what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
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 Jul 24, 2020 10:36 pm

Exactly. Trans rights means extra support, specific policies, additional healthcare, enhanced protection against male violence. The needs of a tiny minority shouldn't be lumped in with the needs of a vast group.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Gfamily
Dorkwood
Posts: 1528
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:00 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Gfamily » Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:31 pm

lpm wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 10:36 pm
Exactly. Trans rights means extra support, specific policies, additional healthcare, enhanced protection against male violence. The needs of a tiny minority shouldn't be lumped in with the needs of a vast group.
So how should the needs of a tiny minority be seamlessly caterered for ?
My avatar was a scientific result that was later found to be 'mistaken' - I rarely claim to be 100% correct
ETA 5/8/20: I've been advised that the result was correct, it was the initial interpretation that needed to be withdrawn
Meta? I'd say so!

plodder
Catbabel
Posts: 790
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:50 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by plodder » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:58 am

I think it would probably be helpful if people who used pejorative language were marginalised from the debate. Terf etc really get people's hackles up, and lpm's categorisations of the twitter debate are spot on.

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1562
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 Jul 25, 2020 10:14 am

I'm happy to not use terf. I'd quite like if the other side could drop autogynephilia and rapid onset gender dysphoria. That is characterising trans as a sexual fetish, and claiming kids are being "transed" online.

Because my problem is, I get told that there are these very reasonable concerns other women have, and yet when I look at their posts, I see them suggesting trans women are just men with a fetish, and going on about ROGD and the "trans lobby", or picking over photos to work out whether the women in them are "really a man". Or cruelly laughing at those who they deem don't "pass".

That doesn't seem fair or reasonable, or like the actions of folk interested in a sensitive discussion on the issues.
"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: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:19 am

I'd include misgendering in the list of pejorative language (for instance, referring to a trans man as a woman).

That also "really gets people's hackles up", and is almost always further marginalising an already marginalised group.

It doesn't look like a traditional insult, but that doesn't mean it's not immensely hurtful (perhaps more so than terf, which is more about behaviour rather than identity).
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2

User avatar
warumich
Sindis Poop
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:49 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by warumich » Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:16 pm

Don't know whether this has been posted already, it's from a while ago when the Rowling row first started and I haven't read most of this thread, but I found this contribution by Laurie Penny quite useful. It's a bit of a long read though

https://medium.com/@pennyred/terf-wars- ... d3156ad06e
I've never had a signature, and it never did me any harm

EllyCat
Buzzberry
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:31 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by EllyCat » Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:19 pm

warumich wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:40 pm
.

But then I want some persuasive arguments why safe spaces, scholarships, awards, toilets, sports or whatever the issue is, should apply to sex rather than gender. I made my concession about sports. I don't see why sex (as opposed to gender) has to impinge on the other areas, though I'm open to hear your arguments, such as safe spaces, as well. (a third space as a compromise as you say, maybe - but for this I would also like some clear reasoning why this would be so necessary - as earlier posts have outlined, there's no evidence that transwomen are any danger to cis women). [Not that as a cis man it is my part to agree or disagree to any compromise here.]
My example here would be sex-based dormitories in mental health wards. Here I believe the solution would be a third space (or private rooms for everyone, that’d be good!). However, placing a trans-woman in a female dorm is not acceptable due to the risk of unintended pregnancy (since it’s likely that there will be people experiencing sexual disinhibition and lack of capacity to consent).

I understand that the logic behind scholarships/awards is that a science scholarship for a female teenager is trying to address to social disadvantage whereby girls are not encouraged in STEM subjects. In this example, a recently transitioned trans-woman would not have experienced the social setback that the scholarship is trying to address. She will have experienced other setbacks, which perhaps merit consideration for their own scholarship program, but they are not applicable here.
warumich wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:40 pm
.

