The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Metaphor]

there isn't really a single quotable thing she said in this instance that can be pointed to as the 'smoking gun', it's more that to the people who are in an uproar about this, her statements are indicative of a history of saying things that aren't kowtowing to their narrative about reality and therefore rowling is evil.

Well, that's the point. I've followed multiple conversations on Facebook and on Twitter and nobody can tell me what was transphobic about Rowling's Tweets or her blog response.

 

[Politesse]

It's true that she has a history of saying shitty things on the subject. This time it was an entire freaking essay, though, and very obviously meant as a political jab. It's not illegal to have shitty opinions, but it's an irresponsible thing to do when you're the very famous author of a book series that meant and still means a lot to gay and transgendered fans. Like a slap in the face from an unexpected direction. Hitting below the belt. That's why people are mad.

And to say that the people attacking her are divisive seems par for the course for conservative logic, given that she launched the first volley with clear intent. "It is so damaging to society when you defend against my attacks" is not the most convincing argument, on a schoolyard or in politics. Freedom of speech does not imply immunity from critique. Are people trying to "cancel" her? Well, boohoo. She's literally the most wealthy author of our time, I think she'll survive. She, by contrast, is trying to deny the existence of an entire oppressed minority, for no valid reason at all.

 

[J842P]

Yes, her pejorative views on this subject are most unfortunate. But we've still got the books, I guess.

But...what did Rowling say that was wrong?

She's in denial about the science of sex as well as the social reality of transgender identities, in a way that's harmful to young folks dealing with these issues.

None of that is in evidence as far as I can tell. Can you be specific?

 

[Politesse]

She's in denial about the science of sex as well as the social reality of transgender identities, in a way that's harmful to young folks dealing with these issues.

None of that is in evidence as far as I can tell. Can you be specific?

A huge part of her schtick is that sex is a pure binary, and that anyone who menstruates is a woman. This isn't science, it's bullshit politics. Similarly, she wants to pathologize trans peoples's self perception as a disorder, moreover a sort of implied conspiracy against second wave feminists. This is similarly miles away from any real scientific studies of gender, and recourse to invalidation of trans identities via Freudian nonsense leaves a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of LGBT folks as similar arguments have been used to justify legal persecution of gay and trangendered people for almost two centuries now.

 

[J842P]

She's in denial about the science of sex as well as the social reality of transgender identities, in a way that's harmful to young folks dealing with these issues.

None of that is in evidence as far as I can tell. Can you be specific?

A huge part of her schtick is that sex is a pure binary, and that anyone who menstruates is a woman. This isn't science, it's bullshit politics.

Not really, it's a pretty accurate statement. Sex is a binary, with some exceptions with respect to intersex people. But her statements weren't regarding intersex people, but rather, transgender people. Did she deny the existence of intersex people or something?

 

[Politesse]

A huge part of her schtick is that sex is a pure binary, and that anyone who menstruates is a woman. This isn't science, it's bullshit politics.

Not really, it's a pretty accurate statement. Sex is a binary, with some exceptions with respect to intersex people. But her statements weren't we the respect to intersex people, but rather, transgender people. Did she deny the existence of intersex people or something?

Her post very obviously denies that possibility. How can you twist it any other direction? Your "some exceptions" are between .5%-1% of the human population, and the two issues overlap considerably, as intersex people often find themselves embracing trans identities, a fact which under the law ought to be no one's business but their own.

 

[zorq]

I agree, her controversial tweet also denied the existence of intersex people. She gives them absolutely no consideration.

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

 

[J842P]

I agree, her controversial tweet also denied the existence of intersex people. She gives them absolutely no consideration.

‘People who menstruate.’ I’m sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?

Um, no she doesn't. She even mentions intersex people explicitly:

My interest in trans issues pre-dated Maya’s case by almost two years, during which I followed the debate around the concept of gender identity closely. I’ve met trans people, and read sundry books, blogs and articles by trans people, gender specialists, intersex people, psychologists, safeguarding experts, social workers and doctors, and followed the discourse online and in traditional media

 

[TSwizzle]

Hilarious how easily the SJW can be wound up, spending hours obsessing over it. #TeamJKRowling.

 

[Politesse]

Reading a book about trans and intersex experiences doesn't make you a better person, it makes you a shittier person. I'm sure most people who get involved in anti-trans activism at some point read a book by a trans person.

 

[Metaphor]

It's true that she has a history of saying shitty things on the subject. .

What did she say, specifically, that was 'shitty', and what made it 'shitty'?

This time it was an entire freaking essay, though, and very obviously meant as a political jab. It's not illegal to have shitty opinions, but it's an irresponsible thing to do when you're the very famous author of a book series that meant and still means a lot to gay and transgendered fans. Like a slap in the face from an unexpected direction. Hitting below the belt. That's why people are mad.

