The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[repoman]

I never went to this subreddit, so I don't know if it had earnest or false flag offensive posts about transgender people.

 

[ruby sparks]

JK Rowling and Salman Rushdie strike back, sort of;

Some 150 writers, academics and activists - including authors JK Rowling, Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood - have signed an open letter denouncing the "restriction of debate". They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate. The letter denounces "a vogue for public shaming and ostracism" and "a blinding moral certainty". Several signatories have been attacked for comments that caused offence. That includes Harry Potter author JK Rowling who was fiercely criticised this month for comments about transgender people.

BBC

Billy Bragg has his say;

Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order (Teh Gruaniad)

Surprisingly, Bragg supports this;

Glasgow-born children’s novelist Gillian Philip has been removed from the team that produces books under the pen-name of Erin Hunter after she tweeted #ISTANDWITHROWLING in support of the Edinburgh-based Harry Potter author.

Scotsman

Disappointed in Bragg on this one. His Twitter account is where he discusses this.

Gosh. It’s so complicated.

Personally I think it’s wrong that that Scottish author got the sack, and I think the signatories to that letter have a point. And I don’t think J K Rowling was being or is transphobic.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

JK Rowling and Salman Rushdie strike back, sort of;



BBC

Billy Bragg has his say;

Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order (Teh Gruaniad)

Surprisingly, Bragg supports this;




Scotsman

Disappointed in Bragg on this one. His Twitter account is where he discusses this.

Gosh. It’s so complicated.

Personally I think it’s wrong that that Scottish author got the sack, and I think the signatories to that letter have a point. And I don’t think J K Rowling was being or is transphobic.

I dunno. I might have agreed that she isn't in any meaningful sense at one point. Even when she liked a tweet opposing Canadian bills C-16 (human rights protections on the basis of gender identity) and C-8 (a bill largely banning conversion therapy) I thought, maybe she just gave it a like because it started with a thank you to her, and she found it validating without really looking into the contents. Likewise, the whole Stephen King thing was kinda funny and sad, but how much can you read into it.

But for a woman who kept saying how she loves transgender people (or whatever she said) she really loads the conversation heavily one way--against transgender people. And maybe that would be okay if she were presenting well-researched arguments, but it's just sort of picking and grabbing at random things of questionable validity in this continual soft case against transgender people. For any one thing, I'd be like, "Well, it's a complex subject; it's hard to capture all that on twitter," but altogether it easily strains credibility that she's not just having a passive-aggressive run at transgender people.

 

[Jarhyn]

JK Rowling and Salman Rushdie strike back, sort of;



BBC

Billy Bragg has his say;

Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order (Teh Gruaniad)

Surprisingly, Bragg supports this;




Scotsman

Disappointed in Bragg on this one. His Twitter account is where he discusses this.

Gosh. It’s so complicated.

Personally I think it’s wrong that that Scottish author got the sack, and I think the signatories to that letter have a point. And I don’t think J K Rowling was being or is transphobic.

I dunno. I might have agreed that she isn't in any meaningful sense at one point. Even when she liked a tweet opposing Canadian bills C-16 (human rights protections on the basis of gender identity) and C-8 (a bill largely banning conversion therapy) I thought, maybe she just gave it a like because it started with a thank you to her, and she found it validating without really looking into the contents. Likewise, the whole Stephen King thing was kinda funny and sad, but how much can you read into it.

But for a women who kept saying how she loves transgender people (or whatever she said) she really loads the conversation heavily one way--against transgender people. And maybe that would be okay if she were presenting well-researched arguments, but it's just sort of picking and grabbing at random things of questionable validity in this continual soft case against transgender people. For any one thing, I'd be like, "Well, it's a complex subject; it's hard to capture all that on twitter," but altogether it easily strains credibility that she's not just having a passive-aggressive run at transgender people.

It's like some folks here. They often shy away from saying the quiet part out loud, but sometimes they say it just loud enough that you can still make it out.

