what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Fri Jun 12, 2020 7:01 pm

If this protection is so good, why are trans people in male prisons so at risk from violence and sexual violence?
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Bewildered
Stargoon
Posts: 107
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bewildered » Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:51 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:16 pm
JQH wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:52 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pm
So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
The worst that could possibly be said about her original tweet is that it is wrong. Didn't strike me anywhere near as abusive as the responses she got. Normally if a woman said something controversial on the internet and she got replies along the lines of "choke on my dick c.nt" everybody here would be agreed on how disgusting and threatening that behaviour was. But in this case people seem to be excusing it. I'm appalled and disappointed quite frankly.

Maybe I need a rest from this place.
The problem with the original tweet isn't that it's abusive, it's that it's exclusionary to transpeople, which is an ongoing battle being fought incredibly hard in some quarters.

The abuse is obviously unacceptable - possibly so obviously that people haven't devoted too much time to pointing that out. I've certainly acknowledged that it's unacceptable. Who do you think is excusing it?
I tend to agree with you, or at least understand what you are saying, but I wonder if you have taken this view on other issues? I think there have been plenty of cases where the abuse people get on Twitter has been used as a way to say we shouldn’t criticise someone or at least that you should stop making a big deal out of it because it is not the most important thing. I also think while it is logical to say it doesn’t affect the truth of the original question, it’s still natural to get put off from arguing with someone when they are in the receiving end of pretty vile abuse.

This is quite a digression, sorry, but...

I remember in the old place there was a “shirt-gate” thread where I remember being influenced quite a bit in both directions by things like. After listening and thinking for a while i felt I could understand why the shirt bothered some people and why one should avoid wearing it to work. However looking at the criticisms he was getting I felt he was being criticised very harshly and getting abuse for a mistake I could imagine myself making and i think I would have found it very hard to cope with that pressure and that it could lead to bad outcomes. I wished people had just explained the point without getting personal. Then (after it was pointed out in the thread as an argument against ~ this view) I read the twitter posts directed at the people criticising him, many making much viler remarks and iirc rape threats and I felt pretty sick and didn’t want to say anything against them when they were getting such treatment. In other threads I may have reacted in the opposite way feeling I needed to demonstrate how criticising could be made in a more sensitive and considerate way without abuse (at either of those stages).

I strongly suspect many of us encounter these questions a bunch of times and I suspect how we react and judge the balance depends on our pre-existing stance, our biases and some random elements like which thought enters our head first or which idea we read first etc.

I honestly think everyone should try to read through multiple threads where questions like this come up and see if they are consistent. I think it might help people realise there are some difficult things to balance and take some heat out of the arguments. I know some people will be immune to things like this because they will find a very specific and rather fine tuned argument to explain why their specific response is correct in each situation etc due to variousness differences in the complicated situations. someone may even be right in such arguments, but it can also help to realise we are subjected to motivated reasoning.

Allo V Psycho
Clardic Fug
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2019 8:18 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Allo V Psycho » Sat Jun 13, 2020 8:24 am

purplehaze wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:55 pm
Gentleman Jim wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:27 pm
purplehaze wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:23 pm
The prostate is a small gland in the pelvis, found only in men.
[/b]
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/prostate-cancer/

Not entirely true
Skene glands share some of the same properties as the male prostate, which is located between the bladder and the penis. For example, both the prostate and the Skene glands contain prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and PSA phosphatase (PSAP), which are enzymes that can indicate the health of the prostate in males.

The discovery that these glands have similarities has led to the use of the term “female prostate.”

So, in a sense, females do have prostates, and female prostate cancer is technically possible. It is, however, extremely rare.
Skene glands are external, they surround the opening of urethra and the clitoris and help to cleanse the vulva. The prostate is internal.

Perhaps you are confusing Skene glands with Bartholin glands that secrete mucus to lubricate the vagina and are homologous to bulbourethral glands in males.
Not quite: the source that Gentleman Jim quoted reflects a real phenomenon (although for my part, I wouldn't call these glands 'the female prostate' any more than I would call the penis 'the male clitoris'. I don't think these analogies are very helpful, even when they identify common embryological origins).