But I have the feeling there is something more to all of this - women have had it bad in a patriarchal society, and the cause of this is men - that now that women have at least some amount of safe spaces and protection from discrimination through exclusive scholarships, awards, etc. And now that you have all that, you see that there are "men" - who want in on those things too. And this is unfair. I can understand this, I don't know how it feels, but I think I get it (or, correct me if I got it wrong).
Sorry, but as far as I’m concerned you’re wrong.

It isn’t that we don’t want men to come and take our stuff (again). It’s that trans-women are their own group with their own unique needs. Anyone other than the most radical of rad-fems would probably support some decent suggestions, such as third spaces. But rather than propose additional Things to benefit themselves, TRAs seem to prefer to seek the validation of being counted as women even though this means that they are accessing a less appropriate Things as a result, and changing or devaluing the nature of the Things in order to accommodate themselves. If it were as straightforward as “can we share your stuff?” it would be a non-issue. The problem is “can we share your stuff, except we want to change this part of it and as a result some of you can’t use it anymore?”.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Stargoon
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Cardinal Fang » Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:57 pm

EllyCat wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:19 pm
My example here would be sex-based dormitories in mental health wards. Here I believe the solution would be a third space (or private rooms for everyone, that’d be good!). However, placing a trans-woman in a female dorm is not acceptable due to the risk of unintended pregnancy (since it’s likely that there will be people experiencing sexual disinhibition and lack of capacity to consent).
And should we also ban gay people from sex based dormitories on the basis that there will be people experiencing sexual disinhibition and lack of capacity to consent, and therefore there is a risk of straight people having relations they wouldn't normally have? Because by your logic that is equally a risk. Maybe we need third spaces for gay people.

In the very unlikely event that a non-transitioned transwoman was in a women only ward AND completely disinhibited, and with others who are so impaired that they permit sexual intercourse (consensually or not), then surely then you deal with that situation on it's individual merits, rather than discriminating against a whole segment of the population based on a vanishingly rare hypothetical situation that to my knowledge has never happened.

(And there's also the assumption lurking in there that just because someone is hospitalised in a mental health ward that they are utterly helpless and incapable of making any decisions and will just fall into bed with anyone. If there is a risk of unintended pregnancy in a mental health setting, I would suggest it's far more likely to come from cis men in positions of authority than from a trans woman on that ward. And TBH the idea that people with mental health issues that require inpatient treatment are so utterly incapable is also insulting to people with mental health probems).
warumich wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 4:16 pm
Don't know whether this has been posted already, it's from a while ago when the Rowling row first started and I haven't read most of this thread, but I found this contribution by Laurie Penny quite useful. It's a bit of a long read though

https://medium.com/@pennyred/terf-wars- ... d3156ad06e
That is an excellent article. Thank you for posting it.

CF
Image

EllyCat
Buzzberry
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 2:31 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by EllyCat » Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:33 pm

Cardinal Fang wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 7:57 pm
EllyCat wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 6:19 pm
My example here would be sex-based dormitories in mental health wards. Here I believe the solution would be a third space (or private rooms for everyone, that’d be good!). However, placing a trans-woman in a female dorm is not acceptable due to the risk of unintended pregnancy (since it’s likely that there will be people experiencing sexual disinhibition and lack of capacity to consent).
And should we also ban gay people from sex based dormitories on the basis that there will be people experiencing sexual disinhibition and lack of capacity to consent, and therefore there is a risk of straight people having relations they wouldn't normally have? Because by your logic that is equally a risk. Maybe we need third spaces for gay people.

In the very unlikely event that a non-transitioned transwoman was in a women only ward AND completely disinhibited, and with others who are so impaired that they permit sexual intercourse (consensually or not), then surely then you deal with that situation on it's individual merits, rather than discriminating against a whole segment of the population based on a vanishingly rare hypothetical situation that to my knowledge has never happened.

