what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1444
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 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:24 am

lpm wrote:
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.
No you've misunderstood. I'm still referring back to the idea of someone saying "I won't date trans people", when not all trans people are the same.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1291
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 11:44 am

Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

purplehaze
Stargoon
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:50 am

On the existence of females.

A thread.

https://twitter.com/lecanardnoir/status ... 4108372993

purplehaze
Stargoon
Posts: 109
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:56 am

lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:44 am
Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
One would almost think that corrective rape might be behind this. Homophobic and it did happen.

http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?scr ... 5000500024

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1444
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 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:08 pm

lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:44 am
Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
Nope, I wasn't referring to biological sex either.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
JQH
Catbabel
Posts: 720
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by JQH » Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:43 pm

lpm wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 5:16 pm
EACLucifer wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 11:13 am
lpm wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 7:05 pm
They've made us look like idiots saying things like people who menstruate, they've made us look like lunatics saying rapists must always be moved to women's prisons and they've made us look cruel for insisting physical males can work in women-only places like rape centres. Is this really the way to win friends and influence people?
This paragraph can only make sense to someone who puts radically different values on the wellbeing of cis and trans women.

Where do you think female sex offenders get sent? Where do you think men who sexually assault men get sent? I knew a lad back in school who ended up working as a prison officer, on a women's wing. Preventing sexual assault was one of the toughest parts of the job. Only cis women there. And we know that trans women do atrociously in mens prisons. Prisons already have to deal with the presence of people who have sexually assaulted people of the same gender as the rest of the inmates, this wouldn't change a damn thing.

And trans people can already be excluded from single sex spaces under the 2004 act if it is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate end. Making GRCs easier to get won't change that. The example given in the act is group counselling for female victims of sexual assault. Of course, if we're talking centres as a whole, rather than individual counselling sessions, you easily run into a problem where, in order to protect cis women from having someone in the same damn building with different genitals, you block trans women from having any access to support. That would only be an acceptable tradeoff to someone who places rather different values on the wellbeing of cis and trans women.
I don't know where your misogyny comes from - that's a matter for you and your mirror during a long, hard look - but using the excuse that women in prison are already getting sexually assaulted anyway is yet another low point.
...
Took me a while but I've finally twigged what you did there.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.

Fintan O'Toole

egbert26
Bank Butt
Posts: 21
Joined: Thu Dec 12, 2019 10:05 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by egbert26 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:37 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:08 pm
lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:44 am
Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
Nope, I wasn't referring to biological sex either.
It's all about the purity test thing that was referred to upthread. Unfortunately there are those who consider it their business to ask people (usually lesbians) to explain why their dating preference isn't solely about gender. When they say they are same-sex attracted they are accused of being anything from 'vagina fetishists' to being asked really dumb 'gotcha' questions about whether they'd date a trans man or not. Heterosexuals rarely get asked this.

I really don't see how progressive people have gone from 'date whoever you want' to thinking its acceptable to ask people why they will date some people and not others. Are they trying to prove how virtuous they are for having an approved sexual preference? Are they trying to goad lesbians into saying something that will be construed as transphobic? I have no idea, but I can certainly see why some lesbians feel under attack when SJWs seem to joining in with the incel-like behavour.

User avatar
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 982
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 » Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:01 pm

lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:44 am
Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
Not all trans people are at the same point in their transitioning. That's nothing to do with biological sex or whether they're women (or men with trans men) or not.

User avatar
Fishnut
Snowbonk
Posts: 546
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Fishnut » Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:39 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:01 pm
lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:44 am
Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
Not all trans people are at the same point in their transitioning. That's nothing to do with biological sex or whether they're women (or men with trans men) or not.
Also worth pointing out that they're also not all the same personality-wise, life-history wise or anything else-wise. They are individuals, the same as every other person and to blanket statement say that you're not going to date anyone who is trans is incredibly sweeping.

User avatar
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 982
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 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:08 pm

Fishnut wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:39 pm
Tessa K wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 4:01 pm
lpm wrote:
Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:44 am
Yes, I get you, but we are not allowed to say "not all trans people are the same". That's bringing biological sex into it, which is prohibited. Lesbians must accept all transwomen are women and pay no regard to physical biology.
Not all trans people are at the same point in their transitioning. That's nothing to do with biological sex or whether they're women (or men with trans men) or not.
Also worth pointing out that they're also not all the same personality-wise, life-history wise or anything else-wise. They are individuals, the same as every other person and to blanket statement say that you're not going to date anyone who is trans is incredibly sweeping.
Definitely. We all have types we go for and types we don't but for me at least, that's a small subset of whatever type of person. The flipside of that is men who say 'I love tall women' to which my response is - what, all of us?

