Yeah, but given Tom P's form on this issue, do you expect it to actually get through? We've already had a bunch of canards from him (ie the usual "I bet it's just a bunch of MRAs pretending to be trans to bully people") and the colossal ignorance of assuming that GRCs can be used to estimate number of trans people, given the difficulty and cost of getting them, and the fact that it is entirely possible to get banks, utilities, DVSA etc to recognise gender without a GRC.Fishnut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:50 amDoesn't this help allay Rowling's fears that kids are being pushed to transition when they're not actually transgender? The presence of "hoops" to jump through suggests that there are checks to ensure that people are getting the necessary assessments and not getting access to treatment unnecessarily.tom p wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:42 amMy niece went through a trans phase of identifying as a boy (following online peer examples) for a couple of years. As a family we were all supportive (although all of us apart from her mum really thought it was probably just a phase) and her mum took her to psychiatrists and suchlike jumping through the hoops necessary to get the hormone and surgical treatment that she said she wanted. Fortunately**, she met a lad online and decided she is actually a straight girl before embarking on any physical or hormonal interventions which may have had serious consequences had she changed her mind later on.
what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
If I read you right, you think that Rowling has fears that doctors/adults with responsibility might be pushing kids to transition. That wasn't my interpretation of it. Here's what she wrote:Fishnut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:50 amDoesn't this help allay Rowling's fears that kids are being pushed to transition when they're not actually transgender? The presence of "hoops" to jump through suggests that there are checks to ensure that people are getting the necessary assessments and not getting access to treatment unnecessarily.tom p wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:42 amMy niece went through a trans phase of identifying as a boy (following online peer examples) for a couple of years. As a family we were all supportive (although all of us apart from her mum really thought it was probably just a phase) and her mum took her to psychiatrists and suchlike jumping through the hoops necessary to get the hormone and surgical treatment that she said she wanted. Fortunately**, she met a lad online and decided she is actually a straight girl before embarking on any physical or hormonal interventions which may have had serious consequences had she changed her mind later on.
In that passage she is clearly talking about peer groups and not doctors/adults with responsibility for the wellbeing of the child doing the persuading. She's also not suggesting that it's a deliberate ploy to coerce kids into thinking they are trans.If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.
What she identifies (community & sympathy) certainly seems to have been the case with my niece, who really needed a community of sympathetic friends after her appallingly traumatic childhood, and being, like 2 of her siblings, firmly on the autistic spectrum.
Also, I don't think it's so much of a fear that she's describing as reality.
This is what I was referring to regarding the shouty teenagers trying to prove it's not a phase.I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria.
Of course, I would be interested to read that research, to be sure it's not being misrepresented.
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
It's the dream of every right-wing c.nt to get the lefties to fight themselves. And my god, it's easy to do.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:04 amWe've already had a bunch of canards from him (ie the usual "I bet it's just a bunch of MRAs pretending to be trans to bully people")
I've no doubt that general trolls are joined by right-wing sh.t stirrers on this. The only upside is these c.nts are laughing so hard at us, they give themselves hernias.
I've said before, a good law is to always ignore the extreme 10% nutters on one side of an argument and the extreme 10% nutters on the opposite side. Stick with the arguments of the 80%. But on this this topic only the extreme 10%s get heard and the 80% have been terrorised into silence.
JK Rowling is clearly one of the 80%. She's fully supportive of the fight against trans discrimination and the violence, real and political, that right wing c.nts inflict on transpeople. Many of us probably disagree with what she says about changing rooms, or other practical issues, but what does that matter? The true value is bringing the discussion back to the sane realm.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
I'm not active in this area, so I haven't come across other people making the 'some of it is possibly MRAs' accusation before. I don't doubt others have made that suggestion, after all, it's the sort of thing MRAs like you would do & I don't doubt that you, as a noted and oft-mocked on this forum MRA would have noticed such things.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:04 amYeah, but given Tom P's form on this issue, do you expect it to actually get through? We've already had a bunch of canards from him (ie the usual "I bet it's just a bunch of MRAs pretending to be trans to bully people")Fishnut wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:50 amDoesn't this help allay Rowling's fears that kids are being pushed to transition when they're not actually transgender? The presence of "hoops" to jump through suggests that there are checks to ensure that people are getting the necessary assessments and not getting access to treatment unnecessarily.tom p wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:42 amMy niece went through a trans phase of identifying as a boy (following online peer examples) for a couple of years. As a family we were all supportive (although all of us apart from her mum really thought it was probably just a phase) and her mum took her to psychiatrists and suchlike jumping through the hoops necessary to get the hormone and surgical treatment that she said she wanted. Fortunately**, she met a lad online and decided she is actually a straight girl before embarking on any physical or hormonal interventions which may have had serious consequences had she changed her mind later on.
