what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
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 4:19 pm

lpm wrote:
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.
If that was Rowling's point, I'm not sure that tweeting "transmen are really women" was the best way to go about making it. Her comments went way beyond attacking that particular fringe view, and instead misgendered a whole host of people many of whom might even have agreed with her.
now I'm falling asleep and she's calling acab

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 4:28 pm

lpm wrote:
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.
No, that's not what I said at all.

I was merely making clear that trans people (you are the one, interestingly, who keeps referring only to trans women) include both trans men and women, in various stages of transition, or not transitioning, and therefore I am confused as to how anyone could decide not to date them as a whole.

Because purplehaze said:

"Sorry, but I exclude trans for sexual intercourse"
"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 » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:32 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:19 pm
If that was Rowling's point, I'm not sure that tweeting "transmen are really women" was the best way to go about making it. Her comments went way beyond attacking that particular fringe view, and instead misgendered a whole host of people many of whom might even have agreed with her.
Why do you think she tweeted "transmen are really women"? Did you see her tweet that? Has someone told you she tweeted that?

Spoiler: she never tweeted that.

Second spoiler: you didn't listen to what she actually said, just as you never listened to Piggy and charged ahead with your own conclusion on what is inclusive language. She actually said:
Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.
How many women are going to have to say they find it dehumanising for you to hear one of them?
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Piggy
Navel Tan
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Piggy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:38 pm

I'm seeing, all over the web, comparisons being made with movements like BLM: oppressed group vs. non-oppressed group.

It's not really the same though, because this is the struggle between two oppressed groups.

Women are still oppressed. It feels like people are choosing to ignore this. And now they (and it is only women because men don't seem to have to make any concessions on this front) are expected to be OK with changing definitions and losing the single sex rights/spaces campaigned for over (how many?) years.

Of course there's going to be pushback. Especially when there have been cases of women/girls being sexually assaulted by trans women in single-sex spaces. I've not personally seen any woman say they have an issue with the post-op old school transgender/sexual people using the spaces they identify as belonging to (as they have for years). I'm sure there are women who are even against that, but the main hardline seems to be allowing self-ID with zero body change.

I'm totally fine with shared spaces, but I can understand why a woman escaping male DV might only feel safe in an all-female environment.

As to language? Honestly, I don't see why we can't use 'female' and 'male' when we're referring to sex rather than gender. Maybe add 'adult' to the front for clarity. But that won't fly either because trans women are actually female, apparently:

https://twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/12 ... 7217355778

And women dare speak up about this online and they get swamped with rape and murder threats from the very people who want access to their single-sex spaces.

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 4:55 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.
Thanks for the summary.

For the record - I'd prefer to be called 'a person who m.st.rbates' rather than a w.nker... think I'll be stepping back out of this thread now...
You can't polish a turd...
unless its Lion or Osterich poo... http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/mythbus ... -turd.html

Piggy
Navel Tan
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Piggy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:56 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:28 pm
lpm wrote:
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.
No, that's not what I said at all.

I was merely making clear that trans people (you are the one, interestingly, who keeps referring only to trans women) include both trans men and women, in various stages of transition, or not transitioning, and therefore I am confused as to how anyone could decide not to date them as a whole.

Because purplehaze said:

"Sorry, but I exclude trans for sexual intercourse"
I'm with purplehaze.

I'm also bisexual and am not sexually attracted to trans people. That would be pansexual, surely?

Bluntly, if my current partner came out as trans I'm not sure I'd continue the relationship.

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 5:05 pm

lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:32 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:19 pm
If that was Rowling's point, I'm not sure that tweeting "transmen are really women" was the best way to go about making it. Her comments went way beyond attacking that particular fringe view, and instead misgendered a whole host of people many of whom might even have agreed with her.
Why do you think she tweeted "transmen are really women"? Did you see her tweet that? Has someone told you she tweeted that?

