The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[ruby sparks]

.... 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.

Nor, to me, does something else she touched on, which I think Rowling has also mentioned, and one or two posters here. I’m talking about the objection/concern that trans women are trying to crash the oppressed women’s party.

I get that there’s a point, that trans women have not had to go through what cis women have had to go through, and still do. What I don’t think is the case is that (presumably with a few exceptions, as always) trans women are trying to assert or claim those grievances as theirs (not least because they have enough of their own to deal with) but are only seeking recognition for their womanhood/femaleness because it’s quite simply really what they are, by gender.

So it feels a bit like an unfair, inaccurate, alarmist (and arguably unnecessarily protectionist) objection/concern, from what I assume are cis feminists (or if not that then just mothers of cis children). So much for solidarity, sympathy and finding common ground between those on the receiving end in different ways in this tough world.

By the way, the (mostly female) audience cheering, laughing and applauding her made me wince; the self-presuming righteousness of it, from the ‘mumsnetters’. I can only guess how much more annoying, possibly even threatening, maybe even depressing, it would feel for a trans woman watching it.

‘Absolutist’ indeed. The right word, imo.

 

[ruby sparks]

[YOUTUBE]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZiVPh12RQY[/YOUTUBE]

Well worth a watch for the full 16 minutes by anyone interested in the discussion here, imo.

I wonder if J K Rowling, or some of the cheering women in the audience for the Forstater talk posted above, have watched this video and asked themselves what they would have said, thought or done in this parenting situation. Would Maya Forstater still be insisting that a man’s internal feeling that he is a woman has no basis in material reality?

 

[repoman]

If massive concessions of women's spaces are given by lawmakers, judges or corporate policy, these will not be given back. Complete one way street.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

I honestly haven't read all of her comments on this topic. The handful I've seen... I dunno. Eye of the beholder perhaps. They didn't strike me as being against transpeople, so much as they were for protections for female people. Without having seem a lot more of her comments, my impression is that her position doesn't seem to be really any different than mine.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

How rare is rare enough to be ignored? I mean, there are a fair number of lesbians who are really unhappy with how they are treated by transwomen and transallies. Enough so that in the UK, there's a push to remove the "L" from "LGBTQ" and go form their own group.

Yes, I'm sure it's bad actors being jerks, and doesn't represent the behavior of all transwomen. But it also comes hand in hand with those lesbians being labeled as bigots and being harassed for not wanting to have sex with people who have penises. And I suspect that the retributive mistreatment and harassment has a lot more to do with lesbians being unhappy than the fact that someone with a penis wanted to have sex with them and was displeased when they said no.

I will also note that you're objecting to the transwomen who get angry being called "crazy"... while simultaneously describing lesbians as having a "hangup" with sexual anatomy. I rather suspect that lesbians view it as a bit more than some "hangup".

 

[Emily Lake]

As a general comment, I have a lot more of a problem with a set of behaviors that shows up frequently with respect to transactivists, than to transpeople or even allies at all. And that behavior isn't limited to trans issues either, it's becoming very widespread. It just happens to intersect here in a way that makes it very obvious and grating to me.

That behavior is the "with us or against us" kind of perspective, paired with fairly extreme labeling, harassment, and cancelling/othering actions. I see it in other things, it just happens that this is an issue that involves two sides that I have a stake in, and where I myself have some internal conflict. I get shit from transallies on the one hand, for having reservations about high school locker rooms, sports, etc. And I get shit from the anti-trans folks on the other side for not caring about bathrooms and being supportive of appropriate gendering and treatment. I'm thankful that people here are, for the most part, not as big on harassment and labelling.

So basically, if people on the internet (elsewhere) were less frequently extremist jerks, there'd be a lot more progress and a lot less anger on this topic, imo.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So basically, if people on the internet (elsewhere) were less frequently extremist jerks, there'd be a lot more progress and a lot less anger on this topic, imo.

That's true of ANY topic and is a direct product of the medium, more so than the message. Social media platforms--as a fundamental quality of the medium--only send the most extreme thoughts "viral." It's not just a picture of a puppy; it's the cutest picture of a puppy ever. It's not just a video of some kid riding a bike; it's the kid who goes too fast and wipes out face first with his balls slammed at the end by the bike. Etc.

Mainstream news outlets were plagued with the "yellow journalism" sensationalism approach most often encapsulated in the "if it bleeds, it ledes" maxim. Social media exponentially expounds on that and it means the radical fringe--that used to be rightfully ignored by responsible journalists--is now the first thing that hits everyone in the face when they log on.

This is precisely why social media is so dangerous. People either don't know, or keep forgetting that the loudest noise is not necessarily indicative of majority thoughts or beliefs.

If only McLuhan were alive today, he'd say, "I told you so" and then blow his brains out.

