Continuation Transwomen are not women - part 13

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

You can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink. I've linked you plenty of references and you have decided they are inadequate. We have reached an impasse.

You have not. I’ve asked for bigoted comments by Rowling. You have provided nothing. Just stop this ridiculous demonising of Rowling. It is embarrassing you.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

You have linked zero quotes from Rowling, which was what was asked for.

Why not?

The wikiepdia article is well cited. Last time around this dumb thing I linked directly to her public communique about the issue. Don't play dumb

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The wikiepdia article is well cited. Last time around this dumb thing I linked directly to her public communique about the issue. Don't play dumb

Hilarious.

Look you raised Rowling as a bigoted TERF. You can’t or won’t support this. An honest person would withdraw and apologise. That I don’t expect this to happen says a lot.

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

The wikiepdia article is well cited. Last time around this dumb thing I linked directly to her public communique about the issue. Don't play dumb

Good -then it should be very easy for you to point to a transphobic comment that she has said or written.

But you won't do so. Why not?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

Hilarious.

Look you raised Rowling as a bigoted TERF. You can’t or won’t support this. An honest person would withdraw and apologise. That I don’t expect this to happen says a lot.

I'm guessing this means you disagree with the parts of the wikipedia that are critical of her anti-trans views. Better get to work getting those retracted if it's such an injustice

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I'm guessing this means you disagree with the parts of the wikipedia that are critical of her anti-trans views. Better get to work getting those retracted if it's such an injustice

There are no parts of the wikipedia article that are critical of her anti-trans views.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

There are no parts of the wikipedia article that are critical of her anti-trans views.

Quote:

Rowling's statements have been called transphobic by critics[443] and she has been referred to as a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist)[428][443][444] in response to her Twitter comments.[445] She rejects these characterisations.[65][446] Criticism of Rowling's views has come from the Harry Potter fansites MuggleNet and The Leaky Cauldron;[447] and the charities Mermaids,[428] Stonewall,[448] and Human Rights Campaign.[449] After Kerry Kennedy expressed "profound disappointment" in her views, Rowling returned the Ripple of Hope Award given to her by the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organisation.[450]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._...sgender_people

I totally understand disagreeing with this characterization, which of course is obviously an opinion, but pretending that these criticisms simply don't exist is a curiously tiresome tactic.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

There are no parts of the wikipedia article that are critical of her anti-trans views.

Indeed. The best those determined to demonise her can come up with is her comment that she thinks a better word for “uterus havers” is women. How very dare her.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

Indeed. The best those determined to demonise her can come up with is her comment that she thinks a better word for “uterus havers” is women. How very dare her.

You're misremembering your own outrage bait

[lionking]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._...sgender_people

I totally understand disagreeing with this characterization, which of course is obviously an opinion, but pretending that these criticisms simply don't exist is a curiously tiresome tactic.

Doubly pathetic. She’s been criticised by Mermaids and Stonewall.

Meanwhile, do you mind citing any of her bigoted quotes, or is it just the vibe she presents?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

Doubly pathetic. She’s been criticised by Mermaids and Stonewall.

Meanwhile, do you mind citing any of her bigoted quotes, or is it just the vibe she presents?

I'm glad that you acknowledge that criticism exist, I know it's been a long journey and I'm proud of you for getting this far.

[Pixel42]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Seems like a concession if they agree to the terms and participate.

What exactly are you looking for otherwise as a sign of concession? There's no Supreme Trans Council to endorse such things.

A concession would be, for example, a trans woman athlete recognising the unfairness of competing as a woman, even when there were no imposed conditions that stopped her, and refraining from doing so.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

A concession would be, for example, a trans woman athlete recognising the unfairness of competing as a woman, even when there were no imposed conditions that stopped her, and refraining from doing so.

You're off message, you're supposed to be painting trans athletes as the unreasonable ones unwilling to compromise here. Get with the program!