(And there's also the assumption lurking in there that just because someone is hospitalised in a mental health ward that they are utterly helpless and incapable of making any decisions and will just fall into bed with anyone. If there is a risk of unintended pregnancy in a mental health setting, I would suggest it's far more likely to come from cis men in positions of authority than from a trans woman on that ward. And TBH the idea that people with mental health issues that require inpatient treatment are so utterly incapable is also insulting to people with mental health probems).
CF, my assessment of risk is based on the risk of unintended pregnancy as being unacceptable, so I‘m going to assume that your first point is you misreading me rather than building me a homophobic straw man? Cisgender heterosexual liaisons in the setting are prevented (as much as possible...) by staff supervising communal areas and controlling access to the dorms, but there aren’t enough staff to watch all areas all the time, hence the dorms being single sex.

I am not suggesting that every single patient is incapable, nor that any incapacity is permanent. However, patients who are seriously sexually disinhibited do exist and may well be in an acute care setting because at the time their illness is not under control and they are a risk to themselves. I’m not talking about everyone with any mental health issue, I’m talking about patients admitted to an acute ward (I see that I forgot to specify an acute ward in my original post, which is my error; I don’t know how often you see disinhibition on non-acute MH wards). There are also patients in such a setting with drug abuse problems, so the cause of disinhibition may be related to drug-taking rather than the primary diagnosis.

I did actually describe a situation which I know has happened (a trans-woman being admitted to a female-only dorm with disinhibited patients). I don’t know how often this happens, but it is not hypothetical, I’m afraid. The staff involved obviously felt it was the least bad option, and they may well have been correct in the circumstances, but I’m sure that all concerned would have preferred for it not to have arisen. My solution to this would be for the hospital in question to be modernised so that all patients have their own room, negating the need for male/female/third space. But warumich wanted examples of where it is appropriate to exclude transgender people from their presenting-gender space, so I provided one.

Squeak
Fuzzable
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:27 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Squeak » Sat Jul 25, 2020 10:20 pm

There are a few problems with suggesting that trans people need their own spaces, most prominently of course being that existing facilities do not have third and fourth bathrooms or wards and do not have the space to build them in, even if the building is redeveloped. In these redeveloped hospitals, of course, you'd then need to staff specialist wards for trans people, even though there will be very few patients in whatever speciality in whatever town at any given time. Or perhaps we could put all the trans people together in a single general trans wars, regardless of medical specialty. And since there aren't many teens people, it probably wouldn't result in much excess mortality and morbidity by limiting their access to specialist nursing.

The separate spaces argument is effectively a demand that trans people (who have higher rates of mental health issues than other demographics) just wait 50 years for all the building stock to be replaced and for magical amounts of new funding to build them special, separate but equal spaces. And of course, if there were a massive building fund to create all of those separate spaces, and massive medical staff bills to segregate trans people, I'm sure all these people asking for separate spaces would be thrilled to see funds which could support all women being used to create services for the tiny fraction of women who are trans.

What are trans people meant to do while waiting for these redevelopments? Don't go shopping in case they need to use the loo and someone demands a birth certificate? Don't get sick? Definitely don't go swimming. Don't be a victim of domestic violence?

Those are very big and very real disadvantages and I would sincerely hope that everyone on this forum thinks trans people deserve medical treatment when they need it, rather than being sent home to deteriorate while we wait for society to create separate but equal hospital beds for them. Likewise, I hope everyone on this forum agrees that trans people ought to be able to go shopping and to restaurants today, without extensive bladder management planning.

User avatar
lpm
Dorkwood
Posts: 1451
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 Jul 25, 2020 10:41 pm

"50 years".

Top Shop won't even exist in 50 years. Happily, though, their changing rooms are just chipboard partitions and they'll only need 50 minutes.
I'll miss him after he's died in the pandemic

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:33 am

Ah yes, Top Shop, that well-known provider of inpatient mental health treatment.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2

Millennie Al
Clardic Fug
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Jul 26, 2020 3:53 am

EllyCat wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:33 pm
CF, my assessment of risk is based on the risk of unintended pregnancy as being unacceptable, so I‘m going to assume that your first point is you misreading me rather than building me a homophobic straw man? Cisgender heterosexual liaisons in the setting are prevented (as much as possible...) by staff supervising communal areas and controlling access to the dorms, but there aren’t enough staff to watch all areas all the time, hence the dorms being single sex.
If the real problem is unintended pregnancy, why are the usual solutions of contraception and abortion not suitable? I'm afraid it looks to me nothing more than anti-sex puritanical attitudes.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

Millennie Al
Clardic Fug
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Millennie Al » Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:01 am

egbert26 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:31 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:05 am
lpm wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 2:11 pm
The right to play rugby in women's teams?