Spoiler: she never tweeted that.How many women are going to have to say they find it dehumanising for you to hear one of them?
Her suggestion to say "people who menstruate" instead of "women" quite clearly implies that transmen who menstruate are women. I've not seen an alternative interpretation of it posted here, or anywhere else.
lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:32 pm
Second spoiler: you didn't listen to what she actually said, just as you never listened to Piggy and charged ahead with your own conclusion on what is inclusive language. She actually said:
Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind, but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.
How many women are going to have to say they find it dehumanising for you to hear one of them?
I'm not meaning to ignore what Rowling says, but she doesn't seem to arrive at any conclusion or suggestion on the matter at hand. Rowling's long article brings up a lot of issues, but none of them seem to even attempt to justify why 'women' is an ok choice. Is her suggestion that, because of concern over same-sex spaces, we have to misgender transmen?

(Purely on the subject of 'inclusive language', I was perhaps meaning it in a more technical sense of which people are included in which category. "People" obviously includes women; "women" obviously excludes men. I acknowledge that some women find the term problematic, but at the very least the intention of "people" is inclusive, and the intention of "women" exclusive.)

I acknowledge that I don't fully understand Rowling's perspective, and of course don't really expect to entirely as I don't have the relevant experiences. I am, nevertheless, trying. My confusion arises from the context of how words are used, which is generally considered important. Using 'menstruator' as a violent slur is obviously unacceptable. Referring to women as 'menstruators' in a conversation about women in politics, or STEM, or the media, would obviously be unacceptable. Including women in the group of 'people who menstruate' in an article about helping people who menstruate doesn't seem to me to have the same implications at all, and it doesn't seem fair to exclude transpeople from the conversation because of something some other, very unpleasant, people have said.

It doesn't seem to be a satisfactory conclusion that we either have to alienate some women or misgender trans and non-binary people. In an attempt to be constructive, how about "women and others who menstruate"? It's clunkier, but avoids appearing to be reductive and avoids misgendering people.
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 5:33 pm

Piggy wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:38 pm
I'm seeing, all over the web, comparisons being made with movements like BLM: oppressed group vs. non-oppressed group.

It's not really the same though, because this is the struggle between two oppressed groups.

Women are still oppressed. It feels like people are choosing to ignore this. And now they (and it is only women because men don't seem to have to make any concessions on this front) are expected to be OK with changing definitions and losing the single sex rights/spaces campaigned for over (how many?) years.
Yes, I think this is an important point. I've seen comparisons with "All lives matter" on this thread and elsewhere, which I think are ignoring some of the complexity.

The point of Black Lives Matter is, in fact, that all lives matter, but that systematic issues result in the treatment of black people specifically as if their lives don't matter.

This is pretty much the opposite of what we're seeing here. The global development article referred to "people who menstruate" in an attempt to cover all the identities of people who menstruate. Rowling (and others) would prefer "women" to be identified specifically, ultimately because of systematic issues that oppress women. So in this context, the global development article was saying "all lives matter", and Rowling is arguing for the equivalent of "black lives matter".

For me, the distinction lies in the nature of the systematic oppression. Black people are oppressed by white-dominated society, so it makes sense to draw attention to that conflict. The oppression of women is largely by patriarchal society which is dominated by cis, heterosexual men- the exact same forces that oppress transmen and non-binary people. Creating conflict between women and transmen seems to be dividing where there should be an alliance to overcome the forces oppressing both groups. Of course, to some extent, transmen inherit some of the privilege that other men share, but I think in this particular context (menstruation) they are just as unprivileged as women, and would be further disadvantaged if the conversation and proposed action excludes them.

