what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

[Woodchopper]

It looks like the ramblings of someone who is drunk to me.

A separate thought, “...the lived reality of women globally is erased...” reminds me somewhat of those opponents of gay marriage who took the view that if marriage were changed it would change the meaning of all marriages. Which seemed bonkers to me, I mean, what does the experience of anyone else’s marriage have to do with mine? Nothing at all.

I had that same thought. It's as if giving rights to one group of people diminishes or destroys the rights of others.

Yes, as far as I'm aware, that is the argument made by some feminists.

[tom p]

My general thoughts on this;

Rowling's take would be very, very insensitive if taken in isolation. However, given previous form, it sounds like a dog whistle, and almost certainly was.

She was pretty obviously making a joke about the headline on a clunkily-titled piece.
I mean, seriously, effectively reducing women to a biological function by calling them "people who menstruate" in an effort to include the few thousand trans men worldwide who do is just silly.
Most of the problems that article discusses are 3rd world problems or problems of poverty. Most people in poverty in the 3rd world aren't able to have gender reassignment operations, so essentially it's mostly an article about a very real and serious problem faced by poor women and with some sensible ways of addressing that.
Accusations of dog-whistle transphobia here are pathetic and would be beneath any reasonable person.

[Stephanie]

Fwiw, I don't feel offended by "people who menstruate". It's actually the opposite, because it's more akin to a normal bodily function, than "oh special woman thing!"

[Tessa K]

My general thoughts on this;

Rowling's take would be very, very insensitive if taken in isolation. However, given previous form, it sounds like a dog whistle, and almost certainly was.

Pretty much all of Rowling's takes on trans issues are bad, although such takes are in general circulation due to the prevalence of transphobia. Notably, though, they are also entirely in relation to trans women.
....

In her short, her comments were bad and almost certainly because her attitude as bad, but it would probably be better to ignore or debunk rather than a massive tweet storm of generally incoherent abuse.

Yes, it's important to take her tweets in the context of her earlier opinions on trans people, the cumulative effect of them. Ignoring them would be fine if she had a few followers but because she has so many, it's important to stand up for the rights of people affected and to educate those who are not already intransigent in their beliefs.

And you're right, the anti-trans opinions expressed on much of social media are almost all about trans women. TERFs should really be called TWERFs Trans Women etc)

Trans men get pretty much ignored in the debate either because transitioning is seen as becoming part of the patriarchy with its associated male privilege, because their activities don't impinge on female spaces such as changing rooms or because women's 'identity' isn't 'affected' or 'undermined' by it.

I'm not sure how the patriarchy reacts to trans men or what men in general think about them as I am a) not a man and b) haven't encountered any men who have a problem with them within my fairly liberal bubble. I guess trans men get double discrimination, sexism when they're young and presenting as female and transphobia after transitioning.

[lpm]

My general thoughts on this;

Rowling's take would be very, very insensitive if taken in isolation. However, given previous form, it sounds like a dog whistle, and almost certainly was.

Pretty much all of Rowling's takes on trans issues are bad, although such takes are in general circulation due to the prevalence of transphobia. Notably, though, they are also entirely in relation to trans women.
....

In her short, her comments were bad and almost certainly because her attitude as bad, but it would probably be better to ignore or debunk rather than a massive tweet storm of generally incoherent abuse.

Yes, it's important to take her tweets in the context of her earlier opinions on trans people, the cumulative effect of them. Ignoring them would be fine if she had a few followers but because she has so many, it's important to stand up for the rights of people affected and to educate those who are not already intransigent in their beliefs.

This is nonsense. There was nothing much wrong with any of her earlier tweets either. You still haven't explained what you considered to be the "toads" in your opening post.

What has happened in this instance is:

1) JK Rowling says X

2) Juno Dawson says "I’d like to break down what she’s saying" and...

3) claims JK Rowling said Y

4) Everyone jumps up and down, outraged at how transphobic Y is

5) Nobody bothers to stop and say X was different to Y and in many respects X was the opposite of Y.

Given this happened now, what reason is there to suppose this hasn't happened with previous occasions? There's a continual pattern where people say X and then are branded as TERFs who've said Y.

[MartinDurkin]

... Who has actually said that sex isn't real?

