Return to Gender 101

[erimir]

Originally Posted by maddog

Women do not commit, participate in, or condone violence against transgender people.

This is not true.

It may be true that cisgender men commit most violent crimes against transgender people, but it is completely false to say that women do not, given that even one example such as the beating of Chrissy Lee Polis while spectators stood by laughing disproves the claim.

It might not be possible to find statistics on it generally, but given that women do commit or encourage violent assaults (yes, at a lower rate than men) I have no reason to believe that they'd be any different when it comes to anti-trans violence.

According to transgender dogma, it's women who get blamed for the violence against trans people

Where does this claim come from?

You keep throwing out rhetorical bombs like this, but you don't substantiate them. Trans people might say women and specifically anti-trans feminists (i.e. TERFs) bear a portion of the responsibility for violence against trans people, but that's not the same thing.

Many, many, many women are accused of supporting violence against transgender people, but not one of them supports such violence.

[emphasis mine]

Is it necessary to engage in such ridiculous hyperbole? You can't possibly believe that. I mean, this kind of ridiculous thinking is what leads people to believe there couldn't possibly be such a thing as lesbian domestic violence.

For someone who claims to reject gender norms and think there's nothing inherent about gendered behavior and so forth, you sure like to make sweeping generalizations about what all men or all women do or don't do.

"Transphobia" may or may not be "something that conservative Christians do." WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY "TRANSPHOBIA"? Please define your terms. This is the nth request, and you still haven't explained what you mean by that term.

It is not your nth request to me.

But sure, here's one definition: Transphobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes, feelings or actions toward transgender or transsexual people, or toward transsexuality. Transphobia can include fear, aversion, hatred, violence, anger, or discomfort felt or expressed towards people who do not conform to society's gender expectation.

I would include behaviors and beliefs that tend to encourage those negative attitudes and so forth in there.

Apparently you even want to defend conservative Christians from the slur of transphobia Even by the most narrow definition of visceral hatred of trans people, would you really dispute that there are conservative Christians who would meet that? What is the purpose of disputing that? I mean, it makes one wonder whether you're intending to minimize the existence of discrimination and violence against trans people, despite your protestations that you oppose such things.

Why are there sex-segregated facilities in the first place? You know why: to protect women against the predations of men, when women are in states of undress and vulnerability, to protect women's privacy and dignity away from men.

Given that you also claim "there is nothing necessary in gender" and that being a man is related solely to "reproductive function", I wonder where it is you think men's proclivity to violence comes from.

Is it their sex, or their gender? If it is their sex, does it come from the penis, or does it come from hormones, and if so, does it matter whether you developed with certain hormones or only what your current mix of hormones is? Does it come from neurological structure?

I think it's obviously less likely to be related strictly to the presence of a penis, given that the penis does not literally govern behavior. This demonstrates a pretty big flaw in your view that sex only involves reproduction function but simultaneously, sex should be the basis for various social organization. Because reproductive function does not in and of itself govern behavior, but some sexual characteristics that you claim are not relevant to what sex someone is (not relevant to whether one is a "man" or a "woman") are the only thing that could be the basis for saying that men are inherently a danger to women, since you say it doesn't even matter if a transwoman doesn't have a penis. In what way would a post-op transwomen be a danger to you if you're not basing the claim that men are dangerous on something other than reproductive function?

If it's gender, is it what gender you identify as, or what gender you grew up with? One answer would imply that only trans women who transitioned in adulthood would pose any greater threat, while those that transitioned in childhood or adolescence would be socialized as females (within the typical range, since obviously not all women are socialized the same).

Wouldn't what the answer is potentially cause serious, if not fatal, complications to your claims?

Don't come back with "not all men." We know that it's not all men. The difficulty is, you can't tell by looking, which men are dangerous and which ones are not.

You seem to want rejecting "not all men" to mean that "trans women are no different from other 'men'". This is that move I mentioned, where you define trans women as men, and then want to sneak in basically a claim that being transgender has no relevance to a claim you make about how men are.

But whatever the solution is to male pattern violence, the solution should not come at the expense of women.

Yes, and here's the part where you say a bunch of shit, and then simply assert that trans women are dangerous.

You haven't presented any real evidence that trans women being allowed in the women's restroom/locker rooms/etc. causes an "expense" to women, only anecdata.

The mantra that "trans women are women" and that therefore trans women should be entitled to use women's bathrooms, women's locker rooms, and other spaces sex-segregated for women, brings up a serious definitional problem: What is a "trans woman"? Is there a coherent definition?

As far as I can tell, the dogmatic definition, and the one that is being pushed for in legislation, amounts to the proposition that a trans woman is any man who says he is trans. That definition is useless.

I agree that some people want it to be too credulous. But it doesn't follow that just because you disagree with such a broad definition that there is no definition that would be suitable for the law. You don't even attempt to consider whether another definition would be adequate. Since you are not interested in accommodating trans people at all, you don't seem to give a shit about looking for anything else or proposing any compromise, even if imperfect. So your response is to just tell them to fuck off, which is why one might get the impression you don't care about what happens to them.

For one, at a minimum, I would add the requirement that someone claiming to be trans must be sincere. Now, obviously, how we judge sincerity would be a complicated matter, but there are certainly things that could be considered. Such as, whether the person has had any consistency in claiming to be trans over time, whether they do anything to present as their claimed gender, whether they have taken any concrete steps to transition such as a name change, hormone treatments, etc.

I agree that it can't be as simple as believing any person's claim to be one gender or the other without consideration of any other factors. Trans people who claim that should be the standard don't really follow it themselves - given that we know some anti-trans people at times "satirically" claim to be the other gender, and trans people don't take them seriously, we know there are some claims they reject. But at the same time, the reason they advocate in such a way is that there are people who go too far in the other direction, and say that nothing short of sex reassignment surgery demonstrates sincerity, or as far as you, who say that even if you have surgery, fuck you, you're still not the man or woman you identify as.