Like, to me, seeing people talk about crazy trans people being bent out of shape because someone they want to fuck has a hangup with some element of sexual anatomy, has a lot in common with voter suppression tactics: instances of the behavior loudly discussed here are rare. It makes no sense to have such an outsized reaction to them unless it is using this behavior as a proxy to attack behavior that is weird but still ethical, but which you simply don't want to name for fear of its naming outing you as a bigot.

I mean it still makes no sense, but it's less vulnerable to the 'you have no right' response.

 

[ruby sparks]

JK Rowling and Salman Rushdie strike back, sort of;



BBC

Billy Bragg has his say;

Cancel culture' doesn't stifle debate, but it does challenge the old order (Teh Gruaniad)

Surprisingly, Bragg supports this;




Scotsman

Disappointed in Bragg on this one. His Twitter account is where he discusses this.

Gosh. It’s so complicated.

Personally I think it’s wrong that that Scottish author got the sack, and I think the signatories to that letter have a point. And I don’t think J K Rowling was being or is transphobic.

I dunno. I might have agreed that she isn't in any meaningful sense at one point. Even when she liked a tweet opposing Canadian bills C-16 (human rights protections on the basis of gender identity) and C-8 (a bill largely banning conversion therapy) I thought, maybe she just gave it a like because it started with a thank you to her, and she found it validating without really looking into the contents. Likewise, the whole Stephen King thing was kinda funny and sad, but how much can you read into it.

But for a woman who kept saying how she loves transgender people (or whatever she said) she really loads the conversation heavily one way--against transgender people. And maybe that would be okay if she were presenting well-researched arguments, but it's just sort of picking and grabbing at random things of questionable validity in this continual soft case against transgender people. For any one thing, I'd be like, "Well, it's a complex subject; it's hard to capture all that on twitter," but altogether it easily strains credibility that she's not just having a passive-aggressive run at transgender people.

Ok, yeah. I largely agree. But, transphobia specifically, as in a phobia? That's what I'm not seeing.

As to how much she is for or against, as you say it's hard to say, but personally I would be watching from now on, so I'd be at least a bit suspicious, just in case.

Also, she's a woman (by which I mean a cis woman) and she only has one child, a daughter, now 27 I think. So, it would be no surprise if her heart lay in women's issues (some studies suggest that the sex of a woman's children influences their gender political leanings) so it could be that she's just conflicted between on the one hand the cause of trans gender women (with whom she genuinely sympathises), and on the other, cis women (ie herself and her kin), and can't find a way to reconcile the two without putting her foot in it, by in the end coming down on what is for her the home side (of the fence).

I've always had a lot of time for Rowling, for a variety of reasons, not least that she had a fairly hard life before becoming successful (she apparently suffered parter abuse and severe depression etc) but also how after all that she turned her life around and became a successful (woman) author. I don't know her personally however, so she could be very prejudiced about some things. But all in all, I haven't seen enough to conclude that, and I think there's a bit of an over-reaction to what she said recently.

As an aside, if her child was a trans man (or she had another child who was a trans woman) she might have different views. It's an odd thing in some ways, but not odd at all in others, that people can see things differently when it directly affects them or their family, when the dna chips are down as it were. How many people here who say they won't be (or object to being) forced to call a trans woman 'she' would stick to that if it was their own child? It's the sort of thing that might even make Jordan Peterson think twice. And I think it's quite a good litmus test.

 

[ruby sparks]

"...studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria."

"The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment".

Both of those comments are from J K Rowling's article on her own blog:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/...ns-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

If (a) those figures were accurate and (b) the reasons for the figures were the ones Rowling thinks they are, then she may have raised some legitimate issues.

The latter figure does seem to be evidenced (a rise from 40 referrals in 2010 to 1800 in 2018) but could be at least partly explained by treatments becoming widely available during those years.

