Is JK Rowling transphobic?

[Banquet_Bear]

@monstro

But I wasn’t talking about his “non-binary” identity! I was speaking hypothetically.

…is this something you tend to do? Randomly muse about a photograph of someone on the internet, imagining what it would be like if this person called themselves a woman? Especially after quoting someone in this thread saying “I cannot possibly imagine how someone could think Gregor Murray was a man.”

Do you do that often? Because that is a really weird thing to be doing to be honest.

If a biological male that had a beard and mustache like Gregor called himself a “woman”, I would probably have to keep my eyes from rolling.

So your eyes didn’t roll then?

Do you have something to say to this point other than accusing me of playing a game? I’m actually curious if you can at least understand why a person would have this negative reaction.

Why would you have a negative reaction?

Because I will tell you something. I am bracing myself for what I fear is inevitable: Biological male Incel edgelords identifying themselves as women just to troll and disrupt. And we will have no way of talking about how to push back against this without people getting upset.

the Incel edgelords are already way ahead of you here. They have already done this and they got bored real quick when they started to get treated the way that women tend to get treated in society.

Do you understand why someone might have some unease about a conventionally masculine-presenting biological male calling himself a “woman”. Is this unease always a sign of transphobia? Or do you think it’s possible that someone could have reasonable concerns?

What concerns do you have?

For the millionth time, I understand that isn’t what Gregor was trying to do. I don’t need you to keep beating me over the head with this fact.

If you think Gregor was trying to do anything other than identify as non-binary then I don’t think you understand what Gregor was “trying to do.” That you used Gregor as a springboard for a rant makes it all the more bizarre.

Anyone who defines themselves as “non-binary” is “non-binary”, in my book. I don’t possibly see how it could be any other way and still be fair. If women are people who identify as women and men are people who identify as men, then logically it follows that non-binaries are people who identify as non-binaries. To treat non-binary folks any different is totally unfair, IMHO.

This doesn’t answer my question. You didn’t agree with GreysonCarlisle’s definition of “non-binary.” Non-binary has a specific definition: do you disagree with it and if so then why?

Is it possible for us to have a discussion that isn’t totally fixated on the specifics of this case? That’s what I’m dying to know.

This thread is literally about this case. Of course it will be fixated on the specifics of this case. Why would you be “dying to know” this?

You need to work on your reading comprehension. I didn’t say the discussion of this topic was bizarre and irritating.

Says the person who thought Gregor identified as a women until it was pointed out that they didn’t, and has been desperately trying to pretend that they didn’t do this in the first place.

What I said is I think questioning the relevance of my quibble over GreysonCarlise’s definition of “non-binary” is bizarre and irritating.

Well tough. GreysonCarlise’s definition of “non-binary” is the accepted definition of the term. If you have a different definition then I’m not out-of-bounds asking you if you could define it.

[Smapti]

As an aside, I’d just like to say it’s deeply ironic to hold a belief that people can’t change genders when you’re the creator of a setting where people can change their biological sex by drinking a potion.

[Esprise_Me]

Rowling is proven to be quite skilled in the use of the English language. If she wanted to express that she disagreed with Forstater but wished to defend her right to express her views, she would have done so, clearly and unmistakably. Even with the character limits on Twitter, it’s not hard. Rowling obviously agrees with her TERFy views at least on some level, and that makes me sad.

[psychonaut]

@Smapti

As an aside, I’d just like to say it’s deeply ironic to hold a belief that people can’t change genders when you’re the creator of a setting where people can change their biological sex by drinking a potion.

No it isn’t. Nobody is sniggering at Rowling over her denials that witches and monsters exist in real life, so why single out her admittedly fictional magical potions for special attention?

[BigT]

@monstro

But if a person doesn’t present as a “female” in any apparent way, is it wrong to say they aren’t female? Is having a negative reaction to a masculine biological male talking about his “womanhood” an indication of inner transphobia? Or it just innocent bewilderment mixed with exasperation? I don’t know the answers to these questions. I hope someone can see their way to responding to them without jumping down my throat or asking how they are relevant to the discussion.