But the fact that some trans people advocate an unreasonable standard in no way demonstrates what you want it to - that therefore, there is no reasonable standard.

How can anyone tell if any person is "trans" or not? There are no objective, observable criteria at all. It's a feeling in someone's head, that no one else is privy to.

This claim is not far from simply claiming that all of psychology is make believe.

It's a ridiculous claim. In that case, anything in someone's head is unobservable. Mental illnesses might as well be rejected as not objective or observable. I rather doubt that is what you'd claim, so then I'd ask how it is you think those things can be observed in a reasonably objective way.

I mean, you do realize that in order to sex reassignment surgery, you can't simply show up to the doctor and declare that you're trans and you want the surgery, right? And this is obviously not something that a non-trans person would come and frivolously request, or request for the purpose of something so trivial as using a different bathroom. Some trans activists might reject the standards required as too stringent, but the idea that nobody thinks there's any way to evaluate whether someone is trans or not is plainly false.

The proposed rule that trans women should be able to use the women's private spaces places the interests of a very small percentage of people (trans identified males) over the interests of half the human population (women). Why should that be the case?

You haven't made a compelling case that it damages the interests of women.

Furthermore, this appeal to the size of the populations is a bit like religious conservatives claiming there's no need for gay rights because we're such a small portion of the population.

As a male-bodied person, yes.

Just good to have it on the record that this is about concrete issues, not just your hangups about what the definition of "woman" is or what the gender of English pronouns really is.

The presence of ANY men in the women's room diminishes the safety and dignity and privacy of women, yes.

Again, the thing you do where you conflate men with trans women, and then make a claim about men, in order to elide any differences between cisgender men and transgender women. You haven't demonstrated that trans women specifically are a danger, even if we grant your claim that "trans women are men", this is a simple fallacy of division.

I think it's complete bullshit that pissing in a stall next to my sister diminishes your dignity. I would easily believe that you pitching a shit fit over it would diminish your dignity. I would not be surprised to find you behave in an undignified manner when confronted with a trans woman in the flesh.

Your subjective feeling that it diminishes your dignity should not be the basis for public policy. Many, many women disagree with you. In fact, some polls find that more American women agree that trans women should be allowed to use the women's restroom than agree with you. They also find a strong age grade there, which implies that your portion of the population will only shrink over time. Certainly, despite you often making sweeping statements about "all women" or "women" without any qualifications, it's clearly an issue where women are quite divided and so your attempts to portray it as if women have a unified opinion that agrees with your position are mistaken at best, if not intentionally misleading.

There have already been numerous cases of men putting cameras in women's bathrooms, locker rooms, and change/dressing rooms to spy on women in private and vulnerable moments.

Yes, but you haven't demonstrated that these incidents are caused by laws recognizing trans rights.

How many women being raped will it take to make it not-okay to have men in the women's rooms?

I dunno, how many trans women need to be raped before you'd change your mind? If we're portraying it as an explicit tradeoff were making. Clearly you must be explicitly thinking that tens of thousands of trans women can be raped and it will never change your position, right? I mean, it's a blatant attempt to portray it as if what I'm advocating for is cisgender women to be raped, so clearly you must be advocating for trans women to be raped, right?

You find this type of rhetorical tactic totally honest and fair, right?

Male prisoners accessing women's prisons by claiming to be transgender have already raped women inmates. Have you even given a second's thought to that, or does it just not matter to you?

You have like one example you gave. Women are raped and sexually assaulted in women's prisons by cisgender women as well. Pointing to one case doesn't demonstrate your point anymore than Trump pointing to one undocumented immigrant who murdered someone proves that we need to crack down on immigration. Nor does it demonstrate that the only solution to that problem, if there is indeed a problematic pattern*, is putting all trans women into men's prisons.

*Obviously, we can address sexual assault by cisgender women in the women's prison in ways other than by transferring those women to the men's prison. If sexual assault by trans women is no more prevalent than by cis women, the response ought to be the same.

And with that, I will take another break.

But I mean, I would really recommend you respond to the point about Buck Angel first, since it points to the futility of even thinking that your policy preference would prevent cisgender men from entering the women's room. Unless you think they're clever enough to claim to be trans women, but not clever enough to claim to be trans men.

[beyelzu]

My Beliefs about Sex and Gender

I have some interest in biology, hence the degree, and I also have a strong interest in feminism and lgtbqa rights. I care more about being right than most people. I don't mean that I care so much about everyone agreeing with me, but I have to know and understand the universe. I do hate admitting that I am wrong, but I do it, because recognizing when you are wrong is a necessary prerequisite for self correction and self correction is necessary to get ever closer to the nature of reality and that is what I want.

I care very much what the science says, and I point this out because all too often people argue that trans rights are about ignoring reality or simple biological truths which would be things that I strongly oppose.

I also understand biology pretty well, and once upon a time I was an anthropology major so Ive learned some about gender.

I'm going to lay out my thinking but sex is not a simple binary for humans, although it roughly can be drawn as such so it is easy to think of it that way just as species are thought of as being population(s) that can interbreed and make viable offspring. Much like species concepts once could draw sex in different ways and that create different groups of "males" and "females", these differing groupings show that the idea that sex is a simple binary is mistaken.

Furthermore, gender is a separate thing. Societies have gender roles and some societies have third genders. A society could conceivably have an arbitrary number of gender roles that people could adopt. Because gender and sex generally overlap, gender often emphasizes sexual differences and is often used as proxy for sex but that doesn't make it the same thing. Some people have a strong gender identity, but I would argue that all of us perform drag whenever we get dressed and make a face to meet the faces the we meet. Some people have strong attachments to one of those genders, they feel more masculine or feminine. I present very butch, and I put male down typically, but I like to cross dress, have natural breasts, and I identify in my head and to friends as genderqueer or fluid. Cis gender means something and the males who feel like the masculine gender are cis gendered. This is no more being forced on them by the naming convention than being male is forced on them by that word existing. Sex and gender get conflated constantly because it does largely overlap and we humans love patterns and are categorical thinkers.

