You can’t know if something changes, if you don’t track that something. This is social science 101.
In the future, when women start expressing concern about the problem you’re now denying is a problem, they will be asked to put up proof. “Show me the data or shut up.” And they won’t be able to do that. The data won’t exist.
“It’s almost like that was the point all along,” a smart alec will say. “If only someone had been smart enough to point out these troubling implications way back in 2020, when we still had time to change course…”
Isn’t the cat already out of the bag on this (for protecting folks from predators, anyway)? If JKR gets her way, predatory men could pretend to be transmen or masculine ciswomen. If the trans activists get their way, predatory men could pretend to be transwomen or masculine ciswomen. How is one safer for ciswomen than the other?
I don’t know what JKR is advocating so I’m not going to speak for her.
I’m just speaking for myself. I’m fine with including transwomen in women spaces. Maybe JKR isn’t. But I’m only fine with inclusion when it isn’t literally “come on in, everybody who says they want in!!” I don’t want to have to put up with men passing themselves off as women in contexts where that translates into women (whether cis or trans) being displaced, all so we can rest assured that no transwomen has to ever be asked an uncomfortable question (such as “Can you name one person who will verify that you live openly as a woman?”) If ciswomen have to swallow the discomfort caused by their programming (e.g., sharing restrooms and locker rooms with people who aren’t in their sex class), then it seems to me that asking transwomen to swallow their discomfort over being asked a couple of potentially awkward questions in order to gain access to scholarships or outreach programs or women’s shelters is a fair exchange. As long as everyone is asked the same questions, this really should be a “no big deal” requirement.
Throwing up our hands and saying there will be harm no matter what we do so let’s go with the thing that makes us feel secure in our progressiveness is an intellectual cop-out. I’m fine with taking a cost-benefit analysis approach to this entire thing, as long as that analysis doesn’t force us to define “acceptable harm” as zero harm for one group with non-zero harm for another group.
Sounds like in fact the major problem she has with inclusion and the reason she’s speaking out now is the plan to make it literally “come on in, everybody who says they want in!!” As well as the prevailing view that avoiding harm to one group can’t possibly cause harm to another, so we don’t even need to bother with a cost-benefit analysis. (A declaration that 3 of the 4 Labour leadership candidates signed up to!)
It’s because there are still a few exceptions, like rape crisis centres, women’s shelters, prisons - which are not required by law to be open to all. Exceptions that most people in this thread have agreed are reasonable. But they still condemn JKR for opposing this. (Or say she’s doing it the wrong way and hurting people’s feelings, while not giving a damn about her feelings or those of women like her.)
Because, even as nobody is ever checked for illicit genitalia at the bathroom door, there are bigots who harass transwoman by trying to deny them access to toilets.
The whole thing is grandstanding for the base.
But there are real people who now are afraid to get arrested when they go to a public toilet because some Karen called the cops.
By expressing her fears about letting men into “women-only” spaces. JKR got sorted in that “bigot” house. I think I understand where she is coming from, but she really shouldn’t have mentioned bathrooms. Even I know that is a goddamn dog whistle for bigots.
She really should acknowledge the tone-deafness on that and move on
You’re right. But to be honest I only knew about the bathroom thing from reading these boards. In the UK there isn’t really a religious right and there has been very little push-back on these trans rights bills until now. Still, if she’s done as much research as she claimed she should have realised that it was a bad thing to mention.
Also, please don’t use the Karen meme. It’s become just another way of putting down women who stand up for themselves and telling us to sit down and shut up.
Trans activists are campaigning for fair and equal treatment, which doesn’t necessarily mean changing the law. It does mean opposing the nasty efforts to actively harm and discriminate against trans people.
Give me reasonably short replacement term (that a reasonable % of people understand) that describes a woman who would call the cops if they suspect someone who’s not strictly a girl is in the girls’ bathroom.
( Except “Moaning Myrtle” off course, that one is trademarked:) )
And having done that (and rereading her essay, that word ‘contagion’ you objected to is actually part of a quotation from someone else, Rowling didn’t choose it), will you agree that maybe she has a point? And that we should at least be allowed to have a debate about it, rather than seeing our political leaders sign a pledge saying there is no conflict and any members who disagree should be expelled from the party? Is that a healthy way to do politics, in your opinion?
I don’t object to everything she wrote. Some of what she wrote is fine with me. I specifically pointed out what I thought was worth criticizing (and quoting someone else, when signalling agreement, doesn’t excuse using such a term).
That will not happen until everybody distances themselves from the bathroom thing. That was always just a shtick bigots picked up to hit unsuspecting transwomen with.
If it was once, it sure isn’t now. It moved on to be a description of entitled suburbanites who have unreasonable expectations of service workers. Although everyone agreed that at least half the people who fit this stereotype are men, surprise, surprise, a female term became popularised.
I’ve seen several women say they were put off from complaining about objectively bad service or are afraid to stand for themselves for fear of being called a Karen.
They actually are campaigning to change the law here in the UK, though.
And some of the things they want go beyond fair and equal treatment. For example, how much gatekeeping there should be from the medical profession before prescribing hormones and approving surgery. It’s understandable that people who struggled to get treatment themselves doesn’t want others to suffer the same difficulties. But it’s also a fact that most people aren’t psychologists and aren’t competent to diagnose themselves and rule to out alternatives. We don’t hand out Ritalin to everyone who thinks they have ADHD, much less to children. Yet transgender support charities are pushing to lower the age for permanent medical interventions.