J K Rowling and the trans furore

[Novelty_Bobble]

@Banquet_Bear

…nope. It was a gotcha game. And you’ve added a strawman just for good measure. I’m glad you agree that by any reasonable measure I’m not a transphobe. So can we just stop the game playing now?

Like I said, it isn’t my game and don’t make the mistake of thinking this is all about you (or me). Whether we stop playing is completely beside the point. You clearly don’t like the game and nor do others who are getting arbitrarily tagged with “transphobe”. This is clearly a game already in play and you aren’t in charge.

@Banquet_Bear

But it doesn’t mean “anything.”

If it even covers the non-hateful stating of biological facts or expecting some sort of assessment of seriousness then actually it seems pretty damn close.

@Banquet_Bear

The definition doesn’t say anything at all about gatekeeping. Gatekeeping is your word and I’ve happily adopted it for the purposes of conceding I understand your underlying point. But if you are going to use it simply to win a rhetorical victory then I see no reason to play along with your game

Again, it is not my game. And the definition does indeed talk about “discrimination” which is inextricably linked to any form of “gatekeeping” however mild. Either you accept gender identify without question, or you are questioning. That questioning is clearly seen as transphobic by some.
Of course, this all hinges on us all merely accepting the definition you provided. OK, but the world doesn’t dance just to your tune, what makes your definition the definitive one? why wouldn’t a more extreme and wide-ranging definition (that does actually catch you in its web) be valid?

@Banquet_Bear

My position is much more nuanced than what you would describe as “gatekeeping.” And its that nuance that you miss.

Maybe I have missed your nuance, but here’s the problem. I probed you upthread about what sort of criteria could be used for any such assessment of a person’s serious intent to change gender. I’d also be happy for you to explain what sort of nuanced assessment you’d make of a person’s self-declared gender choice. It is possible I have missed it, but I don’t think you’ve given any detail on that. If anyone can point in the right direction that’d be great.

@Banquet_Bear

Here’s the difference between me and you.

You want a debate.

I just want the transphobia to stop.

The implication being that it is impossible for both of us to want both things?

Absent a magic wand how on earth do you think it stops? does not debate play a crucial part in this? Has not open debate made life better for transgender people?

And there are plenty out there who want to define “transphobia” in such a way that it can never be said to have stopped. There are enough out there who do not want the game to end.

[DemonTree]

This should please you, @YWTF:

Peter Boylan says new cancer screening wording is 'confusing'

[DemonTree]

@YWTF

By the rules established by the ideology of self-ID, one can simply call themselves non-transphobic and thus it is so.

Definitions can be changed at any time, by anyone who self-determines they’d rather be something else. If males can identify as females and enjoy immunity from challenge, certainly bigots can identity as saintly egalitarians and expect no push back.

One would think this would already be understood by people who have studied their own beliefs. No dictionary definitions matter as long as you can argue with a straight face that men have the right to be women just by declaring themselves women.

Don’t be silly, only certain people are allowed to change definitions. You know, the ones who deliberately work to alter language in order to support their views, and then disingenuously say ‘language changes, get over it’ if you try to push back.

As for bigots identifying as saintly egalitarians, those men who insist they can’t possibly be sexist because they’re so very liberal are hardly a new phenomenon.

[YWTF]

@Banquet_Bear

You want a debate.

I just want the transphobia to stop.

This right here succinctly captures the problem on our hand’s right now. The gender movement wants to completely dismantle the scheme we’ve been using to categorize humanity since our species acquired sentience and they want to replace it with a self-ID scheme that allows for an infinite number of genders. And they want to do all of this without engaging in debate.

[YWTF]

@DemonTree

This should please you, @YWTF:

Peter Boylan should be glad his pronouns are he/him and not she/her, otherwise his job would at risk for this “incendiary” opinion:

“I’ve never met a man who has a cervix, but I have met people who have been trans from female to male and I’ve met them basically in the context mainly of performing a hysterectomy”.

[Eonwe]

@DemonTree

Or do you want to enforce assent to a quasi-religious view, block research into treating children with gender dysphoria, and silence women?

Oh, it’s definitely this one! This is an excellent distillation of the primary wants of Banquet_Bear, trans people, and trans allies.

[DemonTree]

@Eonwe

Oh, it’s definitely this one! This is an excellent distillation of the primary wants of Banquet_Bear, trans people, and trans allies.

It’s what they’re in fact doing, so it doesn’t really matter if it’s their primary aim or not. But I should have said they only want to block research that doesn’t give the predetermined ‘correct’ answer.

[DemonTree]

@Novelty_Bobble

By making it mean anything it means nothing and so why not make fun of the term?

I wouldn’t do it or wear that shirt, because there still is serious real life transphobia and it’s no laughing matter. But at the same time I can understand how the people who’ve been stuck at the sharp end of this ‘debate’ with no support can get to that point.