On Sex


There are sexually dimorphic organisms. Sexual dimorphism can occur because of either inter or intra sex sexual selection. Humans are dimorphic but not alot. Most human traits are polygenic so they make bell curves (like height, or iq or mass or skin color) and are nonmendelian. Similarly, these dimorphic traits are overlapping bell curves. Men are taller than women, but 1/5 of women are taller than 1/5 of men. We are a little dimorphic.

Secondary sex characteristics are traits that are different between sexes that are not directly related to reproduction ie not genitalia. Note here that genitalia is considered the primary sex characteristic, because our definition of sex goes back to before we had DNA in our toolbox. Genetic essentialism for sex is new, and before that we used genitalia.

Secondary sex characteristics are part of sex but some men have breasts, I do. Some women have adam's apples and/or facial hair. Some men are smaller (given that size is one of our dimorphisms).

I can draw many different venn diagrams separating all the humans into two groups based only on solid biological realities that roughly align with sex (like XX vs XY or height or penis or breasts or facial hair or adam's apples etc), so there is no simple binary.

Scientists often does conflate sex and gender and that's a real problem in science.


We do use gender as a proxy though. We identify and present. We then use the proper set of words for that gender which serves as a proxy for sex but is not sex. We know civilizations with third genders which shows that people throughout the world haven't always fit into two groups.

I have no problem with tanswomen using a bathroom for women because that is the bathroom that women use.

[Ari]

So about Meghan Murphy’s Feminist Current trans bathroom article.

It’s starting off a little questionable but ok, and then,

Murphy

” As much as these various identities — whether “non-binary,” “genderqueer,” “trans,” or “centaur”...

“You all are the only ones obsessively taking selfies of yourselves in washrooms and posting them online, in order to draw attention to yourselves and your bathroom use, in any case.”

The clear derision of trans people and projection that she’s unwilling to take them seriously really sets the tone.

Might as well have said something about those sinful gays flaunting it all up in your face like that, holding hands in public, keep it at home, am I right!? Look at those immoral people taking place in an activity made popular by the rich and famous! How dare they, that’s for us!

That might be around the point you think, hey, are we just reading this lady’s live journal where she rants about the things in the news that make her feel strange and scared...

Yes, yes we are. The writer seems to be mostly self published in her scholarly views, creating this site (Feminist Current) immediately after finishing a two year master course, all the while shopping herself out as an expert before the masters was even done. Both the degree and site seem to be built around giving her the appeal to authority needed to have her voice heard on mainstream news, which is really the only place she seems highly published beyond her own site. Now I’m not outright saying she’s a conservative plant faking at liberalism to lure liberals into the maws of conservatism, but I’ve seen two other women with similar views/attitude end up alt-right neo-nazis so...

So getting back on track, being fully aware this is a self published therapy and emotional justification session gives the article a different tone. The sudden shouting about bathroom selfies without really establishing them, sounds quite a bit like an angry person shouting at people on the TV to work through their emotions. Then they went and published them.

Murphy

Here is the thing: most people who identify as transgender don’t actually look like the opposite sex. It is very difficult to hide sexed characteristics such as bone structure, facial features, size of limbs, things like the shape of the hips and legs, muscle mass, and so on and so forth

Haha size of limbs? What next, measurement of their cranium, bumps on their head?

Here is the thing, passing is all about not being noticed as trans and thus no one is going to suddenly jump up and say “haha I fooled you, I’m really trans!” and so what this tells me is the trans people she’s interacted with either didn’t feel that it mattered or didn’t feel safe revealing themselves as trans. This crazy hyper vigilance of looking at people for slight bone structure differences has certainly caused her to label cis people as trans, and since I very much doubt she’s actually going up and asking people, who knows how many cis people she’s sneered at thinking “haha, got ya sneaky trans! I’m good at picking you out!”

Passing is a complex and complicated topic about primary, secondary and tertiary gender signifiers as well as how much people really pay attention. The amount of times nothing but my longer hair got me called “Miss” it’s clear how little brain resources people trying to just do their job put into caring about any of this.

Murphy

If you want to talk “gender” and discrimination, I’m inclined to ask why a male is more comfortable making women and girls feel unsafe rather than making a few men take a second glance because the dude next to them at the urinal is wearing a skirt.

Translation, “You’re not the victim, I’m the victim! *falls back on fainting couch*

A look at the language here is interesting, we have “male” for the trans person, but instead of female we have “women and girls”, a phrase used five times in the piece, girls of course need to be singled out as they are women but more precious, (no mention of “boys”), who are automatically presumed to all feel unsafe by this “male” who should go back to the room for other ‘males’, no no, they get called “men.” This all aligns nicely with a conservative hierarchical view of the weaker women and not yet married off girls who must be locked away from the non-conforming pervs so proper men can protect and mate with them.

Murphy

Moreover, there is an easy solution, suggested many times by many people: make single-stall gender neutral washrooms, as well as men’s and women’s washrooms. Then people who claim they feel uncomfortable using the washroom corresponding with their sex can just use the gender neutral one. Problem solved.

Ok ok, I’ll take a break from the bashing for a moment to say not only is this a great idea, she’s been beaten to the punch. I’ve been to multiple Starbucks now that have an open air sink system next to a row of solid locking door gender neutral toilets. But this obviously requires low capacity, high space.

Murphy

This invented problem of “trans people in bathrooms” being somehow “prevented from peeing” doesn’t exist. Everyone is allowed to use the bathroom. Literally no one wants to stop you from peeing.