I don't know what studies she is referring to for the former, and can't find any, but the rates of surgical detransitioning specifically (not the same thing that she refers to) seem to only be about 2% and possibly less, and even then a lot of the reasons given are to do with things other than the person experiencing a gender identity change/reversal (unsuccessful surgery is one example, hostile reactions from others and/or a lack of familial support are others).

If it were in fact the case that 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens grow out of their dysphoria, that would be potentially quite, possibly very, significant.

 

[Metaphor]

"...studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria."

"The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment".

Both of those comments are from J K Rowling's article on her own blog:

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/...ns-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

If (a) those figures were accurate and (b) the reasons for the figures were the ones Rowling thinks they are, then she may have raised some legitimate issues.

The latter figure does seem to be evidenced (a rise from 40 referrals in 2010 to 1800 in 2018) but could be at least partly explained by treatments becoming widely available during those years.

I don't know what studies she is referring to for the former, and can't find any, but the rates of surgical detransitioning specifically (not the same thing that she refers to) seem to only be about 2% and possibly less, and even then a lot of the reasons given are to do with things other than the person experiencing a gender identity change/reversal (unsuccessful surgery is one example, hostile reactions from others and/or a lack of familial support are others).

If it were in fact the case that 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens grow out of their dysphoria, that would be potentially quite, possibly very, significant.

We don't know how many people detransition or how many people grow out of gender dysphoria, because the trans activist lobby has decided that these subjects are verboten. Witness the reddit closure of the detransition subreddit.

The evidence we do have is that some teenagers who are gay or lesbian (especially lesbians) with gender-nonconforming behaviour are being misdiagnosed as trans. It's one thing for the trans activist community to advocate "gender-affirming" responses to any utterance by a teenager; it's quite another to deny and deplatform detransitioners.

 

[ruby sparks]

Yeah, I didn’t understand repoman’s post, because I am unfamiliar (even with reddit in general). But if a discussion on detransitioning, involving participating detransitioners, was shut down for not good reasons (and none of us seems to know what the reasons were) that’d be a bit concerning.

This whole topic is so complicated, it seems.

I would very much like to see the studies (plural) that Rowling is referring to, that she says ‘have consistently shown’ that most teens grow out of their gender dysphoria. At this point, I’m sceptical about it.

 

[ruby sparks]

We don't know how many people detransition or how many people grow out of gender dysphoria.....

According to J K Rowling, the latter is not the case. She says there are studies which consistently show that as regards teenagers, it’s the majority who ‘grow out of it’. Quite a claim, and not made off the cuff, but after reflection. If correct, such studies should be available.

The evidence we do have is that some teenagers who are gay or lesbian (especially lesbians) with gender-nonconforming behaviour are being misdiagnosed as trans.

Please provide.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

We don't know how many people detransition or how many people grow out of gender dysphoria.....

According to J K Rowling, the latter is not the case. She says there are studies which consistently show that as regards teenagers, it’s the majority who ‘grow out of it’. Quite a claim, and not made off the cuff, but after reflection. If correct, such studies should be available.

If I had to guess, one of the studies she is referencing is Steensma's 2013 study. It's often used to show a very high desistance rate, but even the author doesn't agree it can be used that way. Common criticisms are the article is that a large percentage (30%) of the children involved in the study did not meet the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis. Another criticism is that 22% of parents with children in the study never responded too the follow-up survey asking basically if the children had desisted or not.

This article is often used to cite desistance rates, but even Steensma doesn't stand by that. He says it wasn't designed to show desistance rates and that it would be wrong to use it that way. The study was designed to find predictors of persistence. Kristina Olson out of University of Washington is running a longitudinal study which as similar preliminary findings that there are predictors of which youth will go on to transition.

Another issue, perhaps not so much with a study like Steensma's (which isn't that old) but with older sources of desistance rates such as Blanchard's work, is that there was no long term follow-up. Under Blanchard's methods, I likely would have desisted. I mean, I did so even without him. I never stopped being transgender--I just felt immense social pressure to uphold gender norms. It's not an uncommon narrative amongst older transitioners: I knew at a young age; I buried that shit deep down inside. Those anecdotes themselves aren't science, but they do raise the important questions of why some desist only to transition later in life, and how typical this pattern is.