Perhaps it would be easier to see the answer if I rephrased your argument. Your position is that you (or society in general) should have the right to determine if a trans woman is sufficiently feminine to qualify as a woman. Otherwise, she must be treated like a man.

If stating it like that isn’t enough to make the answer obvious, then I will say it explicitly. Yes, that position is wrong. That position is the transphobic position in a nutshell. The transphobe says that the trans person is wrong about their internal gender, and that they know better. This position harms trans individuals, as the reason for transitioning is that they feel gender dysphoria when identified by their birth gender.

The most basic position is that, if someone tells you they are a “she,” then you call them she. If they say they are a “he” use he, and if a “they,” use they. This what trans people have been asking for this entire time.

So feeling a negative feeling when someone appears male to you talks about her womanhood–is that internalized transphobia? Yes. It presumes you get to decide someone else’s gender. Does it matter if that feeling is bewilderment and exasperation? Yes, if you feel both of those. Perhaps bewilderment by itself would be understandable as a temporary feeling as you learned they weren’t the gender you though. But, with exasperation, it sounds like you think they aren’t actually the gender they claim.

Of course, you can’t control your feelings directly–all you can do is reject those feelings as wrong. Slowly, the more you act like you believe X, you will find that the automatic thoughts become weaker. It’s how one faces any unintentional bigotry, or even any unwanted thought. It’s the behavioral part of cognitive behavioral therapy.

To address your previous question: why should it matter that you feel like woman should be an objective term? The only way that would matter is if you thought your idea of how words should work trump the concerns of trans people that they not be misgendered. People matter more than ideas.

And, finally, to address the main misunderstanding you appear to have in this thread: the statement “a man cannot become a woman” refers to the the idea that transitioning is not possible. If someone wanted to argue that a trans woman has been a woman all her life, but just trapped in the wrong body, they would say that.

If, somehow, the person had said the former but meant the latter, don’t you think that, when people got upset at them, they would clarify that they meant the latter?

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@monstro

I don’t know how my point relates to the OP.

Me either.

Rowling responded to a person who said a specific thing in a specific context. Defending her with a “BUT ITS DA TROOOOOOOTH!!” is silly.

If I came into Great Debates and responded to your post with, “Wow, maybe you think you’re smart, but trust me, Albert Einstein you’re not,” I’d hopefully get modded. Someone who took my statements out of context, defending me by saying, “But he’s RIGHT: monstro MIGHT think she’s smart, and it’s a plain fact that Albert Einstein is dead, so she’s not him!” would be wildly off-base.

When you come in defending Forstater on the basis that what she said was in some technical sense accurate, ignoring the thrust of her argument, you’re doing the same thing. Forstater’s overall point is transphobic and nasty, and Rowling should step off.

[BigT]

As for the OP: Yes, I would say that it means that Rowling is transphobic. This isn’t a free speech argument, or else she would have argued that she didn’t agree with Forstater but she defends her right to say it.

She includes disclaimers, but none of them actually disagree with Forstater’s opinion. In fact, she uses a common euphemism, saying Forstater’s argument is that “sex is real.”

The statement “men cannot become women” is a statement saying that a trans woman is actually a man. The meaning of the statement is saying that transgenderism is not actually real. If, as it seems for some, such a statement is not clear enough, I can quote further context acquired from the Snopes article on the subject (emphasis mine):
*n a September 2018 letter to the Conservative party MP Anne Main, Forstater wrote: Please stand up for the truth that it is not possible for someone who is male to become female. Transwomen are men, and should be respected and protected as men. Any ambiguity is lost by that part I emphasized (as much as it stood out to me). Forstater is arguing that trans women are actually men. That is a clearly transphobic statement.

