I agree that feeling discomfort about something isn’t in itself a reason to dismiss it as wrong. I would say it’s a reason to examine that thing, work out why things are the way they are and if there is (still) a good reason for it. With segregation, none of the few differences between races are relevant to sharing changing rooms. But the reason women have separate changing rooms now is that men are far more likely to attack women, to harass them, and to involve them in sexual acts without their consent. Voyeurism and exhibitionism are crimes, are mostly committed by men against women, and are pretty damn relevant to spaces where people get undressed. Are women who’ve been victims of revenge porn, or regularly get sent dick pics supposed to trust that men in their changing rooms have no bad intentions?
People are arguing that there is nothing stopping predators entering now, that bathroom and changing room doors are not locked. But I do think having a private space where it is taboo for men to enter decreases the opportunity for crimes. Houses are still burgled despite being locked, but no one thinks that means locking the door is pointless. Same with other types of precautions.
Back when transexuals were rare, needed a formal diagnosis, and generally tried to dress and fit in as the sex they believed themselves to be, it didn’t seem like a problem. Now that we have people arguing for self-ID, regardless of biology, presentation, or lifestyle, it seems like a much bigger issue.
I’m not totally sold on the idea that allowing self-definition of sex is going to harm women, but I am pretty angry about the way anyone disagreeing with the preferred narrative is being treated. I was already concerned about the number of young people being diagnosed, but I was pretty much in favour of trans rights. However, the more I read about the issue the less sure I am. The fact that anyone asking about risks is met not with facts but with platitudes and dismissal, and anyone who opposes the changes is accused of transphobia is not encouraging.
That’s quite a big assumption, don’t you think? You don’t think we have gender segregation restrooms/changing rooms for reasons besides controlling violent crime?
I’m no historian or feminist scholar, but I don’t think gender restricted settings are the result of female fear of rape. I suspect they result from old-fashioned mores tied to male fear. Specifically male fear of female adultery. “If my wife is going to be out in public without my constant supervision, I need to know that she’s not whoring around.” If you’re an old-fashioned person, seeing your wife exit a public toilet right after a strange man exits probably isn’t going to sit right with you.
But of course, the “need” for women’s rooms is reinforced by reminders of rape. Everyone was supposed to be afraid of black men raping all the white women too. The fear of rape is a powerful control mechanism.
You know what’s weird? Thirty years ago, there were straight women who were fearful over lesbians attacking them. Roving mobs of raping lesbians haven’t emerged, last time I checked. Now, I think it is very possible that the removal of gender segregated restrooms/changing rooms will result in awkward situations as well as isolated acts of violence and sexual perversion that wouldn’t have otherwise occurred. But I don’t think we should be afraid to change the status quo just because the outcomes of a particular change won’t be 100% rainbows and lollipops for every single person all the time. All that matters is whether the costs are outweighed by the benefits.
When disingenuous people pointed out to the BLM protestors that way more black people are killed by other black people than by the police, I bet you recognised it for the diversionary tactic it was.
You like to throw numbers around, but you haven’t come up with the number of male prison guards to compare risk. Why not?
The BBC article gave the percentage of general prisoners in jail for a sexual offence, and it was much lower. The number in a women’s prison is going to be much lower still.
As for the case in Argentina, I couldn’t find another source in English. But it shows there are men who will claim to be women to gain advantages for themselves.
Okay, so you think 54 academics are lying. Were you just as supportive of cancel culture when it was being used against black and gay people, as per Pantastic’s comments?
…the fact that you’ve bought BLM into this conversation is by itself a diversionary tactic from you and an obvious one. You completely glossed over amount of sexual assault happening in prisons to put the focus on “several” alleged cases of sexual assault by transwomen in prisons. But those “several” cases turns out to be only a single confirmed case (and one alleged case that may still be in progress) in eight years: a case that the Ministry of Justice accepts that they got wrong.
