J K Rowling and the trans furore

In My Humble Opinion
162

Where does “I understand that you claim an “X” identity and I will refer to you by the pronouns you want me to use, but personally I don’t see you as a member of X gender?” fall on the hateful/transphobic spectrum?

Like, if I were looking for a roommate (not to share my apartment, but to share my bedroom), it would be important to me to find someone who I feel belongs to my gender. I know the ad I’d put on craigslist would be explicit with respect to my gender preference. I’m not even sure I can even articulate why this would be important to me. I just know I’m not interested in sharing my bedroom with a dude, despite not having problems with dudes in general.

If someone who resembles a dude* came knocking on my door and said to me, “I’m a biological male, but I am a woman. Can I please be considered?” I would probably go through the motions of interviewing this person. I’d be curious what the deal is, but I wouldn’t pry. I’ll be honest, though. I probably won’t pick them to be my roommate unless they tell me they are fixing to get on hormones, at a bare minimum. My concept of gender involves biology. Not necessarily natal biology, but still some biology. If the dude-looking male told me that they weren’t going to take female hormones or get surgery, then I would really feel like I was dealing with a dude. And like I said, I wouldn’t want to share a bedroom with a dude.

But that’s me. I know there are other folks for whom hormones aren’t enough to switch gender. So they would never see the male-presenting biological male as a “woman”. I am not ready to call those people “hateful”. Because it seems to me they just have a definition of gender that rests on the kind of private parts a person is born with. Which to me is perfectly understandable, since that is how 99.9% of humanity has defined gender since the beginning of time.

*Looking like a dude = there are not enough clues in their visual presentation to make people naturally go to feminine pronouns when they see them. If people automatically refer to you by male pronouns and describe you as “man” or “guy” when they see you, then you are “male-presenting”, in my book. A person wearing feminine clothing with some facial stubble would not be "male-presenting’ in my book. For such a person, their presentation is ambiguous enough such that male pronouns wouldn’t be the default, at least for me.

163

Second hit on google for ‘genderless prisons’: British prisons must now recognise gender fluid and non-binary inmates

I don’t really understand the philosophical objection to gatekeeping. We don’t allow people to diagnose themselves with bipolar disorder or gallbladder disease and prescribe themselves drugs or surgery. We require people who apply for benefits to prove they are entitled to them. I don’t know if scholarships for African American students require any proof, but most people would take a dim view of white students declaring themselves black in order to qualify. I’m not sure why all-women shortlists or awards should be any different.

164

Unless it’s your contention that the blacklist would’ve completely A-OK if there hadn’t been any government pressure, then this isn’t relevant to my point.

Is that your contention?



That sentence was not imputing any views to you.



I’m not actually concerned about J.K. Rowling herself. She has more money than god. I don’t particularly care if people try to cancel her, for exactly the reason you state here.

But your assertion was about “cancel culture” with no qualifications. You were making a statement on the culture: “Cancel culture is nothing but consequences for things you say and do. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences.”

As phrased, this is an absolutist statement. My point was that this society carves out specific exceptions to this.

But now you have already clarified that you agree entirely with this. You have specifically agreed with the carving out of certain exceptions. Your basis for making an exception is “power dynamics”. And that’s perfectly reasonable. That is, in fact, exactly the same tension I was talking about.

I don’t care about Rowling in particular. I care about the general culture.

So, when an internet mob convinces a firm to fire an employee? What are the power dynamics there?

It’s actually even worse than the power dynamics of a single firm firing inconvenient workers, because it nests the previous case. We have not only the firm against the employee – which you’ve already posited is lopsided against the employee, and therefore in your view the employee deserves protection from consequences – on top of that we have general outrage that could very easily follow the employee to other places of employment. They could lose not only their current job, with their current employer, they could potentially become unemployable as long as their name is easily searchable. What kind of firm wants the potential headache? Might as well throw that CV in the dust bin, and look for others.

I worry about the power dynamics.

No.

I just think it’s worth acknowledging that “cancel culture” is a much more complicated topic than just “speech can have consequences”. It’s deeper than that. Society creates exceptions to consequences when the rationale seems compelling.

(I don’t see how a viable exception could be carved out here. But the power dynamics are still concerning.)

165

I think you should worry about people losing their livelihoods.

The union example is still relevant here. People arguing for unionization at their jobs are exercising their free speech. But directly applying what you just said here, then you shouldn’t particularly care if people get fired for arguing in favor of unionization. I mean, you quite specifically said you care if it’s the government punishing speech, but don’t care if it’s just their employer punishing speech. Right? Is that not the case for a union firing? Should we repeal those laws protecting workers then? I mean, if you really believe that, then that’s fine. It’s consistent, which not everyone can manage.

I don’t particularly care about Rowling.

I worry about people being mobbed out of their livelihoods for almost exactly the same reason I worry about people agitating for a union being fired. I worry about the “power dynamics” in play, as it was previously described in this thread.