It's not really that uncommon to find people who say that sex isn't real. I'm surprised you've never come across it.

Here is an example from an academic in a twitter thread on this topic yesterday.

Sex is socially constructed. There is no binary sex. If we're looking at the biological, there are many variations of x and y chromosones. And medication just alters hormones - of which everyone have varying levels of!

Link to original thread.
https://twitter.com/DrJessTaylor/status ... 1944963072

(just to be clear, it was a reply to Dr Jess Taylor that I quoted, not one of her own tweets)

[Tessa K]

Now Daniel Radcliffe has joined the discussion

In a statement posted on an LGBT suicide prevention charity website, the actor said: "Transgender women are women.

"Any statement to the contrary erases the identity and dignity of transgender people."

Radcliffe said this was not about "in-fighting" and added he felt "compelled to say something" because Rowling was responsible for the "course his life has taken". Writing on The Trevor Project's website he said he was sorry to anyone whose "experience of the [Harry Potter] books has been tarnished".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/newsbeat-52975994

[egbert26]

Now Daniel Radcliffe has joined the discussion

Fascinating. The BBC didn't report on JK Rowling's originally tweets, but now a man has spoken they give a sh.t...

It's also interesting that he didn't bother addressing the issue of why women might be offended as being referred to as 'people who menstruate', nor did he say 'trans men are men'. Just 'trans women are women'.

And you're right, the anti-trans opinions expressed on much of social media are almost all about trans women. TERFs should really be called TWERFs Trans Women etc)

Trans men get pretty much ignored in the debate either because transitioning is seen as becoming part of the patriarchy with its associated male privilege, because their activities don't impinge on female spaces such as changing rooms or because women's 'identity' isn't 'affected' or 'undermined' by it.

I'm not sure how the patriarchy reacts to trans men or what men in general think about them as I am a) not a man and b) haven't encountered any men who have a problem with them within my fairly liberal bubble. I guess trans men get double discrimination, sexism when they're young and presenting as female and transphobia after transitioning.

The reason that GC radfems would exclude TW but not TM is because they believe that sex is immutable and the oppression women face is sex-based rather than gender-based.

[Tessa K]

Now Daniel Radcliffe has joined the discussion

Fascinating. The BBC didn't report on JK Rowling's originally tweets, but now a man has spoken they give a sh.t...

It's also interesting that he didn't bother addressing the issue of why women might be offended as being referred to as 'people who menstruate', nor did he say 'trans men are men'. Just 'trans women are women'.

On this occasion it's more because it's Harry Frickin Potter turning on her than because he's a man. Shitstirring more than sexism.

[EACLucifer]

It's worth noting that GC radfems have some absolutely insane views on trans men, including the ludicrous take that people are forcing lesbian teenagers to become trans* due to homophobia, because of course homophobes are noted for their trans-inclusive worldview

*Something that does not appear to be possible in reality.

[lpm]

Er... Iran.

[EACLucifer]

Er... Iran.

Iran doesn't make people trans. It imposes physical transition on cis gay men to escape the threat of judicial murder for being gay. The distinction is important.

[Woodchopper]

Trans men get pretty much ignored in the debate either because transitioning is seen as becoming part of the patriarchy with its associated male privilege, because their activities don't impinge on female spaces such as changing rooms or because women's 'identity' isn't 'affected' or 'undermined' by it.

I'm not sure how the patriarchy reacts to trans men or what men in general think about them as I am a) not a man and b) haven't encountered any men who have a problem with them within my fairly liberal bubble. I guess trans men get double discrimination, sexism when they're young and presenting as female and transphobia after transitioning.

I agree. Men haven't suffered the effects of sexism* to anywhere near the same degree that women have, so there is not a political imperative to define themselves and seek solidarity in terms of their gender or sex. A useful illustration of male privilege is that its unremarkable to hear men saying that they rarely if ever think about gender issues. In general that probably includes not thinking about trans men so long as they are people that an individual man has never met.

Though of course individual trans men will face prejudice for crossing the boundaries of what is perceived to be normal.



*Mens Rights Activists and Incels will disagree, but they're wrong.