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/ ... y-concerns
That rather assumes that every "male" is stronger/faster/heavier than every "female". But there are large varieties between individuals, so why doesn't the same argument apply within each group (as with boxing)?
Are you saying that categorising sports teams by sex is wrong?
That's usually done for entertainment value, or for the enjoyment of the participants, which are different. That's ok, just as dividing teams into different divisions based on past performance, or age is ok. It's a different matter if the justification is safety, in which case it must really be safety and not be a sneaky way to keep out a class of people.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

User avatar
touchingcloth
Fuzzable
Posts: 250
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2019 11:51 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by touchingcloth » Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:40 am

Millennie Al wrote:
Sun Jul 26, 2020 4:01 am
egbert26 wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 1:31 pm
Millennie Al wrote:
Fri Jul 24, 2020 2:05 am


That rather assumes that every "male" is stronger/faster/heavier than every "female". But there are large varieties between individuals, so why doesn't the same argument apply within each group (as with boxing)?
Are you saying that categorising sports teams by sex is wrong?
That's usually done for entertainment value, or for the enjoyment of the participants, which are different. That's ok, just as dividing teams into different divisions based on past performance, or age is ok. It's a different matter if the justification is safety, in which case it must really be safety and not be a sneaky way to keep out a class of people.
Whose entertainment? The wailing babies and howling strays?

Bewildered
Stargoon
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 2:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bewildered » Sun Jul 26, 2020 11:22 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 7:05 pm
lpm wrote:
Thu Jul 23, 2020 6:41 pm
Jesus Christ, BoaF. On this thread have you have posted 793,244 times on JK Rowling's 22 word tweet. You are obsessed with it. You keep reinterpreting it. You need to stop reinterpreting it because you are rubbish at reinterpretation. You still don't understand what the 22 word tweet was about, despite your 793,244 posts.
I know I keep coming back to the original topic of the thread, but I think it's interesting. Its brevity is a virtue, in terms of the discussion around language - if we can't agree on what 22 words mean there's not much hope for a wider discussion, so I think it's worth trying to understand where we differ in our interpretation of it.

What's your take on what she meant? You've been pretty coy about that so far. Let's work on understanding the microcosm before branching out into the rest of the world.

The wider discussion about shared spaces etc is interesting too, but a bit of a derail, and as the evidence posted by Fishnut still hasn't really been engaged with (ie, actual practising women's refuges seem much less worried about transwomen than many posters here) I'm not sure there's much point adding to it.

ETA I don't think it's accurate to say that I 'keep reinterpreting it'. I think I've had a pretty consistent interpretation for all 793,245 posts I've now made.
I would like to hear an answer to this too, and it is vitally important for the actual topic of the thread, rather than various other issues to do with feminism and transphobia that may or may not split in exactly the same way as whether or not people think the tweet was in poor taste or bigoted.

When I read the tweet I initially thought “well so what, she missed the point of why they had to use that clunky phrase ‘people who menstruate’ and now it’s pointed out she can say ‘oh right, missed that’ and we can all move on with our lives”. However her subsequent posts made it seem very clear to me that her intention was to insist that it is only directed at women. In fact LPMs own posts earlier, suggest she also thinks that, because she made 793,246 posts saying that advice could be given to women and trans-men who menstruate separately.

