I called BS on the idea that gay kids are identifying as trans because they face less discrimination that way. You countered by linking to an account of someone who explicitly says they weren’t gay before they transitioned, and has never been sexually interested in men. How am I the disingenuous one here?
We are talking about why second-wave feminists who are afraid of the current trend in gender ideology. They are concerned about this kind of situation occurring because they are used to measuring progress and success in terms of who is in charge. Specifically the bodies of the people in charge. This “mental state” business doesn’t resonate with them at all. They want more people with their bodies in charge. Because they think that matters a great deal.
If you want to understand where these feminist are coming from, then you really do need to consider this hypothetical, even if you think it’s stupid. If you’ve got male-bodied people representing women and women’s issues, have you really moved the needle on increase women’s representation? Are we asking women to take on a faith that this will work out for them? You seem to be taking that on faith. Why should a group of people who has been fighting for rights and recognition forever take this on faith? You have nothing to lose, as a member of the privileged class, so it is easy for you to take it on faith.
Your swift dismissal of the Biden hypothetical doesn’t impress me, really. Any example we come up with, you are going to dismiss. That pattern has been well-established. The fact that you can’t come up with an answer to it besides “B-b-but that isn’t real!” shows that women aren’t totally irrational to be worried about what’s to come. It’s not that that frustrated women are envisioning that “woman” Bidens will be a commonplace scenario. We know that Biden isn’t likely to play the “I’m a woman!” card. It’s that if we ever have a situation like this in politics, we want to be able to say “BULLSHIT!” without being condemned as transphobe TERFs. We want to be able to push back on someone’s suspiciously convenient gender identity without having to have irrefutable evidence that that they are a fraud. (Just like how we are always expected to provide irrefutable evidence of rape and sexual harrassment, and when we don’t have these things, we get called lying whores). We don’t want to have to listen to lecturing from male-bodied men on how “all oppression matters” and a “win for trans is a win for you, so quit your bellyaching”. Because that’s the language of the privileged, not the oppressed. We want assurances that if a person were to publicly brag about their “woman” identity without living a “woman” existence or they were weaponizing their identity to silence women, everyone would understand we weren’t trying to bash transgender people by calling this person out. We’re just trying to defend “woman” and protect it from being exploited.
The fact you and others don’t get why it’s important to protect “woman” like this makes me think y’all aren’t really as woke as you think you are.
If Biden comes out as trans, I will stand with you in saying WTF, and not considering it a victory for women. But I don’t think this wacky hypothetical is particularly relevant to this broader discussion.
I’m very in favor of trans rights because they’re treated so abominably by society, with sky high rates of being targets of violence, homelessness, drug abuse, and suicide. Women and girls are also treated like shit by society, which is why I also consider myself a feminist and am very much in favor of the #MeToo movement. I remain unconvinced that there’s any real conflict here.
Will you join me in saying WTF, and not considering this very real situation a victory for women?
Your use of “wacky” reminds me of what I said to Demon Tree and YWTF before we switched over to Discord. As long as we have a small number of questionable cases, then the tendency will always be to dismiss concerns. Only when that number isn’t so small will people see the problem and be arsed to care. But at that point it will be late for those who were harmed by the initial period of apathy.
Although you would be pissed off by a “woman” Biden (I’m relieved someone is willing to admit this!), you’re assured it isn’t going to happen. So you can’t be arsed to be worked up about it. I get it, cuz that’s where I am too. But I gotta ask: if we did see a crop of male-bodied politicians who started claiming “woman”, would it be OK for women to say something at that point? Do we have to wait for widespread problems to occur before we talk about gatekeeping “woman” or can it be alright to talk about this before problems become rampant?
All I’m saying is that it would nice to be able to talk about these problems before they become rampant. We don’t have to make any hard and fast rules and decisions, but we can at least talk about how what response(s) we would collectively find acceptable if the “wacky” scenarios people are so afraid of should happen to occur. Honestly, I think just allowing that conversation would go a long way to allaying concerns that folks have about “woman” not meaning anything any more. If people can at least admit that there will be some men who will misuse the “woman” class for malicious purposes and that it is 100% cool to be worried about this, then maybe some folks will relax and take a wait-and-see approach to this brave new world. But when the concern is reflexively dismissed and belittled, heels will naturally dig in.
In what context? Old man Biden who has always asserted a cis male identity, who has never hinted at any non-binary or fluid aspect to his identity nor any gender dysphoria; who has always presented as typically male… becoming elected President and then claiming out of the blue to have a female identity, while continuing to present as stereotypically male? Yes, we can all join with you in a chorus of skepticism.
Now, can we move on from this preposterous scenario to something resembling reality?
