, lawyers, climatologists, ecologists, vets, dentists, mathematicians, and more besides. It seems like numbers are more important than relevance to or knowledge of the subject.
Click to expand...

Just because they allow supporting signatures from other fields (which are clearly marked as such and indicated in the text) does not mean that there is not a group of experts which has signed it - there are plenty of relevant experts in there. More importantly, it surely beats an opinion piece by a single student in neuroscience, which is what it was posted in response to.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
Well as I said I don't give much of a toss about her, and I don't know why people bother with each other's opinions so much, but from what I understand she supports trans people but not if it's going to, in her opinion, harm women in general. It might be just a matter of numbers: putting extra effort to help minority groups is one thing, but not to the detriment of 50% of the population.
Click to expand...

I think that's a fair summary of her position. It's also one that LGBT people have generally not found acceptable. Much of the discrimination of LGBT people has been predicated on the fact that they are a small minority and their rights may come into conflict with the comfort and safety of heterosexual people and institutions that make up the large majority of society.

While Rowling does list certain specific examples, which may have merit (women's shelter who's victims primarily suffer at the hands of men), she also speaks broadly of Womanhood as an identity. This talk smacks of the "sanctity of marriage" nonsense we've all seen over the years to support denying homosexuals civil rights to marry. The accusations that trans women are just disguised, predatory men is a straight analogue to the "child-molesting homosexual" smear.
 
Last edited:
The Atheist said:
No, Rowling specifically talks about men who feel as though they are women - I'm talking about men who falsely claim to be trans for the sole reason of gaining access to women's personal spaces.
.
Click to expand...

She said:
J.K.Rowling said:
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
Click to expand...
When you open the door to any many who believes or feels he's a woman, ...then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

Seems pretty clear to me that she says allowing mere self-identification means any man, not just those who honestly feel they are a woman, can claim to be a woman for whatever ulterior motive. She may not be spelling it out as clearly as you would like, but that's what she's saying.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Much of the discrimination of LGBT people has been predicated on the fact that they are a small minority and their rights may come into conflict with the comfort and safety of heterosexual people and institutions that make up the large majority of society.
Click to expand...

I can sort of understand why (not all) men might not want to shower with men who look at them the way they look at women, but the comfort issue seems relatively minor outside of relatively unusual places such as locker rooms. As to safety, um, :confused: ???
 
Belz... said:
What in the blue hell is she talking about?

Re pornography, does she think that the performers in those are conscripted slaves? What is she on about?
Click to expand...

She said 'porn-saturated online culture'. I don't know her views on porn in general, but it is certainly the case that young people today have easy and free access to hard-core pornography which can set unrealistic expectations regarding sex, body image and interpersonal relationships, and I suspect that's what she's alluding to.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
The accusations that trans women are just disguised, predatory men is a straight analogue to the "child-molesting homosexual" smear.
Click to expand...

Who is making that accusation?

What is being said is that simple self identification is open to abuse. That is not the same as making the statement you did.
 
zooterkin said:
She said:

When you open the door to any many who believes or feels he's a woman, ...then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside.

Seems pretty clear to me that she says allowing mere self-identification means any man, not just those who honestly feel they are a woman, can claim to be a woman for whatever ulterior motive. She may not be spelling it out as clearly as you would like, but that's what she's saying.
Click to expand...

The current system allows any insincere non trans woman to use it now.
 
zooterkin said:
Who is making that accusation?

What is being said is that simple self identification is open to abuse. That is not the same as making the statement you did.
Click to expand...

Any system is open to abuse. I don't find it a particularly compelling reason to deny trans people in dire need for services on the fear that some may take advantage.
 
caveman1917 said:
Just because they allow supporting signatures from other fields (which are clearly marked as such and indicated in the text)[...]
Click to expand...

Nope. To take one example from the "signatories": "Richard Seager. BSc Information Science and PGDipSci Climate Science, Otago University, NZ. 2019 Dunedin Mayoral candidate."