Here's what I actually wrote, only a page ago "So if 12% of trans respondents to an LGBT survey had obtained one & there have been ~5k issued, then one could estimate there are only 40k trans people in the UK. I'm sure the civil service have very good reasons for estimating a range 5-12.5x greater than that."EACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:04 amand the colossal ignorance of assuming that GRCs can be used to estimate number of trans people, given the difficulty and cost of getting them, and the fact that it is entirely possible to get banks, utilities, DVSA etc to recognise gender without a GRC.
Note the important emboldened nuanced caveat. Why do you tell such lies about what people have said? With all due respect, why are you such an unpleasant piece of sh.t?
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Even if what women want to tweet is factually wrong, discriminatory and inflammatory? Is anyone who disagrees with JKR an activist? Anyone whose lived experience gives them more insight than she has?lpm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:34 pmI think the whole point is that activists and men should stop policing what women want to tweet. The deliberate bullying and silencing of women on Twitter (and elsewhere) is a major part of this issue.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:22 pmAt the very, very least I don't think it was wise to try to condense a nuanced position like that into a single tweet without acknowledging others' perspectives on the matter. Especially as she already knows how toxic discussions around trans issues can be, from all directions, and could therefore have predicted the need to express herself carefully.
Why should women have to tiptoe around, expressing carefully nuanced language with proper caveats in a 240 character tweet? Why can't they tweet like men or activists, never coming near acknowledgement of others perspectives?
I feel you should rethink this.
You're saying men and activists behave badly so women should be able to as well. So everyone ends up behaving badly - how is that helpful?
You're right that women do get piled on more than men do on Twitter and elsewhere and that's something which needs to be addressed as part of a more systemic sexism.
- Tessa K
- Light of Blast
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 5:07 pm
- Location: Closer than you'd like
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
I tried to edit the previous post but I got timed out so here's the whole thing again.
You're saying men and activists behave badly so women should be able to as well. So everyone ends up behaving badly - how is that helpful?
You're right that women do get piled on more than men do on Twitter and elsewhere and that's something which needs to be addressed as part of a more systemic sexism. We need a more nuanced response than 'whatever men can get away with, so should women be able to'.
Reading JKR's long piece about her own experience and clarifying her position, my first thought was that yes, she makes some good points about healthcare etc but why bring her own abusive relationship into it? ' I was abused so I care about violence towards other people' as if this gives her the credentials to decide who gets what rights. What's the transphobe equivalent of white women's tears?
Many women have been in abusive relationships without becoming TERFs. It's not the logical conclusion of this experience.
Yes, her experience has made her value safe spaces for women, quite rightly, but trans women are women. And yes, LPM, the changing rooms point was only a small part of the article but the fact she even brought it up at all makes it clear which camp she's in.
For me the bottom line is, she's not a stupid woman, she knew that Tweeting anything on this subject was going to bring down a shitstorm. She wasn't being brave or assertive, she opened her mouth and put her foot in it. She is perilously close to Dawkins territory here, not thinking what the result of her words will be in a medium that doesn't encourage subtle, informed discussion. No, she wasn't 'asking for it' but she was at best naive and at worst arrogant. 'I'll say what I want and if people misinterpret it that's their problem' is not the position of a responsible person. And when that person has such a massive following, yes they do have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their public actions.
She ended up having to write a long piece to justify herself, unconvincingly in my opinion, so why not write that in the first place if you really care about educating and supporting people?