Transwomen in prison are significantly more likely to be assaulted: 11 cases in one year alone. Women prisoners are much more at risk from prison guards than they are from transwomen. This isn’t about transwomen. Its about sexual predators. Karen White was a sexual predator and should never have been put in the position where they could have harmed others.
Two things.
You never asked.
I’m not your monkey. I’m not obligated to answer questions (that you didn’t ask) and if you really want to know google is a tab away, you can look it up for yourself. If you want to make a point then make that point: don’t expect me to make it for you.
I hope that you understand the ramifications of the direction your argument is heading here. Do you think we should be making determinations on what to do with transwomen in prison based on the proportion that have been convicted of a particular crime? Should we be doing the same for black people? For indigenous people? Why does the percentage matter here, and shouldn’t we just be focused on the crime, and not their status as transwomen?
Oh. What a surprise. You couldn’t find another source. How unexpected.
That cite was worthless. The website wears its bias openly. It focuses on the fact that Fernández is transgender and glosses over the fact (as did you) that “Fernández savagely beat the woman when he learned that she was pregnant,” “11 women attested to witnessing the attack”, and “after the discovery, a judge released Fernández from custody, determining that they was eligible for parole”. If true, then this is the real story here.
Strawman. I didn’t claim the “54 academics were lying.” You made the claim that these 54 academics who were literally published in a left-leaning “woke” publication were at risk of getting “shouted down.” Here’s Kathleen Stock, the first name on the list. She has nearly 30,000 twitter followers. Here she is openly expressing her views. The worst example of possible harassment in that thread is someone calling her transphobic.
I’m not claiming that the academics on the list aren’t getting harassed. But they certainly are not “getting cancelled.” And they are not getting “shouted down” any more than what happens to people that hold equally polarising yet opposite views. They got published in the Guardian for goodness sakes.
I don’t disagree with JKR at all. Of course sex is real. It’s wrong to refer to women as “menstruators” as an attempt to disconnect our unique biological functions from our sex class. We don’t even refer to animals with terms like that. It shouldn’t be controversial to say women are adult human females, and that females are equipped with a reproductive system that makes periods and giving birth exclusive to them. Men are adult human males. Where is the hate, ignorance, or backwardness in any of these viewpoints?
I’m extremely disturbed by the amount of abuse directed at JKR because of these “controversial” views of hers. In the last two weeks, she has been threatened with “girldick” rape, battery, and murder, and people have lobbed TERF and transphobe at her without even revealing even the smallest understanding of her concerns. The flood of abuse has continued even after she talked about being a past victim of domestic abuse. If women were afraid of transwomen being in their restrooms and locker rooms before, I’m not sure how it helps seeing transwomen (and their male allies) threaten violence against JKR for advocating for women.
After exploring my own feelings on this topic for the last few months, I can’t side with any movement that relies on beliefs as anti-scientific as those comprising gender ideology. I don’t believe men have the inalienable right to claim womanhood just by declaring themselves women. I don’t believe acting in a feminine way or liking feminine things makes you a woman. I don’t believe men should compete in women’s athletics, even if they’ve taken estrogen or had bottom surgery. I believe “girl dick” is a oxymoron, and I believe lesbians shouldn’t have to be pressured into accepting “girl dicks” in their bedroom lest they be branded TERFs. I don’t believe a straight man should be called a lesbian simply because he identifies as a woman. I don’t believe any of this makes any sense, and I’m tired of pretending like it does.
I’m already prepared to be called names. I know I will be called a TERF. I don’t care. If believing that males are not entitled to be called females and given access to women restrooms, locker rooms, dorm rooms, prisons, rape shelters, and sports, then I guess I’m a TERF then.
Women make up more than half the population and JKR has seen a groundswell of support from them. All of her books at the top of the charts on Amazon. She will be fine.
What defines a woman? If your definition is something other than this one, can you explain how it isn’t either circular, reliant on stereotypes, or excludes some subset of people who are actual biological female? Women have a valid reason to be concerned about redefining their sex-gender category so that it affirms ideas that historically have been used to oppress and limit us.
