The Witch Trials, anyone else?

[Heartofice]

5 hours ago, karaddin said:

Also to an earlier comment, all trans people get defined as trans activists - our mere existence is activism to these fucks.

No this is incorrect. Not all trans people are wholly onboard with every aspect of gender ideology, and not everyone who is a trans activist is trans. It’s highly dishonest and a bad faith trick to try to define trans activism as being the same thing as trans people, in the same way it’s dishonest to conflate any disagreement on the issue as being anti-trans. 

[Knight Of Winter]

Best explanation I've ever seen about JKR is this: she's hardcore pro-women and women's safety. Protecting women and keeping them from harm is highest-order value she holds, to the detriment of everything else. Also, considering her history and previous statements, it's obvious that she's had bad experiences with men and views them with a mixture of unease and distrust.

So that's the core of her position: protection of women, usually against men. If she were to given a choice between inconveniencing 20 men and making 1 woman feel slightly safer, she'd choose latter in a heartbeat.

Ok with her critics so far, but "protecting women" is still her highest-order value. With the same zest she's defending women from men, she's also "defending" women from trans people. Replace "20 men" with "20 trans people" in example above and JKR's answer would staunchingly remain the same. In fact, the most (in)famous issue she had - the one with transwomen entering women's bathrooms - can just be viewed as an extension of her fear for women's safety from men. Hence her tweets how "there's no evidence that transition changes transwomen's male pattern of behaviour" or something to that effect. I think that in her mind, she's genuinely fighting a battle for safety of women, misguided as you may consider it.

In short:

- do I agree with her in this instance - no, not at all
- do I agree with her on principle - no, I think society should not be built upon fear-based policies
- do I think she has elements of transphobia in her character - yes
- do I think she's a bad person overall - no
- do I think she deserved all the vitriol, including death threats, she's getting - no, not nearly
- do I take some satisfaction in the fact that attempts at canceling her failed, no matter how much I think she's wrong - admittedly yes

[Heartofice]

Agree, it's a fight for the safety of women in her mind. I don't agree with the many of the points she gets stuck on as I don't think they are common enough cases to make it a battle worth fighting, but I can see why that is her position.

However, there is a point where sex based spaces are relevant, and there needs to be care as to who is allowed into them.  You cannot police who uses toilets, and you shouldn't need to, but if it's things like rape centres or women's prisons then biological sex becomes important. Luckily there are controls around this in most cases and things are done on a case by case basis. It does fall down sometimes however and cases like Isla Bryson in Scotland are a bit of a warning of where it could go if you aren't paying attention and are not stringent enough on criteria.

 

[kiko]

35 minutes ago, Knight Of Winter said:

Best explanation I've ever seen about JKR is this: she's hardcore pro-women and women's safety. Protecting women and keeping them from harm is highest-order value she holds, to the detriment of everything else. Also, considering her history and previous statements, it's obvious that she's had bad experiences with men and views them with a mixture of unease and distrust.

So that's the core of her position: protection of women, usually against men. If she were to given a choice between inconveniencing 20 men and making 1 woman feel slightly safer, she'd choose latter in a heartbeat.

Ok with her critics so far, but "protecting women" is still her highest-order value. With the same zest she's defending women from men, she's also "defending" women from trans people. Replace "20 men" with "20 trans people" in example above and JKR's answer would staunchingly remain the same. In fact, the most (in)famous issue she had - the one with transwomen entering women's bathrooms - can just be viewed as an extension of her fear for women's safety from men. Hence her tweets how "there's no evidence that transition changes transwomen's male pattern of behaviour" or something to that effect. I think that in her mind, she's genuinely fighting a battle for safety of women, misguided as you may consider it.

In short:

- do I agree with her in this instance - no, not at all
- do I agree with her on principle - no, I think society should not be built upon fear-based policies
- do I think she has elements of transphobia in her character - yes
- do I think she's a bad person overall - no
- do I think she deserved all the vitriol, including death threats, she's getting - no, not nearly
- do I take some satisfaction in the fact that attempts at canceling her failed, no matter how much I think she's wrong - admittedly yes

Isn't that, what you describe here, trans exclusive radical feminism?

[TrackerNeil]

7 hours ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

What about you? Despite the polls you linked showing that the issue is overwhelmingly partisan, what evidence would you need to show you that the divide on this is heavily partisan and not particularly based on any kind of a spectrum?

