J K Rowling and the trans furore

In My Humble Opinion
502

iiandyiiii

Most of the objections to JKR’s writings about trans people that I’ve read are objections to her insulting and gaslighting language, her reliance on inaccurate facts for her positions, and similar. Not that she’s concerned about safe spaces for cis women or athletics.

So I take it you are among the many who haven’t read her words yourself; you’re just going by hearsay. Sigh.

Do me a favor. Read her tweet that started this whole thing and her follow-up essay. Then come back with examples all of this insulting and gaslighting language.

I’m confident you won’t be able to do that, btw. So rather than read with the intent to find debate fodder, read it with the aim of understanding her viewpoint and those of other women who’ve had enough of this gender ideology stuff.

When you finish reading it, ask yourself why any of it merited these reactions. As you read those reactions, ask yourself what “gender identity” is most likely to make threats of rape and violence when challenged by a person they feel superior to.

I can assure you it is not mine.

503

I did read her tweet and her post. In fact, I’ve already had this specific discussion on another board, in quite a bit of detail. The following is what I found most objectionable in her writing:

-Denigrating the status of people who menstruate, and rhetorically de-feminizing those who don’t (including women who have passed menopause, women who have had hysterectomies, or women who don’t menstruate for other reasons)
-Calling transgender a “contagion”
-Misstating the data about detransitioning (it’s actually very rare, and most often done due to pressure from parents)
-Implying that trans people are dangerous to women, girls, and children (i.e. the bathroom issue)
-The obnoxious gaslighting of insisting that trans women are not women

And I do generally follow the lead of cis women on this issue - here are some examples of the cis women feminists whose opinions I’ve found most persuasive on trans issues:

Sara Ahmed
Kimberle Crenshaw
Roxane Gay
Akwugo Emejulu
Judith Butler

Some more detail: Feminist Academics Explain Why They Support Transgender Rights

And this response, from a cis woman doctor, is IMO the very best and fairest response to JKR’s writing:

None of this justified threats, of course, to JKR or her critics. And that both JKR and trans positive feminists have gotten plenty of threats says nothing about the validity of their positions.

And on another note, while I’m a huge fan of your ad a Doper, I don’t think your assumption that I didn’t read JKR’s writing was fair at all.

504

I’ll put my position another way - it’s entirely reasonable to advocate for safe spaces and consideration for cis women. But if you do so by using inaccurate data and some transphobic tropes and gaslighting insults (as JKR did, IMO), then you deserve some criticism. Not death threats, but criticism. JKR isn’t a monster, but IMO her writing has revealed that she might have some unconscious negative feelings about trans people, and it’s appropriate to criticize her for those aspects of her writing.

505

Denigrating the status of people who menstruate, and rhetorically de-feminizing those who don’t (including women who have passed menopause, women who have had hysterectomies, or women who don’t menstruate for other reasons)

She didn’t do any of this. It would mean she’s denigrating women, and what would be her motivation for doing that? If I’m wrong, copy and paste where she did all this denigration. Surely you can, right?

-Calling transgender a “contagion”

Okay, but she’s sharing what she’s observing. Lots of girls transitioning because they were made to believe the wrong thing, and then detransitioning because of that. This isn’t an indictment on all trans people. She is calling attention to a potential trend that merits examination.

If there was a trend of confused girls transitioning for the wrong reason (and I’m not saying there is), shutting down any attempts to discuss it seems pretty dangerous to me.

-Misstating the data about detransitioning (it’s actually very rare, and most often done due to pressure from parents)

Who keeps stats on this? If someone takes T shots for five years and then quits after realizing they made a mistake, how would that get documented anywhere? This stuff isn’t officially tracked. So the only thing we have is personal impressions and anecdotes. Rowling is sharing hers. None of can refute it because this none of us sees what she sees.

-Implying that trans people are dangerous to women, girls, and children (i.e. the bathroom issue)

She didn’t say this and again, very telling (and disappointing) that you haven’t quoted her directly. This is what she wrote:

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

She’s not talking about trans women. Read the part in bold. She’s talking about men who can now gain access through the same door that trans women can enter. She’s talking about the same people trans women also fear. Predatory men.