 

[Emily Lake]

So basically, if people on the internet (elsewhere) were less frequently extremist jerks, there'd be a lot more progress and a lot less anger on this topic, imo.

That's true of ANY topic and is a direct product of the medium, more so than the message. Social media platforms--as a fundamental quality of the medium--only send the most extreme thoughts "viral." It's not just a picture of a puppy; it's the cutest picture of a puppy ever. It's not just a video of some kid riding a bike; it's the kid who goes too fast and wipes out face first with his balls slammed at the end by the bike. Etc.

Mainstream news outlets were plagued with the "yellow journalism" sensationalism approach most often encapsulated in the "if it bleeds, it ledes" maxim. Social media exponentially expounds on that and it means the radical fringe--that used to be rightfully ignored by responsible journalists--is now the first thing that hits everyone in the face when they log on.

This is precisely why social media is so dangerous. People either don't know, or keep forgetting that the loudest noise is not necessarily indicative of majority thoughts or beliefs.

If only McLuhan were alive today, he'd say, "I told you so" and then blow his brains out.

I agree with this 100%.

 

[ruby sparks]

The wider issue cuts both ways and it can useful to look at the other side of it. For example, social media here are saying that this teenager was recently caught using the men's toilets in a bar during a night out. I'm not sure if she was wearing that outfit or not at the time, possibly not, but it could easily have been something as revealing. So, is that not as much of an issue as some of the things we have been discussing here, and if not, why not?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

View attachment 28556
For example, social media here are reporting that this teenager was recently caught using the men's toilets in a bar during a night out.

Link?

 

[ZiprHead]

View attachment 28556
The wider issue cuts both ways and it can useful to look at the other side of it. For example, social media here are saying that this teenager was recently caught using the men's toilets in a bar during a night out. I'm not sure if she was wearing that outfit or not at the time, possibly not, but it could easily have been something as revealing. So, is that not as much of an issue as some of the things we have been discussing here, and if not, why not?

I thought it was not uncommon to see women using men's rooms at sporting events because the women's rooms were full.

 

[ruby sparks]

I thought it was not uncommon to see women using men's rooms at sporting events because the women's rooms were full.

Can you cite the locations of the sporting events you are talking about?

(So that I might try to get to them and hang out in the men's toilets).




Seriously though, you may be right, though I've not seen it, as far as I can recall. Don't get out much these days, to be fair.

I suppose the point is, is it ok?

 

[Keith&Co.]

I thought it was not uncommon to see women using men's rooms at sporting events because the women's rooms were full.

Can you cite the locations of the sporting events you are talking about?

i had heard that, too.
I have stood guard outside a mens room so my mom could use it at a county fair.
i had just been yelled at for telling a caller she was using the toilet, so i told the two men who came up that my mom was cleaning the restroom. They didn't look back.

 

[ruby sparks]

....so i told the two men who came up that my mom was cleaning the restroom. They didn't look back.

Very believable. It being a woman's work and all.

Which begs the tricky question, could trans women at least be allowed to go into women's toilets to clean them? I guess not. It could literally be a slippery slope.

 

[Metaphor]

I thought it was not uncommon to see women using men's rooms at sporting events because the women's rooms were full.

Can you cite the locations of the sporting events you are talking about?

i had heard that, too.
I have stood guard outside a mens room so my mom could use it at a county fair.
i had just been yelled at for telling a caller she was using the toilet, so i told the two men who came up that my mom was cleaning the restroom. They didn't look back.

Your mother didn't want biological males using the toilet while she was in it?

What a transphobe.

 

[Metaphor]

....so i told the two men who came up that my mom was cleaning the restroom. They didn't look back.

Very believable. It being a woman's work and all.

Which begs the tricky question, could trans women at least be allowed to go into women's toilets to clean them? I guess not. It could literally be a slippery slope.

At work, whoever cleans the toilets cleans them when they are unoccupied and there is a sign indicating that the toilets are being cleaned.

I've seen women doing the cleaning in the men's toilets, and I assume vice versa is also permitted.

 

[ruby sparks]

I've seen women doing the cleaning in the men's toilets, and I assume vice versa is also permitted.

Yes, but should it be allowed? And what are the rules for trans women and trans men?

 

[ruby sparks]

I've gone into men's toilets and there's been a woman cleaning them and I've just gone ahead and used the urinals, though not one that she was cleaning at the time.

 

[ruby sparks]

At least it looked like a woman. I didn't feel it was appropriate, in the circumstances, to ask her to show me what was in her panties.

 

[Metaphor]

I've seen women doing the cleaning in the men's toilets, and I assume vice versa is also permitted.

Yes, but should it be allowed? And what are the rules for trans women and trans men?

Why would there be specific rules for trans people cleaning toilets, when a person of any sex can already clean them?