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._K._...sgender_people

I totally understand disagreeing with this characterization, which of course is obviously an opinion, but pretending that these criticisms simply don't exist is a curiously tiresome tactic.

It seems reading isn't a strong point for you. There's nothing in that quote that criticises Rowling's views - all it does it describe other people's criticisms. That the distinction escapes you isn't terribly surprising. You don't seem very good at doing your own thinking.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by lionking

Indeed. The best those determined to demonise her can come up with is her comment that she thinks a better word for “uterus havers” is women. How very dare her.

This is worth following up on. Are you even aware of the context of the article that Rowling went on reactionary whine fest about?

It was an article literally about menstrual issues, hence the "people who menstruate" language. This wasn't some wokeness run amok example, it was literally an article about the practical realities of dealing with menstruation, hence the specific, if a bit unwieldly, language.

The same article uses "women" and "girls" several times and frames menstruation as a women's issue.

Quote:

Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate

I'm guessing Rowling saw this headline and nothing more and let her TERF brain rot fill in the rest.

What exactly is so objectionable about the actual text of the article? It's a short article, feel free to find the offending lines. Here's a sample that seems representative, but don't feel like you can't pluck your own if you prefer:

Quote:

Importantly, advocates are calling attention to the many gendered aspects of the pandemic, including increased vulnerabilities to gender-based violence during lockdowns, and the risks faced by primary caretakers — particularly women in the household and health care workers, approximately 75% of which are women.

An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.

...

Of equal concern, progress already made or underway around important gender issues is now halted or reversing. Menstruation serves as a proxy for this observation. 2020 started out as a year of progress, with a groundswell of interest and potential for improved investment to address the menstrual health and hygiene needs of girls, women, and all people who menstruate.

https://www.devex.com/news/sponsored...v0aEeR.twitter



It's bog standard feminism, focusing on how X current event is impacting women and girls. Notably trans men are not even mentioned explicitly, at best thrown a bone obliquely.

interesting example where TERF brain ends in women self-sabotaging. Rowling's brain is so rotted with TERFism that she's doing friendly fire on people advocating for women's health.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/statu...509313?lang=en

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Matthew Best

It seems reading isn't a strong point for you. There's nothing in that quote that criticises Rowling's views - all it does it describe other people's criticisms. That the distinction escapes you isn't terribly surprising. You don't seem very good at doing your own thinking.

It wouldn't surprise me if TG actually thinks that certain people or organisations criticising Rowling for having 'bigoted anti-trans views' constitutes reliable evidence that she has bigoted anti-trans views. This fits in with the general ideology that truth is constructed by social consensus, therefore there is no need to look at evidence.

[TurkeysGhost]

Nvm

[Aber]

New UK Civil Service guidelines in production; criticism from TRAs

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3aka...civil-servants

Quote:

The new policies state civil servants should equally recognise “gender critical beliefs” and “gender identity beliefs” – meaning that employees can openly share controversial views on trans lives without being penalised.

The extracts from the new policy seem to reflect the current state of UK law. The main area currently is dispute is the meaning of "single-sex spaces" in the Equality Act. A recent legal judgement said that it meant "legal sex" (not "biological sex")and so could be changed by a Gender Recognition Certificate, but IIRC this is being appealed.

[theprestige]

Is the UK GRC subject to any sort of expert gatekeeping? Do you need a diagnosis from a mental health professional, or some sort of quality of life recommendation from a certified expert? Or can you just fill out a requisition form and get the gender recognition of your desires?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Is the UK GRC subject to any sort of expert gatekeeping? Do you need a diagnosis from a mental health professional, or some sort of quality of life recommendation from a certified expert? Or can you just fill out a requisition form and get the gender recognition of your desires?

Yes.
Yes.
No.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

Yes.
Yes.
No.

Thanks for your replies. Who are the experts who determine whether a GRC is warranted? What criteria do they apply to make this determination?