If we as a society carve out certain protections from the consequences of speech – not just from the government, but even from private actors – then it’s worth thinking about the underlying principle that justifies such an exception.



Is not ignoring the nuance behind an issue also “dumb”?

166

No, I would care about something like this because I think unions are good.

But I would not care if someone got fired for expressing the opinion that all their coworkers are a bunch of faggy, tranny, niggerchinkikes.

I wouldn’t want that person to be sentenced to prison for saying that. But I’m not going to shed any tears if they lose their job/fans/sponsors/friends. I’m not going to care about that person losing their livelihood, when people lose their livelihood everyday for very much less offensive acts.

“Freedom of speech” does not mean “freedom from all consequences.” It just means freedom from government persecution. Since the government isn’t doing anything to Rowling, I think it is dumb to make this a free speech thing. Call me when the government is punishing her and then I will care.

People cry about the fact that it is possible to suffer for the consequences of speech, but are strangely silent over the fact that it is possible to benefit for the consequences of speech. Rowling is losing a lot of fans over this kerfuffle, but she’s also gaining fans. It is possible that she will continue to gain fans. Seems to me that it is inconsistent and contradictory for a free speech supporter to only condemn the bad things that follow from speech.

People need to be careful what they wish for, is what I’m saying. If you don’t want to be fired for what you say, then you shouldn’t want to be hired for what you say either. Since I don’t know anyone who has that opinion, then it is hard for me to think that people weeping over someone “losing their livelihood” because of their expressed opinions just want to say whatever they want without facing natural consequences. They want to have their cake and eat it too but they don’t want to pay for it.

I’ll weep over the person who loses their livelihood over some BS like calling in sick one time without providing a doctor’s note. I can’t be outraged over someone losing their livelihood because they have repeatedly vocalized an unpopular opinion no one asked them for in the first place.

167

The term ROGD didn’t exist before Littman coined it, but surely it wouldn’t be ethical to interview anyone without explaining the purpose of the research? It’s unlikely anyone is going to want to give answers supporting a study that ‘deligitimizes their personal experiences’.

What I meant by orthodoxy is that it’s easy to look up the criteria for diagnosis online, and to get advice from people further along in the process via social media. Young people who are hoping to be validated/diagnosed and keep to access hormone treatment are likely to emphasise any symptoms that fit the diagnostic criteria and
minimise any areas where their experience differs from the norm. Not lying exactly, but not necessarily giving a full picture, either. It must be especially difficult when you’re suffering from a condition whose symptoms are entirely subjective.

You don’t believe the parents would necessarily give accurate accounts of their children’s childhood behaviour; I don’t think the teenagers would necessarily give accurate accounts of their own thoughts and behaviour, either. Memory is fallible, and it’s too easy to reinterpret events in the light of later feelings. Still, it would have been useful to get their perspective.

I’ve been looking at other research in the area, and it’s not exactly comprehensive. A lot more needs to be done, particularly looking at long term outcomes.

168

What about someone who’s fired for criticising Trump, or going on a BLM march? Still don’t care?

169

No, I don’t care. Unless those people are my loved ones–for which I’m obligated to care because I care for them.

In general, I don’t care when people get fired for showing up 30 minutes late. I don’t care when people get fired for rolling their eyes at the boss. I don’t care when people get fired for cussing out a customer. I don’t care when people get fired for making one too many mistakes. I don’t care about these scenarios despite the fact that I’ve been guilty of these acts and despite the fact that I personally wouldn’t want to be fired for committing them.

I don’t care about them because if I were an employer, I wouldn’t want someone telling me I can’t fire someone who shows up 30 minutes or who rolls their eyes at me when I chide them for it. I wouldn’t want someone telling me I can’t fire someone for cussing out a customer or for making too many mistakes. Now, maybe if I were an employer I would never fire someone for these piddly reasons. But I would still want to be able to do so.

If you told me you were fired from your job for not attending a BLM rally, I would express sympathy for you because I wouldn’t personally find that a good reason to let you go. Yet and still, I wouldn’t be in favor of banning employers from firing employees for political reasons, because I think that “political reasons” is way too big of a category. Firing someone for not going to a BLM rally isn’t the same thing as firing someone for not attending a Nazi/KKK rally. I can see no way to tailor a law so that just one of those things is forbidden. I’m very much not interested in living in a society that thinks we should try it out anyway and see what happens. So I’m fine with allowing employers to fire the person who chooses not to go to the BLM rally as long as that person is free to tell everyone and their mama to boycott that employer. That way, free speech is preserved in both directions.

170

Except for workers?

You seem to believe that workers should be protected from the consequences of their speech. Right? You care about unions, anyway. So it seems like you make an exception here.

I’m not saying this is a “wrong” exception, or anything like that. Most people believe in this exception, I would think.