[lpm]

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowli ... 8e01dca68d

[Tessa K]

Trans men get pretty much ignored in the debate either because transitioning is seen as becoming part of the patriarchy with its associated male privilege, because their activities don't impinge on female spaces such as changing rooms or because women's 'identity' isn't 'affected' or 'undermined' by it.

I'm not sure how the patriarchy reacts to trans men or what men in general think about them as I am a) not a man and b) haven't encountered any men who have a problem with them within my fairly liberal bubble. I guess trans men get double discrimination, sexism when they're young and presenting as female and transphobia after transitioning.

I agree. Men haven't suffered the effects of sexism* to anywhere near the same degree that women have, so there is not a political imperative to define themselves and seek solidarity in terms of their gender or sex. A useful illustration of male privilege is that its unremarkable to hear men saying that they rarely if ever think about gender issues. In general that probably includes not thinking about trans men so long as they are people that an individual man has never met.

Though of course individual trans men will face prejudice for crossing the boundaries of what is perceived to be normal.

*Mens Rights Activists and Incels will disagree, but they're wrong.

Trans men are often harder to spot than trans women for the general public, which is another reason they are less in the public consciousness. To transition to male-presenting, people are given testosterone so they bulk up and grow facial (and other) hair. But to transition to female-presenting the testosterone and its effects have to be countered, especially if the person is fully adult when they transition. Trans women have very narrow hips and sometimes broad shoulders because nothing can be done to change the skeleton. However, although genital reconstruction is generally more successful for trans women, creating a penis is much harder.

[EACLucifer]

Trans men do face a rather obnoxious double bind, though, because while mainstream discussions ignore them, trans-specific discussions are dominated by a small fraction of trans women who are often very unpleasant to trans men. Partly it's insisting on applying a rigid and oversimplistic model of male privilege that simply does not hold up for trans people, but it can be a lot worse; takes suggesting that trans men are doing something wrong by "ruining" female bodies by transition pop up from time to time among this small cadre of trans women. It is important to emphasise that most trans women aren't like this, but the ones that are are very vocal and very quick to monopolise discussion.

[tom p]

https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowli ... 8e01dca68d

That's a very succinct way of describing what happened.
It seems that when it comes to trans issues there are a few very vocal people desperate to take offence at anything. These same people seem either dishonest or unable to correctly parse a sentence. Some of them seem to have a media presence and generally get the first word & with tw.tter a lie (or a misunderstanding) can now travel many times round the world before the truth has even got its shoes on.
So people really, really, should think hard about actually reading the source material that is being referenced any time they read a media article or a tweet about someone allegedly being transphobic or making transphobic statements & try to do so with an open mind and reaching their own conclusions about the actual words written, not what someone else has interpreted them to mean.

[JQH]

...
So people really, really, should think hard about actually reading the source material that is being referenced any time they read a media article or a tweet about someone allegedly being transphobic or making transphobic statements & try to do so with an open mind and reaching their own conclusions about the actual words written, not what someone else has interpreted them to mean.

This in spades. Applies also to allegations of sexism and racism too.

[murmur]

It's worth noting that GC radfems have some absolutely insane views on trans men, including the ludicrous take that people are forcing lesbian teenagers to become trans* due to homophobia, because of course homophobes are noted for their trans-inclusive worldview

*Something that does not appear to be possible in reality.

I used to (still do) get pretty pissed off at folk pontificating about how such things are handled by the relevant services, generally when they had f.ck all idea about what those services actually are (some may have heard of the Tavvy, but knew sod all about the role folk like me played): with my bairns I employed that old-fashioned thing of asking some questions, listening to the answers, encouraging the person in question to talk about their experiences, their feelings, what they actually wanted, keeping my own views and feelings as far out of the way as possible, then agreeing a joint course of action. It was certainly my experience that bairns could very well describe their own, different, sexual and gender identities.

[Woodchopper]

Trans men get pretty much ignored in the debate either because transitioning is seen as becoming part of the patriarchy with its associated male privilege, because their activities don't impinge on female spaces such as changing rooms or because women's 'identity' isn't 'affected' or 'undermined' by it.

I'm not sure how the patriarchy reacts to trans men or what men in general think about them as I am a) not a man and b) haven't encountered any men who have a problem with them within my fairly liberal bubble. I guess trans men get double discrimination, sexism when they're young and presenting as female and transphobia after transitioning.