I’m seeing blanket refusal to even consider this possibility and it’s extremely disturbing to me. The message I’m hearing is that women’s safety and security can be curtailed as much as needed to ensure that trans women are treated like their gender identity, even if that means letting a few men slip in that mean harm to us.

-The obnoxious gaslighting of insisting that trans women are not women

Again, she never did that.

I have to walk away from this thread. It’s bad for my mental health. I haven’t been this upset in a while.

506

But who is objecting to this? Where is anyone objecting to recognizing trans status in the context of valid scientific or medical research?

507

There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate, and there are some folks who aren’t women who do.

I get that she was just throwing a lazy quip out there meant to take a little shot at trans women, but that doesn’t make it okay. She also insulted all the cis women out there who don’t menstruate for a variety of reasons, and the trans men who do. All for what?

I don’t think she hates women or was even deliberately denigrating women. But doing it inadvertently is still worth criticizing, just like all the inadvertent racism and homophobia out there is worth criticizing.

It’s not about the topic, it’s the word. “Contagion” implies all trans people are sick, and further, that they should be isolated or quarantined. It’s one of those problematic words, like vermin or savage, that’s inherently denigrating and dehumanizing when used to describe various categories of people. She could discuss that topic very easily without using a word like that.

She quoted numbers, and her numbers are wrong. There is in fact data on detransitioning, and it tells a very different story (see the link below). JKR was factually wrong here in a way that denigrated trans people.

508

I’m having trouble seeing this any differently than the allusions to protecting women and children to justify racism or homophobia - the argument just doesn’t make sense at all to me. I think this reply to JKR takes apart this argument very well:

"Anyway. The fear I assume you’re alluding to here – the one shared by many other people who have concerns about trans rights – is that making it easier to gain a gender recognition certificate will lead to male abusers fraudulently gaining gender confirmation certificates naming them to be female in order to enter bathrooms or changing rooms to… oh, well, you know the rest. And I get that that’s a prospect that many people find really concerning (especially, as you said, people with a history of abuse who can find it quite viscerally terrifying).

Here is what does not make sense and has never made sense to me about this scenario, though. Please tell me if you think I’m missing something, but…

Nobody has to show proof of gender to get into public toilets or changing rooms anyway."
…snip…
“Why is there all this worry that an abuser might go to the work of filling out a form and paying a fee (currently £140) to get access to a public toilet, when he can just walk straight in anyway?”

509

She did that in the tweet I quoted above. At the same time, she obnoxiously insisted that trans men who menstruate aren’t men.

All this is just my view, and I’m a straight white cis man. I take my cues on this from the words of trans men and women, and crucially, a variety of cis women feminist writers (several mentioned in a previous post). I’m sorry if you’re upset, but JKR isn’t some sacred cow. She can make a mistake, and she might even have some unconscious bias. It’s appropriate to criticize her for those aspects of her writing.

510

Okay, this thread moves faster than me.

Something I find perplexing: is it seriously being argued that a politician running as a transwoman is gaining some advantage over a ciswoman running for the same seat? Because that seems ludicrous on its face.

I don’t disagree that distinction might need to be made in some ways between trans- and cis- folks. I don’t think that a transwoman and a ciswoman are the exact same thing. But I think they are both women, and most of the “issues” are with people claiming that transwomen are men.

Also, I don’t find it impossible to advocate for women to be better represented and better treated in our society while also being transpositive.

511

At 54, J K Rowling is most likely one of those women who no longer menstruate, and if she isn’t, she’s probably well aware that she soon will be. I made a comment about the use of ‘pregnant person’ earlier in this thread - this supposedly inclusive language actually erases women from experiences that for many are formative to our own identities.

Re bathrooms, what’s actually happening in the UK is that schools and businesses and councils are replacing existing public toilets with mixed-sex ones, or worse simply replacing the signs on existing toilets. This undoubtedly gives men easier access! It’s a very new change, but for many years there has been a trend towards unisex changing rooms (with cubicles) which was mostly intended to save money and benefit families. Here is evidence they are less safe than single sex changing areas:
Unisex changing rooms put women at danger of sexual assault, data reveals | The Independent | The Independent

“Trans women are women” Is a philosophical statement, since there are different ways of defining “woman”. Disagreeing with it is not gaslighting. It could far more be considered gaslighting to try and convince a woman that someone who tells her to ‘suck my cock’ is actually a woman and she is unreasonable for fearing them.

