J K Rowling and the trans furore

In My Humble Opinion
182

I never pulled any “freedom of speech card”.

Maybe you’ve been replying to the wrong person? I have not a single time been citing any constitutional protections. Mostly I’ve just been asking questions about principles, because I’m curious about the answers. I’ve even said it was fine if you didn’t want to answer. It’s still fine if you don’t want to answer.

But I’m still curious, so I keep asking.

I don’t claim to be a clear communicator, but I think you’re getting closer to understanding my question now.

By “nothing”, do you mean literally nothing?

Because that is, quite obviously, false.

In both situations, a person can start by having a job. In both situations, they can engage in activities that are distasteful to their employer. In both situations, they can potentially get the axe for their speech. (Again: none of this makes any mention of any constitutional issue.)

That’s not “nothing”.

I’m sure you realize this. The topic here is actually something, rather than nothing. That is why I’m asking this question. I mean, you can point at all the many differences between the two cases. And that’s good. That’s a start. Because what I’m curious about is which of these many differences are relevant to you when you desire legal protection from the consequences of speech for union organizers, but not legal protections for people being “cancelled”.

And… that’s it.

That’s specifically what I’m curious about. “Union organizing has trait X, and I believe this trait is important enough to justify protection from the consequences of speech for union organizers, along with potentially other similar groups who also have trait X”. Saying that “unions are good” isn’t quite that, because it doesn’t say why unions are so good that their workers deserve specific legal protection for their speech. Nor can you say that the moral principle here is “obvious”, because it isn’t. People can and do give vastly different answers to this. Some people take the statement of “Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from consequences” to its limit, and believe that firms should be able to blacklist any employee who tries to organize the workforce. I know other people who think it should literally be illegal for firms to fire workers for any political belief or internet outrage. Those people exist, too.

There is huge variance here. This is why I’m asking.

You might actually be able to answer this in a single sentence. I don’t think it’s that hard a question.

But obviously, you don’t need to answer if you don’t want to. I’m merely curious.

183

I said upthread why I don’t have a problem with protecting union activities. You can write a law that says “workers shall not be retaliated against for union activities, including discussion of union activities and lack of participation in union activities.”

You can’t write a law that protects workers from being fired for expressing opinions that also doesn’t doesn’t oppress the employer and limit their speech. Can you conceive of a law that would protect JK Rowling from being fired for saying “sex is real” that wouldn’t also protect someone else from badmouthing their boss or their workplace? If you were an employer, wouldn’t you want to be able to fire an employee who was talking shit about your place of business? I know I would. So how do we preserve the employer’s freedom to fire people they find disagreeable and annoying while protecting those people from the consequences of them running their mouth one too many times? I can’t conceive of a way, especially in a society that doesn’t guarantee employment. If folks can be fired for absolutely no reason at all (which is the reality in most places in the country), why should someone who isn’t shy about expressing unpopular opinions be treated special?

I simply don’t see activities pertaining to worker’s rights and benefits being in the same universe as any rando opinion or idea that squirts out of a person’s mouth or keyboard. So I can say I support the idea of workers being protected from anti-union retaliation while simultaneously NOT believing that workers are entitled to say whatever they want to say without losing their job. One is a very specific thing. The other isn’t.

Do you understand now?

184

I can. In the UK people are protected from being fired due to their ‘religious or philosophical beliefs’, and Maya Forstater tried to claim wrongful dismissal under this clause due to her belief that men cannot change into women. The judge did not find in her favour, but only because ‘her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others’. Other beliefs such as ethical veganism have been found to be protected. Badmouthing your boss unsurprisingly is not.

The general employment environment is quite different here, though. Employees cannot be fired for no reason, everyone has a written contract, and there are a lot more rights written into law. (Employers still find ways round this, by employing through agencies or on zero-hours contracts.)

185

Forstater did a lot more than that to get fired. It wasn’t just stating that opinion that get her axed. It was publicly espousing that opinion and others repeatedly, loudly, in a one-note-johnny kind of way. I don’t know how I feel about the whole “violating the dignity” thing from the judge (I mean, I could say a lot of things right now about 25% of the American electorate that someone could argue “violates their dignity”). But I don’t have a problem with her employer not wanting to be associated with someone whose main hobby is saying provocative things about transgender people on the internet.