I never stated that I don't think there's a partisan nature to the divide, so this does not apply. In fact, partisanship is the very reason I am cautious about putting too much faith in polls. I think that party opinion leaders have a tremendous influence over what people think on an issue because I suspect most people don't think very hard on any issue. So they default to what they hear from people they kinda-sorta trust, and that includes the politicians on their side of the aisle. I suspect if Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris were to speak in favor of bathroom bills, some percentage of Democrats would shift along with them. I can't prove a counter-factual, of course, so I suspect we'll never know for sure.

However, I will say this: I do not think that this breaks down to something so elementary as "Democrats are right and Republicans are bigots." There are aspects of this particular movement that are complicated, and therefore so are people's opinions.

[Larry of the Lawn]

5 hours ago, kiko said:

 

Nvm

[Larry of the Lawn]

9 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

No.  But I don’t believe I’ve seen anyone posting in this thread who has said or implied that they hate Trans… 

If you read it, you'll find out there has been a lot of money spent to get people to hate trans men and women.  

The "you've been grifted to hate trans people" is being used in the general, non personal sense by Zorral.  It's describing what a bunch of shitty people have been doing.  And it explains where a lot of these seemingly well-meaning arguments that are actually pretty gross are coming from.  

Think of the way that BP pushed "carbon footprint".  

[Larry of the Lawn]

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No this is incorrect. Not all trans people are wholly onboard with every aspect of gender ideology, and not everyone who is a trans activist is trans. It’s highly dishonest and a bad faith trick to try to define trans activism as being the same thing as trans people, in the same way it’s dishonest to conflate any disagreement on the issue as being anti-trans. 

Oh come on, this is the laziest and sloppiest nit-picking you could have come up with and it doesn't follow logically from reality or what you quoted.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Oh come on, this is the laziest and sloppiest nit-picking you could have come up with and it doesn't follow logically from reality or what you quoted.

How so? Previously on this thread it was suggested JK was transphobic because she said bad things about 'trans activists'. This is a pretty common tactic I've seen from people to conflate the two things. They are not the same thing and doing so is just another method change language to suit your purposes.

[Larry of the Lawn]

13 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

How so? Previously on this thread it was suggested JK was transphobic because she said bad things about 'trans activists'. This is a pretty common tactic I've seen from people to conflate the two things. They are not the same thing and doing so is just another method change language to suit your purposes.

Are you in a position to determine whether or not all trans people get labeled as trans activists?   Are there bills being proposed to exclude trans activists from public life, or from existing, or do the bills target trans people?

 

 

 

[Heartofice]

Just now, Larry of the Lake said:

Are you in a position to determine whether or not all trans people get labeled as trans activists?

I'm not sure I understand. It was other people who were saying that trans activists = trans people. 

Since I am aware of trans people who are NOT trans activists I'd say that label is not accurate.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I'm not sure I understand. It was other people who were saying that trans activists = trans people. 

Since I am aware of trans people who are NOT trans activists I'd say that label is not accurate.

The post you quoted said "all trans people get labeled as trans activists".  labeled.  not are, but labeled as.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

32 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

If you read it, you'll find out there has been a lot of money spent to get people to hate trans men and women.  

The "you've been grifted to hate trans people" is being used in the general, non personal sense by Zorral.  It's describing what a bunch of shitty people have been doing.  And it explains where a lot of these seemingly well-meaning arguments that are actually pretty gross are coming from.  

Think of the way that BP pushed "carbon footprint".  

I don’t doubt it, sadly, but are any of those folks posting directly in this thread?

[Larry of the Lawn]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I don’t doubt it, sadly, but are any of those folks posting directly in this thread?

Are you in the middle of prepping a cross-examination or something?

Z's post was about the rhetoric people are being exposed to and where it comes from.  It's stuff we've all probably heard and seen.  

You know very well that no one has said "I hate trans people" in this thread and that's not what Zorral was implying or saying.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

10 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Are you in the middle of prepping a cross-examination or something?

Z's post was about the rhetoric people are being exposed to and where it comes from.  It's stuff we've all probably heard and seen.  

You know very well that no one has said "I hate trans people" in this thread and that's not what Zorral was implying or saying.

Then I misread Zorral’s post.  I didn’t “know very well.”  It seemed, to me, when I read it that the comment was vaugely directed at people posting in this thread.  That’s why I asked my question up thread.  I sought clarification.