Oh go fuck yourself!
Erasing experiences that don’t fit her pretend world view, I wonder what other groups of people love to do that, hmm. Every trans person I’ve had conversations with has had worries around their bathroom choices due to the violence and hatred they’ve received, this is only a big deal because bathrooms are one of the more common places trans people get beat up or murdered, yet are somewhere they need to go. Being trans and going on a trip can be a lot like being vegetarian, where stops are planned out ahead of time, or additional equipment brought, because not every place along the way is accommodating. Only ya know, accidental meat slip is less likely to get a vegetarian knifed.

Murphy

“What women have said, over and over again”

It’s pretty clear at this point whenever Murphy says “women have said” she means herself.

Murphy

While the authors of the 2018 study claim, “Opponents of gender identity nondiscrimination laws and policies have cited fears of attacks and privacy violations against women and children in restrooms as one of their main reasons for resistance to them,” this is simply not true. The women intentionally being silenced in the media; vilified and threatened by activists; pushed out of LGBT organizations, political parties, and jobs; losing their grants and publishing deals; and being banned from speaking online or in public are not talking about bathrooms. They are talking about sex-based rights and the widespread implications of these kinds of policies and laws.

*I’m the victim fainting coach intensifies!!*

“Opponents...have cited fears of attacks...against women and children in restrooms as one of their main reasons for resistance”
“This is simply not true” - Murphy
One paragraph earlier, “it really doesn’t matter how rare violence happens in that context. The fact is that, now, due to gender identity policy and legislation, women have no recourse when it does happen.”- Murphy

Murphy

On Monday, The Guardian published a piece

It’s also clear that most of Murphy’s interactions, if you can call them that, with trans people are through what comes across her news feed. University polls and mainstream op-ed pieces. Like this one, where a mainstream publisher chose to published an op-ed piece by a cis-male employee seemingly reaching out for trans experiences who published a single event that happened to a woman who is also interested in getting her music name out there, and from that Murphy thinks she knows what trans people are thinking.

Murphy

Similar, but less egregious to the discrimination complaints filed by one Jessica (nee Jonathan) Yaniv, who dragged 16 women to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal for declining to wax his scrotum.
...If your activist work consists of fighting for men’s right to force women to handle their genitalia, keep up the fight, I suppose. Just don’t lie about it.

Wait what? You can’t just toss something like that out there and end on it! Like seriously let’s just casually mention how men are claiming to be trans to force women to touch and wax their genitals... like male waxing doesn’t exist... and then end... I feel like I got cheated, like I’m here watching Kirk punch a Gorn when an exhausted Scotty appears exclaiming “I thought I was done for with the fire breathing mother of all dragons, but then the cyborg army appeared to form a giant robot who subdued her by showing us the truth of the universe, before I road on her back through the nexus to get here! ...What’s up with you captain?”

Meghan Murphy clearly has some deep fucking issues that she should be seeing a therapist about but instead has built a padded little room to convince herself it’s the trans people’s fault for the funny feelings she has, like a conservative preacher angry at the gays cause dick makes him feel funny and uncomfortable.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by Ari

A look at the language here is interesting, we have “male” for the trans person, but instead of female we have “women and girls”, a phrase used five times in the piece, girls of course need to be singled out as they are women but more precious, (no mention of “boys”), who are automatically presumed to all feel unsafe by this “male” who should go back to the room for other ‘males’, no no, they get called “men.” This all aligns nicely with a conservative hierarchical view of the weaker women and not yet married off girls who must be locked away from the non-conforming pervs so proper men can protect and mate with them.

Right, and no mention of the possibility that any trans people in the restroom could themselves be girls or boys.

But it is worthwhile to note that this policy they want to impose will affect trans children as well.

Murphy

Moreover, there is an easy solution, suggested many times by many people: make single-stall gender neutral washrooms, as well as men’s and women’s washrooms. Then people who claim they feel uncomfortable using the washroom corresponding with their sex can just use the gender neutral one. Problem solved.

Ok ok, I’ll take a break from the bashing for a moment to say not only is this a great idea, she’s been beaten to the punch. I’ve been to multiple Starbucks now that have an open air sink system next to a row of solid locking door gender neutral toilets. But this obviously requires low capacity, high space.

Yeah, I doubt you'll find any trans people complaining about gender neutral bathrooms, especially not single occupancy ones. They're certainly not the reason it hasn't happened.

In DC, all single occupancy restrooms are "all gender" restrooms by law. It works great and there's really no reason for that not to be the case nationally.

Like everybody has had the experience of sitting waiting for the restroom to be available when the other gender restroom is just sitting there empty the entire time. Not in DC. It's more convenient for everyone.

[beyelzu]

I came across this pic on Facebook.

Pinkmantaray was the first trans NCAA men’s athlete, so he has some thoughts on trans identity.


https://www.instagram.com/pinkmantar...d=gs8pkfr92yut

[erimir]

Long, long-ass thread that my sister shared on Twitter about the whole JK Rowling coming out as a TERF brouhaha:

Since JK Rowling has blocked any reply to this litany of half-truths and transphobic dogwhistles, I thought I'd catalogue them properly here: https://t.co/vo3AsrZJLz

— Andrew James Carter (@Carter_AndrewJ) June 10, 2020

It covers a fair bit of the same ground I did in my responses, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

I thought it might also be interesting to note that at one point, there were feminists who wanted to exclude lesbians, the "lavender menace", from feminist organizations. Perhaps they could have been called "LERFs" if that had been the language trend at the time. I don't think we'd consider it a horrible slur to refer to them as such now. Just to make the point that whether TERF is a "slur" or "insult" necessarily depends on assuming the correctness of the TERF position. Whereas we now think it would be unconscionable for the feminist movement to expel lesbians, so we would have no issue with referring to homophobic feminists as homophobic, nor would we consider it an unfair slur to call them LERFs or whatever else. We would just consider it descriptive. So I think the discussion of the word and having it hurled at you or whatever is really beside the point, because it just ends up as a circular argument anyway. If you agree with trans activists, then TERF is just descriptive. If you don't, then you may be annoyed that you are being given a label, and may consider it an insult. But all it amounts to, imo, is being mad that you're being called wrong.