[Darat]

Been linked to a few times but goodness knows where in this threadL https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-reco.../who-can-apply this will set you on the path, follow the link to the NHS if you want even more info.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

Been linked to a few times but goodness knows where in this threadL https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-reco.../who-can-apply this will set you on the path, follow the link to the NHS if you want even more info.

So I was looking at that to see what the official criteria are, and I ran across something... odd. A diagnosis if gender dysphoria is normally required, but you can apply for a GRC even without a gender dysphoria diagnosis. The criteria are a little more strict in that case. That's not the weird part. It kinda makes sense: if you don't have a diagnosis, then the other factors used to prove you're really trans should make up for that.

So what are these stricter requirements?

Originally Posted by gov.uk

If you do not have a gender dysphoria diagnosis
You might still be able to apply, but only if you meet all of the following requirements:

• you currently live in England, Wales or Scotland
• you were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland
• you had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that
• you have had gender affirmation surgery

It's the last one that I find weird. Why is that weird? Because it indicates that people are getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis. How are people getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis?

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How are people getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis?

Presumably outside the UK. The NHS is famously dysfunctional, especially when it come to trans related care. Those with money likely go abroad to be seen and treated in a more reasonable timeframe.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

…snip..


It's the last one that I find weird. Why is that weird? Because it indicates that people are getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis. How are people getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis?

In the UK if you are a competent adult you are free to elect to have elective surgery, that’s between you and a surgeon.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So I was looking at that to see what the official criteria are, and I ran across something... odd. A diagnosis if gender dysphoria is normally required, but you can apply for a GRC even without a gender dysphoria diagnosis. The criteria are a little more strict in that case. That's not the weird part. It kinda makes sense: if you don't have a diagnosis, then the other factors used to prove you're really trans should make up for that.

So what are these stricter requirements?



It's the last one that I find weird. Why is that weird? Because it indicates that people are getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis. How are people getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis?

Presumably from a country that allows that sort of thing.

[theprestige]

Anyway, now that you mention it, I'm questioning the premise of "gender reassignment surgery". It seems to me that it's more like "sexual mimicry surgery".

[TurkeysGhost]

i still don't understand the marriage thing at all. What's that about?

Quote:

you were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Anyway, now that you mention it, I'm questioning the premise of "gender reassignment surgery". It seems to me that it's more like "sexual mimicry surgery".

It's sex denial surgery, if you really want truth in naming.

[Pixel42]

I'm more interested in this bit:

Quote:

you had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that

I'm curious to know what would be considered evidence of "living in a gender" in a society where everyone has equal freedom to dress and behave however they wish and discrimination on the basis of gender is almost entirely illegal.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Darat

In the UK if you are a competent adult you are free to elect to have elective surgery, that’s between you and a surgeon.

What ethical surgeon would perform sex reassignment surgery on a patient that didn't have gender dysphoria?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Darat

Been linked to a few times but goodness knows where in this threadL https://www.gov.uk/apply-gender-reco.../who-can-apply this will set you on the path, follow the link to the NHS if you want even more info.

Thanks again!

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I'm more interested in this bit:



I'm curious to know what would be considered evidence of "living in a gender" in a society where everyone has equal freedom to dress and behave however they wish and discrimination on the basis of gender is almost entirely illegal.

"We will only recognize you as a woman if you can prove you've put a lot of effort into perpetuating regressive, misogynistic stereotypes about women. We can't get you pregnant (yet), but if you've spent the past six years barefoot and in the kitchen, that's a good start!"

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Because it indicates that people are getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis. How are people getting gender reassignment surgery without a gender dysphoria diagnosis?

Does it indicate that?

Would the UK even recognize such a diagnosis from an overseas clinic?

[TurkeysGhost]

Quote:

Recent waiting list figures:
Please note: due to a national outage of the patient records system we are still working on restoring our activity data and validating some discharge data. The data provided below is subject to revision when data recovery has been completed.