Males and females are embryological rather similar (i.e. both essentially 'female'). Developing males are then diverted away from the basal condition by dangerous chemicals. However, signs of this common origin still persist in adults. Men can lactate: women can get inguinal hernias.

The paramesonephric ducts form the uterus and part of the vagina in females. Largely they disappear in males, but there is a remnant called the prostatic utricle (or rather charmingly, the vagina masculina). The mesonephric ducts in males form the epididymis, the vas deferens and the seminal vesicle, but a remnant called Gartner's duct may persist in females, and may develop into a cyst, to the confusion of surgeons who skipped embryology in medical school.

For the paraurethral glands (we're trying to drop eponyms like 'Skene'), we have to go back to the primitive urogenital sinus. This is divided into three parts: a wide cranial part that will form the presumptive bladder, the narrower pelvic urethra and the wide presumptive definitive urogenital sinus, which is the most caudal part.

In the female the pelvic urethra becomes the membranous urethra and its urethral lining gives rise to buds that form the urethral and paraurethral glands. In males the pelvic urethra develops into the prostatic urethra, from which the prostate gland arises by budding. The definitive urogenital sinus in females becomes the vestibule of the vagina, and in males the penile urethra.

The distinction between internal and external for these structures is therefore rather artificial - they result from later 'enclosing' events in the male. But I still wouldn't really call the paraurethral glands 'the female prostate' (in the same way I wouldn't call the prostate 'the male paraurethral glands'). They serve different functions.

(Really needs diagrams, doesn't it? Don't tempt me)

My general point would be that 'maleness' and 'femaleness' are something of a continuum. This means that finding terminology which defines one end of the continuum in a unique way is difficult/impossible. 'People who menstruate' is to my mind not a valuable contender as a distinguishing term.

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 am

Stephanie wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pm
So why is it, if there are legitimate concerns, that Rowling, and several people on this thread, have focused on the language used?

And why then, when Fishnut posted information trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised, did people go back to talking about language?
I don't know why some people are obsessed with language. Some people think "menstruators" is dehumanising, some people don't. Some people want language to be the shibboleth to determine who's an ally, some people want to look at actions.

But I don't think it's correct to say JK Rowling focused on language. Of her 3,692 words, 92 (2%) are about language.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Tessa K
Dorkwood
Posts: 1014
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
Location: Closer than you'd like

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Tessa K » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:43 am

lpm wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 am
Stephanie wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pm
So why is it, if there are legitimate concerns, that Rowling, and several people on this thread, have focused on the language used?

And why then, when Fishnut posted information trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised, did people go back to talking about language?
I don't know why some people are obsessed with language. Some people think "menstruators" is dehumanising, some people don't. Some people want language to be the shibboleth to determine who's an ally, some people want to look at actions.

But I don't think it's correct to say JK Rowling focused on language. Of her 3,692 words, 92 (2%) are about language.
Because language is how we communicate, define and include or exclude. It's how we think about issues, it's our interface with the world. JKR may not have written much explicitly about language but her 3,692 words are all language, every word a choice.
Last edited by Tessa K on Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Stephanie » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:44 am

lpm wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 am
Stephanie wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pm
So why is it, if there are legitimate concerns, that Rowling, and several people on this thread, have focused on the language used?

And why then, when Fishnut posted information trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised, did people go back to talking about language?
I don't know why some people are obsessed with language. Some people think "menstruators" is dehumanising, some people don't. Some people want language to be the shibboleth to determine who's an ally, some people want to look at actions.

But I don't think it's correct to say JK Rowling focused on language. Of her 3,692 words, 92 (2%) are about language.
I was referring to her initial tweet.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

EACLucifer
Snowbonk
Posts: 456
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
Location: Behind you

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by EACLucifer » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:55 am

Stephanie wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:44 am
lpm wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 am
Stephanie wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pm
So why is it, if there are legitimate concerns, that Rowling, and several people on this thread, have focused on the language used?

And why then, when Fishnut posted information trying to address some of the concerns that have been raised, did people go back to talking about language?
I don't know why some people are obsessed with language. Some people think "menstruators" is dehumanising, some people don't. Some people want language to be the shibboleth to determine who's an ally, some people want to look at actions.