Finding the balance is going to require people on both sides of the argument to acknowledge each other's perspectives and priorities, and to make constructive suggestions. But it does seem to me, in this particular case, that transmen are being asked to pay the price for cis men's transgressions, and that doesn't seem fair.
Piggy wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:38 pm
As to language? Honestly, I don't see why we can't use 'female' and 'male' when we're referring to sex rather than gender. Maybe add 'adult' to the front for clarity. But that won't fly either because trans women are actually female, apparently:

https://twitter.com/KirstySNP/status/12 ... 7217355778
There's clearly quite a diversity of opinion in all communities about how to use words like male and female (or for that matter, men and women). On paper, "people" seems to be the broadest and therefore safest option. However, if there are contexts where it might be offensive to refer to people as "people", and I can understand why stigmatised issues like menstruation might be special cases, we're going to need some suggestions that avoid causing that offence without simply resorting to offending somebody else.
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 7:05 pm

We both agreed, I think, that the original article was so broad and vague that it wasn't worth the pixels it was printed on? Tedious good intentions waffle. It contained absolutely nothing to support or include trans men - except the title.

Many decades before you were born, in 1980, Yes Minister nailed this trick. In their very first episode in fact. Give something a shout out in the title and you're free to ignore it ever after. The first 20 seconds here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40Br165MhLU
Sir Humphrey: Always dispose of the difficult bit in the title. It does less harm there than in the text.

Sir Arnold: It's the law of inverse relevance. The less you intend to do about something, the more you have to keep talking about it.
It's like luring your enemies into angry argument about a 50-year old Fawlty Towers episode - keep 'em talking and they'll ignore systemic racism.

These are practical matters, not linguistic or philosophical. Practical means political. Political means negotiating messy compromises. Political means the art of the possible. If you want to maintain the status quo, prevent your enemies from gathering together. Make them intransigent, refusing to discuss any possible compromise.

This is why we in the UK lost. This is why the GRA won't be reformed. Politically it's over for a generation, possibly half a century. What politician would want to touch this topic? Worse, the progressive left is now permanent stained with politically correct terms like menstruators, which are a vote loser with the general public let alone the Daily Mail readers. It's classic Corbynism - better to stay pure and lose, than become Blairites and agree messy compromises on the way to improving people's lives.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

Piggy
Navel Tan
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Piggy » Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:57 pm

lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:05 pm
These are practical matters, not linguistic or philosophical. Practical means political. Political means negotiating messy compromises. Political means the art of the possible. If you want to maintain the status quo, prevent your enemies from gathering together. Make them intransigent, refusing to discuss any possible compromise.

This is why we in the UK lost. This is why the GRA won't be reformed. Politically it's over for a generation, possibly half a century. What politician would want to touch this topic? Worse, the progressive left is now permanent stained with politically correct terms like menstruators, which are a vote loser with the general public let alone the Daily Mail readers. It's classic Corbynism - better to stay pure and lose, than become Blairites and agree messy compromises on the way to improving people's lives.
I agree.

This is a real problem with the progressive left. There’s so much nitpicking, infighting and refusal to compromise that it takes far too long to make any progress. I say this as a bleeding heart liberal type.

The right seem much more pragmatic. Broad agreement on big issues, voters show up, party gets elected. Progress at least gets made in the general direction they were hoping for.

On the left it seems like the slightest deviation from the same viewpoint means spoiling the ballot or a protest vote. Everything remains at a standstill. We keep bickering and blaming each other.

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 8:39 pm

lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:05 pm
We both agreed, I think, that the original article was so broad and vague that it wasn't worth the pixels it was printed on? Tedious good intentions waffle.
I agree it's pretty vague. I'm not sure I'd say it's worthless - that would depend on the context for its intended audience. I have genuinely no idea how much attention issues surrounding menstruation have received in the international development community in the discussion of coronavirus recovery.

For example, I got an email today from the British Ecological Society noting their support for the Black Lives Matter movement. It's well-intentioned stuff but hardly groundbreaking; on the other hand, it's pretty much the only time I've seen them explicitly address race issues, so in that context it has some value.
lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:05 pm
It contained absolutely nothing to support or include trans men - except the title.
On that front I'm afraid I have to disagree. To quote myself:
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Sun Jun 07, 2020 6:22 pm
The recommendations from the article are:
Provision and on-going maintenance of water, sanitation, and hygiene services and supplies is essential.
Schools are closed, health centers are disrupted, and community-based programming is shut down or deprioritized. These realities in turn negatively impact the provision of essential information, with potentially harmful long-term consequences for women and girls. Alternative channels need to be utilized and services reinstated as soon as possible.
Tackling menstrual stigma to change social norms around keeping periods secret and the restrictions in daily activities experienced beyond personal choice, can be addressed.