[Ari]

Oh man I was going to make a comment here about how JK being called a TERF has been earned, not just because she has anti-trans views but because she actively speaks out about it because of her tweet, and then she went on a couple thousand word rant that I haven’t read yet.

This all started when seeing the title of a sponsored article and instead thinking bah kids these days and rolling her eyes, she went on a tweet tantrum about it, tossing childish insults. The horrible issue, The article dared say “People that menstruate” instead of “women” that’s it, that’s all they dared do was give the vaguest hint of trans support.

Then she got called on it and has apparently gone on the “I’m the real victim here” rant but I haven’t read it yet. Either way this is why I would specifically label Rowling a TERF, because she goes out of her way to spread trans exclusion to her followers.

JK Rowling tweets: why the Harry Potter writer has been accused of transphobia following posts on Twitter - and her response | The Scotsman

ETA: Having read it, I have a few different thoughts but it all boils down to, 1. Omg she needs to spend more time with her therapist, who probably has some things to say about her massive justification rant. 2. It all seems to boil down to the fact she feels scared and attacked and feels in 3000 or so words that she is justified in attacking back, even though she keeps starting the fights.

Also her reasons for being so loud in the fight were amazingly impersonal, oh a charity foundation, woooow, it all felt height of rich white lady on edge, I wonder if she knows how much a banana costs.

[erimir]

Also it was "people who menstruate" because it was about access to menstrual products. So I mean, mentioning menstruation makes sense because it's not about all women or girls, but specifically the ones who menstruate (and even without considering any trans issues, there are many women and girls who do not menstruate). So it makes the headline more relevant to the subject of the story.

And indeed, the article she was complaining about uses the word "women" 10 times! So it wasn't avoiding the term after all, but likely just doing what I was saying: making the headline mention the subject of the story. It does also make one mention "gender non-binary people", so I guess that does harm cis women in important but unverifiable ways.

[beyelzu]

Originally Posted by erimir

Long, long-ass thread that my sister shared on Twitter about the whole JK Rowling coming out as a TERF brouhaha:

Since JK Rowling has blocked any reply to this litany of half-truths and transphobic dogwhistles, I thought I'd catalogue them properly here: https://t.co/vo3AsrZJLz

— Andrew James Carter (@Carter_AndrewJ) June 10, 2020

It covers a fair bit of the same ground I did in my responses, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless.

I thought it might also be interesting to note that at one point, there were feminists who wanted to exclude lesbians, the "lavender menace", from feminist organizations. Perhaps they could have been called "LERFs" if that had been the language trend at the time. I don't think we'd consider it a horrible slur to refer to them as such now. Just to make the point that whether TERF is a "slur" or "insult" necessarily depends on assuming the correctness of the TERF position. Whereas we now think it would be unconscionable for the feminist movement to expel lesbians, so we would have no issue with referring to homophobic feminists as homophobic, nor would we consider it an unfair slur to call them LERFs or whatever else. We would just consider it descriptive. So I think the discussion of the word and having it hurled at you or whatever is really beside the point, because it just ends up as a circular argument anyway. If you agree with trans activists, then TERF is just descriptive. If you don't, then you may be annoyed that you are being given a label, and may consider it an insult. But all it amounts to, imo, is being mad that you're being called wrong.

This strongly reminds me of Christian apologists at iidb getting irritated by the word apologist. Like, the thing you are doing is apologetics, you are an apologist.

It also reminds me of every crypto-what-the-fuck-ever that I’ve ever argued with.

Holocaust deniers also deny their denialism. Look, I get that Holocaust denialism has a bad rep, but if you think the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust was exaggerated, there is a word for that.


The general you, obviously

[Ari]

The twitter thread hit a lot of the facts, but I want to talk a bit about the psychology.

I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media.

Dawww, that’s some adorable dunning kruger. Like oh, she hasn’t had to help her gf pick out panties for her trans partners funeral because the trans partner wasn’t out to the family for fear of disownment, but she’s going to be shown and cremated in her cutest panties under the DRAB (DRessed As a Boy) suit goddamnit! ...but like oh, she’s shaken hands with some and read a few blogs.

I’ve been on the edge of trans stuff enough to know that despite all of my experiences, I in fact don’t know enough to be talking like an expert about trans experiences. That she feels she’s some authority is hilarious, but also fits with that general rich white privilege that thinks reading National Geographic is how to prep for a trip to Africa.

I also know a few trans men and her treatment of trans-men as some unifying concept is also pretty naive. Just like people, the trans men I know run the gamut from boy-fem to androgynous to jock dude bro.

but on another, it’s intensely personal, as I’m about to explain.

What follows is then a bunch of not very personal stuff, but we do know it is touching her on an emotional level so it may indeed be personal, but none of these reasons are why. Some are so vague that it’s clear she felt she needed more points, more justification. At one point she cites the unease she feels over the actions of the leader of a different country that she’s not in.

All the time I’ve been researching and learning, accusations and threats from trans activists have been bubbling in my Twitter timeline.

Almost certainly when she says ‘researching and learning’ she means commenting and sea lioning. Since there’s just no way people harass silent readers, besides donation pop ups.

This was initially triggered by a ‘like’.

Minimization. It’s not because of the many snide remarks, but because of a single misunderstood event.

[letters from people]who’re all deeply concerned about the way a socio-political concept is influencing politics, medical practice and safeguarding.

Are they, are they really? Cause that really sounds like Rowlings super personal reasons below, so I wonder how many trans people have written her personal messages and she’s dropped it into the mental bucket of support for her concern over socio-political concepts. Cause sure it’s on the list, but it’s certainly not what most trans people are going to lead with when talking about their daily lives.