Here:

I have a Postgraduate Diploma in Science (PGDipSci) at the Geography Department at Otago, mostly on Climate Science. My mini thesis (GEOG470) was on the Arctic. My main interests are climate science & the impacts of Climate Change on all of us but with an emphasis on those who are less privileged. Sea Level Rise (SLR) its impacts & Polar regions are main foci as is urban transportation. Related interests include equity, capitalism, history, religion & how those have impacted on the present.
Click to expand...

He was a mayoral candidate who ran on a platform that included de-funding research into gender dysphoria and on censoring "trans activists". His (seemingly since deleted) twitter bio included the line "Pro-LGB, drop the T".

He's a randomly-picked example. And, again, is part of the "signatories" list.

As I said, it seems like it's more about getting supportive numbers than it is people with expertise.

Even if that weren't true a list of people who agree with a particular POV is inherently less convincing than an article in a non-political journal which cites a number of scientific sources.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
I think that's a fair summary of her position. It's also one that LGBT people have generally not found acceptable. Much of the discrimination of LGBT people has been predicated on the fact that they are a small minority and their rights may come into conflict with the comfort and safety of heterosexual people and institutions that make up the large majority of society.
Click to expand...

Well, it's not an unreasonable position. Where's the middle ground where things are acceptable? Surely there must be a point where you think it's going to far, in either direction.
 
zooterkin said:
She said 'porn-saturated online culture'. I don't know her views on porn in general, but it is certainly the case that young people today have easy and free access to hard-core pornography which can set unrealistic expectations regarding sex, body image and interpersonal relationships, and I suspect that's what she's alluding to.
Click to expand...

I keep hearing that claim but I'm yet to see anyone support it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The current system allows any insincere non trans woman to use it now.
Click to expand...

You would need to specify which current system you mean, since they are different in different places.

However, I'm not sure what you're adding, since that's pretty much what Rowling is saying regarding simple self-identification.
 
zooterkin said:
You would need to specify which current system you mean, since they are different in different places.

However, I'm not sure what you're adding, since that's pretty much what Rowling is saying regarding simple self-identification.
Click to expand...

The system in place for decades doesn't prevent non trans people from entering a restroom of their sex for ulterior motives. It is weird to be concerned about that now.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The system in place for decades doesn't prevent non trans people from entering a restroom of their sex for ulterior motives. It is weird to be concerned about that now.
Click to expand...

Don't be obtuse. What has changed is that, in some places, a man can claim legitimate access to female changing rooms and toilets merely by claiming to be a woman. Prior to this, someone presenting as a man would be obviously out of place and could be dealt with appropriately.
 
Ziggurat said:
On a cellular level, sex in humans is binary. It's genetic.
Click to expand...
Unless you are talking about reproductive cells, is it even meaningful to call it "sex" instead of a genetic influence on sex?

Even though that's a fascinating avenue for research, it's basically off limits.
Click to expand...
How is it "off limits" ?

Conservatives don't have much pull in universities and it's not a priority for them anyways, and liberals shy away from anything with even a whiff of biological determinism.
Click to expand...
Politics is kind off a spectrum too, you know. :p There is more than just "conservative" and "liberal".

Meadmaker said:
To my way of thinking, people who produce sperm are more biologically male than people who produce ova, without exception.
Click to expand...
I don't think there are many people who would disagree with that.

It seems to me that people who talk about a "spectrum" of sex always end up refusing to actually consider how to make measurements that might place a given individual at any particular point on the spectrum.
Click to expand...
It is only rarely relevant at which particular point on the spectrum someone should be placed, and likely none of any else's business.
 
zooterkin said:
Don't be obtuse. What has changed is that, in some places, a man can claim legitimate access to female changing rooms and toilets merely by claiming to be a woman. Prior to this, someone presenting as a man would be obviously out of place and could be dealt with appropriately.
Click to expand...

We've had our fair share of trans bathroom panic here in the US too. Reporting at the time revealed that there is no evidence to support this fear. However, there is ample evidence of trans people being attacked or otherwise confronted in or around restrooms by bigots.

I've never seen any evidence to backup this hypothetical fear, or evidence that making accommodations for trans people will lead to an explosion of perversion or crime in these spaces.

