But we don’t have a deep understanding of the brain. I can speculate about what we are likely to find as our knowledge improves. And I can act both on that speculation, and also on the desire to treat other people as they desire to be treated, and to call them what they desire to be called.
Even without that deep understanding, I think there’s a great deal of evidence pointing to this as a genuine phenomenon. I think it’s sensible to treat it that way, despite our inability to diagnose with anything close to perfect accuracy.
I think it’s also, simultaneously, completely fucking insane to allow transwomen into women’s shelters based only on their say-so on being a transwoman. That article you cited was maddening.
I’m not sure I follow your logic here. I don’t see how the time setting matters. The plot setup looks perfectly aligned with boogyman arguments against transgender rights. Are you saying that because the serial killer isn’t transgender, it doesn’t count? Because I don’t think that nuance affects the anti-trangender protection argument or JK Rowling’s point of view. The whole bathroom brouhaha was a clash between transwomen wanting a place to pee and boogyman arguments about men dressing up as women to harm women – which seems like the exact point JK Rowling is trying to make.
I would very much like to understand your point of view more. I’ve read the previous 4 Cormoran Strike books and liked them very much. I would like to read the 5th book, but the potential anti-transgender bias has me avoiding it.
Let me probe a little deeper. I’m curious if we have the same idea of what’s radical and what’s not.
Would you be in favor of a policy that would forbid a male from being questioned about their usage of a women’s restroom/locker room?
Because I would not be in favor. While I personally would not interrogate an obvious male in the women’s restroom (I’m non-confrontational like that), I would not be in support of a policy that entitled males to use women’s restrooms. Because I believe this would degrade the protection these spaces are supposed to provide.
Seems to me a lot of Dopers disagree with me, just based on this thread. I don’t think the Dopers who disagree with me think of themselves as “radical” or “extremist”. But from where I sit, this really is a radical position–one that is different than simply allowing transwomen to use women’s spaces (the status quo for most places).
In bold are the conflicting ideas responsible for the current impasse. We can’t enshrine into law the right for people to be treated as their stated gender identity, but then deny them this right when the stakes get uncomfortably high.
So we have to have more than just self-declaration to treat gender identity as a real thing in the eyes of the law. Otherwise we have chaos.
In fact, when I was pregnant I was eligible for short-term disability leave from the state of California. And I would expect someone with a broken leg to be able to apply to use the disabled parking spaces. Never having broken my leg, I don’t know about this one, but my cousin did indeed apply and was accepted to use the disabled parking places when she was pregnant with twins. (And she needed to, too!)
Some disabilities are not permanent, and I think it is weird to define disability as something that is only a permanent condition. What if you don’t know whether it’s going to be permanent or not? Then do you say “I may be disabled, but I don’t know yet”?
I think that means to iiandyiiii access to facilities and spaces is not the same thing as actual participation in sanctioned competition and thus it does not erode Title IX.
Full disclosure: I haven’t read the book, only a review.
There apparently is a twist at the end of the story. As with all twists, it involves irony. The story leads you to assume one thing but then surprises you by revealing something completely different.
Just on this basis, there is good reason to believe the moral of the story is the complete opposite of what it’s being made out to be. Which makes the spectacular display of outrage we’re seeing online extra horrifying, as it only underscores the shallow mindlessness of it all.
What lets you use parking or claim benefits, and what lets you actually count as “a disabled person”, are two different things. Here, we just have “maternity leave” - does that mean the same pregnant woman would instantly become disabled if she flew from Cape Town to LA?
And I did say “permanent (or, at least, fairly long-lasting)”
I want to get a bit more into this thing about hateful and contemptuous language. The statement I called out was as follows:
“That does not, however, actually turn men into women.”
I’m gonna try and explain why, in my understanding, the trans folks I’ve spoken to find such language so contemptuous and even hateful. It’s the kind of thing Mike Pence and co say, all the time, about trans people. It expresses (or comes off as expressing) the idea that trans people can be dismissed - they’re just men trying to “turn into women”, as if that’s a laughable concept (and it usually totally ignores the existence of trans men, as JKR did and as so much of this thread does). It denies even the possibility of taking them and their concerns seriously. It conjures up ideas of dress up, costumes, and transvestites. It makes transgender a joke, or something even less than a joke. It’s usually used as some sort of sign off, or capper, as it was in this post, and as if there’s no possibility of disputing it.
Hateful and contemptuous language are why I’ve mostly withdrawn from this thread, and very carefully pick and choose what to respond to. Just like I trust black people to identify anti black bigoted language, or gay people to identify anti gay bigoted language, or women to identify misogynistic language, I trust trans people (mostly outside of this board with whom I interact in other ways) to identify anti trans bigoted language. I follow their lead, which has lead me to the beliefs about the various language I’ve called out in this thread. Normally, with bigotry, I try and charge straight at it - take it head on. Usually, it comes from people for whom I hold no admiration. But in this thread, it’s coming from some posters I like and admire, and I will fully admit I’m not quite sure how to handle it. I’m generally only calling out the most egregious examples I see, and I felt that this example qualified.