But I don't think it's correct to say JK Rowling focused on language. Of her 3,692 words, 92 (2%) are about language.
I was referring to her initial tweet.
That seemed to be obvious. The focus has been on language because this thread started in response to Rowling having a go about people trying to be more inclusive in their choice of language.

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:14 am

I'm not sure "ignore 3,692 words, what matters is a 280 character tweet" is the best argument the forum's ever seen.

It's factually misleading to say this started with an initial tweet about language. The initial harassment of JK Rowling began when she liked a tweet deemed unacceptable. It became full-on violent abuse when she followed a tweeter deemed such an unperson that following her was a crime. EACL said there was not much wrong with Rowlings recent tweets, but she deserved it for having prior "form", which shows how this single tweet was not the starting point. There's a lot of "I've heard Rowling is transphobic so I'll rewrite everything she writes to interpret it as transphobic" going on.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Stephanie » Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:39 am

lpm wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:14 am
I'm not sure "ignore 3,692 words, what matters is a 280 character tweet" is the best argument the forum's ever seen.

It's factually misleading to say this started with an initial tweet about language. The initial harassment of JK Rowling began when she liked a tweet deemed unacceptable. It became full-on violent abuse when she followed a tweeter deemed such an unperson that following her was a crime. EACL said there was not much wrong with Rowlings recent tweets, but she deserved it for having prior "form", which shows how this single tweet was not the starting point. There's a lot of "I've heard Rowling is transphobic so I'll rewrite everything she writes to interpret it as transphobic" going on.
I don't think I said to ignore her statement. On the contrary, I'd much rather people properly engage with it.

You were the one who argued that "trans rights activists" or extremists overly focused on language, and should focus on real issues.

I simply suggested that this cuts both ways.

ETA: changed a couple of words in the final sentence.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

plebian
Stargoon
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:45 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by plebian » Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:30 pm

lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:27 pm
Tessa K wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:47 pm

It's not so much about that as her definition of sex and gender as well as defining women as those who menstruate.
She did not define women as those who menstruate.
She tweeted this and I'm not sure I even understand what she means.
If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.
Seems clear? Some men are only attracted to people of the male sex, being turned on by the male body shape and physique, the sight of an erect penis or the smell of a man. What's the problem with this? Why claim sex does not exist and men should be equally attracted to someone identifying as the male gender?

There's an Ursula Le Guin novel where the protagonist wishes racism doesn't exist and wakes to find every human is, and always has been, grey skinned. It's a disaster. Culture and lived experience has been erased, social identities have been lost, the world is impoverished. Sex is real and shouldn't be wished away.
Ime of gay men, trans men are men and are sexually attractive. They look like men, they smell like men, they feel like men, they are men.

Please stop telling me what I find attractive and what I should find attractive.
Pithy, well, a right helmet at least.

purplehaze
Stargoon
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:58 pm

plebian wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:30 pm
lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:27 pm
Tessa K wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 3:47 pm

It's not so much about that as her definition of sex and gender as well as defining women as those who menstruate.
She did not define women as those who menstruate.
She tweeted this and I'm not sure I even understand what she means.
Seems clear? Some men are only attracted to people of the male sex, being turned on by the male body shape and physique, the sight of an erect penis or the smell of a man. What's the problem with this? Why claim sex does not exist and men should be equally attracted to someone identifying as the male gender?

There's an Ursula Le Guin novel where the protagonist wishes racism doesn't exist and wakes to find every human is, and always has been, grey skinned. It's a disaster. Culture and lived experience has been erased, social identities have been lost, the world is impoverished. Sex is real and shouldn't be wished away.
Ime of gay men, trans men are men and are sexually attractive. They look like men, they smell like men, they feel like men, they are men.

Please stop telling me what I find attractive and what I should find attractive.
As a bisexual, non binary person, I find I know who I'm attractive to. Sorry, but I exclude trans for sexual intercourse, though they will always get my support and friendship. Stop telling me who I find attractive and who I don't. The male has to have a penis that is satisfactory in size and the woman has to know how to give orgasms.

plebian
Stargoon
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:45 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by plebian » Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pm

Oh you're a gay man? My mistake, that was about whom i was referring.

Lpm was making proclamations about other people's attraction and my post was intended to point out the unsubstantiated nature of this guff.

