Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6676  
Old 11-22-2021, 11:10 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is online now
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMMCCCLXIV
Images: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
She's abstractly pro-trans, as long as it might not affect herself.

She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women. I think it's pretty fair to say that she's anti-trans. It's a softer prejudice than wanting to kill or convert them, but it's an opinion that's still based on fear of trans people.
I believe her views have been misrepresented. I believe Kam's joke and your apologia here are examples of that. I accept I could be wrong.

Can you provide a citation for "She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women"?
From JKR herself:
Quote:
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (11-23-2021), erimir (11-23-2021), fragment (11-22-2021), JoeP (11-23-2021), mickthinks (11-23-2021), slimshady2357 (11-22-2021), Sock Puppet (11-23-2021)
  #6677  
Old 11-23-2021, 04:12 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDXX
Images: 11
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Rowling's position on bathrooms really only has a few resolutions.

If trans women are not allowed in the women's bathroom:

1. We can do away with gender-specific bathrooms altogether. Presumably, given the basis of Rowling's objection, that means only single-occupancy bathrooms. Or that there must be at least some single occupancy bathrooms in all buildings.

But this isn't a real option. It might be a rhetorically useful one, but in practice we know that this won't happen universally. This reduces capacity and requires significant renovations to older buildings. Since we know that single occupancy bathrooms aren't coming to all buildings, that means there needs to be a policy for those bathrooms, even if we did mandate that all new buildings needed to have single-occupancy bathrooms.

2. Trans women must use the men's bathroom, and trans men should use the women's bathroom. But we know that this creates great risk for trans women. In fact, trans women are at greater risk in the men's room than cis women are at risk from trans women.

I don't see how Rowling arguing, based on no real statistical evidence, that trans women need to be put into real danger to protect cis women from an imagined* menace, doesn't qualify as anti-trans.

I'd also note that since Rowling isn't saying that all trans men need to convert back into women, her position doesn't really address where they should go. Should they be in the men's room as well? Otherwise, forcing trans women into the men's room doesn't really protect cis women from cis men who want to fake being trans to enter the women's bathroom for nefarious purposes. What's to stop a cis man from claiming to be a trans man, and not needing to present as female at all?

So that leads to

3. Women's restrooms are for cis women only, everyone else uses the men's room.

Which still has most of the problems above, but also carves out cis women as a special class and doesn't treat trans men and women equally.

*Sure, some trans women might behave inappropriately, or even violently. That's not particularly relevant unless they're more violent than cis women or this increases assaults against women in the bathroom. Cis women can be violent, and cis men can enter the women's bathroom and commit assaults even if they're "not allowed" in the women's room. Statistics matter here, not anecdotes or individual instances.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (11-23-2021), Crumb (11-23-2021), Ensign Steve (11-26-2021), JoeP (11-23-2021), slimshady2357 (11-23-2021), specious_reasons (11-23-2021)
  #6678  
Old 11-23-2021, 08:17 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
I don't believe that is enough to charge Rowling with being against all trans people in the way that Kam's joke implies and depends on. To put it another way, "See how anti-trans Rowling is" is a misrepresentation of her words.

I get that there is a political fight going on between two powerful though perhaps not equally powerful groups, and Rowling is avowedly in one of those antagonisic camps. There may be people who are anti-trans in Rowling's camp, but it isn't a given that you have to be anti-trans to oppose some part of the political agenda of some trans-activists.

I don't see how Rowling arguing, based on no real statistical evidence, that trans women need to be put into real danger to protect cis women from an imagined* menace, doesn't qualify as anti-trans.

Has she argued that? Or is that a uncharitable paraphrase of the argument she has made?
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #6679  
Old 11-23-2021, 08:28 AM
slimshady2357's Avatar
slimshady2357 slimshady2357 is offline
forever in search of dill pickle doritos
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VDLX
Blog Entries: 6
Images: 52
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
She's abstractly pro-trans, as long as it might not affect herself.

She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women. I think it's pretty fair to say that she's anti-trans. It's a softer prejudice than wanting to kill or convert them, but it's an opinion that's still based on fear of trans people.
I believe her views have been misrepresented. I believe Kam's joke and your apologia here are examples of that. I accept I could be wrong.