I don’t know, trying to be charitable, maybe what’s going on is they think there must be other issues relating to gender and therefore one should have general advice for women and general advice for trans-men, which had sections on menstruation issues but also covered other things. Certainly such articles could be useful. However that isn’t how the article was written, it’s focussed specifically on menstruation, and quite rightly includes both women and trans-men in that and the title was chosen to reflect this. I just can’t see anything wrong with that other than my earlier comment that they could have rephrased the title as something like equality issues related to menstruation to avoid the clunky sounding ‘people who menstruate’, but that is a tiny point about elegant writing and not the issue jkr and lpm have.

User avatar
Cardinal Fang
Stargoon
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Cardinal Fang » Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:00 pm

EllyCat wrote:
Sat Jul 25, 2020 9:33 pm
I did actually describe a situation which I know has happened (a trans-woman being admitted to a female-only dorm with disinhibited patients). I don’t know how often this happens, but it is not hypothetical, I’m afraid.
The situation you are postulating in order to argue that all transwomen should be banned from "female" spaces or even just "female" wards require that there be a non-transitioned transwoman AND that transwoman was attracted to women (not sure of the stats exactly but so far as I am aware, more transwomen are attracted to men than women) AND that she be completely disinhibited to the point of having no self control at all (I don't know to what extent disinhibition in an mental health ward occurs, whether someone it 100% incapable of any self-control at all, or whether disinhibition is more like the disinhibition one sees when people are drunk where they don't care too much about doing dumb things but still have sufficient self control as to infrequently undertake actions that are utterly taboo to society, like rape or murder someone) AND at least one other patient who is utterly disinhibited or in other ways entirely incapable of making any form of decision about sexual relations sufficiently for them to allow sexual relations to occur AND for there to be so little supervision of the acute ward that such relations could take place (I doubt that acute MH wards have periods where there are 0 staff at all, any more than any other inpatient medical ward. I'm guessing that acute wards would be where a person in a MH crisis and at risk of self-harm might initially be admitted, so one presumes that there'll be staff around to prevent that, for example). I would suggest that this confluence of circumstances would be an order of magnitude or two rarer than, say, a cis male staff member gaining access to said acute female ward and having relations with a patient.

And even if you did have all those things in place, that surely that only means that that situation should be risk assessed and handled on it's own merits, rather than saying "here is the potential for a vanishingly rare thing to happen, therefore we're going to ban all transwomen from acute female wards because of the possibility of that vanishingly rare thing happening".

And this is the thing about these hypothetical situations that people try and use as justification for banning transwomen from female spaces in there entirity. That those situations would be so rare that they've never happened in real life, and are highly unlikely to happen (no-one can say "impossible", because even extremely rare things happen). Personally I'm not prepared to see a group of people, who are already more vulnerable and at greater risk of harm, be discriminated against not for any sensible reason but on the basis of a highly unlikely hypothetical.

CF
Image

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jul 27, 2020 2:03 pm

Going back to the topic of language, I noticed that Stonewall (a UK-based LGBT advocacy organisation), seem to use the distinction suggested above, with 'female/male' denoting 'sex', and 'man/woman' referring to gender:
Stonewall wrote:Transgender man

A term used to describe someone who is assigned female at birth but identifies and lives as a man. This may be shortened to trans man, or FTM, an abbreviation for female-to-male.

Transgender woman

A term used to describe someone who is assigned male at birth but identifies and lives as a woman. This may be shortened to trans woman, or MTF, an abbreviation for male-to-female.
The abbreviations are a bit inconsistent with that definition though. FTM would also work as female-to-man but we'd have to go with MTW for male-to-woman if people want to be strict about it.

They also give this definition of transphobia:
Transphobia

The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it. Transphobia may be targeted at people who are, or who are perceived to be, trans.
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advic ... sary-terms
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:34 pm

Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
link removed
Seriously?

Shall we have muslimcrimeuk.com next? Or gaypaedos.com?
Last edited by Stephanie on Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: removing link
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2

Squeak
Fuzzable
Posts: 332
Joined: Tue Dec 03, 2019 6:27 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Squeak » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:20 am

Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
Now of course not all trans women are dangerous. But then, neither are all men. And neither are all cis-women.
Fixed it for you. Your bias is showing.
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:34 pm
Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
link removed
Seriously?