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 745
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by plodder » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:18 pm

Christ almighty, really?

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:21 pm

Is saying you're not going to date anyone with a penis incredibly sweeping?
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 982
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 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:41 pm

lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:21 pm
Is saying you're not going to date anyone with a penis incredibly sweeping?
Even if they were on the journey to having it removed?

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1444
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 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:49 pm

God, this discussion is just embarrassing.

Yes, groups do talk about dating issues that affect them - that doesn't mean they have any interest in dating people who are hostile to them.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
TopBadger
Stargoon
Posts: 110
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 6:33 pm
Location: Halfway up

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by TopBadger » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:08 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:49 pm
God, this discussion is just embarrassing.
At 8 pages long don't think I'll be reading it all - is there a TL;DR version?
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:13 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:49 pm
God, this discussion is just embarrassing.

Yes, groups do talk about dating issues that affect them - that doesn't mean they have any interest in dating people who are hostile to them.
Exactly. Lesbians have no interest in dating trans extremists who are hostile to them. Making homophobic statements isn't the way to a lesbian's heart.

The extremists repeatedly state that transwomen must be treated as women, and nobody must distinguish between transwomen with a penis and transwomen without a penis. To make such a differentiation is to be hostile. As a result, lesbians get told what they should find attractive and are branded bigots if they express dissent.

As JK Rowling describes in her article.

The problem with this discussion is the mad stuff is so mad everyone assumes it can not possibly be true. Nobody believes people would stay stuff like "If a woman has a penis, her penis is a biologically female penis" - but they do.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1082
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:23 pm

TopBadger wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:08 pm
Stephanie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:49 pm
God, this discussion is just embarrassing.
At 8 pages long don't think I'll be reading it all - is there a TL;DR version?
Transmen are men and biological sex is important and so some men have periods but saying that all people who have periods are women isn't offensive or misgendering and everything is AOK and anyway oh look actually JK Rowling has written some waffly shite and there's nothing offensive in there at all how very dare you and anyway what about prisons oh no wait what about toilets oh no wait what about sports oh no wait what about lesbians etc etc etc.

It's the same as all previous debates on trans issues ever. No one learning anything, no one giving ground.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
El Pollo Diablo
Dorkwood
Posts: 1082
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
Location: FBPE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by El Pollo Diablo » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:25 pm

Probably worth mentioning as well that the plea to focus on the 80% of not-extreme people on the topic has inevitably given way to talking about the 10% who are off their sh.t on each side who go on about lesbians and penises, etc. Well they said that yeah well they said this yeah well etc.
Mike Patton wrote:"You overdo it sometimes. There I am, peeing on Axl Rose’s teleprompter." He looks rueful: "I didn’t really have to do that."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:26 pm

There may well be 'mad' and hostile people amongst trans activists (indeed, it would be very surprising if there weren't).

There are also real issues about transpeoples' rights and safety, women's rights and safety, and ongoing transphobia and misogyny.

I still don't see how objecting to inclusive language helps with any of that. In fact, by being divisive and distracting debate away from the important issues it seems to be totally counterproductive. As far as I can tell, Rowling's "all people who menstruate should be called women" tweet was motivated by views most people would find unpleasant and transphobic, which she then tried to cover up with a gish-gallop of largely irrelevant stuff.
now I'm falling asleep and she's calling acab

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:28 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:23 pm
TopBadger wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:08 pm
Stephanie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:49 pm
God, this discussion is just embarrassing.
At 8 pages long don't think I'll be reading it all - is there a TL;DR version?
Transmen are men and biological sex is important and so some men have periods but saying that all people who have periods are women isn't offensive or misgendering and everything is AOK and anyway oh look actually JK Rowling has written some waffly shite and there's nothing offensive in there at all how very dare you and anyway what about prisons oh no wait what about toilets oh no wait what about sports oh no wait what about lesbians etc etc etc.

It's the same as all previous debates on trans issues ever. No one learning anything, no one giving ground.
There does seem to be a whiff of "throw enough sh.t and hope some of it sticks" coming from certain participants on this thread.
now I'm falling asleep and she's calling acab

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:35 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:26 pm
I still don't see how objecting to inclusive language helps with any of that.
Please listen to what others on this thread have said. Don't simply ignore their views and decide for yourself what is more inclusive language. You are not hearing the people who say it is less inclusive or who say they find it offensive. Maybe re-read the posts from Piggy?
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.
Piggy wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:50 pm
Reducing me to something my uterus does once per month (if I'm lucky) is exactly what happened in this case. There are plenty of females who are fine with this, all across the gender identity spectrum. Equally, there are plenty of females across the gender identity spectrum who are not OK with this.
I'm disappointed that even after comments like these, three people kept merrily restating "X is more inclusive" like it's unassailable fact.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1444
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 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:35 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:25 pm
Probably worth mentioning as well that the plea to focus on the 80% of not-extreme people on the topic has inevitably given way to talking about the 10% who are off their sh.t on each side who go on about lesbians and penises, etc. Well they said that yeah well they said this yeah well etc.
Yep. Oh let's be reasonable, let's listen to these "legitimate concerns" and oh, we end up straight at "they're transing the kids" and penises.