Even if what women want to tweet is factually wrong, discriminatory and inflammatory? Is anyone who disagrees with JKR an activist? Anyone whose lived experience gives them more insight than she has?lpm wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:34 pmI think the whole point is that activists and men should stop policing what women want to tweet. The deliberate bullying and silencing of women on Twitter (and elsewhere) is a major part of this issue.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:22 pmAt the very, very least I don't think it was wise to try to condense a nuanced position like that into a single tweet without acknowledging others' perspectives on the matter. Especially as she already knows how toxic discussions around trans issues can be, from all directions, and could therefore have predicted the need to express herself carefully.
Why should women have to tiptoe around, expressing carefully nuanced language with proper caveats in a 240 character tweet? Why can't they tweet like men or activists, never coming near acknowledgement of others perspectives?
I feel you should rethink this.
You're saying men and activists behave badly so women should be able to as well. So everyone ends up behaving badly - how is that helpful?
You're right that women do get piled on more than men do on Twitter and elsewhere and that's something which needs to be addressed as part of a more systemic sexism. We need a more nuanced response than 'whatever men can get away with, so should women be able to'.
Reading JKR's long piece about her own experience and clarifying her position, my first thought was that yes, she makes some good points about healthcare etc but why bring her own abusive relationship into it? ' I was abused so I care about violence towards other people' as if this gives her the credentials to decide who gets what rights. What's the transphobe equivalent of white women's tears?
Many women have been in abusive relationships without becoming TERFs. It's not the logical conclusion of this experience.
Yes, her experience has made her value safe spaces for women, quite rightly, but trans women are women. And yes, LPM, the changing rooms point was only a small part of the article but the fact she even brought it up at all makes it clear which camp she's in.
For me the bottom line is, she's not a stupid woman, she knew that Tweeting anything on this subject was going to bring down a shitstorm. She wasn't being brave or assertive, she opened her mouth and put her foot in it. She is perilously close to Dawkins territory here, not thinking what the result of her words will be in a medium that doesn't encourage subtle, informed discussion. No, she wasn't 'asking for it' but she was at best naive and at worst arrogant. 'I'll say what I want and if people misinterpret it that's their problem' is not the position of a responsible person. And when that person has such a massive following, yes they do have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their public actions.
She ended up having to write a long piece to justify herself, unconvincingly in my opinion, so why not write that in the first place if you really care about educating and supporting people?
- Stephanie
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 2902
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:38 pm
- Location: clinging tenaciously to your buttocks
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Even if what women want to tweet is factually wrong, discriminatory and inflammatory? Is anyone who disagrees with JKR an activist? Anyone whose lived experience gives them more insight than she has?
You're saying men and activists behave badly so women should be able to as well. So everyone ends up behaving badly - how is that helpful?
You're right that women do get piled on more than men do on Twitter and elsewhere and that's something which needs to be addressed as part of a more systemic sexism. We need a more nuanced response than 'whatever men can get away with, so should women be able to'.
Reading JKR's long piece about her own experience and clarifying her position, my first thought was that yes, she makes some good points about healthcare etc but why bring her own abusive relationship into it? ' I was abused so I care about violence towards other people' as if this gives her the credentials to decide who gets what rights. What's the transphobe equivalent of white women's tears?
Many women have been in abusive relationships without becoming TERFs. It's not the logical conclusion of this experience.
Yes, her experience has made her value safe spaces for women, quite rightly, but trans women are women. And yes, LPM, the changing rooms point was only a small part of the article but the fact she even brought it up at all makes it clear which camp she's in.
For me the bottom line is, she's not a stupid woman, she knew that Tweeting anything on this subject was going to bring down a shitstorm. She wasn't being brave or assertive, she opened her mouth and put her foot in it. She is perilously close to Dawkins territory here, not thinking what the result of her words will be in a medium that doesn't encourage subtle, informed discussion. No, she wasn't 'asking for it' but she was at best naive and at worst arrogant. 'I'll say what I want and if people misinterpret it that's their problem' is not the position of a responsible person. And when that person has such a massive following, yes they do have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their public actions.