Ironically, radical feminists aren’t even trans-exclusionary – they include trans men in their feminism, because they were born women.

Uggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
But also a clear example of why this is all just her talking to herself to justify her hate and fear. As anyone who has really done their research would see this as the obtuse “We believe in equality, gay men have just the same rights to marry women as straight men do!”

But accusations of TERFery have been sufficient to intimidate many people

Ok it’s about time to talk about her use of “people”. As a celebrity with a big fan base I’m certain she gets lots of letters but everything is so vague and this is about her, so when she says ‘people’ it can often be replaced with ‘me’. Often people, including myself, will use ‘people’ to both distance themselves and to appear more noble, defending and speaking for the many, when it can often mean they don’t feel they alone are worthy of the concern being made. In some cases it’s straight up big emotional feels, that feel so big that they can only be justified if they are really feeling the emotions of multiple people.

She feels her emotions and actions on this aren’t really justified and has clearly racked her brain for multiple reasons because she doesn’t feel her real reason is strong enough to hold. As an ‘ex-teacher’ she should clearly see listing ‘I have a charitable trust’, ‘ex-teacher’ and ‘banned author under Trump’ as three of the five is obvious padding.

The fourth is where things start to get truly personal

Not really.
Sure how young women are treated might be of interest to other women on a deep level, but none of this was personal, it was a lot of concern about others and pearl clutching but it was all about others.

Well except for,

descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. 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.

(Bold mine)
Now here’s the meat! This, this is personal, this gets to the heart of one of the issues, some women see FtM transitioning as sex traitors, giving in and joining the patriarchy, along with jealousy of not having the guts to do it themselves.

Also that the first and I think only time she’s referred to a trans person by the correct pronoun is when she herself in fantasy has transitioned for the love of her father, is um way too much to try and unpack here.

I didn’t have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s

So “didn’t have the guts” and/or “I’m trumping this up for pathos, I didn’t really want to be a man” cause the idea that trans men somehow didn’t exist in the 1980s is so hilarious and ignorant to also make me wonder exactly what books she’s read on this topic, cause they just weren’t good, or she didn’t pay attention to them.

I’ve read all the arguments about femaleness not residing in the sexed body, and the assertions that biological women don’t have common experiences, and I find them, too, deeply misogynistic and regressive. It’s also clear that one of the objectives of denying the importance of sex is to erode what some seem to see as the cruelly segregationist idea of women having their own biological realities or – just as threatening – unifying realities that make them a cohesive political class.

A lot of trans panic comes from general panic and fear of the patriarchy itself, the panic that infiltrators are going to come in and attack the little safe space they have, so better strike first.

I’ve also never heard anyone say “I’ve read all the arguments” and not really mean “I’ve made up my mind, I’m done thinking.”

fifth reason

The fifth reason is finally personal and why she should be spending more time with a therapist than twitter, and boils down to, “men and the patriarchy have hurt me, and allaying my fears of it happening again are more important than trans rights or safety.” But that’s really harsh and mean sounding to say, that “you all can suffer so I feel safe because despite all my charity my visceral feelings come before all else.”

So instead here’s 3000 words to justify this feeling so that she can think to herself she’s not really the harsh asshole with some damage to be worked on that she is.

And the thing is, that’s fine, that’s what being a person is, it’s being partly damaged, often scared, probably a little hungry, maybe have to pee, and being a good person is trying not to spew your damage on others by say leading your many followers to join in on your unhealthy activities, because others have hurt you.

Which is why I didn’t quote any of her fifth reason, both because it’s a bit too much to quote and it’s all quite valid in this context. In the context of say someone talking to their therapist about all the perfectly reasonable conflicting emotions they’re feeling. But it’s utter shite as a one way, “Now let me tell you something!” justification to drum up support.

[viscousmemories]

I read every word of this thread (a feat in itself!) and gave it a lot of thought, and I think I have a fairly decent grasp on both sides of the argument. I just didn't (and don't, really) have the mental/emotional bandwidth to invest in contributing to the substance of it. Maybe one day. I do want to address this point, though, because I think it's sticky.

Originally Posted by erimir

If you agree with trans activists, then TERF is just descriptive. If you don't, then you may be annoyed that you are being given a label, and may consider it an insult. But all it amounts to, imo, is being mad that you're being called wrong.

I don't think that's true, not least because 'TERF' is not well-defined, and nobody uses it as a mere descriptive of people who disagree with trans activists. Besides, what is the point of such a descriptive in a debate like this one? Maddog spent a considerable amount of time and a lot of words outlining her position--anyone who reads it should be left with no doubt about where she stands. So what purpose does it serve to brand her a 'TERF' and implore her to "just admit it"? In this and in almost every case I have seen the use of the brand seems to be to generalize, label, dismiss, demean and discredit anyone who disagrees with trans activism on any point. It's far more vitriolic than just "calling someone wrong", it's calling someone mean, hateful, and bigoted. As far as I can tell the only purpose that serves is to shut down an opinion you disagree with.

[erimir]

I suppose the debate might be about the E in TERF.

(Maybe the R isn't always accurate, but I don't think many people complaining are particularly upset about being called radical feminists. It's not like they're saying "NO, I'm a TELF: trans-exclusionary liberal feminist!")

But what it comes down to is saying that you're not excluding them... even though you want to, you know, exclude trans women from female places... because you simply say that you're not denying them anything they're entitled to. Which is, of course, begging the question, because the entire point of contention is whether they're entitled to it.

It's the same playing semantics of the anti-gay organizations saying "Straights and gays have the same rights. A straight man and a gay man both have the right to marry a woman, and the same for a straight woman and a lesbian marrying a man!" Or love the sinner, hate the sin, so I don't really hate or oppose gay people, I just want what's best for them. Or "I can't deny you a same-sex marriage because such a thing is an oxymoron, like a square circle" as if that's an actual argument. I recognize the same condescending BS.