Communication messaging aimed at households and families, including men and boys, may emphasize the support needed to manage menstruation during a pandemic, potentially contributing to lasting positive societal change.
To get back on track, addressing the fundamental gendered inequalities of the most vulnerable among us is essential. Investing in a new normal for menstrual health and hygiene, addressing menstrual stigma, the provision of water and sanitation systems, and supporting sexual and reproductive health and rights, is a good place to start.
Trans men absolutely do use water, sanitation, hygiene services and supplies, schools, health centres and community-based programming, are subject to exactly the same menstrual stigma as cis women (if not more so) and so on. Advocating for those matters is absolutely supporting trans men just as much as it's supporting women. I'm really not sure why you'd think otherwise.
lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:05 pm
These are practical matters, not linguistic or philosophical. Practical means political. Political means negotiating messy compromises. Political means the art of the possible. If you want to maintain the status quo, prevent your enemies from gathering together. Make them intransigent, refusing to discuss any possible compromise.
I agree with this 100%. So what is the compromise between alienating some women by referring to them as people who menstruate specifically in a discussion of menstruation, and alienating some transmen and non-binary people by misgendering them?
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 8:41 pm

Piggy wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:57 pm
lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:05 pm
These are practical matters, not linguistic or philosophical. Practical means political. Political means negotiating messy compromises. Political means the art of the possible. If you want to maintain the status quo, prevent your enemies from gathering together. Make them intransigent, refusing to discuss any possible compromise.

This is why we in the UK lost. This is why the GRA won't be reformed. Politically it's over for a generation, possibly half a century. What politician would want to touch this topic? Worse, the progressive left is now permanent stained with politically correct terms like menstruators, which are a vote loser with the general public let alone the Daily Mail readers. It's classic Corbynism - better to stay pure and lose, than become Blairites and agree messy compromises on the way to improving people's lives.
I agree.

This is a real problem with the progressive left. There’s so much nitpicking, infighting and refusal to compromise that it takes far too long to make any progress. I say this as a bleeding heart liberal type.

The right seem much more pragmatic. Broad agreement on big issues, voters show up, party gets elected. Progress at least gets made in the general direction they were hoping for.

On the left it seems like the slightest deviation from the same viewpoint means spoiling the ballot or a protest vote. Everything remains at a standstill. We keep bickering and blaming each other.
Yes, the left does seem enormously prone to infighting. I'm not sure why this is - maybe because it's trying to do the right thing for everyone, as opposed to achieving personal results? Maybe because it's often theory-driven? Maybe just because of some of the people who get attracted to the left (*raises hand*). It is a big problem, and I agree that broad alliances and compromises (often messy ones) are going to be necessary for sustained progress. Fingers crossed!
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 9:27 pm

My disagreement is I don't think there should be group answers for a class of 30 kids, let alone for a grouping of 2 billion people. Tiny minorities get ignored when lumped in with a mass policy.

If there's one kid with exceptional art skills, I don't want to hear the school has arts teaching to inspire all children in art. I want to hear they also have specific support for the tiny minority. A separate paragraph on how the school goes a step further for that minority.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

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 11:56 pm

I'm not sure about this analogy. Do transmen menstruate in an exceptional way?
now I'm falling asleep and she's calling acab

User avatar
Woodchopper
Dorkwood
Posts: 1418
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:05 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Woodchopper » Tue Jun 16, 2020 8:35 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 8:41 pm
Piggy wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:57 pm
lpm wrote:
Mon Jun 15, 2020 7:05 pm
These are practical matters, not linguistic or philosophical. Practical means political. Political means negotiating messy compromises. Political means the art of the possible. If you want to maintain the status quo, prevent your enemies from gathering together. Make them intransigent, refusing to discuss any possible compromise.