She ended up having to write a long piece to justify herself, unconvincingly in my opinion, so why not write that in the first place if you really care about educating and supporting people?
So if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K Rowling.
Link below.
Shut the f.ck up
U f.cking suck
Stay in your lane, c.nt
Get f.cked c.nt
Die in a hole
f.ck you bitch
Old f.cking hag
Literally go choke on a dick
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowli ... 8e01dca68d
You're saying men and activists behave badly so women should be able to as well. So everyone ends up behaving badly - how is that helpful?
You're right that women do get piled on more than men do on Twitter and elsewhere and that's something which needs to be addressed as part of a more systemic sexism. We need a more nuanced response than 'whatever men can get away with, so should women be able to'.
Reading JKR's long piece about her own experience and clarifying her position, my first thought was that yes, she makes some good points about healthcare etc but why bring her own abusive relationship into it? ' I was abused so I care about violence towards other people' as if this gives her the credentials to decide who gets what rights. What's the transphobe equivalent of white women's tears?
Many women have been in abusive relationships without becoming TERFs. It's not the logical conclusion of this experience.
Yes, her experience has made her value safe spaces for women, quite rightly, but trans women are women. And yes, LPM, the changing rooms point was only a small part of the article but the fact she even brought it up at all makes it clear which camp she's in.
For me the bottom line is, she's not a stupid woman, she knew that Tweeting anything on this subject was going to bring down a shitstorm. She wasn't being brave or assertive, she opened her mouth and put her foot in it. She is perilously close to Dawkins territory here, not thinking what the result of her words will be in a medium that doesn't encourage subtle, informed discussion. No, she wasn't 'asking for it' but she was at best naive and at worst arrogant. 'I'll say what I want and if people misinterpret it that's their problem' is not the position of a responsible person. And when that person has such a massive following, yes they do have a responsibility to consider the consequences of their public actions.
She ended up having to write a long piece to justify herself, unconvincingly in my opinion, so why not write that in the first place if you really care about educating and supporting people?
So if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K Rowling.
Link below.
Shut the f.ck up
U f.cking suck
Stay in your lane, c.nt
Get f.cked c.nt
Die in a hole
f.ck you bitch
Old f.cking hag
Literally go choke on a dick
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowli ... 8e01dca68d
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
I think you should clarify that you're not addressing those words to Tessa, because that's how your post came across to me and that's clearly unacceptable.purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pmSo if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K Rowling.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Also there were >150k tweets in that tweetstorm, there's always going to be some idiots out there. And also, seriously, given that twitter is really tolerant of actual goddamn neo-nazis, one can see how people respond - and in light of that I'm really not happy with the idea that abusive replies make someone right. Abusive replies are stupid and unpleasant, and that's it, they don't really mean anything other than that someone wanted to be abusive.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pmSo is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
And the response to Rowling is basically due to three factors - she used transphobic dog whistles and had a go about people using inclusive language, she's been doing this sort of thing for a while now, and loads and loads of people are aware of what she's said and have or a view on it or want to be seen to have a view on it.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
I was not addressing those words, which are clearly unacceptable, to Tessa.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:39 pmI think you should clarify that you're not addressing those words to Tessa, because that's how your post came across to me and that's clearly unacceptable.purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pmSo if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K Rowling.