Nobody is telling people they have to be into trans people. It's interesting that you're happy to categorise them as a group, much like preference gays "no blacks or Asians, it's not racist it's a preference".
Pithy, well, a right helmet at least.

MartinDurkin
Sindis Poop
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 5:00 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by MartinDurkin » Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:21 pm

plebian wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pm
...

Nobody is telling people they have to be into trans people.
Some people definitely are saying this. Here are a couple of examples. Plenty more available.
EaVOpheXYAEmVT9.jpg
EaVOpheXYAEmVT9.jpg (38.4 KiB) Viewed 390 times
EaVOnn2WsAILbEI.jpg
EaVOnn2WsAILbEI.jpg (28.31 KiB) Viewed 390 times

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Stephanie » Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:29 pm

MartinDurkin wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:21 pm
plebian wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pm
...

Nobody is telling people they have to be into trans people.
Some people definitely are saying this. Here are a couple of examples. Plenty more available.
EaVOpheXYAEmVT9.jpgEaVOnn2WsAILbEI.jpg
I actually think there's a difference.

No trans people want to force others to date them. They're just questioning why folk would be happy to discount an entire group of people.

It's similar to, as plebian has pointed out, people openly saying they wouldn't date people of colour. Yes, people have their own preferences, but we should be able to critique societal standards of attractiveness.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:42 pm

plebian wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:30 pm
Please stop telling me what I find attractive and what I should find attractive.
Exactly. I would hope every single person on this forum agrees with this.
plebian wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pm
Nobody is telling people they have to be into trans people.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. TRA extremists say exactly this.

This is where the whole "feminists are obsessed with genitals" and "When Terfs talk about biological sex they are being transphobic" comes from.

Be absolutely clear about the hatred: if you were to invent a lesbian identity and say on twitter "Please stop telling me what I find attractive and what I should find attractive" you would be labelled as a transphobe, subjected to abuse and rape threats, and your tweet would be reported and you could be banned. Your exact words are the original sin made by many lesbians who are now on attack lists for expressing this opinion.
Stephanie wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:29 pm
I actually think there's a difference.

No trans people want to force others to date them. They're just questioning why folk would be happy to discount an entire group of people.

It's similar to, as plebian has pointed out, people openly saying they wouldn't date people of colour. Yes, people have their own preferences, but we should be able to critique societal standards of attractiveness.
Isn't it deeper than attractiveness? Our goal with all this is to allow people to identify with whatever gender they like, with disregard for their natal sex or current physical body. We want the GRA to be reformed to make this easier and create freedom of gender.

But this does mean there will be a group of people who are transgender but physically the opposite sex to their gender. I don't think it's so much as discounting an entire group of people, or being preferential in attractiveness, as a deep-seated sexuality. Same-sex desire cannot be cast aside simply by announcing same-gender attraction is all that matters. I don't feel it's right to describe sexuality as mere "preference" similar to skin colour.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Stephanie » Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:58 pm

lpm wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:42 pm
But this does mean there will be a group of people who are transgender but physically the opposite sex to their gender.
But that's still not all trans people.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

purplehaze
Stargoon
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:03 pm

plebian wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pm
Oh you're a gay man? My mistake, that was about whom i was referring.

Lpm was making proclamations about other people's attraction and my post was intended to point out the unsubstantiated nature of this guff.

Nobody is telling people they have to be into trans people. It's interesting that you're happy to categorise them as a group, much like preference gays "no blacks or Asians, it's not racist it's a preference".
Are you talking to me?

No Blacks No Irish No Dogs.

Personally, I wouldn't date or have sex with anyone who voted Brexit or Tory. Or a farmer. Or someone who had never heard of Jane Austen.

And especially those who believe that 'all lives matter'.

Shoot me.

purplehaze
Stargoon
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:07 pm

BTW I'm Irish and have been discriminated against and had terrible sex with an Irish man.

Where are we going with this in terms of sexual preference.

I only date blond men with no beards?

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1489
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Stephanie » Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:09 pm

Jesus christ, if this the state of debate, I'm out
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
bjn
Snowbonk
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by bjn » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:01 pm

Regardless of whether JK is a good or bad person for what she tweeted, Trump has taken action that will actually kill trans people.