I’ve actually seen transwomen say “anyone who plays the social role traditionally associated with the female gender is a woman”. Okay, so does this mean female combat soldiers who are the primary breadwinner of their households and don’t wear make up aren’t actually women? What about men who are stay at home fathers and enjoy baking and knitting…are they women?
I don’t like being referred to as an menstruator, and I don’t know why it’s wrong or illogical for me to have a negative opinion about a term being used to refer to me. You have the right to accept it if it doesn’t bother you, but can you respect the fact that others see it as objectifying and dehumanizing? For no other biological function do we speak like this.
“People who menstruate” is less bothersome, but it still smacks of politicizing a concept that shouldn’t be politicized. Women menstruate, because only women have the ability to menstruate. Girls and women in many of parts of the world suffer greatly with their periods not just because of their periods, but because they are marginalized from power and aren’t able to advocate for accommodations that allow them to be full participants in society. This gets lost if it becomes taboo to talk about sex-based oppression and womanhood.
I took from her point that without any kind of gatekeeping (hormones or surgery or therapy), there is nothing stopping any regular male sexual predator from identifying his way into women spaces. And she’s right. TWAW means we are not to question or complain if a man insists he’s a woman. That’s what self-identification allows.
It seems to me that Rowling’s reference to the use of “menstruators” was extremely misleading, if not outright dishonest.
From what I understand, the document Rowling referred to was not using “menstruators” as an alternative term for “cisgender woman.” It was a document about concerns related to menstruation and literally meant “menstruator” as someone who menstruates, intending to exclude, for example, pre-pubescent girls and post-menopausal women.
It was not being used as an attempt to “disconnect [women’s] unique biological functions from [their] sex class.”
It would be like a document relating to driving a car referring to “drivers.” It’s not dehumanizing or objectifying. It’s simply a term that is relevant to the context.
Hmm. I guess seeing it was seeing appeals like this:
that made me assume safety was a major reason, plus the fact women in Britain had to campaign for public toilets when originally facilities were only provided for men. Those Victorian women didn’t campaign to use men’s toilets, and I’m pretty sure women in India wouldn’t go near a unisex facility, but that isn’t necessarily due to fear of violence.
But, I didn’t mean only violent crime anyway. #MeToo shows how common sexual harassment has been and still is, so it’s a little strange that we are seeing a move towards mixed gender bathrooms now.
The roving mobs of raping lesbians does seem pretty silly - and I haven’t seem too many complaints of women receiving unwelcome pussy pics from lesbians, or being catcalled by them, either. You’re right though, what matters is whether the costs outweigh the benefits - but to determine that we need to know what the costs and benefits are, not assume there are no costs or that anyone who objects is a transphobe or just annoyed at having to think about other people. And whichever way it goes, I don’t think transwomen should be forced to use men’s toilets and changing rooms. Businesses, schools etc should be required to provide suitable facilities, even if it’s eg a separate room for changing.
What do you think of this article about the toilet issue?
Exactly. And there’s nothing to stop any unscrupulous and ambitious man from identifying himself onto all women shortlists, or into awards for women, or into any other position supposed to be reserved for women, without having suffered any of the disadvantages of being female or having any personal experience of issues affecting women. Even genuine transwomen can’t and don’t have all the same experiences as natal women, which makes them applying for and taking positions like Woman’s Officer somewhat problematic.
You with the face, are you the sister monstro mentioned, by any chance?
You don’t see the difference in the risk level associated with being alone in a secluded outdoor area in the middle of the night and the risk level associated with being in a public indoor restroom in a public facility (where presumably other people are)? I mean, yeah, women will get attacked if they are alone by themselves in a secluded area where there are no police officers or security guards or survelliance cameras. This is not the situation your typical Westerner finds herself in though when it comes to toileting.
Personally, I’m fine with unisex restrooms. I think the whole stall concept keeps down on genitalia-induced anxiety. I also have no problem with maintaining existing gender-segregated facilities but not making a big deal if individuals cross the line. Which is pretty much what we have now, if you think about it.