Bathrooms? It has been noted several times in this thread that if someone wanted to infiltrate women’s bathrooms, they would have no incentive to give away their intentions by coming out as trans. Officially recognized gender identity is not checked at bathroom doors. They would just go ahead an infiltrate.
I don’t know why you have to be so condescending. This is the first you have said you’d join me with being skeptical about someone’s gender identity, so why are you acting like it is self-evident?
This is what I mean by saying this discourse toxic. You have spent how many posts lecturing me on the necessity of believing someone when they claim a certain identity and implying that having doubts is tantamount to bigotry. And now instead of admitting that you can conceive of instances where it might pay to be a little suspicious, you’re still treating me like I’m being unreasonable.
If you can conceive of instances–however unlikely they are to occur–then you fundamentally understand why women aren’t collectively going along with the “anyone who says they are a woman is a woman” rhetoric no matter how much mansplaining you do. Because we know that’s not always going to be the case. We can accept that 99% of claims to “woman” are valid, but still keep in mind that 1% (or whatever) might not be. And this should be totally OK to anyone who isn’t a gender extremist.
If transwomen are perfectly justified in being afraid of men being violent trans killers, ciswomen are perfectly justified in justified in being afriad of men exploiting the “woman” label for nefarious purposes. Political or otherwise. Instead of only caring about one of those concerns, try having some sympathy for both. It’s not that hard.
Is it really more important to treat it as a loss for women that a rare gender fluid person should take 1% of the places in a “Top 100 Women In Business” ranking? Or to celebrate the overall social progress and decreasing bigotry in society that would now celebrate something that would have been almost unimaginable just 20 years ago, and a path of progress that’s strongly positively correlated with an an improvement in women’s rights?
iiandyiiii
There are plenty of women who don’t menstruate, and there are some folks who aren’t women who do.
You’re an intelligent guy. I’ve seen you in debates go at it like a machine. I know you’re smarter than this.
Understand that you’re literally mansplaining a biological fact that Rowling—likely a post-menopausal woman herself—couldn’t possibly NOT know. It is almost as if you’ve decided to interpret her statement in the most uncharitable way possible.
All that she is objecting to is saying “people who menstruate” instead of “women who menstruate”. Why this even needs to be explained, I just do not know. She said this too:
Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning. I understand why trans activists consider this language to be appropriate and kind,but for those of us who’ve had degrading slurs spat at us by violent men, it’s not neutral, it’s hostile and alienating.
Answer me this. Why is it that trans people can be accommodated when they say certain language triggers strong negative feelings? But women just get ignored, mocked, or condemned when they say the same thing about these new awkward terms now being used to refer to them. The imbalance here is striking. It’s like no one cares about women’s feelings at all.
Rowling is saying terms like “menstruator” make women feel dehumanized because they remind us of sexist slurs. Instead of listening to her—just as you would listen to a trans person’s complaint about misgendering—you’re spinning her comments as if she is the one being insensitive.
I don’t think you realize how bad that comes across.
Nonsense. You have persistently resisted the fundamental idea that a trans person’s gender identity represents who they really are as a person. I’m not going to concede that you can treat real-life trans people with dignity and respect only when it suits you based on some preposterous and unrealistic hypothetical. That’s not a constructive way to discuss fundamental principles of how we should treat real-life trans people.
The problem is your rejection of real-life trans women as real women, not my lack of skepticism about some imaginary wave of fake trans women endangering cis women and undermining feminism.
Would you care more if 50% of the spots were taken by male-bodied individuals? If Demon Tree was complaining about 50% rather than 1%, would you sympathize with her and recognize that there’s a problem? Or would you lecture her on how it’s not a big deal because gender fluid folks are oppressed too and all women should be happy that those folks are finally get recognized?
I don’t give a fuck about 1%. I don’t give a fuck about 10%. But not gonna lie, there is a threshold above which I would start to give some fucks. I’m curious if you have a threshold too.
I have resisted parts of an ideology that strike me as highly problematic. But I have not resisted the idea that transgender folks have valid identities who are deserving of respect and the treatment accorded to their preferred gender. You can go along with one idea and not accept all of the ideas being crammed down our throats. I don’t do this with any ideology.
I don’t think anyone who says they are a woman IS a woman. I believe that is some bullshit and I’m not afraid to call it out as bullshit. And I’m not afraid to stick up for people who agree that it is bullshit.
I’m sorry you are unable to pick up the nuance of my position, but that’s a “you” problem.
If your way of expressing nuance is to come up with a hypothetical where aging Biden out-of-the-blue claims to be a woman while continuing to present as male, I rather think explaining that nuance coherently as it applies to real-life trans women is a “you” problem.