-
- Fuzzable
- Posts: 286
- Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
There is always going to be some idiots out there. Are you for real? These 'idiots' do nothing to promote the safety of trans men and women, many of whom support J K Rowling. They endanger their lives and stoke up hatred, purposely I believe.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:46 pmAlso there were >150k tweets in that tweetstorm, there's always going to be some idiots out there. And also, seriously, given that twitter is really tolerant of actual goddamn neo-nazis, one can see how people respond - and in light of that I'm really not happy with the idea that abusive replies make someone right. Abusive replies are stupid and unpleasant, and that's it, they don't really mean anything other than that someone wanted to be abusive.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pmSo is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
And the response to Rowling is basically due to three factors - she used transphobic dog whistles and had a go about people using inclusive language, she's been doing this sort of thing for a while now, and loads and loads of people are aware of what she's said and have or a view on it or want to be seen to have a view on it.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Thanks. I still don't understand your post but at least it wasn't abusive.purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:34 pmI was not addressing those words, which are clearly unacceptable, to Tessa.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:39 pmI think you should clarify that you're not addressing those words to Tessa, because that's how your post came across to me and that's clearly unacceptable.purplehaze wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pmSo if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K Rowling.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
ThanksStephanie wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:33 pmHere's a letter to JK Rowling
https://challengingjourneys.wordpress.c ... ter-to-jo/
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
I'm seeing suggestions that transgender rights are all a big conspiracy to hurt women. I'm not quite sure how that's supposed to work but I think some context of why transgender rights have become such a hot topic in recent years would be helpful. I have tried to keep this as neutral as possible and confined my editorialising to specific paragraphs which I've italicised, rather than scattering it around. I am by no means an expert in this but, like J K Rowling, I have spent a fair amount of time reading about this issue over the last few years as I have been trying to give my feminism a more educated grounding. I'm not trying to single out anyone whose commented and am instead trying to give a bit of background for those who haven't been following things that closely. I'm not addressing any specific claims made on this thread or by Rowling. For a good examination of her post I highly recommend this Twitter thread.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004
What really kicked it all off was the UK government’s Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 consultation which ran between 3rd July and 22nd October 2018. The Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 requires that people who wish to legally change their gender must, among other things, have a medical report confirming that they have or have had medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and that they have lived as their “acquired gender” for at least two years. The consultation document (PDF) prepared by the government explains why they feel the GRA needs amending,
The consultation attracted a lot of attention, as I’m sure happens with any government consultation. What has been particularly noteworthy to many has been the involvement of feminist groups who have opposed to the GRA and to any reform that makes it easier for transgender people to have their gender legally acknowledged.
Concerns from Anti-Trans Rights Feminists
The concerns of these groups can, I think, be summarised as follows:
On point 2, a particular focus of concern is the risk that trans-women pose to cis-women in domestic abuse shelters and refuges. This concern is unfounded. Trans-women are allowed to access these facilities already, both legally, as a result of the Equality Act 2010, and practically as the policy of the facilities, and there have been no problems. A report commissioned by Stonewall based on in-depth interviews with 15 organisations across England, Scotland and Wales found that trans women were already being given access to refuges and while there may be issues regarding transgender residents,
It’s worth pointing out that the concerns around amending the GRA are unfounded. Multiple countries - including Ireland, Argentina and Portugal - have changed their laws to allow self-identification of gender without incident.
Links to the Conservative Right
One aspect that I think is not widely known is the involvement of the Conservative Right with the current transphobic rhetoric. In the US the Conservative think tank Heritage Foundation has been hosting panels with anti-trans feminists from the Women’s Liberation Front, who have also joined forces with the public policy arm of Focus on the Family, called the Family Policy Alliance. The Heritage Foundation has also been paying for UK activists to come to the US and protest against transgender rights. Wikipedia notes that,
Summary
While the anti-trans rights rhetoric has been around for decades (something I decided not to get into for fear of this post exceeding the length limits) the most recent rise has been due to the publicity surrounding the proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act. Anti-trans rights activists have used the momentum of the consultation to publicise their view that transpeople, and trans-women in particular, pose a threat to women both physically and philosophically.
Those of us who support transgender rights believe that these fears are based on bias and misunderstanding. We believe that for feminism to be truly effective it needs to be intersectional and to recognise that womanhood encompasses a whole range of experiences, not all of which will be shared by all women. Trans-women are women with a different set of experiences than cis-women but they are no less valid.