Shall we have muslimcrimeuk.com next? Or gaypaedos.com?
So much this. A vigilante website that exists purely to deadname, misgender, and shame individuals accused/convicted of crimes solely because of their perceived gender identification is a pretty revolting thing.

If you wanted to find some decent research on the relative roles of biological sex (which is usually a euphemism for visible genitalia at birth), gender, and trauma in terms of likelihood to commit crimes, then we'd have something to discuss. This bigoted hodgepodge of reports adds nothing useful to the conversation.
Last edited by Stephanie on Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:22 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: removing link

Piggy
Gray Pubic
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Piggy » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:24 am

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:34 pm
Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
link removed
Seriously?

Shall we have muslimcrimeuk.com next? Or gaypaedos.com?
Didn’t say it was an amazing or unbiased source. It was just to provide examples (complete with links therein, in a neat single link to this thread rather than finding numerous articles scattered across the web) that violent and sexual crimes have already been committed in response to a comment that it was vanishingly unlikely to ever happen.

That way people who want more information can find more information on each case (off-site, different sources but at least with a name to go on) and decide for themselves. It’s a jumping off point. I thought that was obvious but I’ll be more explicit in future.

I literally acknowledge in the same post you selectively quoted that not all trans women are dangerous.
Last edited by Stephanie on Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: removing link

Millennie Al
Clardic Fug
Posts: 208
Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Millennie Al » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:47 am

Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
Also our limited stats tell us that trans women are not the most vulnerable group in the UK.
That's hardly surprising - the statistics show that men are murdered at about twice the rate of women - https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... f-homicide - so it's consistent with trans women being women.
Covid-19 - Don't catch it: don't spread it.

Piggy
Gray Pubic
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2020 8:51 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Piggy » Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:59 am

Squeak wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:20 am
Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
Now of course not all trans women are dangerous. But then, neither are all men. And neither are all cis-women.
Fixed it for you. Your bias is showing.
I was referring specifically to male (trans women and men) violence against females.

This is why we need clear, agreed-upon language.
Squeak wrote:
Tue Jul 28, 2020 12:20 am
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 11:34 pm
Piggy wrote:
Mon Jul 27, 2020 5:17 pm
link removed
Seriously?

Shall we have muslimcrimeuk.com next? Or gaypaedos.com?
So much this. A vigilante website that exists purely to deadname, misgender, and shame individuals accused/convicted of crimes solely because of their perceived gender identification is a pretty revolting thing.

If you wanted to find some decent research on the relative roles of biological sex (which is usually a euphemism for visible genitalia at birth), gender, and trauma in terms of likelihood to commit crimes, then we'd have something to discuss. This bigoted hodgepodge of reports adds nothing useful to the conversation.
I’ve explained above (my previous post) my reasoning for sharing the link.

I’m sure it’s an extremely complicated topic. Undoubtedly, as all things like this are. I was merely providing a link to examples of evidence that violent and sexual crimes have already been committed by trans women against women/children. I wasn’t offering to provide reasons or research as to why.
Last edited by Stephanie on Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: removing link

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2987
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: nadir of brie

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Tue Jul 28, 2020 1:29 am

I can see the appeal of a site with lots of links in one place. My point was more, that I don't think if we were discussing any other protected group's rights that anybody would think a site like that was appropriate. It shows how far trans rights have to come.
Born at 356.32 ppm CO2

User avatar
Stephanie
Dorkwood
Posts: 1562
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks

what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling? (split)

Post by Stephanie » Tue Jul 28, 2020 7:28 am

I've removed a post with a link that really crosses the line, and edited some others.

We've been trying to allow some discussion to happen here, but I won't hesitate to lock this if people can't avoid breaking rule 3. I have no interest in hosting prejudice.
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

Post Reply