The only counterargument that Rowling has is to argue that she was unaware of this. However, the rest of the Snopes article, which was originally about her following a TERF on Twitter, makes me doubt this. As the article says:

Rowling had never explicitly corrected or refuted characterizations of her as holding trans-exclusionary views, or holding a stance against trans women, despite having done so in other contexts.

She normally clears these things up. People have thought she was leaning TERF since June.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@ITR_champion

And to give context to this, Gregor Murray is a Scottish politician who was revealed to have directed vile, misogynistic abuse at women, repeatedly. Murray’s behavior was so extreme that it lead to a formal government investigation forcing “they” (aka. Murray) to step down from “their” position and leave the party. So basically we’re being told that Forstater is a bad person because she won’t bend over backwards to be polite to a woman-hating lout, and then that Rowling is a bad person because she defends Forstater.

Oh shit. I know this is gonna be a shock, but your representation of your cite sucks.

Gregor Murray, according to that article, did two bad things:

1. He called someone a TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist); and
2. Used the “C-word” in a tweet.

It turns out that there’s more to the story: a group of TERFs blocked an LGBTQ Pride parade because, well, because they’re TERFS. He responded by swearing at them on Twitter, and then apologized for having done so. “Repeatedly” means “in two Tweets about the same people in the same event.”

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

“They,” not “he.” Fuck.

[monstro]

@BigT

Perhaps it would be easier to see the answer if I rephrased your argument. Your position is that you (or society in general) should have the right to determine if a trans woman is sufficiently feminine to qualify as a woman. Otherwise, she must be treated like a man.

How did you extract that from my questions?

Plenty of people see nothing wrong with giving Rachel Dolezal side-eye for claiming to be black. I’m one of them. I acknowledge that race is a social construct that rests heavily on self-identity. But I don’t have a problem with someone having some discomfort about someone claiming to be something without resembling that “something” in any discernable way. I don’t think this is indicia of hate or fear, but rather a desire to have a framework that makes some kind of sense.

I don’t have a position with respect to society other than to say I am OK with a society that allows folks to identify racially and genderly however they want. I don’t want “society” to gate-keep. HOWEVER, I acknowledge that individuals are going to have problems with free-for-all labeling for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with racism or transgenderism. Because labels have some social importance (if they didn’t, why do we have them in the first place?) A person who takes on a label could be doing it for innocent reasons, but they could also be doing it for nefarious reasons. I don’t think it is inherently hateful to acknowledge this and to feel some kind of way about it.

I’m not going to respond to the rest of what you said, BigT, because I just don’t have the emotional energy to debate a subject I’m not that emotionally invested in. I will say I don’t think I have a need for “women” to be objective, though. I just think the term needs to mean something that isn’t entirely subjective and idiosyncratic for it to be useful. If someone says, “Look at those women other there!”, what are they communicating if the “woman” label is something that rests solely on self-identification? Is a person who refers to people they don’t know by gendered terms (“men” and “women”) using archaic, politically inartful speech? Should we just speak of “persons” and “people” and stop using gendered terms? Is that a reasonable expectation to hold over everyone? These are just some questions that I have, if we can’t speak of “man” and “woman” as terms that don’t hinge entirely on self-identification and inner experience.

I’m going to bow out of this thread because I can clearly see that my questions are being interpreted as me playing a game or gotcha, rather than me trying to understand something that’s complex. I do apologize for offending people and side-tracking the conversation. But I gotta say the negative reactions to me confessing my own negative reactions is exactly why I’ve become disaffected with gender politics in general. I DON’T GET WHAT GENDER IS ANY MORE. Every time I think I get it, I’m told my understanding is off or incorrect…or I read a story about a gender queer person or a transgendered person that challenges my understanding. My perception (which could be entirely wrong): lots of folks are acting like this stuff is easy to grok and in doing so are acting like that there aren’t hidden landmines in the discourse. I disagree with Maya and JK Rowling (sorry if that has escaped folks…I can see why my posts could be seen as a defense, but that hasn’t been my intention). Surely it is possible to disagree with Maya and JK Rowling and still feel that there are people out there that are intentionally stretching the meaning of gender labels in provocative ways. Surely it is possible to think Maya and JK should catch flak, but also feel concerned that the discourse is getting to be so charged that it is becoming hard not to catch flak for saying anything that sounds halfway critical. I am going to try my best not to feel exasperated at all the stretching and shifting terminology, but I hope folks at least try to understand where that exasperation is coming from.