The Gender Recognition Act 2004
What really kicked it all off was the UK government’s Reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 consultation which ran between 3rd July and 22nd October 2018. The Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 requires that people who wish to legally change their gender must, among other things, have a medical report confirming that they have or have had medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and that they have lived as their “acquired gender” for at least two years. The consultation document (PDF) prepared by the government explains why they feel the GRA needs amending,
Other issues with the GRA are that it makes no provision for non-binary people and those who were born intersex and misidentified as they have no gender dysphoria diagnosis, rather their gender mismatch is due to medical error.Many trans people feel that this process is overly intrusive, humiliating and administratively burdensome. Further they argue that by requiring a diagnostic psychiatric report, the process perpetuates the outdated and false assumption that being trans is a mental illness. As part of the process, the trans person has to collect a range of personal documentation, including information about their medical history, finances and identity which they send to people who they do not meet who then make a decision about their gender identity. The fee of £140 and associated costs are seen as expensive and there is no right of appeal against the decision unless on a point of law. (Point 24, page 21)
The consultation attracted a lot of attention, as I’m sure happens with any government consultation. What has been particularly noteworthy to many has been the involvement of feminist groups who have opposed to the GRA and to any reform that makes it easier for transgender people to have their gender legally acknowledged.
Concerns from Anti-Trans Rights Feminists
The concerns of these groups can, I think, be summarised as follows:
- Allowing people to legally change their gender more easily will enable cis-men to claim they are trans-women in order to access female-only spaces for nefarious purposes
- Allowing trans-women into female only spaces will put cis women at increased risk due to trans-men having been socialised as men and having the physiology of men, both of which increases their tendency towards violence.
- Allowing trans-women to come under the banner of ‘women’ waters down the meaning and thus the legal protections afforded to us as a class.
On point 2, a particular focus of concern is the risk that trans-women pose to cis-women in domestic abuse shelters and refuges. This concern is unfounded. Trans-women are allowed to access these facilities already, both legally, as a result of the Equality Act 2010, and practically as the policy of the facilities, and there have been no problems. A report commissioned by Stonewall based on in-depth interviews with 15 organisations across England, Scotland and Wales found that trans women were already being given access to refuges and while there may be issues regarding transgender residents,
I understand that some women are concerned about seeing trans-women with penises in changing rooms but some women are concerned about seeing fat women, women with colostomy bags, women with mastectomies, women with amputations, and women of different races and ethnicities in changing rooms too. But we don’t say those are legitimate concerns that must be indulged. We say that women are diverse and if it offends you that’s your problem, they have just as much right to the space as you do.Refuges can be an intense environment as you can imagine and other service users have discomfort with each other for a lot of reasons, and often there can be issues, if it’s not a trans issue, more often there is an ethnic or a religious or sexual orientation issue or other issues that occur... So it is within our policy that where there are other service users that have discomfort around sharing services with trans users we will work with them to support and educate them in the same way as we would with any other equality issue in general. (page 15)
It’s worth pointing out that the concerns around amending the GRA are unfounded. Multiple countries - including Ireland, Argentina and Portugal - have changed their laws to allow self-identification of gender without incident.
Links to the Conservative Right
One aspect that I think is not widely known is the involvement of the Conservative Right with the current transphobic rhetoric. In the US the Conservative think tank Heritage Foundation has been hosting panels with anti-trans feminists from the Women’s Liberation Front, who have also joined forces with the public policy arm of Focus on the Family, called the Family Policy Alliance. The Heritage Foundation has also been paying for UK activists to come to the US and protest against transgender rights. Wikipedia notes that,
The reason I bring this up is that the claims transgender activists are somehow in the thrall of MRAs or other anti-women’s rights groups is fallacious. The evidence suggests the opposite. It’s also worth noting that many of the fears surrounding trans-women come from a very misandrist perspective. They assume that men are, whether by biology or by socialisation, inherently violent and pose a constant risk to women.Researcher Cole Parke at Political Research Associates (PRA), an American liberal think tank, wrote in 2016 that conservative groups opposed to the transgender rights movement were basing their arguments on the work of feminist authors such as Janice Raymond and Sheila Jeffreys, whom Parke described as "TERFs".[76] The Southern Poverty Law Center, an American civil rights nonprofit, reported in 2017 that American Christian right groups were trying to "separate the T from LGB", including via casting transgender rights as antagonistic to feminism or to lesbian or gay people. The report said this trend was "part of a larger strategy, meant to weaken transgender rights advocates by attempting to separate them from their allies, feminists and LGBT rights advocates".
