If woman doesn’t imply “cis”, then why is it taboo to use the word woman in women’s health information? If this is true, we should be seeing language that looks like this:
“Women (and others who are born female) of the age 25 and older should contact their doctor about cervical cancer screening”. This would be inclusive to all females, without resorting to the use of exclusionary language toward males who also identify as women.
But I don’t see this kind of language used at all (just the obnoxious “people with…”) which suggests that “woman” is read as “biological female” in a way that is objectionable to the community.
I think that’s interesting and it may be true for a small subset of trans people. Prison sexuality can get bizarre because it becomes largely about dominance, not sex. I know sometimes straight men will not only have consensual sex with other men while imprisoned but sometimes they will initiate exploitive sexual relationships with gay men after they are released.
Women do this stuff, too. I have a former friend, the mother of my former foster child, who is in and out of jail all the time, mostly drugs, petty theft and vagrancy but mostly drugs. She was heterosexual (mostly) outside of prison.
She once told me “I love jail. Free food, a place to sleep and all the p***y I can eat. She was always aggressive and a bit of a bully. I’d like to think she never actually raped anyone but I’m sure she sexually harassed the hell out of new prisoners.
For what it’s worth, she had an abusive childhood, she once told me she had her first orgasm at 13 after her brother traded her to some guy for drugs. There were people watching and they laughed.
I agree that prison sexuality is fucked up and that childhood experience can fuck up your sexuality.
But I don’t see transsexualism as a huge part of that discussion. And I think prisons should be made safer for everyone. I’m not going to speak out against any prison safety measures for transgender people. I’m only going to say they should be extended to all prisoners.
“If you are a girl or woman without a uterus, you may be invited to attend a cervical screening” is wonderfully inclusive. Only someone thinking that “woman” is equivalent to “cis female” would think otherwise.
I think I said before that I might raise my eyebrow, but my first thought would be that maybe the men’s room was out of order or the guy had a really urgent need and couldn’t make it to the men’s room.
If they went directly into the stall, did their business and left, I probably would let it go.
I think prisons should be made safer for everyone. But I don’t think they should be made safer for transgender prisoners at the expense of making them more dangerous for women. Especially when that is not necessary.
Can you explain to me why you think transwomen (or any gender minority) needs special protection in a women’s prison?
Do you think nonbinary women need to be protected from women women?
Because I’m honestly not getting it. I’m not understanding why people are suddenly all for segregating based on gender stereotypes, when just 10 years ago women especially would have found that idea crazy and regressive.
I fail to see how we could ever have a system where everyone is protected when protection is being equated with “choosing cell mates of one’s choosing or single occupancy cells”. Do we have enough resources to give everyone this level of protection? If not, then I say let’s not entitle one group to it. Let’s define protective measures as whatever can be afforded to everyone by default. And then let’s adjust on a case-by-case basis, regardless of whatever gender identity a person espouses.
Because I can totally see how gender identity could be organically shaped in the prison environment. I can imagine an androgynous woman like myself sincerely identifying as “nonbinary” after being in an all-women environment long enough. Don’t like make-up. I don’t gush over men or women. I don’t “do” hair. I’m asexual. I like to tinker with stuff and I have a mind for useless trivia. I’ve been known to mansplain. These facets of my personality would no doubt become more pronounced being in an isolated environment, being locked with the same people day after day.
So this is why I feel more than entitled to drop the “cis” and keep it moving. No point in using it if the message I’m getting from the trans community is that they don’t see themselves in the word “woman” when it’s used in the context of female-specific biological reality.
And when you get down to it, when else do we use the word “woman” when we’re not talking about female-specific biological realities?
Dont we have a right to have our own opinion on things?
Was there a vote on this somewhere that I missed?
Was there a law passed by elected representatives that said anyone who disagrees with the trans community must then be banished, harassed, exiled, attacked, and have their ability to make a living taken away, etc…
What is the next crazy idea that I must accept that just a few years ago would have been laughed at?
JKR has a right to her opinion. People have a right to disagree with her opinion. That some have expressed their disagreement in terms of threats and misogynistic insults is highly problematic and indicative of a larger problem around social media and activist culture in the modern era. Everybody seems to be much more strident in expressing their views, especially when they are protected by relative anonymity. Witness this board on countless occasions.
What I think is encouraging is that JKR stood up to her most strident critics and her rational concerns are gaining support. I think that speaks well of her and of the fact that people aren’t simply willing to cave to social pressure of woke-tevism. Particularly encouraging to see this within progressive/liberal ranks.
JK Rowling’s new book is the number one best seller in England.Her ability to make a living has not been taken away. She has not been banished or exiled, whatever you mean by that. The death threats against her are despicable, but merely being criticized on twitter is something you should expect if you are a public figure who says controversial things.
Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I’m going to say “none whatsoever.” I think they genuinely disagree with Rowling and, since they are all public figures, wanted to publicly state their disagreement.
…wrote Watson on her own Twitter feed. “I want my trans followers to know that I and so many other people around the world see you, respect you and love you for who you are.”
Which isn’t to imply that Emma Watson is not genuine in her statements. Just that she also seems keenly aware of her fan base.
I just went back and reviewed our latest exchanges, and I found this.
Stigmatized minorities are everywhere you look in the prison system. Stigmatized racial groups. Stigmatized religious groups. Stigmatized sexual identities. Stigmatized socioeconomic groups. The stigmatized group in prison may not be stigmatized outside of prison, but I fail to see why this matters. I wouldn’t want to be a WASP princess in a maximum security women’s prison any more than I’d want to be a transwoman in a medium security men’s prison. Should we set the WASP princess up with a roommate of her choosing? (My mind just flashed on Orange is the New Black. That’s the privilege that the Martha Stewart-like character enjoyed, to the disgruntlement of everyone else.)
Seems to me it would be much more efficient to match trans women only with other trans women. If another transwoman is not available at the moment the petition is being considered, then the petitioner could be housed with a female (regardless of gender identity) if 1) the petitioner is either on testestorone blockers or has undergone SRS and 2) an amenable cell mate has already been identified. The other gender minorities in the women’s prison should be treated just like the normies, by default (with the exception of transmen that are more biologically male than a typical female). No one should get a choice in who they are matched with unless this is a privilege granted to all prisoners in good standing.
If someone requires a single cell to be safe or to keep others safe, then maybe they need to be housed in a special cell block. I fail to see what a single occupancy cell all by itself does except incentivize folks to identify as a long-suffering nonbinary/gender fluid/agender/maverick person.
I don’t see much of a gotcha there. I don’t see any change of heart by Eddie Redmayne - he can both disagree with JK Rowling’s comments, while also being outspokenly against abusive language being directed towards her. If anything, I think it reflects well on him that he is still willing to work with JK Rowling even if he disagrees with her on trans issues, counter to what some moral purists might want to see in today’s cancel culture environment.
I give him the side-eye. Remember, Redmayne was the guy that suggested JKR be removed from her own franchise when this furore kicked off. The very same franchise, mind you, that is feeding and clothing him right now.
The time for vocally opposing the death threats and rapey shit was about four months ago, before he Radcliffe, and Watson joined the pile-on. I see this as a craven move to get on the right side of history.
In possibly related news, something has spooked the TRAs. There seems to be a concerted effort to not only back away from the “born in the wrong body” narrative, but deny it was ever pushed onto the public as a way to conceptualize transgender. Mermaids is only one example of this reversal; it’s all over the place on Twitter. It is puzzling.
I wonder how long it will take for people to posthumously classify Prince and David Bowie as trans women just because they were pretty and wore high heels.