The Witch Trials, anyone else?

[Heartofice]

5 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

I think this is probably where I’d land too. She has a fixation on keeping female only spaces that doesn’t really stack with the evidence, but it’s an understandable one for her personally.

Agree but I don’t think this makes her transphobic. She’s a feminist who has real issues with female safety. That’s why she goes on about it. I also think that the abuse she has gotten has caused her to entrench into a position.

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, Larry of the Lake said:

There is a bounty of information available, some of which has been linked in this thread about her behavior that, in my opinion, is transphobic.  Whether or not she has a decent reason to think the way she doesn't seem very relevant to me.

If transphobia = bigotry, then to me having a decent reason to think the way she does certainly seems relevant to me. If a belief makes sense, I am generally not going to view it as bigoted. 

Again, I can't provide an encyclopedic review or Rowling's words on this topic. I know what she said in the podcast, some of which I thought was reasonable, and some of which I disagreed with. I actually found Phelps-Roper's take on certainty nearly as interesting as the podcast topic itself.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In the same 12 seconds, I found an article that said there's no meaningful difference. I'm going to leave that discussion to those more qualified to have it. And that definitely does not include me.

Lise elliot is one of the folks cited by Rowling and has some super sketchy practices. I don't think that's quite the same as NIH.

2 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

In terms of spaces, I suppose that raises the question of why societies have women-only spaces in the first place. I think the evaluation of harm done by Rowling's opinion--if one believes she is doing harm--is going to depend at least partly on the answer to that question.

I guess, but that again implies that trans women cannot ever be considered women because they are too threatening to cis women. That's certainly a statement, but it is obviously transphobic and exclusionary.

 

[Phylum of Alexandria]

5 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I mean, by your standards the easiest thing is to say there are two genders. Right? Trans people aren't transitioning to gender fluid statuses - they are identifying as men or women. What does that have to do with gender fluidity?

NB people advocate fluidity. Others advocate for a general elimination of the gender binary as a concept. Someone quoted Vox a few comments back. Here is the opening paragraph from a recent article:

"It’s true that conversations pertinent to trans people and trans identity are ongoing and evolving, and yes, often confusing. One of the downsides of living in a society that’s built around a pretty rigid gender binary is that it’s often extremely hard for anyone, sometimes even trans people, to push beyond that binary and see the possibilities of a world of many vast and varied expressions of gender. Doing so requires a paradigm shift, a sort of human software upgrade."

I realize that most trans people want to just live their lives free from other people prying into what they're doing. And most of them simply want to be accepted as the gender they identify with. But that's different from the activists and the thought leaders out there. They often push something more radical.

https://www.vox.com/culture/23652475/trans-issues-in-the-media-healthcare-disinformation

[TrackerNeil]

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I guess, but that again implies that trans women cannot ever be considered women because they are too threatening to cis women. That's certainly a statement, but it is obviously transphobic and exclusionary.

I couldn't say until I have a better idea why we segregate restrooms, changing rooms, etc. I'll have to think that over.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

If you think that I did say that trans people are advocating for third gender, please go back and reread more carefully. I am not saying that. I'm saying that they should do that, or at least allow others like Rowling to adopt a model like that. Because more people would understand it and be amenable to the trans cause.

But...they don't want to be a different gender other than male or female. Why should they do that? It literally defeats the point of what they're trying to do.

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

I really don't understand what you're arguing here, but perhaps it results from your confusion about what I was saying about the Third Sex. If you care to try to reword it, I'll take another shot.

You're talking about gender as a spectrum which has no relation to anything in this topic. You're saying trans people should advocate to be a third gender not because it is what they want or what is healthy for them, but because people like Rowling and yourself would feel better about it.

I'm arguing that you are 100% missing the point of why trans people are trans. 

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

If transphobia = bigotry, then to me having a decent reason to think the way she does certainly seems relevant to me. If a belief makes sense, I am generally not going to view it as bigoted. 

Again, I can't provide an encyclopedic review or Rowling's words on this topic. I know what she said in the podcast, some of which I thought was reasonable, and some of which I disagreed with. I actually found Phelps-Roper's take on certainty nearly as interesting as the podcast topic itself.

I guess I just don't understand the bigotry angle here, largely because I don't understand what "decent reason" would justify this type of prejudice or make it not bigotry.

I can't speculate as to whether she has some amazing excuse or explanation for her bigotry that she has not as yet offered.  

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

NB people advocate fluidity. Others advocate for a general elimination of the gender binary as a concept. Someone quoted Vox a few comments back. Here is the opening paragraph from a recent article:

"It’s true that conversations pertinent to trans people and trans identity are ongoing and evolving, and yes, often confusing. One of the downsides of living in a society that’s built around a pretty rigid gender binary is that it’s often extremely hard for anyone, sometimes even trans people, to push beyond that binary and see the possibilities of a world of many vast and varied expressions of gender. Doing so requires a paradigm shift, a sort of human software upgrade."

