Since Russian trolls is on your list of likely explanations for the misogynistic wrath directed at JKR, I’m almost certain this means nothing is going to convince you that misogyny is a problem in the trans community. Truly, it’s like a Trump supporter screaming fake news when his failures are enumerated. This is denial.
I’m saying the trans community is every bit as misogynistic as the rest of society and some of the policies are even more so to the extent that even Trump supporters don’t argue that men should have access to women’s sports and personal spaces.
What are you even arguing about when cites have been provided and you’ve ‘totally agreed’ with most of them?
Yes, widespread misogyny (in American and even Earth society). But to accept that the trans community has widespread misogyny, akin to racism in the white community, I’d have to see real data, like scientific polling or similar. Tweets and opinion articles and even multiple individual incidents don’t tell us anything about the views of a large group of millions of people.
… or the Chinese community, right?
… or the Arabic community, right?
… or the Hindu community, right?
… or the African communities, right?
You’re telling me that looking at every cross section of every population on this planet, the trans population is somehow more immune from the same set of prejudices we see reflected in all societies around the world?
I think your argument is far less credible than mine and that you need to provide a cite that isn’t just people you happen to know.
Huh? Are you just saying “trans people are human, and can have all the same sort of flaws that all humans can have”? I agree with that. Or are you saying “the attacks on JKR reveal a serious and widespread problem of misogyny within the trans community, beyond the expected levels of misogyny that exist in every group”? If it’s the latter, then I remain unconvinced.
YASSS. That’s all any of us have been saying. Finally. And now I’m going to need you to point to where I or anyone else has said anything about “more”. Because I’m prepared to point to where you implied that it was less so, based on your personal experience.
A reasonable hypothesis, perhaps. And with some real data, perhaps a reasonable conclusion. But tweets, opinion articles, and some horrible individual incidents don’t tell us anything.
Glad we can agree that trans people are human, and can have flaws. I didn’t think this was ever in dispute, but I’ll take agreement where I can get it.
I remember back when similar complaints were frequently uttered against gay people “forcing” us all to talk about “opposite-sex couples” and “opposite-sex relationships” in contrast to bizarre neologisms like “same-sex couples” and “same-sex relationships”. There was a fair bit of resentment expressed against such usage as some kind of selfish ploy to make the gay population seem larger and more important than it actually was.
The complainers argued that we ought to be speaking instead of “couples and same-sex couples”, “spouses and same-sex spouses”, etc., instead of slapping a superfluous prefix like “straight” or “opposite-sex” on terms that automatically default to implying “opposite-sex” anyway. It’s assumed that the conventional “normal” majority gets to be the default, and the “abnormal” minority gets a particularizing label.
Those objections don’t hold up too well these days. I use terminology like “cisgender women and transgender women” instead of “women and transgender women” for the same reason that I use terminology like “straight couples and gay couples” rather than “couples and gay couples”. Even though straight couples, or straight spouses, etc., still make up the overwhelming majority of those categories, and plenty of straight people have been likewise pretty damn irritated at being “forced” to put a particularizing label for themselves on a term that they felt already belonged to them by default.
I don’t think you’re going to be able to turn back the language clock by insisting that the unmodified labels “man” and “woman” belong by rights only to cisgender people, whereas transgender people can only use them with the “trans” prefix. Any more than you can hope to persuade most people today that unmodified terms like “spouses” and “marriage” belong by rights only to straight people, whereas gay people can only use them with the “gay” or “same-sex” prefix. You can’t reverse linguistic evolution by accusing minority groups of having wilfully engineered it to “increase their market share of public consciousness” (!).
Zooming back out, ISTM that people in general have always had a hard time adjusting the usage of a standard term to include a group that wasn’t formerly considered eligible for it. And one of the routine phases of such adjustment has been to insist on a particularizing label to distinguish the newly included group. So we’ve had “doctors and lady doctors”, “undergraduates and co-eds”, “marriage and gay marriage”, and now “women and transgender women”, “men and transgender men”.
But in time, we tend to end up with a shared category plus two particularizing labels: “male and female doctors”, “male and female undergraduates”, “opposite-sex and same-sex marriage”, “cisgender and transgender women”, “cisgender and transgender men”.