So I’ll continue to be very careful in this thread. And once again, I’ll ask the posters who disagree with me to really try and consider how much of this might come across to trans people, who are largely treated like utter garbage on American society. So often it seems like they don’t matter to some posters, and I think that’s a terrible shame.
This is the ‘be kind’ thing again. We’re asked to use certain language so as not to hurt people, but that language also serves to endorse and enshrine a certain philosophical view - one which RickJay does not subscribe to. And worse, it obfuscates and conceals what is really happening. Compare ‘transwomen should be allowed to compete in women’s sports’ with ‘biological males should be allowed to compete in women’s sports’. Framing the discussion in the way demanded by the TRAs gives them a huge rhetorical advantage; it’s a sort of Trojan horse to demand that in the name of kindness.
Well, this is a weird accusation. Let’s see if we can figure out what you’re talking about.
You seem to be saying it’s contemptuous to use the word “woman” to mean “a female person.” Well, okay. That means every English speaking person who ever lived was being contemptuous in using that word up to about 2010 or so. That’s a hell of a claim.
The claim that using the word “woman” is contemptuous when using it in the way every dictionary in the world has as its #1 meaning, and that 99.99% of all people who’ve ever spoken this language has used it, and in the manner virtually everyone on the planet speaking any other language uses their equivalent word, is really weird. I don’t know how else to describe it. You seem to be saying that observing that “woman” means “female person,” and that trans women are in fact not female, is mean.
Is that actually your entire argument - that I’m being contemptuous because people’s feelings are hurt by using a word to mean in the way it actually is largely used? Is it actually “Awful stuff” to just use “woman” to mean, ya know, a female person?
Your long form answer to this seems to be “I know trans people who say it is.” But there are examples of trans people who say it isn’t. Is that really how we’re going to agree on what’s true and what isn’t?
Having a psychological issue that causes a man to wish or believe that he is a woman does not make him a woman. But sure, can we expand the word’s definition? We do with lots of words.
If it is one’s position that we should redefine “woman” to mean “either a female adult or a male adult, as long as that male adult having a desire that causes them to want to be treated as a woman,” I don’t see any purpose to that and, again, would point out that it simply renders the word “woman” pointless, and people will just start calling female people “females.”
We have an excellent word already for men who identify as women; “transwoman.” What’s wrong with that? Transwomen aren’t really women, but for many purposes could be treated as if they are. I don’t think anyone’s being put out by calling someone by a new name and using new pronouns, and anyone should be allowed to physically present themselves however they please. But understanding the simple truth that transwomen aren’t actually WOMEN is how we keep ourselves sane when it comes to making sure women have opportunities in sports, have shelters to flee to away from men, and are protected in any number of other ways. It’s also just true, and I won’t apologize to anyone for just saying true things. It’s not contemptuous to be honest.
If you want me to start calling actual women “females” and actual men “males” I guess I can do that. Words have changed meaning my whole life; apparently now sick means cool. If we all do, what will inevitably happen is people will just use those words and abandon “men” and “women” because those words won’t mean anything useful. We will have male sports and female sports, not men’s and women’s, and we’ll have male and female changerooms, and people will be born of females and males will be their fathers.
And then will people start pushing the semantic treadmill? They already are.
OK. We’re quibbling about the definition of a word. Maybe disabled isn’t the right word, that’s fine.
But going back to the discussion that started this off, I’m not going to be surprised by a system where you have a group that has a condition that is similar to illness for nine months at a time, and then is incapacitated even more than that for a month or two or three after that, and then does this over and over again repeatedly (or at least did in the days before contraception – you could not pay me enough to live hundreds of years ago), and then it turns out that group has been marginalized from power all those years as well. It would surprise me more if that group didn’t end up marginalized, human nature being what it is.
No, this is not what I’m saying. I criticized specific verbiage (more than a single word) you used – the kind of verbiage routinely used by the hateful right when they want to demean and dehumanize trans people. Maybe you should try not to use the same kind of language that the hateful right does about trans people?
I’m sure the “hateful right” says many things you and I both say like “The sky is blue” and “cars usually have four wheels.” “You are saying something in a way that I allegedly heard a bad man say” doesn’t amount to anything.
Do you have a response to the substance of my posts or is this just going to keep being you saying I’m mean? I mean, you can say that as long as you don’t cross a line into being insulting, I guess. This is IMHO, and that seems to be your O. So, hey, fair enough, this is the place for it, but there’s no real response to be made to that. I am not going to pretend transwomen are females.