[RickJay]

@Banquet_Bear

…is this something you tend to do? Randomly muse about a photograph of someone on the internet, imagining what it would be like if this person called themselves a woman? Especially after quoting someone in this thread saying “I cannot possibly imagine how someone could think Gregor Murray was a man.”

Well, here’s the thing; Gregor Murray IS a man, and he knows he’s a man. He’s a nasty, vindictive man who despises women, and he’s full of shit.

Regrettably, for every thousand transgender people who are nice enough human beings trying to just go about life, there’s one Gregor Murray or Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv who’s just an asshole or a weirdo and is using self-ID to be an asshole. It is inherently unfair that the Yanivs of the world dominate the headlines. It sucks. But that’s what concerns people; changing rules in a dumb way can allow the world’s assholes to exploit them.

I’m sure now people will wrongly call me a transphobe or whatever (generally speaking only women are called “TERFs” - women are disproportionately abused in this conversation) but Gregor Murray and Jonathan/Jessica Yaniv are men. And if you spend some time researching them, you’ll know I’m right. The notion that one must believe anything a person claims to be is preposterous; people lie. They lie to themselves, and they lie to others. I am 100% on board with an upfront response of trusting people, but no sane person believes everything they’re told no matter what the evidence. If I’d met Rachel Dolezal not knowing who she was and she said she was black, I’d have assumed she was telling the truth, but later information would have convinced me she was not. No one reading this sentence right now ALWAYS believes what another person says about themselves; you might not be an asshole about it, but in no area of life do we actually do that. If a person says “I am an actor,” and in conversation you find out they just want to be an actor but actually haven’t acted in anything and work as a waiter, that information convinces you they aren’t really an actor. Some people are full of shit. Rachel Dolezal was full of shit. Gregor Murray is, too.

@Smapti

As an aside, I’d just like to say it’s deeply ironic to hold a belief that people can’t change genders when you’re the creator of a setting where people can change their biological sex by drinking a potion.

You can’t possibly be serious.

[BigT]

@monstro

How did you extract that from my questions?

Because it’s what you said. You said “But if a person doesn’t present as a ‘female’ in any apparent way, is it wrong to say they aren’t female?”

There is no objective standard for “doesn’t present as a ‘female’ in any way,” there is no objective standard for femininity. It is thus you deciding that someone is insufficiently female. That’s the only thing it can possibly mean.

The race comparison is bad (and one I deliberately didn’t make) because there is at least some way to determine race. You can look at the race of one’s parents. You can look at the actual color of one’s skin. There are criteria other than “this person thinks they are black.”

But, when it comes to gender identity, the only way to avoid misgendering any actual trans person is to take them at their word, even if, by our standards, they don’t seem sufficiently male or female to qualify.

As for understanding gender: here is what I believe and have tried to explain before: \

The problem is that the word has two different but interrelated meanings. You have to accept that external gender (defined by roles and traits) and internal gender (aka gender self-identification, what you feel you are) are two different things. Trying to come up with a meaning that lumps the two together is what creates most of the confusion.

If you conceive of it that way, you can more easily see why there is no contradiction with your masculine trans woman. She internally identify as female, yet outwardly choose not to alter herself to appear any more feminine.

Finally, of course the understanding gender keeps changing. We’re still making discoveries. Science also changes, but we don’t just give up on understanding that.