The problem with detransition narratives is not detransition itself. These are important stories. I am highly sympathetic with anyone who begins transition and then realizes it is wrong for them. I basically went through a very similar experience myself and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. There are some social aspects to detransition specifically that I would think are really hard in themselves. It deserves its own spotlight in the conversation of best practices for accurate diagnosis.

The problem is these stories get weaponized for political purposes. Conversations on providing the best standards of care possible for transgender youth get sidelined with anecdotal detransition stories, and they tend not to be raised by detransitioners themselves, but by people going 'See! See! You're abusing children.'

In Rowling's case, it's coming off a lot like concern trolling right now.

 

[ruby sparks]

Thanks.

I’m not seeing trolling, or transphobia, or TERF for that matter, with Rowling. But it’s easier more me to say that than for you, because I’m unaffected.

She may well be wrong however, or misguided (although it seems hard to tell, because there doesn’t seem to be clear or agreed understandings of the relevant facts) and indeed I’m not ruling something more prejudiced or malicious out, but to me there’s not enough to suggest it.

I agree with what you say about commentators who either (a) don’t have the welfare of trans gender persons at heart or (b) Somehow manage to overlook, or at least understate, the social and personal difficulties of being trans gender (which seem to me to be a much bigger problem than the perceived threat to society of some of them asking for or expecting too much) ‘weaponising’ it or at least politicising the issue unnecessarily and possibly dubiously.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Thanks.

I’m not seeing trolling, or transphobia, or TERF for that matter, with Rowling. But it’s easier more me to say that than for you, because I’m unaffected.

I care less about the second two than the first. Despite use of the word 'trolling', I'm not talking about internet trolls. 'Concern trolling' is just the term that stuck for a pattern of behaviour. It describes a person who poses as an ally who just has a few concerns, but ultimately only ever acts as a critic. The problem with Rowling is not that she is being critical, even; it's that she's presenting uncritical narratives to complex scenarios which consistently paint transgender rights and people in a negative light.

Caveat, what I am writing below is for the sake of brevity rather than an attempt to slice out any nuance from anything she's said. I'm just describing, in broad strokes, a pattern of behaviour.

Article about people who mensturate.

Rowling: What about women? Don't erase us.

The article wasn't erasing women. It was...

Rowling: What about lesbians bullied by transgender people? I mean, I love transgender people, but what about the lesbians?

Okay, we can get into that, but what does this have to with...

Rowling: I was sexually assaulted. Some women are scared transgender rights allows men in their spaces.

Statistically, bathrooms and change rooms aren't likely...

Rowling: I'm just concerned that hrt and transition is basically a new form of conversion therapy for gay youth.


The pattern I am talking about here is the more Rowling is under fire, the more she will just keep jumping to topics which are critical of transgender rights or transgender people. She doesn't seem to stick around to engage with those who are presenting actual rebuttals or offering genuine dialogue (as opposed to vitriol or disdain). She doesn't add depth or balance, or well-researched and well-supported argument to what are very complex and sensitive topics. She talks about her good will toward transgender people, but there are few to no places she actually shows any understanding of the issues transgender people face in these same scenarios where she is being critical.

The pattern betrays bias. She does not come across as someone arguing in good faith.

 

[Bomb#20]

Thanks.

I’m not seeing trolling, or transphobia, or TERF for that matter, with Rowling. But it’s easier more me to say that than for you, because I’m unaffected.

I care less about the second two than the first. Despite use of the word 'trolling', I'm not talking about internet trolls. 'Concern trolling' is just the term that stuck for a pattern of behaviour. It describes a person who poses as an ally who just has a few concerns, but ultimately only ever acts as a critic. ...