OK, but not all natal women have the same experiences. We have the experience of being fully immersed in femalehood/womanhood for our entire lives (and I don’t that is a piddly thing at all), but there’s a lot of diversity contained in that experience. Some of us don’t menstruate. Some of us have never been sexually harrassed or discriminated against based on our gender. Some of us don’t experience motherhood. Some of us can’t relate at all the idea of a unifying “women experience”.
Perhaps it seems that way to you because you haven’t been paying attention to the language trends JKR are broadly concerned about; she talked more about this in her follow-up essay (did you read it?). Consider the possibility that it’s your biased ignorance—not her “outright dishonesty”—that explains why you’ve judged her in this way.
Then do a little reading. There is a concerted effort to make “menstruators” athing.
“Women who menstruate” works just fine then, just as it always has. Girls have understood for millennia that the word “woman” covers them in the context of periods and other markers of female reproductive maturity. Post-menopausal women also have the capacity to see nuance. It’s really daft to think this issue has anything to with with excluding girls and elderly women, rather than uncoupling female biological functions from the word woman.
Driving is not a biological function exclusive to one sex, so try another analogy. Have you ever seen men non-ironically referred to as “ejaculators”, “insemminators”, or “penis-havers”?
You’re missing part of the point here. “Women who menstruate” excludes transmen who still have the biological parts that trigger menstruation. They are not “women who menstruate” – they are “people who menstruate.” The article that set Rowling off was speaking specifically about “people who menstruate” because it was about … wait for it … menstruation.
Can you point me to where in her essay she says this? I’ve read this multiple times and this is the closest that comes to it.
So first, she’s not talking about gender non-conformity. She’s talking about an epidemic of girls transitioning due to belief in gender ideology.
Secondly, she brings up the fact that at least once scientist has noticed the same trend.
Why should these concerns be dismissed out of hand? I fully admit that my field of expertise lies elsewhere. But if JKR and the scientific community are seeing a trend in girls deciding they don’t want to be girls anymore, I don’t think this should be scoffed at.
Okay so can show where the problematic parts of her essay are? I admit I haven’t read every post in this thread but it does stand to me out that few people are actually quoting directly from it. Here’s the essay.
“Transitioning due to a belief in gender ideology,” would generally be considered an example of gender non-comformity.
It’s also worth noting the actual numbers that “4400%” increase in girls seeking to transition represents. In 2009, there were 40 girls referred by NHS doctors for treatment for gender issues. In 2017, there were 1800.
Truly an epidemic.
That’s a hell of a leap from “at least one scientist” to “the scientific community.”
Anyway, it turns out, that one scientist was full of shit.
I think that arguing for the limitation of a minority group’s rights based on distorted data and a single, long debunked “study” is pretty problematic.
I want to thank you for not being afraid to express disagreement with the prevailing view in this thread. I agree with everything you’ve said. Perhaps not even a year ago would I have felt confident enough to say this, but I’m confident now.
There is a dearth of critical thinking occurring right now and it’s not just irrational. It’s toxic. People have replaced ideology with common sense and are attacking those who refuse to do the same thing. The only reason JKR feels it is necessary to state the Captain Obvious fact that sex is real is because self-declared gender identities are being given more weight and meaning than biological reality right now. And this is literally insane.
I doubt anyone can answer this question satisfactorily: what definition of woman covers an adult human female and this adult human male? What criteria allows Alex Barker to be housed with female prisoners and referred to as one, but not some other male who also thinks it would be nice to have female bunk mates and switch out pronouns? Is it because Alex is a gay male that we’re supposed to accept them as woman? If so, isn’t this homophobic ? Regressive as hell? Gay men are as much men as straight men and have fought hard to have this respected. Now we don’t care about the message certain things send anymore?
When self-identification allows members of the privileged class to appropriate the identity of any group that has been historically marginalized and oppressed, it hurts those groups. This includes women and homosexuals.