And well, sure, there's an element of vitriol and using it as a shorthand for a particular type of anti-trans bigotry or activism. But it's not like if TERFs succeeded in getting trans activists to refer to them as "gender criticals" or whatever that that wouldn't acquire the same connotations anyway. Trans people using a term that identifies someone as an opponent of their rights is never going to come off as a positive.

But like I said... you wouldn't really have a problem with calling the feminists who wanted to keep the "lavender menace" out of feminist organizations homophobic. Fact is that the claim "It's far more vitriolic than just 'calling someone wrong', it's calling someone mean, hateful, and bigoted. As far as I can tell the only purpose that serves is to shut down an opinion you disagree with" is one that would be (and often is) advanced by a large variety of people objecting to terms like "racist", "misogynist", "homophobe", "Islamophobe", etc. And I doubt many of those feminists complaining about the term TERF would feel that they can never describe anyone or anything as sexist or misogynist for that reason, by contrast.

But in this case, it is descriptive in a way that doesn't even seem that derogatory to TERFs. They do, in fact, want to exclude trans women from quite a lot of things that cis women would be included in. If they think they're right about that, why exactly is it that they can't say "Well yes, trans women should be excluded from the women's room!"? Why must they insist that this isn't actually any sort of exclusion? If they're right, there's nothing wrong with excluding them! That's their whole freakin' point!

Just playing word games to pretend that they aren't opposed to what the vast majority of trans people want, which I find irritating. At least own the fact that the vast majority of trans people think they should be referring to with their preferred pronouns, that they should use the restroom that matches the gender they identify with, etc. and you disagree with them and are opposed to what trans people want.

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Maddog spent a considerable amount of time and a lot of words outlining her position--anyone who reads it should be left with no doubt about where she stands. So what purpose does it serve to brand her a 'TERF' and implore her to "just admit it"?

I mean, she's the one who brought up the term. And then proceeded to express views that are pretty standard TERF views. Not extreme TERF views, not every view that could be described as TERF, but pretty much the standard ones. She seemed to be contesting whether her views counted as TERF, as if there's some set of views she would consider TERF but hers don't fall into that category.

In this [case] and in almost every case I have seen the use of the brand seems to be to generalize, label, dismiss, demean and discredit anyone who disagrees with trans activism on any point.

When you say "in this case", are you referring to me? Are you saying that *I* use the term "TERF" to refer to anyone who disagrees with trans activism on any point? Why do you say that, might I ask?

I mean, maddog is disagreeing with some pretty basic stuff like that my sister should be called my sister, not my brother, by she/her, not he/him, that she should be allowed to use the women's restroom, etc. We're not far in the weeds on trans issues here.

[fragment]

The term TERF seems fairly clear to me, and there's a difference between people misusing it or using it in anger and the term having no definition or being a slur. erimir linked the wiki page earlier. FWIW we probably read different things but I haven't often seen "TERF" badly misused with an obvious intention to slur or shut down competing positions. I wouldn't be surprised if it often happens on twitter, because that place is generally toxic, but I wouldn't personally use that or similar media as a guide.

TERF certainly seems preferable to the self-identification preferred by those it is usually applied to, that being "gender critical". IMO there's nothing about being critical of gender
that implies the anti-trans positions taken by people using that label.

As for maddog, when presented with three criteria for being a TERF she agreed fully that one applies, half rejected that another applies but only because she argued it was justified, and rejected that the third applies but that was because she denied that "woman" is a social category, which is question begging since it's the basic TERF position (see criterion 1).

[erimir]

It's also the case that some people have objected to being called a "TERF" on what they think are rather thin grounds.

But it's often the case that they're mad that people can hear their dog whistles.

After all, JK Rowling was mad that some of her minor moves like liking a particular tweet or whatever were seen as evidence. But as we've seen, it turns out that they were very much correct in seeing those behaviors and less explicit statements as evidence that she holds what would typically called TERF positions. It just took her a long while to finally come out with a full airing of her views... and they were basically what people expected them to be based on the signals.

I will say that while I thought Rowling's earlier signs were potentially indicative, I was open to the possibility she was just being misunderstood or wasn't aware of the implications. But she had plenty of opportunity to correct the record and she didn't, so it didn't seem particularly unfair to me to refer to her as such barring new evidence.

[Ari]

I’m not a big Harry Potter fan or Rowling fan and I’ve still known for years that she has terf feels. I don’t remember exactly why I knew this, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t because I saw her ‘accidentally like’ a tweet, the idea that this all comes from a single accident seems like some grade A history rewriting and victimization.

But really anything talking about Rowling and LGBT needs to mention the pile of bullshit that was Crimes of Grindelwald. After all this talk of feminism and being scared for other women, did she knowingly cast and stand by the domestic abusing trash fire of Johnny Depp? Yup! After years of taking praise for being an LGBT revolutionary by making Dumbledore gay did she purposefully closet him in the movie? Yup!

So of course she is feeling attacked when people won’t gobble up whatever fake ally bullshit she spouts today and are now questioning if it was all just for the likes and praise.

[erimir]

Right, and while it is somewhat better than nothing, telling us Dumbledore is gay after the fact when it's not in the text in any way except for slight hints in the sections about Grindelwald... isn't really worth that much. Particularly given that, as you say... Dumbledore reappears in Crimes of Grindelwald and this is after the big reveal and it's still not included.

That movie was also just bad in general.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal - Bits

[viscousmemories]

Sorry for the hit and run post, but it's been black history month for me so I've been reluctant to come back to this discussion for fear of getting off track.

Originally Posted by erimir

And well, sure, there's an element of vitriol and using it as a shorthand for a particular type of anti-trans bigotry or activism.