The pattern I am talking about here is the more Rowling is under fire, the more she will just keep jumping to topics which are critical of transgender rights or transgender people. ...

The pattern betrays bias. She does not come across as someone arguing in good faith.

Um, have you considered the possibility that the pattern betrays, not bias, not trolling, not bad faith, not "posing", but defensiveness?

I don't know much about JKR specifically, but what you're describing is an entirely normal psychological reaction to being under fire. You really are some demographic's ally; you really do just have a few concerns; you bring up one of your concerns; self-appointed spokesactivists for that demographic jump down your throat branding you a bigot; and now your casual alliance and casual concerns are a lot less important to you than refuting a lot of random strangers' personal attacks on your character. So the rest of your research into the matter is focused on proving that you were right all along and that the people attacking you are the unreasonable ones. And then the spokesactivists say "See? This just proves you're a troll who only cares about attacking the demographic."

After the cops clubbed Rodney King 33 times, they explained it was because King kept moving over and over, and this proved he was resisting arrest. Did they consider the possibility that the reason he kept moving over and over was because cops were clubbing him?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Thanks.

I’m not seeing trolling, or transphobia, or TERF for that matter, with Rowling. But it’s easier more me to say that than for you, because I’m unaffected.

I care less about the second two than the first. Despite use of the word 'trolling', I'm not talking about internet trolls. 'Concern trolling' is just the term that stuck for a pattern of behaviour. It describes a person who poses as an ally who just has a few concerns, but ultimately only ever acts as a critic. ...

The pattern I am talking about here is the more Rowling is under fire, the more she will just keep jumping to topics which are critical of transgender rights or transgender people. ...

The pattern betrays bias. She does not come across as someone arguing in good faith.

Um, have you considered the possibility that the pattern betrays, not bias, not trolling, not bad faith, not "posing", but defensiveness?

Yes. It's not mutually exclusive. If I were going to make an assumption on her underlying motivations, it would be that she is being defensive more than anything at this point. Probably since her wubmin tweet was criticized. The Stephen King issue especially gives that impression, in particular. My impression is not much different than yours, although, I wouldn't keep the term 'ally'. She may have some legitimate warm and fuzzy feelings regarding transgender people, but that doesn't really amount to allyship in itself.

The reason why I don't include this in my posts is I'm not going to play thought detective with Rowling. At some point it becomes sort of condescending.

The unfortunate aspect the Rodney King analogy in this scenario is that many of the people participating in the discussion--Rowling included--are both King and the police.

 

[ruby sparks]

The pattern betrays bias. She does not come across as someone arguing in good faith.

Possibly, yes, but I'm not convinced, because there's not enough to suggest it, in my opinion.

As such, I think there's been an over-reaction to what she said.

Perhaps time will tell. I wouldn't at all mind being wrong.

Also, bias is not the same as bad faith. As an indirect analogy, a woman (or man) who has only daughters may be naturally, to some extent unwittingly sensitive to issues facing girls and women, and lean that way. Ditto for a parent who has only boys. It wouldn't so much be that they were not acting in good faith, it would just be their particular 'protectionist' sensitivities.

Btw I stand corrected on what I said earlier, about Rowling having only one child, a daughter. She has a son and two daughters.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Also, bias is not the same as bad faith.

I am not saying it is. I don't disagree with the analogy, but I can't really see it applying here in this case. It's not that I don't think Rowling doesn't have any such sensitivities regarding issues she's raised. It's that I don't see it as really accounting for the overall behaviour in any major way.

 

[ruby sparks]

Also, bias is not the same as bad faith.

I am not saying it is. I don't disagree with the analogy, but I can't really see it applying here in this case. It's not that I don't think Rowling doesn't have any such sensitivities regarding issues she's raised. It's that I don't see it as really accounting for the overall behaviour in any major way.

It wasn't a very good analogy.

I don't think that Maya Forstater should have lost her job because of the article she wrote*, and I think J K Rowling is entitled to be concerned about a woman losing her job in that manner.