This is why we in the UK lost. This is why the GRA won't be reformed. Politically it's over for a generation, possibly half a century. What politician would want to touch this topic? Worse, the progressive left is now permanent stained with politically correct terms like menstruators, which are a vote loser with the general public let alone the Daily Mail readers. It's classic Corbynism - better to stay pure and lose, than become Blairites and agree messy compromises on the way to improving people's lives.
I agree.

This is a real problem with the progressive left. There’s so much nitpicking, infighting and refusal to compromise that it takes far too long to make any progress. I say this as a bleeding heart liberal type.

The right seem much more pragmatic. Broad agreement on big issues, voters show up, party gets elected. Progress at least gets made in the general direction they were hoping for.

On the left it seems like the slightest deviation from the same viewpoint means spoiling the ballot or a protest vote. Everything remains at a standstill. We keep bickering and blaming each other.
Yes, the left does seem enormously prone to infighting. I'm not sure why this is - maybe because it's trying to do the right thing for everyone, as opposed to achieving personal results? Maybe because it's often theory-driven? Maybe just because of some of the people who get attracted to the left (*raises hand*). It is a big problem, and I agree that broad alliances and compromises (often messy ones) are going to be necessary for sustained progress. Fingers crossed!
Some of that, but also due to intersectionality. Certainly, in a structural sense, white male hetro cis able middle or upper class men have it easiest. But everyone else is also involved in exploiting and oppressing each other. For example, a racist white women, or a person of colour who runs a business that exploits the employees, a working class homophobe etc The permutations are endless. The problem with the left is it often tries to build unsustainable coalitions among people who don't actually have many interests in common.

User avatar
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 983
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 » Tue Jun 16, 2020 11:00 am

Consensus is often the opposite of action as so much energy and time is put into achieving it there's none left for action. The Left want to include everyone in a more horizontal decision making structure but it can be a painfully slow process. In theory letting everyone have a say and weighting all views equally is a Good Thing but we've all been in meetings where everyone wants to say their piece even if it's exactly the same as what has already been said or near as damn it because they want to feel heard.

Governance and legislation are often blunt instruments, covering the majority but leaving the outliers stranded. Good governance isn't one size fits all but the fine tuning often gets left out unless the people affected are very vocal with lobbying, protesting etc - which they shouldn't have to do. It's hard enough for people in a group that has long been recognised (eg the disabled) to get what they need. With LGBT rights, especially trans rights, it's comparatively new territory and the battles are in their early stages.

It's in the interests of opponents to make the populace feel that giving rights to one group will take them from another (eg gay marriage) to the point where passing humane legislation becomes a vote loser.

Aplogies if any of this has been said. As I've mentioned a couple of times, I've stopped getting notifications on this thread for some reason; I'm trying to backtrack to read all the ones since I was last here but may have missed some.

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 » Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:17 pm

I think this headline is a tad optimistic:

https://thecritic.co.uk/has-trench-warf ... QJAor_pwYk
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
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 983
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 » Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:17 am

JQH wrote:
Tue Jun 16, 2020 10:17 pm
I think this headline is a tad optimistic:

https://thecritic.co.uk/has-trench-warf ... QJAor_pwYk
This is not a very helpful comment:
There must be open scientific investigation into the causes of dysphoria, which seem likely to be very different in a 45-year-old male and a 14-year-old female.
A lot of assumptions and generalisations are being made there.

There's more from the author of that article here (and others) in a piece about a debate she took part in:

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/03/05/j ... -services/

We see some of the points raised by JKR in the debate - eg wombs, menstruation and female-only spaces.
The journalist then denies the notion that the current trans debate is similar to the debates that occurred around gay men concerning adoption, the use of male changing rooms by gay men and the education on LGBTQ+ rights. ... The two feminists are asked to give a real-life example in which trans women should not be given access and Williams cites the girl guides, as they do not have to notify parents if a trans girl is going to be going on a camping trip. However, Barker snaps back and slams Williams for “assuming that an 11-year-old trans girl is a sexual predator”
From what I've read and seen, some genuine concerns for women's safety are being misappropriated, blown out of proportion and not based on evidence, using 'what if' scenarios that don't stand up. It's going to be hard to resolve this and protect everyone's rights when propaganda is mixed in with facts and all the nuances and complexities get lost.