[iiandyiiii]

@DemonTree

@Eonwe

Oh, it’s definitely this one! This is an excellent distillation of the primary wants of Banquet_Bear, trans people, and trans allies.

It’s what they’re in fact doing, so it doesn’t really matter if it’s their primary aim or not. But I should have said they only want to block research that doesn’t give the predetermined ‘correct’ answer.

Sad to see that this is how you really feel not about just a single person, or even “trans allies” in general, but all trans people as a group, taking your words at face value.

[DemonTree]

@iiandyiiii

Sad to see that this is how you really feel not about just a single person, or even “trans allies” in general, but all trans people as a group, taking your words at face value.

You should probably not take them at face value, then. I know there are some trans people who disagree: @Monstro quoted from one earlier and had her post flagged and hidden by the community. And I can guess there are plenty of transgender people who are just living their lives and not involved in activism of any sort. But these things are the on-the-ground effects of what the activists are pushing, and unsurprisingly it is this stuff I object to, not protecting trans people from discrimination at work or harassment in the street.

As an example, I said earlier I’d been reading trans-widow’s stories. It’s supposed to be kind to make a rule of ‘no mis-gendering’, but that makes it impossible for these women to tell their stories in any authentic way. They aren’t lesbians, they didn’t marry women. So, they’ll be silenced.

[YWTF]

@DemonTree

You should probably not take them at face value, then. I know there are some trans people who disagree: @Monstro quoted from one earlier and had her post flagged and hidden by the community

The transwoman that wrote the Medium essay that @monstro posted totally went against the cardinal rule of honoring gender pronouns.

It certainly raises an interesting question. Is it fair to call the author transphobic for this kind of misgendering, when they are a member of the T community? I guess you could say yes, since internalized transphobia can exist.

But maybe they don’t subscribe to the view that someone is entitled to a certain pronoun just because they demand it. Maybe the author reserves the right to withhold this courtesy when there is evidence of falsity in their claim of womanhood. Maybe they are in favor of gatekeeping like this so the trans identity doesn’t lose meaning and become subject to colonization. So in this sense, the author is the opposite of transphobic; they are trying to protect trans people.

Women, LGB, and a significant segment of the trans community all have legitimate concerns about gender extremists taking the movement to a chaotic and dangerous place. This coalition is growing quicker by the day, as casualties of authoritarian wokeness gain visibility and the discrepancy in treatment between men and women become more obvious.

Peter Boylan announced his own apostasy regarding transmen being men today. He will not be doxed. He will not lose his job. He will not be pressured into to recanting and apologizing. If he were a female public official, there’d be a witch burning right now. To have our concerns heard, women might as well be living in the 1800’s, relying on benevolent men to advocate on our behalf. We literally have regressed hundreds of years.

[ISiddiqui]

@monstro

Gay rights did not require anyone to share anything. No one pushed for the lexicon to be completely altered to suit gay folks concerns.

Allow me to echo @Chingon - Seriously?! Did you miss the entire gay marriage debate? Where one side loudly proclaimed that LGBTQ+ were completely redefining the term ‘marriage’, which they were (and which I totally supported and continue to do so). There are still a few folks on the “traditional marriage” side who refuse call an LGBTQ+ spouse as married - thankfully they are getting fewer and fewer, but they still exist.

[YWTF]

@ISiddiqui

Where one side loudly proclaimed that LGBTQ+ were completely redefining the term ‘marriage’, which they were (and which I totally supported and continue to do so).

They.did.not.redefine.marriage.

They changed laws so that marriages between same-sex couples would be recognized by the state.

[raventhief]

@YWTF

They.did.not.redefine.marriage.

They changed laws so that marriages between same-sex couples would be recognized by the state.

DOMA.literally.defined.marriage.as.between.a.man.and.a.woman.

Some state laws did as well, and a whole bunch of people who opposed same sex marriage
By definition, they said (and sadly, some still say) it’s only a “marriage” if it is between a man and a woman. If it is a same sex pairing, call it a civil union or something.

It really wasn’t that long ago.

[monstro]

The traditionalists were the ones trying to change the meaning of the word “marriage” to suit a political agenda. See the move to codify “marriage” as a legal union between one man, one woman. Gay folk did not push to redefine the term “marriage”. They just wanted the inclusive definition that has always existed to be used as the legal basis. (The term has always meant a union between two people (things or concepts).

The only linguistic change that I can think of that resulted from the gay rights movement is the widespread use of “partner”–which not only helps sexual minorities feel more comfortable about discussing their significant others, but also the many people who are in long-term relationships.

There simply is no parallel to the linguistic changes being pushed by trans rights activists and allies. Objectively speaking, that’s neither a good or bad thing. But it is a true thing. I wish people could just admit this and stop acting like we’re witnessing a normal, organic evolution in terminology.

