Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Posted: 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?
Open to critical enquiry
https://scrutable.science/
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.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:16 pmThe 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.JQH wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:52 pmThe 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.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pmSo is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
Maybe I need a rest from this place.
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?
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).purplehaze wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:55 pmSkene glands are external, they surround the opening of urethra and the clitoris and help to cleanse the vulva. The prostate is internal.Gentleman Jim wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:27 pmpurplehaze wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:23 pmThe 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.
Perhaps you are confusing Skene glands with Bartholin glands that secrete mucus to lubricate the vagina and are homologous to bulbourethral glands in males.
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.Stephanie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pmSo 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?
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.lpm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 amI 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.Stephanie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pmSo 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?
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.lpm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 amI 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.Stephanie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pmSo 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?
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.
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.Stephanie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:44 amI was referring to her initial tweet.lpm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:26 amI 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.Stephanie wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:45 pmSo 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?
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 don't think I said to ignore her statement. On the contrary, I'd much rather people properly engage with it.lpm wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 10:14 amI'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.
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.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:27 pmShe did not define women as those who menstruate.
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?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.
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.
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 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:30 pmIme 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.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 4:27 pmShe did not define women as those who menstruate.
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?She tweeted this and I'm not sure I even understand what she means.
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.
Please stop telling me what I find attractive and what I should find attractive.
I actually think there's a difference.MartinDurkin wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:21 pmSome people definitely are saying this. Here are a couple of examples. Plenty more available.
EaVOpheXYAEmVT9.jpgEaVOnn2WsAILbEI.jpg
Exactly. I would hope every single person on this forum agrees with this.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. TRA extremists say exactly this.
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.Stephanie wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 5:29 pmI 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.
Are you talking to me?plebian wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 4:36 pmOh 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".
Pay-walled - what's the tangerine tw.t done now?bjn wrote: ↑Sat Jun 13, 2020 9:01 pmRegardless of whether JK is a good or bad person for what she tweeted, Trump has taken action that will actually kill trans people.
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.
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.Piggy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:15 pmI'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.
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.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.
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.