what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
Post Reply
User avatar
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?

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:04 am

Fishnut wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:50 am
tom p wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:42 am
My 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.
Doesn'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.
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.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by tom p » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:32 am

Fishnut wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:50 am
tom p wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:42 am
My 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.
Doesn'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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is what I was referring to regarding the shouty teenagers trying to prove it's not a phase.
Of course, I would be interested to read that research, to be sure it's not being misrepresented.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:41 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:04 am
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")
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.

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

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by tom p » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:42 am

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:04 am
Fishnut wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 10:50 am
tom p wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 9:42 am
My 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.
Doesn'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.
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")
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 am
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.
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."
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?

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
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 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:50 am

lpm wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:34 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:22 pm
At 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.
I 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.

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.
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.

User avatar
Tessa K
Light of Blast
Posts: 4707
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 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:13 pm

I tried to edit the previous post but I got timed out so here's the whole thing again.
lpm wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 8:34 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Wed Jun 10, 2020 7:22 pm
At 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.
I 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.

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.
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?

User avatar
Stephanie
Stummy Beige
Posts: 2896
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 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:33 pm

"I got a flu virus named after me 'cause I kissed a bat on a dare."

purplehaze
Fuzzable
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pm

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

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pm

So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:39 pm

purplehaze wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pm
So if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K 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.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
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?

Post by EACLucifer » Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:46 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pm
So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
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.

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.

purplehaze
Fuzzable
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:34 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:39 pm
purplehaze wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pm
So if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K 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.
I was not addressing those words, which are clearly unacceptable, to Tessa.

purplehaze
Fuzzable
Posts: 286
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:27 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by purplehaze » Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:39 pm

EACLucifer wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:46 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pm
So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
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.

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.
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.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:45 pm

purplehaze wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:34 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:39 pm
purplehaze wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:44 pm
So if I may I will respond to this by quoting what those on twitter said to J K 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.
I was not addressing those words, which are clearly unacceptable, to Tessa.
Thanks. I still don't understand your post but at least it wasn't abusive.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by JQH » Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:41 pm

Stephanie wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:33 pm
Here's a letter to JK Rowling

https://challengingjourneys.wordpress.c ... ter-to-jo/
Thanks
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
Fishnut
After Pie
Posts: 2447
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: UK

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Fishnut » Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:43 pm

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,
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)
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.

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 1 there’s very little documentation in a UK context but there’s a fair bit from the US so I’m using that. Comparing States where people are allowed to use the bathroom according to the self-identified gender with States where people aren’t allowed, there is no increase in voyeurism. Politifact found very few cases across North America of men dressing as women to access women’s bathrooms and in none of the cases did the men claim to be trans-women. They did, however, find instances of men dressed as men entering women’s bathrooms to assault women, which is a risk regardless of the formal recognition of transgender people.

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,
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)
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.

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,
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".
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.

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"

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by JQH » Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:52 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pm
So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
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.

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

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:16 pm

JQH wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:52 pm
Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:36 pm
So is the idea that receiving abuse somehow retroactively justifies her original tweet?
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.

Maybe I need a rest from this place.
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.

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.

tom p
After Pie
Posts: 1876
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:14 pm
Location: the low countries

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by tom p » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:23 pm

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

User avatar
murmur
Snowbonk
Posts: 493
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 » Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:31 pm

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:
It's so much more attractive inside the moral kiosk

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by JQH » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:15 pm

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?
Perhaps "being dismissive of" or "trivialising" would be better choices of verb than "excusing".
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

User avatar
JQH
After Pie
Posts: 2142
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 3:30 pm
Location: Sar Flandan

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by JQH » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:16 pm

tom p wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 4:23 pm
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
Same here; thanks fishnut.
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
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:28 pm

JQH wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:15 pm
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?
Perhaps "being dismissive of" or "trivialising" would be better choices of verb than "excusing".
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.
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.

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.

User avatar
Bird on a Fire
Princess POW
Posts: 10137
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 5:05 pm
Location: Portugal

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by Bird on a Fire » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:29 pm

And yes, thanks fishnut and also murmur for your informed perspectives.
We have the right to a clean, healthy, sustainable environment.

User avatar
lpm
Junior Mod
Posts: 5944
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:05 pm

Re: what the hell is wrong with JK Rowling?

Post by lpm » Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:34 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote:
Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:28 pm
The thread was started to talk about Rowling's tweets, which naturally came before the abusive response to them.
You don't consider the opening post and thread title to be abusive?
⭐ Awarded gold star 4 November 2021

Post Reply