I realize that most trans people want to just live their lives free from other people prying into what they're doing. And most of them simply want to be accepted as the gender they identify with. But that's different from the activists and the thought leaders out there. They often push something more radical.

https://www.vox.com/culture/23652475/trans-issues-in-the-media-healthcare-disinformation

Again, this is a great conversation starter about nonbinary people and has nothing to do with saying that trans women aren't women and should be excluded from women-only spaces.

[Heartofice]

22 minutes ago, Raja said:

.....are we seriously asking 'what she has done to harm trans people'?

  

Yes still waiting for your answer actually. Anything to contribute?

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I couldn't say until I have a better idea why we segregate restrooms, changing rooms, etc. I'll have to think that over.

I guess another way to hammer this home is - why did we have separate fountains and bathrooms for black people?

Did that cause harm?

And if "because women are afraid of trans women" is reasonable justification for segregation, why isn't "because white people are afraid of black people" reasonable justification?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

8 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

Again, this is a great conversation starter about nonbinary people and has nothing to do with saying that trans women aren't women and should be excluded from women-only spaces.

See my very first comment in this thread about the trans cause vs gay marriage. In terms of winning hearts and minds, you need to meet people where they are and coax them to your side. That may be frustrating. It may objectively be unjust. But it's the facts in terms of how cultures actually do progress. Not through top-town engineering, or by shouting "this is my right!"

Obviously we can point to instances of activism where shouting is necessary...but the sudden shift from Gay Marriage campaigns ("they're just like you and me") to trans activism ("you are literally killing trans people!") reflects a profound change seemingly out of the blue.

I am advocating for some sort of shift back to this older model of persuasion, for the sake of efficacy in real cultural change. I suggested allowing for differing conceptions of transness to exist among allies as an example of something that would facilitate more collaboration and less hostility. If you disagree, that's fine. But that's what I was trying to convey.

[Zorral]

50 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

a powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement, that has gained huge purchase in very influential areas of society

And one that was deliberately actively monetized and mediaized by the reich to get people like JRR and others to do exactly as They are doing.  This was done for the sake of political power, since same sex marriage no longer riled up the base, and because THEY KNEW THE VAST MAJORITY OF AMERICANS are in favor of reproductive rights and antagonistic to criminalizing reproductive rights. The Reich needed something, and this is what They landed on.  And all the pretending we aren't intolerant types ate it up with a short spoon.  It gave them too something to howl about, that wasn't 'racist' exactly ... but They too had a group over which They could crow and deny humanity and abuse with immunity and impunity.  I put up the link and quotes both here and the USA political threads.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2023/03/anti-trans-transgender-health-care-ban-legislation-bill-minors-children-lgbtq/

https://www.rawstory.com/how-far-right-activists-secretly-devised-a-brutal-anti-trans-plan-report/

[Ran]

I admit, the quote from Kal earlier seemed like it was clear that Rowling was concerned about cis men abusing the loosening of social taboos/policing of single-sex spaces to accommodate transwomen and transmen. That's not transphobic, it's grappling with the trade-offs of policy choices in regards to conflicts between cis rights and trans rights. The gay rights analogy -- gay marriage doesn't actually conflict with anyone else's rights, right? Because it's not like straight people were being forced to marry people of their gender just because gays had the right to marry. But this is a much more complicated issue in regards to certain spaces (e.g. prisons, shelters, changing rooms, bath rooms, etc.) and activities (e.g. sports).

Fundamentally, is there a reason places for men and women to change exist, and are those reasons because of their gender or because of their sex, or some degree of both? Based on the answer to that, how then to integrate transmen and transwomen into those spaces, who themselves may have varying degrees of interventions to masculinize/feminize them and have bodies more like males/females, is actually a fairly complicated question it seems to me. I'm guessing the solutions to those questions are also going to be complicated, but extremists on both sides prefer to suppose that there's just one right answer that fits everyone and everything and they happen to know what it is.

Having listened to the podcast (not a Rowling reader, but the Westboro Baptist angle of it was interesting as I remembered their virulence in the 90s, I was not familiar with Phelps-Roper prior to it), I believe I recall there's a point where Rowling says she would not personally have an issue with a transwoman who has had gender affirming surgery using a women's changing room or rest room, IIRC. If my recollection is right, she certainly seems to have a thought-out position that is not as extreme as people present it as. She also spoke very clearly about her fear being about the loosening of the social taboos and policing that prevent predatory cis men from just waltzing into the spaces for females unchallenged, noting that she believed if, for example, some cis dude at a gym started walking into a women's changing room, not only would women challenge him, but other men would challenge him as well because of the taboo.