Number of people on our waiting list: 12,296

Number of referrals received in the month: 264

Number of first appointments offered in the month: 41

Total appointments offered in the month: 827

We are currently offering first appointment to people who were referred in: July 2018

The data above is for February 2023. We update this page every month, adding the latest validated data. This validation process takes some time, so the data on this page will lag the current date by a couple of months.

...

Our GIC is not an outlier – nationally, waiting times to be seen at gender identity clinics are very long. We appreciate how difficult it must be for you to not know when your appointment will be. We will therefore refresh our current waiting list data monthly to give you indicative timelines of how long you might wait for your first appointment.

https://gic.nhs.uk/appointments/waiting-times/

Kinda obvious why people might be going abroad for care.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by Pixel42

I'm curious to know what would be considered evidence of "living in a gender" in a society where everyone has equal freedom to dress and behave however they wish and discrimination on the basis of gender is almost entirely illegal.

This question has been asked over and over and over. If an answer was forthcoming, it would have came by now.

Basically the trans side argued itself into a corner when it put "Self Identity" on a pedestal before stopping to think if it made sense in literally any context.

A: "We have to respect self identity."
B: "So you can just declare yourself the other sex?"
A: "Of course not, that would be silly. You have IDENTIFY as the other sex."
B: "What's the difference?"
A: "Did I say identify? I mean 'live as' the other sex."
B: "What's the difference?"
A: *Pulls fire alarm, runs away, comes back later with a full fringe reset."

Identify as, lives as, declares yourself to be... this are all the same thing.

[JoeMorgue]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

https://gic.nhs.uk/appointments/waiting-times/

Kinda obvious why people might be going abroad for care.

"Socialized Medicine sucks" was not on my Bingo Card for this debate.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

"Socialized Medicine sucks" was not on my Bingo Card for this debate.

Meanwhile the rest of Europe is edging away from the UK and hoping whatever it has isn't contagious. I wouldn't draw too many broader conclusions here other than the UK is going through... something quite awful and quite British. It's like they take national pride in crippling austerity.

Socialized medicine isn't immune from a lowering tide, and since the UK seems to have decided they would like to downgrade to "developing nation" status, I suppose the NHS is going to have to adjust.

My glib comments about "TERF island" are fun and all that, but there is earnestly something to be said about the UK being a very special example. It's really quite wild what is happening to their society right now, both regarding this topic and more broadly.

[Hercules56]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

This question has been asked over and over and over. If an answer was forthcoming, it would have came by now.

Basically the trans side argued itself into a corner when it put "Self Identity" on a pedestal before stopping to think if it made sense in literally any context.

A: "We have to respect self identity."
B: "So you can just declare yourself the other sex?"
A: "Of course not, that would be silly. You have IDENTIFY as the other sex."
B: "What's the difference?"
A: "Did I say identify? I mean 'live as' the other sex."
B: "What's the difference?"
A: *Pulls fire alarm, runs away, comes back later with a full fringe reset."

Identify as, lives as, declares yourself to be... this are all the same thing.

One can self-identify as a woman, even though they live and dress like a typical cis-man. Plus, who are WE to judge what a "true" woman should dress and look like? Why can't a true woman wear jeans, sneakers, t-shirt, short hair and baseball cap? All that matters is what "she" feels on the inside, right?

[d4m10n]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

You're off message, you're supposed to be painting trans athletes as the unreasonable ones unwilling to compromise here. Get with the program!

What is the proposed compromise from folks like Lia Thomas? So far as I can tell they are more than happy to displace female athletes from the podiums and record books which were once reserved to them.

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Prescribing that trans athletes must be on HRT for X amount of time and monitoring their hormone levels are significant concessions, don't you agree?

If these compromises were originally floated by trans activists and/or athletes, rather than foisted upon them by sports governing bodies, I would agree. So far as I can tell, though, the activist position is that folks like Terry Miller and Andraya Yearwood deserve their places on the podium regardless of hormone levels.