[karaddin]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

No this is incorrect. Not all trans people are wholly onboard with every aspect of gender ideology, and not everyone who is a trans activist is trans. It’s highly dishonest and a bad faith trick to try to define trans activism as being the same thing as trans people, in the same way it’s dishonest to conflate any disagreement on the issue as being anti-trans. 

Glad we're on the same page here as I certainly don't think all trans people are activists either. I sure as fuck wouldn't call Caitlyn Jenner one, but it may shock you to know I also wouldn't call myself one. I was explaining what people like Posie Parker mean when they refer to "trans activists". 

[DMC]

5 hours ago, Heartofice said:

I suspect however she has been entrenched into defending a position by all the attacks on her and having so much bad faith thrown at her means she’s less inclined to roll back. 

Agreed, this seems to be a large part for many figures.  So much vitriol is thrown at them that they dig in on things they probably otherwise would not.  Same thing with Maher.  It's difficult watching him now and he's almost entirely foreign to the comedian I watched growing up (who still had some pretty crazy beliefs on certain things and unhealthy animus towards certain groups, granted).  He's grown so bitter about younger generations and those attacking him online that his show has become almost inverted from how he used to approach issues - as well as a parody of itself.

[TrackerNeil]

17 minutes ago, DMC said:

Agreed, this seems to be a large part for many figures.  So much vitriol is thrown at them that they dig in on things they probably otherwise would not. 

I will say, though, that this kind of thing drives me up a wall. I have my problems with woke ideology, sure, but my disagreement doesn't drive me to vote for Donald Trump. "Robin DiAngelo annoys me, so I'd better vote for a xenophobic neo-fascist." I'm still a liberal!

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 hour ago, Larry of the Lake said:

Are you in a position to determine whether or not all trans people get labeled as trans activists?   Are there bills being proposed to exclude trans activists from public life, or from existing, or do the bills target trans people?

Arguments like this over "not all trans people" or "not all activists" reflects some larger complications of these types of social media driven battles (which includes trans activism, but also really any facet of social, economic, or environmental justice).

I hope we can accept that some portion of activists on the left can safely be described as radical or revolutionary activists. Heck, some of them will even self-identify as such. There will likely be debate over how prominent or how powerful that radical portion is relative to all activists, but they are out there.

Not only are they out there, but they have greatly increased in power due to the structures and incentives of social media. The loudest voices, and the angriest most righteous takes are what yield the most clicks and shares, and so whatever their portion was before the domination of Twitter et al. over politics, it has grown in terms of attention and influence to some meaningful degree.

And one thing about radical activists of any stripe is that they claim to speak for all in their party. So a radical anarchist will speak for all anarchists (and anyone who disagrees with them is a shill for the status quo). And a radical trans activist will speak for all trans people, whether or not all or most trans people actually agree with their framing, tactics, or even goals.

The degree of overlap between what most trans people want and what the loudest voices online want is another thing that's constantly debated. I don't pretend to know that answer, though I do admit that the easy certainty in the arguments of the loudest voices certainly makes me skeptical of their claims to represent the consensus. 

I do think it is possible to get at a more-or-less objective snapshot understanding of that overlap or gap in opinions, at least in theory. Obviously, opinions across individuals and subgroups can be varied and complex, not to mention different radicals can say or do different things, and get different extents of attention across different online sectors. It's complicated. Yet a serious qualitative study of this topic could be done to gather fuller perspectives from people on the street relative to online and activist circles. Maybe it has been; I don't pretend to know. If someone has an article or researcher they'd recommend I check out, please do so.

I understand that these types of disagreements are going to happen nevertheless, but can we at least all stop to appreciate the various factors and complications that are swirling around when we do so? It would at least make it easier to delve into more substantive debate topics rather than bat away the worst faith interpretations of issues based on the most obnoxious people.

 

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

Not only are they out there, but they have greatly increased in power due to the structures and incentives of social media. The loudest voices, and the angriest most righteous takes are what yield the most clicks and shares, and so whatever their portion was before the domination of Twitter et al. over politics, it has grown in terms of attention and influence to some meaningful degree.

No, this really isn't true.  The extremists on the left may have a disproportionate influence on social media.  But please cite any federally elected official that truly represents this.  Closest you can get is the squad, and frankly it's hard to find much of a problem with any of them from a genuinely "moderate" perspective.  Maybe a bit, but it clearly pales in comparison to the 45-member "Freedom Caucus" in the House and likewise crazies in the Senate on the right.