[YWTF]

@raventhief

DOMA.literally.defined.marriage.as.between.a.man.and.a.woman.

So what? There is marriage as defined by the state and there is marriage that is recognized by the people within them and their communities.

Enslaved black folks weren’t even legally recognized as people, but they were in marriages just the same. The lack of involvement by the State doesn’t change the nature of the union described by the word marriage. I promise you the same damn concept applied to LGB prior to SSM laws.

[raventhief]

A legal definition is not then a “real” definition? You said marriage wasnt redefined. I submit it’s been defined and redefined more than once.

Marriage is, by and a large, a legal concept. For many it’s also a religious concept, but that doesn’t apply to many couples. It can be used in any number of contexts that are not related to law, but it took a SCOTUS decision to legally include same sex couples.

Wait, are you bringing race back into the discussion? Loving v Virginia took a supreme court decision to allow legal marriage for interracial couples in my state. They called themselves married, but the state said nope, whatever this is, it’s a crime. Enslaved black people were not legally considered people, so that wasnt “redefined” when legally, it was decided yes, they are!

[Eonwe]

@YWTF

The transwoman that wrote the Medium essay that @monstro posted totally went against the cardinal rule of honoring gender pronouns.

And also, that author took an aggressive, adversarial, belittling, and fundamentally non-compassionate position from the get-go:

all pronouns and reference to sex within my writing shall be implied from real life actual biological sex, and biological males will be referred to as such, even when they LARP 24/7 as a man’s idea of what it is to be a woman.

I didn’t flag that post (and I’ll go on the record that this particular mechanism of the boards feels inappropriate), but the assertion here, that trans men and women are simply role-playing for fun, is combative, and intentionally diminishes and ignores what it means to be trans.

Maybe the author reserves the right to withhold this courtesy when there is evidence of falsity in their claim of womanhood.

Nope. They’ve explicitly said that they view trans men and women as simple LARPers. They refuse to extend this “courtesy” to anyone. Which is their right, but don’t pretend like this author is taking a nuanced or complex position, other than “trans men are women play-acting as men, and trans women are men play-acting as women, no more, no less.” Don’t try to soften their position for reasons; they’ve made it pretty clear.

Which, ultimately, is what I gather is your belief here is, as well as the others posting in this thread. All the rest of the debate in this thread continues to be fruitless, because if that’s your starting position, then much of what you’re arguing for of course follows. And if one disagrees, and instead thinks that trans men are in fact men (though maybe one type of man), and trans women are in fact women (though maybe one type of woman), then much of what your opponents argue follows.

Unless those fundamental positions change, this “debate” will continue to be people talking past each other.

[quote]women might as well be living in the 1800’s, relying on benevolent men to advocate on our behalf. We literally have regressed hundreds of years.
[/quote]

We literally have not, don’t be absurd.

[YWTF]

@raventhief

Wait, are you bringing race back into the discussion? Loving v Virginia took a supreme court decision to allow legal marriage for interracial couples in my state.

That’s actually a great example to highlight to show you’re wrong in how you’re framing definitional changes.

Marriage between blacks and whites was not recognized by Virginia. Overturning this didn’t require changing how marriage was defined; it meant changing how the law was applied.

Bigamy is illegal in most jurisdictions, but polygamous unions will still claim to be in a marriage with one another. This is specifically because marriage exists as a concept outside of the legal definition:

Definition of MARRIAGE

SSM laws merely allowed same-sex couples meeting the 3rd definition to also meet the 1st one.

[monstro]

@Eonwe

They’ve explicitly said that they view trans men and women as simple LARPers.

No, I think you’re stretching here. If you read her words carefully, without bias, you will see the words “even when”. Let’s go back to what she says:

all pronouns and reference to sex within my writing shall be implied from real life actual biological sex, and biological males will be referred to as such, even when they LARP 24/7 as a man’s idea of what it is to be a woman.

Bolding mine.

If she believed all transwomen and transmen were LARPing, she wouldn’t have expressed herself like this.

She’s a transwoman. Do you really think she sees herself as LARPing? If so, doesn’t that severely undercut the “Transwomen are women” slogan? Why should I believe that all transwomen are women when we’ve got a transwoman here admitting to role-playing?

I had the same take-away that @YWTF did. The writer is denying the shitty males she’s talking about their feminine pronouns as a way to lay down the law within the trans community. Which should be totally noncontroversial, IMHO. All groups have some internal policing mechanism–a way for members to snatch up anyone they believe to be working for the enemy. Seems to me that revoking preferred pronouns is a pretty damn effective way of doing that. It is a privilege I think all trans folks should have.

Maybe if I see more of this, I’ll feel more comfortable treating transwomen as women equivalents.