I agree. Men haven't suffered the effects of sexism* to anywhere near the same degree that women have, so there is not a political imperative to define themselves and seek solidarity in terms of their gender or sex. A useful illustration of male privilege is that its unremarkable to hear men saying that they rarely if ever think about gender issues. In general that probably includes not thinking about trans men so long as they are people that an individual man has never met.

Though of course individual trans men will face prejudice for crossing the boundaries of what is perceived to be normal.

*Mens Rights Activists and Incels will disagree, but they're wrong.

Trans men are often harder to spot than trans women for the general public, which is another reason they are less in the public consciousness. To transition to male-presenting, people are given testosterone so they bulk up and grow facial (and other) hair. But to transition to female-presenting the testosterone and its effects have to be countered, especially if the person is fully adult when they transition. Trans women have very narrow hips and sometimes broad shoulders because nothing can be done to change the skeleton. However, although genital reconstruction is generally more successful for trans women, creating a penis is much harder.

I agree that when walking down the street trans men probably find it easier to pass. That said, as far as I've seen, the great majority of the outrage directed at trans women is about imagined individuals (eg the sexual predator in the changing room) or trans women who have been highlighted by the media. The public debate doesn't seem to be about people's actual day to day experience of trans men or women.

[tom p]

I agree that when walking down the street trans men probably find it easier to pass. That said, as far as I've seen, the great majority of the outrage directed at trans women is about imagined individuals (eg the sexual predator in the changing room) or trans women who have been highlighted by the media. The public debate doesn't seem to be about people's actual day to day experience of trans men or women.

Regarding the emboldened part, that's hardly surprising. In the UK in 2018 the government equalities office "tentatively estimated" there were maybe 200,000 - 500,000 trans people living in the UK (not all of whom will have had gender reassignment surgery or any form of medical intervention, since their description covered people who have made social changes, ie those at the earliest steps of transitioning).
I'm not sure how they came up with that figure, and one could I suppose argue the figure could be far lower, based on the following from the linked document:

How many people have changed their legal gender?
Since the Act came into force, 4,910 trans people have been issued a Gender Recognition Certificate. 12% of trans respondents to the National LGBT survey who had started or completed their transition had successfully obtained one

So if 12% of trans respondents to an LGBT survey had obtained one & there have been ~5k issued, then one could estimate there are only 40k trans people in the UK. I'm sure the civil service have very good reasons for estimating a range 5-12.5x greater than that.
Either way, given the tendency of people to live in communities where they feel safe (usually with other people with similar needs or backgrounds) then outside of areas with enclaves of trans people (most likely to be major cities or notably lgbt-friendly places like Brighton or Hebden Bridge), then, with such a small total population, anyone not in such areas is unlikely to meet a trans person, and very unlikely to knowingly do so.

[Bird on a Fire]

It's certainly true that there are few trans people in the UK (and I think they tend to be younger, which also reduces the likelihood for a lot of people having trans friends/acquaintances/colleagues).

That's why when spats like this come up I try to give the benefit of the doubt to the transpeople in the discussion, at least at first, rather than, say, assuming that they're either dishonest or incapable of parsing a sentence.

[tom p]

It's certainly true that there are few trans people in the UK (and I think they tend to be younger, which also reduces the likelihood for a lot of people having trans friends/acquaintances/colleagues).

That's why when spats like this come up I try to give the benefit of the doubt to the transpeople in the discussion, at least at first, rather than, say, assuming that they're either dishonest or incapable of parsing a sentence.

I am confused. Because they are young? Because there are few of them? What doubt is there to give a benefit of if one reads the original text rather than inherently believe the spin that someone writing about it has put on it regardless of their sex, gender or how they identify.
Or does someone's interpretation of someone else's words automatically become right if they claim it's somehow affecting them?
If I say "I love trans women" and a trans man then calls me a bigot for excluding them, does that make their claim true? What if, instead, a cis man calls me a bigot for excluding trans men? Would that still be necessarily true?
What if the interpretation is just obviously wrong/false? What if it comes from someone with a history of these false interpretations as a means of seeking attention and boosting their profile? If they are trans do you still give them the benefit of the doubt?

[Stephanie]

JK Rowling has done a longer post about her views.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/

[lpm]

Wow.