This is the essence of my remark. Aside from Wikipedia, every article I've found about 'TERF's uses the term interchangeably with 'anti-trans', 'transphobic', 'trans-hating' or some variation of those ideas, and I don't read any hate in maddog's comments. Totally willing to admit that may be my own bias.

Originally Posted by erimir

When you say "in this case", are you referring to me? Are you saying that *I* use the term "TERF" to refer to*anyone who disagrees with trans activism on*any*point? Why do you say that, might I ask?

I did mean to imply that, yes. Because (again, in my experience and apart from the more staid definition in Wikipedia) every instance of the use of the term to describe someone has been bound to an accusation of hate.

To be clear it certainly seems to me that (taken very literally) the term applies to maddog. I just don't think she deserves to be painted with the 'hate' brush and as I said she outlined her views in great detail. So at best the use of the label didn't add any value, and at worst it could be interpreted as a slur.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Sorry for the hit and run post, but it's been black history month for me so I've been reluctant to come back to this discussion for fear of getting off track.

This is the essence of my remark. Aside from Wikipedia, every article I've found about 'TERF's uses the term interchangeably with 'anti-trans', 'transphobic', 'trans-hating' or some variation of those ideas, and I don't read any hate in maddog's comments. Totally willing to admit that may be my own bias.

I mean, I think you're reading more into maddog's tone than the content of her statements.

Do I claim she has a rabid hatred of trans people, like she would start yelling at them and calling them slurs? No.

Do I think she would be uncomfortable around them? Yes. Do I think she would be fairly likely to do things that would predictably antagonize or upset them? Yes, she has fairly consistently referred to trans people by pronouns matching their assigned gender at birth in this thread. She has said they shouldn't use the restroom matching their gender. Maybe she's not confrontational enough in real life to actually say anything about it. Maybe she would use the right pronouns to avoid confrontation, but quietly stew about it. Who knows. I'm not taking a position on that, I'm describing her positions which basically match the definition of TERF.

But at any rate, there are plenty of homophobes who are quite good at not sounding hateful, while opposing gay rights and acceptance. I don't judge someone as homophobic or not based purely on tone, while someone who sounds sweet while denying my rights may be preferable in some ways (I'd be much less likely to fear for my physical safety around such a person compared to one who was yelling "faggot" at me) that doesn't make me say they're not anti-gay. So I think you're reading something into the usage of the word that's not there, at least not in my use.

I also think that maybe you should interrogate what's behind the suggestion that my sister, when she uses the women's restroom, diminishes the safety and dignity of cisgender women. So there's nothing hateful there. Why does my sister diminish their dignity? Why does she diminish their safety? I have a hard time seeing why that would be the case without making any unsavory assumptions about trans people.

And it can't just be about "well, people will pretend to be trans, it's not that trans people themselves are dangerous", because as I pointed out, the existence of trans people already makes this an option no matter which restroom you think trans people should use. A man can just as easily claim to be a trans man who is being forced to use the women's restroom since he was assigned female at birth, if the law operated the way maddog preferred. In fact, it could be even easier, since he wouldn't need to make any effort to present as a woman at all.

I did mean to imply that, yes. Because (again, in my experience and apart from the more staid definition in Wikipedia) every instance of the use of the term to describe someone has been bound to an accusation of hate.

To be clear it certainly seems to me that (taken very literally) the term applies to maddog. I just don't think she deserves to be painted with the 'hate' brush and as I said she outlined her views in great detail. So at best the use of the label didn't add any value, and at worst it could be interpreted as a slur.

Then you're being ridiculously hyperbolic.

If you wanted to say I use it for people who disagree with trans activists on basic points and from at least a nominally left/feminist point-of-view (i.e. not from a conservative/traditionalist view of gender and sexuality), then maybe you'd have a point.

What basis do you have to say I apply it when there's disagreement on any point? I mean, isn't painting with a broad brush what you're complaining about? You're saying I use it this way because you saw some overzealous Twitter randos using it that way?

[fragment]

Originally Posted by erimir

But at any rate, there are plenty of homophobes who are quite good at not sounding hateful, while opposing gay rights and acceptance.

^^ this. "I don't hate trans people, but they shouldn't be in my bathroom" reminds me of "I don't hate gay people, but I don't want them teaching my kids." We're not usually squeamish over calling the latter homophobic.

I do want to say I have a certain amount of sympathy for maddog. Not so long ago there was little recognition that biology wasn't social destiny, and the "sex = biology, gender = culture" construct was liberatory in that environment. It certain helped form my understanding of feminism and gender issues. But it's a just a map of a messy territory - better than the older map but it leaves stuff out and we need maps that are better yet.

[slimshady2357]

JKR at it again today I see.

At least it was amusing this time.

JK Rowling deletes tweet praising Stephen King after he supports trans women | The Independent

Rowling shared a quote from the late feminist and writer Andrea Dworkin about how men treat women’s opinions as if they are “acts of violence”, in a post that must have resonated with King, who retweeted it on his own feed.

In response, Rowling tweeted that her love for King had reached “new heights”.

She added: “It’s so much easier for men to ignore women’s concerns, or to belittle them, but I won’t ever forget the men who stood up when they didn’t need to. Thank you, Stephen.”

However, after being pressed by a fan on where he stood on transgender issues, King tweeted: “Trans women are women.”

While his clarification appeased some fans, it appears to have irked Rowling, who has since deleted her tweet praising King. Some social media users have also speculated that she unfollowed him on Twitter.

She's classy

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

Reddit banned r/GenderCritical today.

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

[ShottleBop]

Originally Posted by Kamilah Hauptmann

The results can be surprising: 9 People Who No Longer Look Human After Extreme Cosmetic Transformations - Business Insider

[Kamilah Hauptmann]

This is a strong contender for most galaxy brain take of 2020. pic.twitter.com/7JoTb2c350

— Detective Pikajew wants Bill de Blasio gone (@clapifyoulikeme) July 6, 2020