* https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

Also, bias is not the same as bad faith.

I am not saying it is. I don't disagree with the analogy, but I can't really see it applying here in this case. It's not that I don't think Rowling doesn't have any such sensitivities regarding issues she's raised. It's that I don't see it as really accounting for the overall behaviour in any major way.

It wasn't a very good analogy.

I don't think that Maya Forstater should have lost her job because of the article she wrote*, and I think J K Rowling is entitled to be concerned about a woman losing her job in that manner.


* https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

Sure, but what Rowling tweeted was that she lost her job for believing sex is real, which isn't why her contract wasn't renewed and isn't why she lost her case.

For the record, I don't think they should have let her contract lapse over this. Ordinarily, if there are internal disputes about how one employee treats another, it is expected efforts are made to resolve the issue. It's not clear that there actually were any such conflicts in Forstater's case, and I suspect the organization didn't renew her contract as a way of avoidance of having to deal with such a conflict in the future.

 

[ruby sparks]

It wasn't a very good analogy.

I don't think that Maya Forstater should have lost her job because of the article she wrote*, and I think J K Rowling is entitled to be concerned about a woman losing her job in that manner.


* https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

Sure, but what Rowling tweeted was that she lost her job for believing sex is real, which isn't why her contract wasn't renewed and isn't why she lost her case.

For the record, I don't think they should have let her contract lapse over this. Ordinarily, if there are internal disputes about how one employee treats another, it is expected efforts are made to resolve the issue. It's not clear that there actually were any such conflicts in Forstater's case, and I suspect the organization didn't renew her contract as a way of avoidance of having to deal with such a conflict in the future.

To be fair, I did not know enough about the case to knowledgeably comment.

Just skimming (what I believe is) the relevant tribunal judgement here....

https://assets.publishing.service.g...l_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf

....it seems she is/was being a bit more controversial than I had assumed. Including for example saying that ‘a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality’.

Which she repeats at 4:02 in this video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ0NnEWOXv0

If she thinks that, then it would not seem that it was the proposed relaxation of requirements for getting a gender recognition certificate (removing the requirement for a diagnosis of dysphoria and allowing self-identification) that bothered her, so much as that there were ever such certificates at all.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It wasn't a very good analogy.

I don't think that Maya Forstater should have lost her job because of the article she wrote*, and I think J K Rowling is entitled to be concerned about a woman losing her job in that manner.


* https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787

Sure, but what Rowling tweeted was that she lost her job for believing sex is real, which isn't why her contract wasn't renewed and isn't why she lost her case.

For the record, I don't think they should have let her contract lapse over this. Ordinarily, if there are internal disputes about how one employee treats another, it is expected efforts are made to resolve the issue. It's not clear that there actually were any such conflicts in Forstater's case, and I suspect the organization didn't renew her contract as a way of avoidance of having to deal with such a conflict in the future.

To be fair, I did not know enough about the case to knowledgeably comment.

Just skimming (what I believe is) the relevant tribunal judgement here....

https://assets.publishing.service.g...l_Development_and_Masood_Ahmed_-_Judgment.pdf

....it seems she is/was being a bit more controversial than I had assumed. Including for example saying that ‘a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality’.

Which she repeats at 4:02 in this video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YJ0NnEWOXv0

If she thinks that, then it would not seem that it was the proposed relaxation of requirements for getting a gender recognition certificate (removing the requirement for a diagnosis of dysphoria and allowing self-identification) that bothered her, so much as that there were ever such certificates at all.

The main line in the tribunal ruling is the one about 'absolutist in her view...'. It's trying to tread the line between holding a view and acting on that view. If all she did was hold the view and state it outside of work channels, then I am sympathetic with her case, though not her views.

I hadn't seen that video before. I did skip in parts. There are a number of things I agree with in her talk. But her characterizations of transgender people are a bit nails on the chalkboard for me. And the 'freedom of association' line doesn't make a whole lot of sense.