What did Rowling say in her essay that was 'shitty'?

And to say that the people attacking her are divisive seems par for the course for conservative logic, given that she launched the first volley with clear intent. "It is so damaging to society when you defend against my attacks" is not the most convincing argument, on a schoolyard or in politics. Freedom of speech does not imply immunity from critique. Are people trying to "cancel" her? Well, boohoo. She's literally the most wealthy author of our time, I think she'll survive. She, by contrast, is trying to deny the existence of an entire oppressed minority, for no valid reason at all.

In what way is she denying trans people exist? What would it even mean to say trans people do not exist?

 

[J842P]

Reading a book about trans and intersex experiences doesn't make you a better person, it makes you a shittier person. I'm sure most people who get involved in anti-trans activism at some point read a book by a trans person.

Ok... So no one claimed whether reading a book about trans/intersex people makes you a better or shittier person... I have to say, your entire post is like a case study in cognitive distortions. But anyway, again, your claim is that her post denies or doesn't allow for intersex people, which it very clearly doesn't. She specifically mentions them, and nothing in her post denies intersex people, unless you want to make the selective abstraction that merely speaking in terms of male and female denies/invalidates intersex people.

And the quote is she had talked to intersex people.

 

[Metaphor]

A huge part of her schtick is that sex is a pure binary, and that anyone who menstruates is a woman.

Sex in mammals is binary.

As for 'anyone who menstruates is a woman', is that what the accusation of her 'transphobia' turns on?

Only females menstruate. Not all females menstruate, but only females do. A woman is an adult human female, so only women and girls (who are 'juvenile' females) can menstruate.

This isn't science, it's bullshit politics.

Why isn't defining the words 'men' and 'women' on gender rather than sex not 'bullshit politics', then?

Similarly, she wants to pathologize trans peoples's self perception as a disorder, moreover a sort of implied conspiracy against second wave feminists.

Where are you getting this? Gender dysphoria is a disorder. Gender dysphoria is why trans people exist in the first place. A trans-identified person is a person whose sex does not match their gender identity.

This is similarly miles away from any real scientific studies of gender, and recourse to invalidation of trans identities via Freudian nonsense leaves a bad taste in the mouth of a lot of LGBT folks as similar arguments have been used to justify legal persecution of gay and trangendered people for almost two centuries now.

What has she said that 'invalidates' trans identities? Does uttering biological facts invalidate trans people? Why?

 

[Politesse]

Reading a book about trans and intersex experiences doesn't make you a better person, it makes you a shittier person. I'm sure most people who get involved in anti-trans activism at some point read a book by a trans person.

Ok... So no one claimed whether reading a book about trans/intersex people makes you a better or shittier person... I have to say, your entire post is like a case study in cognitive distortions. But anyway, again, your claim is that her post denies or doesn't allow for intersex people, which it very clearly doesn't. She specifically mentions them, and nothing in her post denies intersex people, unless you want to make the selective abstraction that merely speaking in terms of male and female denies/invalidates intersex people.

And the quote is she had talked to intersex people.

Then saying "people who mestruate" is a different thing than saying "women", and she should know better.

 

[Politesse]

Have you people even read the essay?

She's very clear about championing the TERF cause, it's not ambiguous or something.

 

[Metaphor]

Have you people even read the essay?

I have, which is why I'm baffled by the people who think it's "transphobic" and who also claim to have read it, and yet cannot point to a single 'transphobic' sentence.

 

[J842P]

Reading a book about trans and intersex experiences doesn't make you a better person, it makes you a shittier person. I'm sure most people who get involved in anti-trans activism at some point read a book by a trans person.

Ok... So no one claimed whether reading a book about trans/intersex people makes you a better or shittier person... I have to say, your entire post is like a case study in cognitive distortions. But anyway, again, your claim is that her post denies or doesn't allow for intersex people, which it very clearly doesn't. She specifically mentions them, and nothing in her post denies intersex people, unless you want to make the selective abstraction that merely speaking in terms of male and female denies/invalidates intersex people.

And the quote is she had talked to intersex people.

Then saying "people who mestruate" is a different thing than saying "women", and she should know better.

It's the same thing as saying "females". Which is synonymous with women. That's why trans women are called trans women. Or else there would be no problem.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Is there a link to the essay?

 

[J842P]

Have you people even read the essay?

She's very clear about championing the TERF cause, it's not ambiguous or something.

Ah, so your problems with her are political not scientific. I'm glad we cleared that up.

 

[J842P]

Is there a link to the essay?

Yes, in the OP