User avatar
JQH
Catbabel
Posts: 732
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by JQH » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:56 pm

bjn wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:01 pm
Regardless of whether JK is a good or bad person for what she tweeted, Trump has taken action that will actually kill trans people.
Pay-walled - what's the tangerine tw.t done now?
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

User avatar
bjn
Snowbonk
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by bjn » Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:59 pm

Attempting to f.ck up trans people’s access to healthcare.
Trump administration on Friday reversed non-discrimination protections for transgender people in health care, a policy shift that has been among the top priorities of social conservatives who constitute the president’s base.
The rule change, part of a host of updates pertaining to abortion, birth control and families undertaken by federal officials over the past three years, represents an important setback in the movement for LGBTQ rights. Under President Barack Obama, the concept of gender in many areas of the law had been broadened beyond biological sex to encompass the myriad identities that different Americans embrace.
Roger Severino, director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services, has argued that when members of Congress who passed the 2010 Affordable Care Act prohibited providers receiving federal funding from discrimination on the basis of sex, they meant “the plain meaning of the term.”

HHS elaborated in a statement Friday that it believes those anti-discrimination provisions apply only to “male or female as determined by biology.” It described the change as part of efforts to remove “costly and unnecessary regulatory burdens” that it said were costing American taxpayers $2.9 billion.
When health officials first announced their intention to change the rule in May, civil rights groups said the reversal would allow health-care providers, as well as insurers, to deny services to transgender individuals.
On Friday, the American Civil Liberties Union and Lambda Legal’s Transgender Rights Project said they would challenge the rule in court.
“This rule change serves no other purpose than to target and discriminate against LGBTQ people. The cruelty is the point,” Sasha Buchert, a senior attorney for Lambda Legal, said in a statement.

Buchert said the change was especially dangerous in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic and in an era when LGBTQ people are experiencing discrimination at disproportionately higher rates when seeking medical care.
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden called the action “unconscionable,” saying in a statement that taking it "during Pride Month, on the fourth anniversary of the deadly terrorist attack at the Pulse Nightclub that claimed 49 lives, many of them members of the LGBTQ+ community, is despicable.”
Civil rights groups described the new rules as part of a broader attack on reproductive and sexual rights. The Trump administration over the past three years has taken numerous measures to restrict abortion, emphasize abstinence over birth control and define the concept of family as a man and a woman in settings from schools to the military.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development has separately sought to allow federally funded shelters to turn away transgender people for religious reasons, and the Department of Defense has sought to allow troops to serve only in positions that match the sex stated on their birth certificates.

Millennie Al
Clardic Fug
Posts: 181
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Jun 14, 2020 5:12 am

Piggy wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:15 pm
I'm female. Being referred to as a 'person who menstruates/menstruator' isn't inclusive to me. It's dehumanising. It reduces me to a bodily function that, for most of history, has been treated as unclean and like something females should be ashamed of. And it's so close to 'person who incubates/incubator' that it disturbs me. So much for feminism and being seen as more than a uterus.
The term was used in an article about menstruation and identifies the people affected. It was not used as a replacement for "women". Replacing the phrase with the word "women" simply makes it refer to the wrong group of people.
What are we to refer to male individuals in order to be inclusive?

Ejaculators? But females can experience a type of ejaculation.
Sperm producers? But we're not calling females 'egg producers'.
How about 'people who can rape'? Because, in the UK, you need a penis to rape. And yeah, not all men (hence the inclusion of 'can'), but then not all females menstruate.
You can only refer to them as "males". Those young enough are "boys" and not "men". Not all men ejaculate, produce sperm, or can rape.

But if you want a awkward phrase that includes most men and excludes most women, try "people who urinate standing up". It might be useful in an article about public toilets, just as "people who menstruate" is useful in an article about menstruation.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:58 am

Stephanie wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:58 pm
lpm wrote:
Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:42 pm
But this does mean there will be a group of people who are transgender but physically the opposite sex to their gender.
But that's still not all trans people.
I agree with you. But TRA extremists don't. And they run the show. You would get abuse for this view on Twitter as it's deemed transphobic.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1340
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:55 am

Image
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Post Reply