I am fortunate that my employer has to jump through hoops before they can fire me. I wouldn’t have a problem with all employers being held to similar “hoops”. However, I still would have a problem if employers were held to the same standard as government with respect to speech. If I’m not a monster for refusing to hire someone who I know to be an overt racist, I don’t understand why I’d suddenly become a monster for firing said person once that information is provided to me. Just because I don’t like that employers can fire people for bullshit reasons doesn’t mean I think we should try to concoct a law that attempts to codeify what bullshit is.

186

The people losing their shit over Rowling should really be mindful of the old political adage “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.”

187

…that adage makes no sense. A person that wants to deny someone else’s basic right to exist is no ally of mine: even if they happen to agree that chocolate ice-cream is the best ice-cream. They aren’t a “traitor.” But they certainly aren’t my friend.

188

So, you with the face , I wonder if the concerns you, DemonTree , and JK Rowling have are reflexively dismissed around here because people are assuming that we’re always going to have a negligible number of people trying to game the gender system–never enough to fret over.

I think it’s a mistake to boil the issue down to the prevalence of “bad cases” like Alex Stewart. We shouldn’t go down the path of judging some trans women as problems based on how they look. It is our reproductive systems that dictate sex, not how well we conform to and perform femininity.

That said, the “bad cases” do illustrate the 1)absurdity of men calling themselves women just by self-identifying as such, 2) the absurdity of granting these men instant access to women locker rooms, dorm rooms, sports, and prisons, and 3) the mental gymnastics needed to extend the definition of “woman” so it that it applies to these men just the same that it covers me, you, or any other woman. “Bad cases” remind us that trans women are actually a subset of males. Not female as “trans woman” subconsciously makes us think. Even though nothing verifiable or objective makes them female, we’re treating their gender identity as though it gives them as much claim to womanhood as the entire female half of the human species—a big chunk of whom are suffering specifically because of the burdens imposed by their female reproductive system and all the sexism and misogyny that comes with it.

The question we really should be discussing is actually simple: Do women have the right not to have adult human males enter spaces where sex-segregation is expected? If they don’t have that right, then let’s talk about that. I don’t ever hear anyone say they want to abolish single-sex restrooms and locker rooms and make everything completely mixed sex. Why not? I mean, if males can identify their way into any space reserved for women, it’s a lie to say one space is only for women and another space for men. If the prevailing view is that it’s wrong for women to demand a type of privacy that allows them to undress and shower without penises in their midst, I wish really people would be honest and defend that position, rather than try to argue that men magically become women once they declare they are one.

If women do have the right not to have men enter spaces where sex-segregation is expected–and it’s not wrong for them to demand privacy from males while undressing and showering–then in a logical world, a person’s gender identity shouldn’t trump their sex class. Why does a trans woman’s gender identity mean they can’t piss and shit in the men’s restroom or undress in the men’s locker room? And sports…how in the hell is gender identity allowing males to compete against women?

189

Maybe we should look at that on case-by-case basis. Nobody really cares if a trans-man comes in 4th— the trouble starts when they start winning:(

Female athletes care. Sometimes coming in 4th matters in terms of rankings. And in team sports, a trans woman is occupying a position that a female would otherwise fill. That means less opportunities for women when they are already underrepresented in athletics to begin with.

The fairest solution is to limit women’s sports to only females. Trans men can be allowed in just as long they haven’t been on T. Trans women can compete against men, in keeping with their sex class.

190

I’d rather keep track of the punchline, “But you fuck ONE sheep…”

If you live your life in a mostly decent, kind, respectful, productive way, but then you do something pretty ugly, guess what you get known for?

191

It is baffling because you would think the trans community would be the first ones insisting upon checks and balances to prevent cis men from posing as trans and doing bad things in their name. Instead, you see the complete opposite, and when women say “hey, wait a minute, this has implications to my safety, can we slow down a bit”, they get shouted down.

192

I think so, yes. I appreciate you writing that out.

193

While I don’t we think we care equally about the same issues embedded in this hot topic, we do agree on that this is a key question. I don’t want to abolish gender segregation, but it only makes sense to do so in a society where gender gatekeeping is unacceptable. If everyone who side-eyes the bearded masculine penis-having individual in the women’s dressing room is a hateful, narrow-minded TERF, maybe we should fix that problem by getting rid of women’s dressing rooms. I mean, isn’t that why racial segregation was abolished? White people giving black people a side-eye for being in “their” space?