Fortunately, what you actually need to know is fairly simple. (1) Identify what pronouns you are okay with (2) treat others as the gender identity they claim to be (3) treat all genders (defined externally or internally) as equal.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@monstro

But if a person doesn’t present as a “female” in any apparent way, is it wrong to say they aren’t female? Is having a negative reaction to a masculine biological male talking about his “womanhood” an indication of inner transphobia? Or it just innocent bewilderment mixed with exasperation? I don’t know the answers to these questions. I hope someone can see their way to responding to them without jumping down my throat or asking how they are relevant to the discussion.

The gender definitions “man” and “woman” are distinct from biological sex definition “male” and “female”. The latter isn’t an issue; nobody is contending that there aren’t male and female birds, dogs, humans, even plants. The terms “man” and “woman” are just social roles that people can choose.

I can’t stop anyone from agreeing or not that these terms or valid, but please don’t pretend that the concept of sex vs. gender is complicated to understand. It’s part of bad-faith argument to pretend it’s all chaotic or confusing or ker-razy made-up-on-the-spot play words. If you’re motivated to understand it in good faith, then it’s not hard to do so.

[monstro]

@HMS_Irruncible

The gender definitions “man” and “woman” are distinct from biological sex definition “male” and “female”. The latter isn’t an issue; nobody is contending that there aren’t male and female birds, dogs, humans, even plants. The terms “man” and “woman” are just social roles that people can choose.

I can’t stop anyone from agreeing or not that these terms or valid, but please don’t pretend that the concept of sex vs. gender is complicated to understand. It’s part of bad-faith argument to pretend it’s all chaotic or confusing or ker-razy made-up-on-the-spot play words. If you’re motivated to understand it in good faith, then it’s not hard to do so.

I know I said I was going to bow out but I am a liar. Maybe I am some kind of isolated sex/gender idiot. I am an idiot about lots of things. So perhaps I should just say that sex and gender are complicated for me and me alone.

But please don’t intimate that I am arguing in bad faith or that I am in support of people who do. That suggestion pisses me off.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[AHunter3]

TERF Wars (Part Two)

(warning: blog post)

[BigT]

@RickJay

Well, here’s the thing; Gregor Murray IS a man, and he knows he’s a man. He’s a nasty, vindictive man who despises women, and he’s full of shit.

Regrettably, for every thousand transgender people who are nice enough human beings trying to just go about life, there’s one Gregor Murray or Jonathan “Jessica” Yaniv who’s just an asshole or a weirdo and is using self-ID to be an asshole. It is inherently unfair that the Yanivs of the world dominate the headlines. It sucks. But that’s what concerns people; changing rules in a dumb way can allow the world’s assholes to exploit them.

And what is gained by referring to these people as male when they say they identify as female?

I don’t want to take the time to look these people up. So I will simply concede that they are are assholes. So call them assholes! One is a misogynist. Call her a misogynistic asshole. It sounds like they work against trans interests. Call them self-hating trans assholes.

What is this great harm that would happen if it turns out they both actually are internally male but we refer to them as “she”? And how does it compare to opening the floodgates to allowing people to once again go back to judging if someone seems female enough (or male enough) to them before choosing a pronoun?

It’s a hell of a lot easier just to let the standard be “call them what they want to be called,” and it avoids ever accidentally misgendering anyone. No objective standard necessary.

The only way I could see a problem is if they’re exploiting some system, like getting female- or trans-only scholarships, being able to compete in women’s sports, or anything like that. Maybe then I could see why you need to care. But otherwise? I don’t give even a millionth of a fuck how they “really” identify.

They say they are female, so I will treat them as such. It’s no skin off my nose.

[monstro]

BigT, race is no more biological than gender. In our society, a “black-presenting” person is free to define him or herself however they want. Even if they have zero percent European ancestry.