You’re not well-informed if you think male-presenting women are non-existent. And you are naive if you don’t think that the prevalence of male-presenting women will increase as the concepts of gender fluidity and nonbinaryness catch on.
The fact that you find it hard to believe that a male-presenting individual would claim “woman” indicates you don’t really think “woman” is defined by solely mental state, as you’ve claimed. Obviously you think “woman” also connotes a visual presentation–clothing, grooming, etc. Guess what? This is what I think too. If I can see enough “woman” tells on you, then I won’t have a problem thinking of you as a “woman” . But if all my eyes see scream “MAN”, then you saying you’re a woman isn’t enough to make me switch over to “WOMAN” in my head. I’ll treat you real nice, I promise. But I won’t be able to see you as a member of my gender class. It will be hard for me to see you representing “women’s issues” on a political stage. And I probably will be reluctant to let you into my “woman’s only” space without getting to know you first. But for all other intents and purposes, I won’t have a problem with you. You can even use the bathroom stall next to me and I won’t complain. I just don’t want you to get butthurt if I occasionally use the wrong pronoun or call you a “guy”.
Whatever the “rules” are, whatever the common and accepted practices are, whatever is generally accepted and approved of, you can count on the following: some cis men will try and take advantage of it for predatory (and just plain obnoxious) purposes. So yes, it’s entirely possible that some asshole men will try and use this for evil, and women shouldn’t be afraid of speaking out if they see that occur.
But this is already the case. They can and do already do this - to get into bathrooms, install cameras in showers, etc. This wouldn’t be new ground for predators - it would be same old same old. Maybe some slightly novel tactics, but just barely… Whatever they’ll try in the future, it’s almost certain some asshole predator has already tried it. Increased vigilance is entirely appropriate - mostly because we as a society are already not nearly vigilant enough when it comes to fighting male predators.
But I already agreed with you on this - I have no doubt that JKR didn’t intend to denigrate menopausal women. I’m sure she’s aware of this. But she still said something really, really dumb, discounting all these various categories of women and others who menstruate, and that she didn’t intend for offense (aside from offending trans people) isn’t an excuse. She’s a great writer, but that tweet was DUMB DUMB DUMB and it’s okay to say that JKR wrote something really dumb in a tweet.
I get it and discussed this in detail in an earlier post - calling women “people who menstruate” or “people with vaginas” would be highly, highly offensive. That would rightly deserve all kinds of criticism.
But this article wasn’t about women as a category, or even “women who menstruate” - it was about all the different types of people who menstruate. The article even specified those different categories - including women, girls, and others who menstruate.
It’s okay to talk about this category that is slightly broader than just “women” or “women who menstruate”. JKR would be right if that article was about women… but it wasn’t. That article was about a different category. If she’s arguing that such articles should discount and ignore folks who menstruate but aren’t women, then that’s a different argument.
And yes, I care deeply about the feelings of cis women on this. But I’ve found the feelings of the cis women feminists I listed and linked to earlier to be far, far more logical and compassionate than those of JKR. She can still have those feelings, if course, and she shouldn’t receive any threats for them, but I think the criticism of those specific things I’ve detailed from her writing to be appropriate, based mostly on the writings of those other cis woman feminists.
Whether or not you want someone else to tell you who you are doesn’t really have anything to do with the objective truth of something. You are not what you identify as; we do not apply that theory to pretty much any other aspect of the human experience I can think of.
I identify as many things but it is not my self-identity that makes me any of those things. I’m not Canadian because I identify as Canadian; I’m Canadian because I was physically born in Canada and have not done anything to have citizenship stripped from me. I’m not tall because I think I’m tall, I’m tall because my actual height is objectively a bit more than the average for an adult male.
More on that dumb tweet by JKR - I doubt she spent more than 2 minutes thinking about it, just rushing off a quip like she’s poop tweeting from the White House. If she had thought about it before posting it, IMO she would have realized how dumb it is - she’s too smart a writer not to. I suspect it’s ego that’s preventing her from backing down, specifically about that tweet - it’s not important for her broader argument, and yet she’s standing by that really dumb, barely thought out quip.
I really do think saying “women and transmen who menstruate” would be more considerate than “menstruators”. This is one of those instances where specifying the gender classes is better than coming up with the most clinical term possible. We’ve got a situation where the feelings of a small group of people are being catered to at the expense of a larger group–one that has a a long history with putting up with language that makes them feel invisible. How is that cool?
I would be completely fine with this suggestion.
EDIT: Why does the system keep automatically erasing my quote of the post I’m responding to? I have to edit to add it back in, every time.