I’ll try and reply about the rest later.

512

But this is nonsense. Inclusivity is not erasure. Erasure is saying, “you don’t exist,” not saying, “other people exist, too.”

513

Riemann is objecting to it.

I like you, Miller. I truly and really do. I don’t want you to be mad at me. But it really does seem like you and Riemann are asking “gaslighty” like questions.

Me: “Equating sex with gender trivializes the issues that come with biological sex.”
Riemann (paraphrased): “But you are the only one equating sex and gender!!!”

Reality #1: Women’s restrooms were created for folks with female parts, not a female gender identity. This is equating sex and gender.

Reality #2: Most transgender folks alter their biology to conform with their preferred gender. Because they equate sex and gender.

Reality #3: 99.9% of humanity use “woman” and “female” interchangeably. Gender activists included.

Me: Would it be alright if we screen out people who don’t meet the criteria for “woman as a social construct” in academic research?"

Riemann (paraphrased): NO! That’s bad just like how ‘separate but equal’ for white and black races was bad!!

You: But who is objecting to this?

Can you understand a little bit why this discussion has been exhausting and frustrating for me? If there was no one objecting to my hypothetical, I wouldn’t be here arguing with people. Obviously some people do care about gatekeeping even in the context of research. You might not, but others feel differently.

514

This wasn’t about inclusivity - it was about a dumb quip aimed at trans women that, probably inadvertently, denigrated women who don’t menstruate and transmen who do. It’s perfectly reasonable to criticize dumb quips that are factually wrong and insulting, even if it’s inadvertent.

Sounds bad, and like a totally reasonable concern. But that’s not what most trans activists are asking for, but my reading. They’re asking to use the gendered bathroom that matches their identity - otherwise, we could have the absurdity (and real potential danger of trans bashing due to forced outing) of muscular bearded trans men forced to use the ladies room, and slim, shapely trans women forced to use the men’s room.

I think insisting this publicly is obnoxious at best - akin to denying that a black person is black, even though race is a social construct. And I think it can be gaslighting in some circumstances (sometimes when used specifically to attack individuals).

515

If you read the stats they’re claiming, that’s 120 cases of reported sexual assault, voyeurism and harassment in a year in mixed changing rooms, with 14 in single sex ones. Nowhere does it report a breakdown of who the victims or accused actually were. It just seems to assume they were female, although it appears that the number would include attacks or harassment of trans people…

I’m just going to share an anecdote; a couple of years back, I worked event security. The first time I worked at one hotel, for a big event, the manager pulled the whole security team to one side and told us that they had a recently transitioned trans woman on staff. We were told two things a) we were not to in any way harass her, and b) part of our job was to prevent any customers from harassing her. Now I’ve certainly experienced discrimination on the grounds of being female (including in that job), I’ve been followed down the street by a van of wolf-whistling guys when I was 14 and in school uniform, I’ve been groped by strangers. I’ve never, ever been in a situation where harassment on the grounds of who I was was considered so common that a team of people were given the job of preventing it from happening and told not to do it themselves. I worked with some of those guys in LGBT events, and without specifically being told that they had to stop such things or they were fired, I am certain that one or two damn well would have joined in.

516

If someone presents as female and considers themselves female, I have no issue with treating them as female. But that doesn’t mean I can’t doubt their sincerity or feel that they may be misguided, on an individual basis.

I believe that gender dysphoria is a real condition and that most of the transsexuals I know are women. But when I saw a college aged guy in the 42nd subway in a plaid skirt, knee socks, frilly blouse and Hello Kitty backpack ( this really happened, BTW) my first thought is “that dude must’ve lost a bet” not “he’s wearing a skirt so he’s a woman just like me”. Because Im allowed to use my life experience in assessing people and situations to make that determination.