I’m saying that making an exception implies a principle behind it. And if this principle exists, it can potentially apply to more than just unions. Now, different people are going to have different principles, and therefore different reasons for making an exception. HMS_Irruncible thinks there is a power dynamic at play that justifies protection from the consequences of this kind of speech. That makes perfect sense.

But different people can have different principles. What are yours?

The problem is that a sentence like this doesn’t say much of anything at all.

Almost everyone who says this doesn’t actually mean it, not in absolute form. They carve out exceptions. This is just a sound-bite, until a person specifies the rationale behind those exceptions that they personally like to carve out of this.

I’m not saying the principle doesn’t exist. I’m saying that it’s not clear from your posts what the underlying principle here is.

171

Are you suggesting that this paper is advocating that prisoners be housed without any notice being given to their gender identity or gender expression? Because I’m pretty sure that’s not their argument at all. They’re clearly aware of the risks of sexual assault posed to inmates who don’t fit neatly into traditional gender categories face. “Jordan,” the transgender man whose serving time in a women’s prison because they don’t think they’d be safe in the men’s prison, is not going to be well served by a prison institution that is completely gender blind. I’d like some clarification on what they mean by making prisons “gender neutral,” but I’m confident that they don’t mean, “Just mix everyone together, regardless of gender.”

172

I’d care, to the extent that I’d probably stop patronizing the company that did the firing. I wouldn’t support government action against the company.

173

Why would that be unethical?

These are not equivalent positions. I don’t believe that the parents would give accurate accounts of their children’s interior experience of their own gender, because that’s not something that person can determine just from outside observation. You don’t believe that transgender children would give accurate accounts of their own gender experience, because they’re liars.

174

Me believing that people should able to talk about unionize without being fired does not mean I think we need to pass a law protecting people from all political speech. One does not follow from the other.

We can pass a law that forbids workers from being retailated against by their employer for merely joining a labor union. Such a law would be very specific, so I have no worries about it being abused or misinterpreted.

But I’m not in favor of a law that forbids employers from firing employees for openly espousing unpopular opinions. I don’t think a Jew should be forced to hire a person who is known to hold Nazi rallies in his backyard. Since I don’t think a Jew should be forced to hire such a person, it makes sense for me to also believe he shouldn’t be forced to retain such a person on his staff once he is exposed as a Nazi.

My position is very consistent.

175

Sorry, I take that back - going back over your posts, you haven’t actually called them liars.

176

I never said you were being inconsistent.

I actually said the exact opposite, that you certainly had some principle in mind but that it wasn’t clear from your posts what that principle was. And then I asked – three or four different times, actually – what that principle was.

In response to which, you just repeated what you’d already said. Which is fine. You don’t have to answer.

But then I have to wonder why you replied to me in the first place, if you weren’t interested in having a conversation related to the topic I was actually talking about. “Speech has consequences.” It sure does. Unless, legally, it doesn’t. That’s what I was talking about. That’s what I was interested in, that’s what I was talking about, and that’s what you responded to. But if you’re not interested in talking about that, then maybe it would have been better to scroll down. Apparently it’s “dumb” to tease out the underlying rationales here.

But for the record, I agree with you that I don’t think there should be a law protecting all political opinions. For whatever that’s worth.

177

My “principle” is that words have an object meaning outside of our personal wishes and desires. Words don’t just mean what we want them to mean. You will not find a single lawyer who will argue in a court of law that “freedom of speech” means “you can never get cancelled based on your speech”. So when you pull the “freedom of speech” card, you are communicating something very specific. And I’ve been telling you that this card is misplaced in this particular discussion, as it has zero relevance to JK Rowling.

Now, if you want to protect workers from being retaliating against for saying “union” in the workplace, petition your lawmaker for a law that confers this protection. I will sign that petition. But you aren’t going to get that protection under the first amendment, which is what “freedom of speech” connotes to me.

Just because you don’t understand my point doesn’t mean I haven’t been communicating clearly this entire time. I have to say that I don’t understand what your point is. Why are you bringing up this topic when no one has called for JK Rowling to be legally punished for expressing herself? “Cancelling” someone is nothing like firing someone for talking about unionizing.

178

I think that’s exactly what the author means. That’s what the ‘shift in wider society towards non-gender specific services and facilities’ means. The push in recent years for unisex toilets, and unisex fitting rooms in shops. Plus the increasing prevalence of mixed-sex changing rooms (with cubicles) at leisure centres, and mixed-sex showers at swimming pools (they make me uncomfortable). The latter was due to desire to save money and cater to families, the former mostly due to the trans lobby.

179

So, when the author writes about this inmate, who is explcitly worried about what would happen to them if they were housed with the male prison population:

You think the author’s conclusion is that these concerns are unfounded, and this person should be housed with male prisoners?

180

I think the author’s conclusion is that prisons are likely to eventually become gender neutral, because that is the way the rest of society is going. That’s what the article says, after all. Why do you assume it must be a logical conclusion?

181

So you think the author isn’t advocating anything one way or the other, and is just predicting a trend?