Can you provide a citation for "She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post

From JKR herself:
Quote:
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
Do you at least agree that "She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women" is not a misrepresentation of her views?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #6680  
Old 11-23-2021, 08:54 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

I don't agree that "She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women" is not a misrepresentation of her views. I think it is a misrepresentation of what she has written.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #6681  
Old 11-23-2021, 09:21 AM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is online now
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMMCCCLXIV
Images: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
I don't believe that is enough to charge Rowling with being against all trans people in the way that Kam's joke implies and depends on. To put it another way, "See how anti-trans Rowling is" is a misrepresentation of her words.
Did you read that full personal essay? I did. I was disappointed.

Quote:
I don't agree that "She explicitly doesn't want trans women in spaces for women" is not a misrepresentation of her views. I think it is a misrepresentation of what she has written.
I'm not sure how "JKR doesn't want trans women in women's bathrooms" can be interpreted any other way?
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (11-24-2021), beyelzu (11-25-2021), slimshady2357 (11-23-2021)
  #6682  
Old 11-23-2021, 10:31 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

We are in dispute about how Rowling's actual words can be interpreted. I think you and I probably agree on the interpretation of "JKR doesn't want trans women in women's bathrooms", but they are not Rowling's actual words.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #6683  
Old 11-23-2021, 08:02 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is online now
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MMMCCCLXIV
Images: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
We are in dispute about how Rowling's actual words can be interpreted. I think you and I probably agree on the interpretation of "JKR doesn't want trans women in women's bathrooms", but they are not Rowling's actual words.
I'm pretty satisfied that I interpreted what she wrote correctly. I'm also OK with mocking JKR for being transphobic, because she is writing about how she would fear for her safety around trans women.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (11-25-2021), slimshady2357 (11-23-2021)
  #6684  
Old 11-23-2021, 10:00 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

I'm pretty satisfied that I interpreted what she wrote correctly.

Yes, you are.

I'm also OK with mocking JKR for being transphobic, because she is writing about how she would fear for her safety around trans women.

I don't believe Rowling has been or is doing that, so I think it isn't okay.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #6685  
Old 11-24-2021, 03:49 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDXX
Images: 11
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

I'll start off by noting that her high profile, the attention paid to this issue and her specifically, and her own claims to have read extensively on the issue, eliminate a lot of pleading of innocent, well-intentioned ignorance.

Rowling can't say "Oh I didn't know trans women can be in danger if they use the men's room" as if 1. she doesn't try to claim the mantle of expertise, in which case pleading ignorance undermines the authority she's trying to use to lend weight to her arguments, and 2. nobody has pointed this out to her before now even though they definitely have. If she ignores that in her commentary on the issue, I think it's an intentional omission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
I don't believe that is enough to charge Rowling with being against all trans people in the way that Kam's joke implies and depends on. To put it another way, "See how anti-trans Rowling is" is a misrepresentation of her words.
Yeah, she can say that she wants trans women to be safe.

But what she wants is for them to be banned from women's restrooms, which demonstrably will make them less safe. So her saying that isn't worth very much.

She also says that allowing trans women into women's restrooms will make cis women less safe. But again, I don't think she can plead ignorance here - I'm quite sure her polite and good-faith critics have brought up the evidence from jurisdictions with trans rights laws.

I think it's plausible that instead, trans women simply make her feel uncomfortable, and that doesn't seem like a compelling enough argument. But sure, that's speculation as to the reason she clings to an argument without statistical evidence.
Quote:
I get that there is a political fight going on between two powerful though perhaps not equally powerful groups, and Rowling is avowedly in one of those antagonisic camps. There may be people who are anti-trans in Rowling's camp
Well... not "may". Definitely there are.

Rowling describes Magdalen Burns in her essay about "TERF wars" as an "immensely brave young feminist", who merely "believes in the importance of biological sex" and doesn't believe it's bigotry for lesbians not to date trans women with penises.