Summary
While the anti-trans rights rhetoric has been around for decades (something I decided not to get into for fear of this post exceeding the length limits) the most recent rise has been due to the publicity surrounding the proposed amendments to the Gender Recognition Act. Anti-trans rights activists have used the momentum of the consultation to publicise their view that transpeople, and trans-women in particular, pose a threat to women both physically and philosophically.
Those of us who support transgender rights believe that these fears are based on bias and misunderstanding. We believe that for feminism to be truly effective it needs to be intersectional and to recognise that womanhood encompasses a whole range of experiences, not all of which will be shared by all women. Trans-women are women with a different set of experiences than cis-women but they are no less valid.
it's okay to say "I don't know"
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
The worst that could possibly be said about her original tweet is that it is wrong. Didn't strike me anywhere near as abusive as the responses she got. Normally if a woman said something controversial on the internet and she got replies along the lines of "choke on my dick c.nt" everybody here would be agreed on how disgusting and threatening that behaviour was. But in this case people seem to be excusing it. I'm appalled and disappointed quite frankly.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pmSo is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
Maybe I need a rest from this place.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
The problem with the original tweet isn't that it's abusive, it's that it's exclusionary to transpeople, which is an ongoing battle being fought incredibly hard in some quarters.JQH wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:52 pmThe worst that could possibly be said about her original tweet is that it is wrong. Didn't strike me anywhere near as abusive as the responses she got. Normally if a woman said something controversial on the internet and she got replies along the lines of "choke on my dick c.nt" everybody here would be agreed on how disgusting and threatening that behaviour was. But in this case people seem to be excusing it. I'm appalled and disappointed quite frankly.Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pmSo is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
Maybe I need a rest from this place.
The abuse is obviously unacceptable - possibly so obviously that people haven't devoted too much time to pointing that out. I've certainly acknowledged that it's unacceptable. Who do you think is excusing it?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Fishnut, thanks for that really interesting-looking and detailed post.
I don't have time to read it all now, but just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply to hopefully educate those of us (myself very much included) who don't know as much about this as you
I don't have time to read it all now, but just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply to hopefully educate those of us (myself very much included) who don't know as much about this as you
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
For a bit of clarity about processes for teenagers and younger in the UK... TL;DR - it's time consuming and we try to be thorough.
Spoiler:
Spoiler:
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Perhaps "being dismissive of" or "trivialising" would be better choices of verb than "excusing".Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:16 pm
The abuse is obviously unacceptable - possibly so obviously that people haven't devoted too much time to pointing that out. I've certainly acknowledged that it's unacceptable. Who do you think is excusing it?
I'll try the "so obviously bad that it didn't need pointing out" excuse next time someone calls me out for not criticising abusive or discriminatory language. Cheers.
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
Same here; thanks fishnut.tom p wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:23 pmFishnut, thanks for that really interesting-looking and detailed post.
I don't have time to read it all now, but just wanted to thank you for taking the time to write such a detailed reply to hopefully educate those of us (myself very much included) who don't know as much about this as you
And remember that if you botch the exit, the carnival of reaction may be coming to a town near you.
Fintan O'Toole
Fintan O'Toole
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
I didn't say "didn't need pointing out". Anyway, while I'm still not sure which posts you have a problem with, thanks for confirming they weren't mine.JQH wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:15 pmPerhaps "being dismissive of" or "trivialising" would be better choices of verb than "excusing".Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:16 pm
The abuse is obviously unacceptable - possibly so obviously that people haven't devoted too much time to pointing that out. I've certainly acknowledged that it's unacceptable. Who do you think is excusing it?
I'll try the "so obviously bad that it didn't need pointing out" excuse next time someone calls me out for not criticising abusive or discriminatory language. Cheers.
The thread was started to talk about Rowling's tweets, which naturally came before the abusive response to them. I don't see that focussing on the thread topic is really being dismissive, and I also don't think we should excuse what appear to be problematic views because they got an unacceptable abusive response.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
- Bird on a Fire
- Princess POW
- Posts: 10142
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
And yes, thanks fishnut and also murmur for your informed perspectives.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.
Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?
You don't consider the opening post and thread title to be abusive?Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:28 pmThe thread was started to talk about Rowling's tweets, which naturally came before the abusive response to them.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021