The truth is that I think there just aren’t that many sectors of life where it matters.

Bathrooms, I think that is a privacy issue. I think most people want to be at least a little bit discrete about their excretory functions and that they should be entitled to not call undue attention to themselves or “out” themselves every time they have to pee. This includes letting them use the bathroom that most closely matches their physical appearance. When I read some of the stuff that has been written on this issue, I’m astounded at how many men have no idea what goes on inside a women’s restroom and just how private the atmosphere is.

As for support groups, there are membership disagreements in every support group ever. Women that are victims of violent forcible rape don’t think the woman who was raped after she passed out at her friend’s apartment belongs in the group. Support groups for people that have lost spouses can be very unwelcoming to young widows and widowers. People mourning the loss of an unborn child are often not welcomed into grief groups. I don’t think the “problems” caused by transsexuals wanting to join support groups are particularly unique.

I can have doubts about the declared gender of an individual while still believing that gender identity is different from biological sex, just I can have have doubts about the love and commitment of a married couple while still believing in love and marriage.

My transsexual cousin Eli, born Leah, is a man and that cute clerk at Target, whom I’m pretty sure was born male, is a woman. But the frat guy dressed like an 8 year old Catholic schoolgirl was a dude in a dress.

I don’t want to go too far of topic, but a lot of stuff that we think is real is imaginary. My house is real in that the structure is a physical object, but the idea that it’s mine is imaginary. I have taken steps to make sure that the idea of my house being mine is codified in accordance with socially agreed upon procedures so that everyone agrees that the house I’m living in is mine - but there is no physical reality other than that universal agreement that makes my house mine. The state and city boundaries that my home lies inside of are another figment of our universally shared imagination. But I digress.

In short, I can treat people with dignity and respect without setting aside my common sense and years of life experience.

517

I think it’s frustration that there is a group of people who have a lot of things in common, who we used to call ‘women’. And we still need to talk about this group of people, except that now we don’t have a word for them, and we’re not allowed to have a word for them, so we’re forced to resort to obnoxious paraphrases that reduce people to their body parts. TBH, it has a rather Orwellian feel. Maybe menstruation isn’t the best example, since #NotAllWomen menstruate, but there are plenty of others.

What about the muscular bearded trans women who want to use the ladies room? Aren’t they women too, shouldn’t they be able to use the room that makes them feel most comfortable? And there are plenty of trans activists asking for unisex toilets. Quite likely they are asking for them in addition to the usual versions, but that’s not what is happening in practice.

Surely, you mean akin to denying that someone who says they are black is black?

518

You should tell that to the ‘Black Lives Matter’ protesters when they complain about people tweeting ‘All lives matter’.

519

But there is a word - cis women. And we do talk about cis women, as we should, all the time. There are indeed plenty of concerns that are mostly unique to cis women.

520

“All lives matter”, as it’s used as a retort to BLM, is indeed erasure - erasure of the huge factual difference in the treatment of black lives vs white lives. Recognizing the existence and rights of trans people erases nothing, except perhaps people who hate trans people and want to pretend they don’t exist.

521

Nonsense. What I actually said could not have been clearer:

Clearly I’m saying that what’s a problem is not the existence of subcategories in itself, but when it becomes like the “Separate But Equal” dishonesty of racists, as a cover for exclusion and prejudice. A subtext that there are “real” women and then there are trans women.

This is an equivocation fallacy. You are using “equate” in different senses here.

What I was objecting to was equating biological sex with gender in the sense of insisting that only people with female biological sex are women, that biological sex equates to gender in the sense of fully defining it. A reasonable objection in the context of a debate where one side has been denying that gender identity as a mental state is even real, let alone the question of whether gender identity (rather than biological sex) defines whether you “are” a woman.

The very definition of being trans is that that sex assigned at birth does NOT equate with gender identity. In transitioning, to whatever degree they choose, trans people are seeking to ALIGN their biological sex with their gender identity.

Of course people trans people may equate having a female gender identity with having a female biological sex sense in the sense that they may want the two to align. But they are not equated in the sense that sex assigned at birth is necessarily a person’s gender.