Magdalen Burns, however, tweets stuff like this:


I could understand JK Rowling not being aware of this. But given her high profile and how she's been criticized specifically over her associations with and praise of anti-trans feminists, it doesn't really pass the smell test. She is certainly aware, and as far as I know, hasn't commented on things like this.
Quote:
I don't see how Rowling arguing, based on no real statistical evidence, that trans women need to be put into real danger to protect cis women from an imagined* menace, doesn't qualify as anti-trans.

Has she argued that? Or is that a uncharitable paraphrase of the argument she has made?
1. She said that trans women shouldn't be allowed in the women's restroom. I suppose there's some ambiguity in how she feels about trans women who are on hormones, have had surgery or have had their sex legally changed. But that leads to further questions, because those things can't be identified at a glance. Women don't typically flash their genitals at each other in the bathroom, after all. Unless things are real different in the ladies' compared to the men's room and I was unaware.

So is she saying trans women should be forced to show their ID to use the restroom and show that it says female on it? By who? Who has the authority here? Do businesses have to assign someone to do it? Can any random person in the bathroom get you kicked out? And of course, there's a connected issue in that the conditions required to get your legal sex changed aren't uncontested either! So it raises the question of what she thinks should be the process there.

Certainly it would be ridiculous to say that trans women should prove they don't have a penis. Forcing women to expose themselves doesn't seem to serve the purpose of protecting them. And how do they prove they're on hormones?

I would note also that some cis women will be misidentified as trans (we've all seen women who are androgynous), the idea that only trans women will be affected by these things is just not plausible. Being asked to prove they belong there rather than assumed won't be fun for them either.

2. So at any rate, however you define the group of trans women she wants to exclude from the women's restroom, this implies they should use the men's room.

3. Trans women are in danger in the men's room. So she wants those women to be in a more dangerous situation, because she feels that allowing them in the women's restroom would create a danger for cis women.

She doesn't acknowledge this danger to trans women, but like I said, I don't think she can plead ignorance at this point. She just thinks it's less important than the supposed danger to cis women.

4. Cis women are not actually at greater risk when trans women are allowed to use the women's restroom, despite her assertions.

So which part are you taking issue with here?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (11-24-2021), Crumb (11-24-2021), fragment (11-24-2021), JoeP (11-24-2021), slimshady2357 (11-24-2021), Sock Puppet (11-24-2021)
  #6686  
Old 11-24-2021, 08:24 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

I am taking issue with the claim, implicit in the joke Kam shared, that Rowling is hostile to trans people enough to want them excluded from her world.

But what she wants is for them to be banned from women's restrooms, which demonstrably will make them less safe.

It's possible you are right, but I have my doubts and I would like to see some evidence. I question both parts; I don't think she wants trans women to be barred from women's restrooms, and I also believe safe alternatives might be provided for transwomen if women's restrooms were barred to them.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #6687  
Old 11-24-2021, 09:36 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: XMMMCLXXXIV
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Britain ups its game with the whole gossip rag thing.
__________________
I didn't used to be a commie, it's just the Overton window slipped on a bar of soap.

:BC: :canada:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
JoeP (11-24-2021)
  #6688  
Old 11-24-2021, 10:03 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: XDCXCVI
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir View Post
So is she saying trans women should be forced to show their ID to use the restroom and show that it says female on it? By who? Who has the authority here? Do businesses have to assign someone to do it?
This is one of the reasons I see JK as either conservative or conservative adjacent. The bathroom issue seems to be entirely about having authority figures punch down to fix a perceived moral panic.

The real issue is that men sexually assault women and get away with it, but instead of challenging those higher in authority to her, she’s decided to grasp onto the idea that men dress as women to enter bathrooms where they are able to sexually assault women and get away with it, so instead of dealing with the bigger issue, w’ell just assign someone to prevent men from entering women’s restrooms and pretend that solves the sexual assault problems.

It’s like ‘fixing’ the problem of men flipping up women’s skirts, by assigning a skirt checker to make sure women’s skirts are too long to be easily flipped. Sure it’s *a* solution, but not one I would consider very liberal or feminist.