I should go off to mumsnet and even the score a bit. Wonder if their "Black lives matter is a trojan horse for trans rights" thread is still going?
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:43 pm

lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:35 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:26 pm
I still don't see how objecting to inclusive language helps with any of that.
Please listen to what others on this thread have said. Don't simply ignore their views and decide for yourself what is more inclusive language. You are not hearing the people who say it is less inclusive or who say they find it offensive. Maybe re-read the posts from Piggy?
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.
Piggy wrote:
Fri Jun 12, 2020 1:50 pm
Reducing me to something my uterus does once per month (if I'm lucky) is exactly what happened in this case. There are plenty of females who are fine with this, all across the gender identity spectrum. Equally, there are plenty of females across the gender identity spectrum who are not OK with this.
I'm disappointed that even after comments like these, three people kept merrily restating "X is more inclusive" like it's unassailable fact.
I dropped out of the thread around that point because it was getting a bit unpleasant (not Piggy's fault at at all) - I did respond to those posts though.

The point I would have pushed is that, while "people who menstruate" would be a reductive and dehumanising way to refer to women in general, it seems to be the only accurate way to refer to the totality of people who menstruate, which is what the article was about (and the article did also refer to "women and girls" at some points, where appropriate).

So far, the only proposed alternative to "people who menstruate" that anybody has suggested is Rowling's "women", which is clearly even more problematic as well as being less accurate. What would you propose, lpm?
now I'm falling asleep and she's calling acab

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: with the birds

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:46 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:35 pm
El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:25 pm
Probably worth mentioning as well that the plea to focus on the 80% of not-extreme people on the topic has inevitably given way to talking about the 10% who are off their sh.t on each side who go on about lesbians and penises, etc. Well they said that yeah well they said this yeah well etc.
Yep. Oh let's be reasonable, let's listen to these "legitimate concerns" and oh, we end up straight at "they're transing the kids" and penises.

I should go off to mumsnet and even the score a bit. Wonder if their "Black lives matter is a trojan horse for trans rights" thread is still going?
A lot of this kind of discussion reminds me of supporters of Section 28.
now I'm falling asleep and she's calling acab

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1291
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm
Location: IMPEACH AND EXTERMINATE

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:08 pm

El Pollo Diablo wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:25 pm
Probably worth mentioning as well that the plea to focus on the 80% of not-extreme people on the topic has inevitably given way to talking about the 10% who are off their sh.t on each side who go on about lesbians and penises, etc. Well they said that yeah well they said this yeah well etc.
Yes.

I thought we would get unanimous agreement to Plebian's Law: "Stop telling me what I find attractive and what I should find attractive".

But immediately several people started walking this law back - it's just preference, when it comes to attraction you can't discount an entire group of people, you have to look at everyone as individuals, saying you're not going to date anyone who has a vagina is incredibly sweeping.

It gets to the heart of the matter - it's an attack on the acceptance of same-sex attraction that took a generation of battle to win. It's turning us back from the consensus that homosexuality is a deep-seated reality, making it out to be just yet another sexual preference. That's what they used to believe in the bad old days - meet the right individual, learn to prefer a different sort of genitals, and a happy heterosexual marriage awaits you. I'm not really sure how a gay man these days would react to being told he mustn't sweepingly dismiss people with vaginas, but it seems odd anyone thinks they have the right to say it to them.

How is anyone going to understand why lesbians are fighting back against these extremist views, if the reason for the fight back is kept hidden? This just leads to lesbians being branded transphobic Terfs and assaulted at protests.

What's more credible?

- A bunch of woke lefties who've campaigned for minorities, gay rights, children's rights, women's rights, the poor, the under-privileged, for their entire lifetimes suddenly decide to do a bit of bigotry and hate trans people?

- Or they have respect for trans people to live how they like, will march with them against discrimination, feel kinship when they are victims of male violence, have always been empathetic with their struggle, but recognise negotiated compromises will have to be made because trans rights can sometimes grate against women's rights.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Post Reply