ETA: There's an illustration of this comment I made in my previous post that
Good governance isn't one size fits all but the fine tuning often gets left out unless the people affected are very vocal with lobbying, protesting etc - which they shouldn't have to do. It's hard enough for people in a group that has long been recognised (eg the disabled) to get what they need.
If Marcus Rashford hadn't been publicly vocal and high profile, nothing would have been done (different subject but the point is the same)

bob sterman
Stargoon
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by bob sterman » Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:01 pm

Tessa K wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:17 am
This is not a very helpful comment:
There must be open scientific investigation into the causes of dysphoria, which seem likely to be very different in a 45-year-old male and a 14-year-old female.
Could you elaborate on what specifically is so unhelpful about the comment?

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:09 am
Location: West of the fields

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by murmur » Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:35 pm

bob sterman wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:01 pm
Tessa K wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:17 am
This is not a very helpful comment:
There must be open scientific investigation into the causes of dysphoria, which seem likely to be very different in a 45-year-old male and a 14-year-old female.
Could you elaborate on what specifically is so unhelpful about the comment?
One problem I can see with it was mentioned in my previous, spoilered, post: IME from accounts given to me during assessments, which ties with the literature, first hand accounts or research, I read, most folk with so-called gender identity issues begin to become aware of their own particular gender and sexual identities within the same sort of age range as "normal" gender and sexual identity development. This is regardless of natal gender, sexual identity, age of wanting to seek services or whatever.

That comment makes some likely artificial, probably sexist, and definitley not borne out by literature or lived experience, assumptions.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

User avatar
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 983
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 » Fri Jun 19, 2020 6:20 pm

murmur wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:35 pm
bob sterman wrote:
Fri Jun 19, 2020 12:01 pm
Tessa K wrote:
Wed Jun 17, 2020 8:17 am
This is not a very helpful comment:

Could you elaborate on what specifically is so unhelpful about the comment?
One problem I can see with it was mentioned in my previous, spoilered, post: IME from accounts given to me during assessments, which ties with the literature, first hand accounts or research, I read, most folk with so-called gender identity issues begin to become aware of their own particular gender and sexual identities within the same sort of age range as "normal" gender and sexual identity development. This is regardless of natal gender, sexual identity, age of wanting to seek services or whatever.

That comment makes some likely artificial, probably sexist, and definitley not borne out by literature or lived experience, assumptions.
You said it better than I could have so I second that

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 11:09 am
Location: West of the fields

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by murmur » Sat Jun 20, 2020 9:51 am

Happy to help.
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

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

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:54 pm

I'm surprised that people on here have quoted Malta as an example of human rights. What's that all about?

Ireland still doesn't allow trans men to become priests or trans women to become nuns.

User avatar
bjn
Snowbonk
Posts: 517
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:58 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by bjn » Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:08 pm

purplehaze wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:54 pm
I'm surprised that people on here have quoted Malta as an example of human rights. What's that all about?

Ireland still doesn't allow trans men to become priests or trans women to become nuns.
Is that the Catholic Church as opposed to the government of Ireland?

User avatar
Tessa K
Catbabel
Posts: 983
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 22, 2020 12:14 pm

bjn wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 7:08 pm
purplehaze wrote:
Sat Jun 20, 2020 6:54 pm
I'm surprised that people on here have quoted Malta as an example of human rights. What's that all about?

Ireland still doesn't allow trans men to become priests or trans women to become nuns.
Is that the Catholic Church as opposed to the government of Ireland?
That would be the Church. The Government has no say in Vatican decisions.

Post Reply