Like I said, I don’t want to get rid of gender-exclusive spaces. I’m OK with unisex restrooms, but I see the benefit to having gender segregated dorms and prisons and organizations. I just don’t know how we justify gender segregation while divorcing objective criteria from gender.

194

I think you wrote earlier that you were okay with transwomen in women’s restrooms because their numbers were so small, or something like that. If that’s the case, I’m not sure there’s a real problem here that needs solving.

Instead, we set up rules something like this:

  1. Use the restroom that matches your own gender identity.
  2. While in the restroom, don’t behave like a creepy asshole toward other people in there.
  3. While in the restroom, don’t judge other people in there.

These rules protect the transwomen using the restroom while not leaving space for sexual assault (see rule 2). If someone’s being creepy in the restroom, their gender doesn’t matter, they need to stop.

Over time, I suspect we’ll see a lot more gender fluidity than we currently have, as it becomes less of a cultural taboo. I suspect that we’ll also see fewer single-gender spaces. We don’t need to go searching for a problem.

As for prisons, if a prisoner is using any subterfuge to assault someone, they should face appropriate penalties for that. But the “cis male pretends to be a trans female in order to assault female prisoners” thing is one of the rarest forms of subterfuge-based assault, and surely the prison system is no worse at handling this stratagem for assault than it is at handling other stratagems.

195

I agree with this. Sports should be one area where it’s obvious biology is more important than gender identity. Taking performance enhancing or de-enhancing drugs (hormones) can never be the same as having that birth sex. Most transmen already have to make a decision between physically transitioning and their careers, because they know they wouldn’t be competitive as a male.

196

Yeah. I think the racist employee’s views would fall under the same exception as Forstater’s and not be protected, but it does seem kind of problematic asking judges to determine which beliefs are protected and which are not.

I’m very greatful to live in a country that protects employee’s rights in general, though. Don’t know how you all cope with so little holiday, and it’s sad seeing women forced to go back to full time work only 6 weeks after giving birth, and struggling to continue breastfeeding. Half of them don’t even get any pay for that short time off.

197

You practice improper charms on ONE goat…

But did JKR do something ‘pretty ugly’? What do you actually object to?

198

How well is that rule working outside the restroom?

199

It’s dangerous for them to do so, because men will attack them. But of course gender neutral toilets and changing rooms present no risk to women, and anyone who thinks so is irrational and transphobic.

200

If trans women are allowed to be afraid of men attacking then, then one would expect women to also be listened to when they admit being afraid of men. Especially when we’re talking about locker rooms and living quarters, where people are undressed and vulnerable. Statistics for male violence against women are pretty mind blowing.

If you pay attention to the discourse, though, you will find that only the former’s fears are considered justified. The answer to trans women’s fears is to group them with women, even though this means women have to take on additional risk to themselves. Women lack the power to change this because they are politically underrepresented. That’s not likely to improve if trans women occupy seats in political office reserved for females.

201

I said I’m OK with being in a women’s prison or a women’s organization with male-presenting biological males as long as their numbers are tiny. One or two would be a no big deal situation.

But if I’m in a women’s only space and every other face I see in that space is attached to a male, I won’t feel like I’m in a women’s only space anymore. I wouldn’t necessarily feel fear in response to being surrounded by males ('cuz that would be par for the course for me), but I will be puzzled why we are still calling that space “women’s only”. Seems to me it would be a farce at that point.

I actually do not have any problem with a unisex toilet. I don’t see this as a problem at all.

That said, DemonTree and You with the face are making a poignant observation that I think deserves a response from the anti-Rowling set. Ciswomen are being told that transwomen need “our” restrooms because they are at risk of violence if they use men’s rooms. I’ve never heard anyone push back on that idea. So why is it so hard to sympathize with women who don’t want to allow male-looking biological males into their restroom? I’m including myself here, since I told DemonTree that her fears were unreasonable. Why is it so easy for me to say something like that to her when I wouldn’t dare tell a transwoman that her fears are unreasonable. I don’t agree with DemonTree or you with the face on every single thing they’ve said here, but they have given me some pause here. I hope someone can respond constructively to the point they are making.