I think a lot of issue comes from JK having been assigned the ‘liberal’ moniker and a lot of people trying to square that with her views. If she was always seen as a conservative, I’m not sure anyone would be surprised at her conservative leaning.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (11-25-2021), fragment (11-25-2021), JoeP (11-24-2021)
  #6689  
Old 11-25-2021, 04:05 AM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMVCIX
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
JK Rowling has controversial views, but anti-trans she isn't. Not remotely. That macro is bullshit, Kam.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
It's what you might call misobservational comedy. And as such, it sucks.
you are fucking hilarious, I mean, you would be if you were joking.

In spite other people are allowing you to shift burden of proof, this is your claim, so prove it.

Even if you were some arbiter of objective proof as you are acting like currently, even if Erimir failed to prove his point, you should be agnostic as to her real pint of view.

Meanwhile, you are certain that people (like myself and others in this thread) are wrong about JK.

Okay, show your work, man.
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:

Last edited by beyelzu; 11-25-2021 at 04:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6690  
Old 11-25-2021, 05:35 AM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: XDCXCVI
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
I am taking issue with the claim, implicit in the joke Kam shared, that Rowling is hostile to trans people enough to want them excluded from her world.
RowlingSo I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

On Saturday morning, I read that the Scottish government is proceeding with its controversial gender recognition plans, which will in effect mean that all a man needs to ‘become a woman’ is to say he’s one. To use a very contemporary word, I was ‘triggered’. Ground down by the relentless attacks from trans activists on social media, when I was only there to give children feedback about pictures they’d drawn for my book under lockdown, I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalised on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with womens and girls’ safety.

…Huge numbers of women are justifiably terrified by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence.

This all suggests to me that as Erimir has said, she wants transwomen to prove themselves to someone before being able to enter the women’s restroom out of a fear over imagined violence.

While pulling an anecdote and a good ol trumpian ‘lots of people have been saying’ to paint those outside of this acceptable-trans umbrella as violent trolls.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (11-25-2021)
  #6691  
Old 11-25-2021, 08:21 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by beyelzu View Post
you should be agnostic as to her real pint of view.
You are right, and I guess "JK Rowling has controversial views, but anti-trans she isn't" was shorthand for "JK Rowling has expressed views which many people take issue with, but as far as I know she has never expressed any view which would justify calling her "anti-trans". My bad.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
  #6692  
Old 11-25-2021, 08:44 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
... she wants transwomen to prove themselves to someone before being able to enter the women’s restroom ...
... and that is controversial*.

But it isn't "she doesn't want transwomen to be able to enter the women's restroom", or as erimir put it, "what she wants is for them to be banned from women's restrooms".

Still less is it "she wants them excluded from society" as the joke Kam linked to seems to me to be premised upon and to be reinforcing.


*and still uncharitably expressed, I think. She wants there to be some means by which men who are not trans do not gain legally protected access to women's spaces. That would require some vetting process, I think, which some may see as unreasonable.
__________________
... it's just an idea

Last edited by mickthinks; 11-25-2021 at 09:21 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6693  
Old 11-28-2021, 03:49 AM
Jerome's Avatar
Jerome Jerome is offline
Dr. Jerome Corsi-Soetoro, Ph.D., Esq.
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: The Land of Pleasant Living
Posts: XCDLXXVI
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

How long before you guys support pedophilia?

This is the current promoted trend.


*post bookmarked*
__________________
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. ... The origin of myths is explained in this way.
Reply With Quote
  #6694  
Old 11-28-2021, 08:17 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Crumb 2.7 is now available!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LXDCCLXIII
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

We're not Trump supporters. I think that means we support pedophilia by definition.
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (11-28-2021)
  #6695  
Old 11-28-2021, 10:18 PM
Kamilah Hauptmann's Avatar
Kamilah Hauptmann Kamilah Hauptmann is offline
Shitpost Sommelier
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: XMMMCLXXXIV
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Time for your nap, grandpa:



Edit:
Or not:

__________________
I didn't used to be a commie, it's just the Overton window slipped on a bar of soap.

:BC: :canada:

Last edited by Kamilah Hauptmann; 11-29-2021 at 07:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6696  
Old 11-28-2021, 11:31 PM
beyelzu's Avatar
beyelzu beyelzu is offline
simple country microbiologist hyperchicken
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: georgia
Posts: XMVCIX
Blog Entries: 1
Images: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
We're not Trump supporters. I think that means we support pedophilia by definition.
also lizard people and drinking children's blood in satanic rituals
__________________
:blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :steve: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss: :beloved: :blowkiss:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Ari (11-30-2021)
  #6697  
Old 11-30-2021, 04:07 AM
erimir's Avatar
erimir erimir is offline
Projecting my phallogos with long, hard diction
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Dee Cee
Gender: Male
Posts: XMMMDXX
Images: 11
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari View Post
... she wants transwomen to prove themselves to someone before being able to enter the women’s restroom ...
... and that is controversial*.

But it isn't "she doesn't want transwomen to be able to enter the women's restroom", or as erimir put it, "what she wants is for them to be banned from women's restrooms".

Still less is it "she wants them excluded from society" as the joke Kam linked to seems to me to be premised upon and to be reinforcing.


*and still uncharitably expressed, I think. She wants there to be some means by which men who are not trans do not gain legally protected access to women's spaces. That would require some vetting process, I think, which some may see as unreasonable.
In reference to the bolded:

Either the criteria she uses would exclude some trans women or she doesn't recognize some trans women as women. Or both.

There isn't really a way around this.

There isn't some magic lie detector that can differentiate a sincere trans person from someone who is lying about it for access to women's restrooms, so since she clearly rejects "self-identification" as a criteria, there has to be some other standard.

You haven't seemed to be very willing to actually, you know, cite anything that Rowling has said. You seem to have a high certainty about this, but am I going to have to go line-by-line citing from Rowling's essay before you would be willing to concede anything? Have you read what she's written? Where does your certainty come from if you haven't? If you have, why haven't you cited almost anything she's said to support your point?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (11-30-2021), JoeP (11-30-2021), Kamilah Hauptmann (11-30-2021), slimshady2357 (11-30-2021)
  #6698  
Old 11-30-2021, 08:25 AM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

There is no doubt that the criteria and process by which the gates guarding women's rights might be barred to non-women are a) not well defined, including by Rowling as far as I know, and b) problematic.

My position is this
  • Rowling has testified that she is not anti-trans.
  • Some have challenged that testimony and declared it inadequate.
  • I have examined the case they have made, and it seems to me to be based on a (probably wilful) misrepresentation of some of her words.
  • Therefore I see no reason to disbelieve her.
The troublesome words have been quoted and analysed here in this thread quite thoroughly. If there are other troublesome words of Rowling's that haven't yet been brought into the discussion here, then please by all means bring them in.
__________________
... it's just an idea

Last edited by mickthinks; 11-30-2021 at 08:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #6699  
Old 11-30-2021, 06:13 PM
Ari's Avatar
Ari Ari is offline
I read some of your foolish scree, then just skimmed the rest.
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay Area
Gender: Male
Posts: XDCXCVI
Blog Entries: 8
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

Quote:
Originally Posted by mickthinks View Post
  • Rowling has testified that she is not anti-trans.
  • Some have challenged that testimony and declared it inadequate.
  • I have examined the case they have made, and it seems to me to be based on a (probably wilful) misrepresentation of some of her words.
  • Therefore I see no reason to disbelieve her.
Cool.
How much of her work did you read though? Are you an avid twitter follower?

I also wonder, why the need to exonerate JK Rowling in the first place?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
beyelzu (11-30-2021), JoeP (12-01-2021), slimshady2357 (11-30-2021)
  #6700  
Old 12-01-2021, 10:00 PM
mickthinks's Avatar
mickthinks mickthinks is offline
Trying to find the actual stastics
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Augsburg
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLXXX
Images: 19
Default Re: Return to Gender 101

I also wonder, why the need to exonerate JK Rowling in the first place?

I don't understand the question. Is there ever a need for truth? Is there ever not a need for truth?

I am not trying to exonerate Rowling; the facts will do that, or they won't.

If you know of anything of Rowling's that hasn't yet been brought into the discussion here, then please by all means bring it.
__________________
... it's just an idea
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Public Baths > News, Politics & Law


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.26103 seconds with 16 queries