I did find the way she talked about males a little difficult, being one myself, because it's quite obvious that if she suffers from a phobia, it's androphobia. And she has reasons, due to trauma she discusses, but I think that's sad that there's a latent suspicion of males and their potential to harm females. But, then, I've seen enough women online talk about how they have to be on their guard when out in a city alone at night and so on to know that fear of violence from cis men is pretty widespread, and I think usually people are very supportive and understanding of this fear.

 

 

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Larry of the Lake said:

I guess I just don't understand the bigotry angle here, largely because I don't understand what "decent reason" would justify this type of prejudice or make it not bigotry.

I can't speculate as to whether she has some amazing excuse or explanation for her bigotry that she has not as yet offered.  

I think we're talking past each other. What I mean is that if a view is well supported by reason and evidence, I'm not likely to think it is bigoted. For example, back when same-sex marriage was still debatable in this nation, someone asked me, "What would change your mind?" I thought it over and decided that, if immediately following the legalization of SSM, we saw a giant spike in divorces that could not be easily explained by something else, I'd likely rethink my support for SSM. In such a case, it might not be bigoted to oppose SSM, because there would be some reason to believe it had deleterious societal effects. 

To bring this back to the matter at hand, I'd want to know more about what Rowling thinks, and why. If her beliefs make sense, that speaks better for those beliefs than if she just heard them from Tucker Carlson and decided that was good enough.

[Raja]

12 minutes ago, Larry of the Lake said:

There is a bounty of information available,

Why read about the harms she has caused or the misrepresentations she has made about trans people when you can come into a discussion about her and be like 'but what harm has she caused'

[TrackerNeil]

5 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I guess another way to hammer this home is - why did we have separate fountains and bathrooms for black people?

Did that cause harm?

And if "because women are afraid of trans women" is reasonable justification for segregation, why isn't "because white people are afraid of black people" reasonable justification?

I'm not sure if I find the comparison of sex-segregated spaces to race-segregated water fountains to be compelling. I'd like to hear what others think on that one.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said:

See my very first comment in this thread about the trans cause vs gay marriage. In terms of winning hearts and minds, you need to meet people where they are and coax them to your side. That may be frustrating. It may objectively be unjust. But it's the facts in terms of how cultures actually do progress. Not through top-town engineering, or by shouting "this is my right!"

Obviously we can point to instances of activism where shouting is necessary...but the sudden shift from Gay Marriage campaigns ("we're just like you and me") to trans activism ("you are literally killing trans people!") reflects a profound change seemingly out of the blue.

 

And yet you're advocating a non solution to the problem. By your logic gay people should have accepted only civil unions and not marriage rights.

I'm fine saying that extremists aren't doing any favors, but you're sounding a lot like a centrist wanting to capitulate and accept just a little bit of extermination.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'm not sure if I find the comparison of sex-segregated spaces to race-segregated water fountains to be compelling. I'd like to hear what others think on that one.

There is far - FAR - less violence perpetuated by trans women (in active transition or not) against cis women than basically anything else.

For me it doesn't make sense because men can largely attack women as it stands right now and usually can get away with it. Why go to the trouble and proclaim you're a woman to do the same thing?

[Phylum of Alexandria]

1 minute ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

And yet you're advocating a non solution to the problem. By your logic gay people should have accepted only civil unions and not marriage rights.

How is it a non-solution? I admit, the solution is not baked into the proposal. What's baked in is more people at the table to work with. What does this mean for bathroom bills, or something else? I can't say. What it would mean is fewer people demonized simply for having a different conception of transness. Not just excluded from the conversation, but pushed into the opposition. And more people who are standing confused by the sidelines, or maybe afraid to speak up due to all the moral panicking, actually feeling like they can take part in this cause.

4 minutes ago, Kalnestk Oblast said:

I'm fine saying that extremists aren't doing any favors, but you're sounding a lot like a centrist wanting to capitulate and accept just a little bit of extermination.

Your sentence there is itself rather extreme. How is allowing people to hold a different concept of transness--something kind of like "adoptive parent" with respect to gender, and something like "left handed person" with respect to their minority status--accepting just a little bit of extermination?

[TrackerNeil]

Just now, Kalnestk Oblast said:

There is far - FAR - less violence perpetuated by trans women (in active transition or not) against cis women than basically anything else.

For me it doesn't make sense because men can largely attack women as it stands right now and usually can get away with it. Why go to the trouble and proclaim you're a woman to do the same thing?

You're preaching to the choir, here, because my opinion on "bathroom bills" or that ilk is that the whole discussion is a complete waste of time. There are probably hundreds of thousands of public restrooms in this nation, and there is no way governments can police them all, or even a substantial fraction of them. So, regardless of where one stands on these bans, the fact is they won't achieve any policy objective. So I don't waste any time thinking about them.