There is overwhelming evidence that trans people need protection from bigots who use violence and harassment to make their lives hell.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
Don't be obtuse. What has changed is that, in some places, a man can claim legitimate access to female changing rooms and toilets merely by claiming to be a woman. Prior to this, someone presenting as a man would be obviously out of place and could be dealt with appropriately.
Click to expand...
What do you want to do about women going into women's bathrooms for nefarious purposes? Or do you only care about nefarious purposes if it comes from a cis male?
 
What bathroom should trans men use, in this case?

So much kerfuffle about potential "predators" pretending to be trans women, which leads to the argument that biology should determine what bathroom you use, but I find it hard to believe someone like Rowling would be willing to allow a passing trans man to enter a woman's bathroom, either.
 
Earthborn said:
Unless you are talking about reproductive cells, is it even meaningful to call it "sex" instead of a genetic influence on sex?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is meaningful. Sex is an expression of one of two genetic pathways. Which pathway your body takes is a binary genetic choice. There is no third pathway. There is no continuum of pathways. There is no infinitude of finely-shaded "sexes" between hypermasculine and hyperfeminine extremes. There is a binary choice of pathways for the body to follow. Everything after that is a matter of how far your body travels down one of those two pathways.

Even rare conditions like 46, XX intersex and 46, XY intersex are variations of those two pathways, not third and fourth sexes of the human body. There's a huge difference between Caster Semenya choosing to identify as a woman* and Bruce Jenner choosing to identify as a woman**.

---
*Did Semenya actually choose? Or was the choice made by parents and doctors in her infancy, and she was simply raised that way? I haven't followed her situation closely, and I might be wrong about its details and relevance here.

**Did Bruce choose, or did Caitlyn choose? The way I see it, the choice to stop identifying as a man had to have been made by the man. Identifying as a woman can't happen before the choice to do so. Therefore I say Bruce chose, and Caitlyn is the result of that choice.
 
Garb said:
Also here is a long Twitter thread in response to the letter JK Rowling wrote:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270787941275762689.html
Click to expand...

It's a long thread, but i think the point about dogwhistling is spot on.

Rowling herself may avoid saying anything explicitly transphobic, but she sure does seem to wink and nod towards transphobic tropes and personalities a lot.

individually her statements don't seem that bad, but as a body of work, you can smell a rat.
 
Last edited:
Garb said:
What bathroom should trans men use, in this case?

So much kerfuffle about potential "predators" pretending to be trans women, which leads to the argument that biology should determine what bathroom you use, but I find it hard to believe someone like Rowling would be willing to allow a passing trans man to enter a woman's bathroom, either.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a question. The following is a picture of trans pornstar Buck Angel:

o7SrcCV.jpg


He has not undergone gender reassignment surgery. He has a vagina.

Would he be welcome in a women's shelter? Would he be welcome in women's bathrooms? If you take Rowling et. al at their word, then yes. I suspect, were it to be tested, that the practice might not end up quite like the theory.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Nope. To take one example from the "signatories": "Richard Seager. BSc Information Science and PGDipSci Climate Science, Otago University, NZ. 2019 Dunedin Mayoral candidate."

Here:



He was a mayoral candidate who ran on a platform that included de-funding research into gender dysphoria and on censoring "trans activists". His (seemingly since deleted) twitter bio included the line "Pro-LGB, drop the T".

He's a randomly-picked example. And, again, is part of the "signatories" list.

As I said, it seems like it's more about getting supportive numbers than it is people with expertise.
Click to expand...

Again, the fact that you can find signatories who, for one reason or other, fail to meet your (double) standards does not make it false that there is a list of relevant experts who have signed the statement. I'm counting many PhD's in developmental biology, genetics, neuroscience, etc.

Even if that weren't true a list of people who agree with a particular POV is inherently less convincing than an article in a non-political journal which cites a number of scientific sources.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, any student can write a badly argued opinion piece and cite a number of scientific sources which don't support the claims made, that's hardly convincing. A list (ie numerous people vs a single person) of experts (ie actually having a PhD vs being a doctoral candidate) in the field under consideration is inherently more convincing - and it certainly doesn't harm that it also happens to be backed up by independent sources such as textbooks referenced by the relevant Wikipedia article. Your confirmation bias is showing.
 