If I tell you I am white, on what basis do you have to disagree with me? If you were inclined to debate me on the topic, you might be tempted to say “Well, you don’t look white and you don’t have much European ancestry”. This probably would not stop me from saying I am white (since I am stubborn and onery). But I don’t see why your argumentation should be condemned since all you did was just point to the criteria that define the social construct of whiteness in the US.

What I am asking is why should gender get different treatment? If someone with masculine anatomy and mien is free to call themselves “woman” without question or side-eye, what does “woman” really mean? How can we say gender is a social construct while simultaneously leaving it all up to self-identification? I think if someone could help me with that piece, the other questions I have might be resolved.

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

[kevlaw]

Is JK Rowling transphobic?

I have no idea. There’s not enough information in her tweet to determine this. From the rest of her tweet, she seems to be quite supportive of everyone’s right to live their life as they choose. I am too.

I interpreted JK Rowling to be saying that it’s unfair for someone to lose their job because of an opinion that does not affect their work. I agree with her.

Lots of folk here have determined that if Rowling had meant X, she would have said “X” therefore, since she didn’t, she clearly meant the opposite of X. I don’t have that skill. I find it slightly chilling that other people do. Or think they do.

I find the judge’s statement to be chilling too.

As I understand it, Forstater lost her job because of her argument with Miller on Twitter and her subsequent defence of her argument on her company’s internal discussion board. But…

@The judge in the case

85. The Claimant’s position is that even if a trans woman has a Gender Recognition Certificate, she cannot honestly describe herself as a woman. That belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. It is incompatible with the human rights of others that have been identified and defined by the ECHR and put into effect through the Gender Recognition Act.

Court transcript

It’s one thing for the judge to make a pronouncement on whether or not she should lose her job for what she said on Twitter (I think she shouldn’t but whatever) but I find it borderline totalitarian that he says her “belief is not worthy of respect in a democratic society.”

I think references to newspeak and doublethink are entirely justified.

[HMS_Irruncible]

@monstro

I know I said I was going to bow out but I am a liar. Maybe I am some kind of isolated sex/gender idiot. I am an idiot about lots of things. So perhaps I should just say that sex and gender are complicated for me and me alone.

But please don’t intimate that I am arguing in bad faith or that I am in support of people who do. That suggestion pisses me off.

I don’t want to suggest that you specifically are lying or arguing in bad faith. I am pointing out although maybe gender concepts are not intuitive, they’re not hard to understand if you put in minimal effort. Folks are trying to help demonstrate that it’s not that confusing, and you seem determined to insist that you’re going to be confused no matter what.

Maybe you’re not making that argument in bad-faith, but it’s a bad-faith argument used by others in the past to condemn things like interracial marriage and desegregation and civil rights and all kinds of other things. “Oh, things are all moving so fast, it’s too much for my poor elderly head, can’t they just give me more time to acclimate to thse newfangled ideas?” Again I’m not saying you personally are consciously making that pitch or have any conscious bad intent, but you should be aware that others do it and it sounds pretty much the same.

[BigT]

@HMS_Irruncible

The gender definitions “man” and “woman” are distinct from biological sex definition “male” and “female”. The latter isn’t an issue; nobody is contending that there aren’t male and female birds, dogs, humans, even plants. The terms “man” and “woman” are just social roles that people can choose.

I can’t stop anyone from agreeing or not that these terms or valid, but please don’t pretend that the concept of sex vs. gender is complicated to understand. It’s part of bad-faith argument to pretend it’s all chaotic or confusing or ker-razy made-up-on-the-spot play words. If you’re motivated to understand it in good faith, then it’s not hard to do so.

I don’t see any point where she argued that the difference between sex and gender confused her. She is only talking about gender.

I think the issue may be that you seem to have esoteric meanings for those words. I don’t know anyone who uses “male” exclusively for the sex. That’s why the term “biologically male” exists. Male by default refers to gender, as does female. And it can refer to either gender roles or gender identity (which I continue to insist are better conceptualized as two different things, albeit related).