WAPO Opinion said:
J.K. Rowling’s transphobia shows it’s time to put down the pen
Click to expand...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ings-transphobia-shows-its-time-put-down-pen/

Yet Rowling’s fall from literary darlinghood reveals more than a disappointing turn to the dark arts of bigotry. This world-builder has long refused to relinquish control of the world she built. Among her generation, she’s hardly alone.
Click to expand...

Interesting opinion piece that covers a variety of topics around Rowling's bizarre online persona beyond being a TERF-warrior.

To be honest, I'm hoping her fall from grace might reduce how often these Harry Potter books are referenced as some sort of cultural touchstone. It's become cliche to the point of cringe inducing how often some people frame real life in the terms of Harry Potter. It's a children's book about clear cut good and and bad guys, it's obnoxious the way it's used to try to explain the much messier real world.

This simplicity has also made it easy for children and grown-ups alike to turn the Harry Potter books into a frame for analysis beyond the fictional realm; there’s politics that progressive and progessive-ish Muggles of all ages can agree on, too. Recent years especially have offered a black-and-white template ripe for analogy: President Trump is Voldemort, his critics have cried out. Kellyanne Conway is Dolores Umbridge! The Parkland kids at the March for Our Lives are the real-life version of Dumbledore’s Army, spunkily leveling expelliarmuses at the Death Eaterly NRA!
Click to expand...

To quote the common internet reply to these people: "Please read another book"
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ings-transphobia-shows-its-time-put-down-pen/



Interesting opinion piece that covers a variety of topics around Rowling's bizarre online persona beyond being a TERF-warrior.

To be honest, I'm hoping her fall from grace might reduce how often these Harry Potter books are referenced as some sort of cultural touchstone. It's become cliche to the point of cringe inducing how often some people frame real life in the terms of Harry Potter. It's a children's book about clear cut good and and bad guys, it's obnoxious the way it's used to try to explain the much messier real world.



To quote the common internet reply to these people: "Please read another book"
Click to expand...

Death of the author is over 50 years old now. Why are we still caring about what they think?
 
BobTheCoward said:
Death of the author is over 50 years old now. Why are we still caring about what they think?
Click to expand...

Dorks gonna dork. Just like all these Star Wars nuts who quibble over canon and the extended universe, blah blah blah. In these "who shot first" arguments, it doesn't help to have an author who delights in poking the hornet's nest of fandom.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Even if that weren't true a list of people who agree with a particular POV is inherently less convincing than an article in a non-political journal which cites a number of scientific sources.
Click to expand...

Have you actually followed up on those citations?

A common feature of woo arguments is that they appear to cite supporting information, but when you look into the cite you discover that either it is irrelevant to the claim, or flatly contradicts the claim.

I'm not saying that's what's going on here. I am saying that needs to be considered and ruled out before basing your argument on an appeal to the presence of citations.
 
Garb said:
Also here is a long Twitter thread in response to the letter JK Rowling wrote:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1270787941275762689.html
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

I may comment more as I read more, but I wanted to comment on 2c:

The majority of women have no issue with trans women (or trans people in general, though JK is addressing trans women in this post).
Click to expand...

He then goes to cite a chart that shows how women (and men) feel about transgender people using the bathroom of their gender rather than their sex. That's relevant, but not quite the same thing.

I'd like to offer up a somewhat different piece of evidence that is also relevant, but also not quite the same thing.

Reddit has two lesbian subreddits (as in subreddits intended for and populated by lesbians, as opposed to ones which fetishise them): Actual Lesbians, and True Lesbians. The former is very trans inclusive and has 252,999 subscribers. The latter is very trans uninclusive and has 14,368 subscribers.
 
caveman1917 said:
Again, the fact that you can find signatories who, for one reason or other, fail to meet your (double) standards does not make it false that there is a list of relevant experts who have signed the statement.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested in why you think that my standards are double. But I didn't say that there weren't relevant experts who signed the statement. I said that the list was clearly driven by ideology, which the inclusion of numerous non-experts and non-relevant people can attest to.

i can find you climate scientists who argue against anthropic climate change, if you like. Making a list of them will tell you nothing about how true anthropic climate change is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom