The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[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?

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

The question is should there be rules. Would it be better. Citing the status quo doesn't help. The status quo could be cited for just about anything.

And in any case the next step is asking about general usage, not just cleaning.

For example the rather sexy (to me) young woman whose picture I posted. Do you think it's ok that she was apparently using the men's toilets?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

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.

Had the underlined not been the case, I'd have been slightly impressed and horribly horribly disappointed at the same time.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, is that not as much of an issue as some of the things we have been discussing here, and if not, why not?

Depends which issue?

With respect to safety... I think there is a difference between choosing to place oneself in a position of increased risk (a woman choosing to enter a male-space) versus someone else choosing to expose you to more perceived risk (a man entering a female space).

But like I've said, I'm not particularly concerned about public restrooms. Other people might have different opinions.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

The question is should there be rules. Would it be better.

I can't come up with any sensible reason why there should be rules about what gender is allowed to clean the facilities. Most of the time, I see the facilities staff leaving the restroom open and available if they're the same gender as that bathroom, and putting up a sign saying "closed for cleaning" if it's the opposite gender. At the end of the day, I don't really think that's necessary, other than for courtesy.

 

[ruby sparks]

With respect to safety... I think there is a difference between choosing to place oneself in a position of increased risk (a woman choosing to enter a male-space) versus someone else choosing to expose you to more perceived risk (a man entering a female space).

Yes, there are those differences.

But like I've said, I'm not particularly concerned about public restrooms. Other people might have different opinions.

Changing rooms then, or showers, where there's potentially nudity? Although not necessarily, given that some sports changing facilities I go into these days allow for modesty and have individual shower cubicles and so on, and apparently some men don't like other men seeing them in the nude. Possibly they didn't go to boarding school or something, or conversely, maybe they did. Some older ones (the changing rooms not the men) don't have individual cubicles, and then in the communal men's showers you get to see the competition, as it were; the other players. Obviously you can do that at urinals too but it's harder, by which I mean more difficult, because (a) you can't see as much and (b) it's harder (again, as in more difficult) not to get caught doing it.

As before, you can distinguish between the two versions of the scenario, man in women's facility and woman in men's.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, gay men should not be allowed in men's bathrooms or locker rooms, because they want to fuck men and therefore it's not a safe space for other men.

 

[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?

Again, link?

By the way, as you should know, that is not a teenager in the picture. According to your video, that is the picture of a 24 years old person - 8 years after surgery and after at least as many years of taking female hormones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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've seen multiple women use men's rooms. Never have I seen any noticeable reaction by anyone in the men's room, beyond "go ahead" type responses when she apologized for the intrusion.

 

[ruby sparks]

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've seen multiple women use men's rooms. Never have I seen any noticeable reaction by anyone in the men's room, beyond "go ahead" type responses when she apologized for the intrusion.

Sure, and there may be reasons for that, which have been mentioned by Emily Lake, which are not present when the reverse happens (a man using the women's toilets, or indeed showers and changing rooms, since I'm extending the scenario/question to that hypothetical also). Also, in your scenario, she apologises for an intrusion, which implies that she knows (or feels) she is doing at least a small 'wrong thing'.

But what I'm asking metaphor is whether she should be freely allowed to use the men's toilets (and showers and changing rooms) without for example apologising.

Because as far as I am aware, and to tie all this back to the OP, metaphor would, I think, say that a trans woman should not use the women's toilets/changing rooms/showers (in a given situation where there are separate facilities) because 'he is really a man' (metaphor can take the inverted commas off that if he wants to). So I am asking him about a slightly different scenario, one which is more like the reverse, someone who is really a woman using the men's facilities (hypothetically including showers and changing rooms). And if metaphor has no major issue with the latter then I'm interested in why that is.

Obviously, an overall reply and a way to avoid answering the question could be to say that he would advocate for provision of only one set of unisex toilets, changing rooms and showers for all persons, perhaps with suitable privacy arrangements (eg cubicles) but, not least because that may have its own pros and cons, pragmatically and otherwise, and would be subject to long discussion, I am simply asking him specifically about his views on the current usual situation in which there is segregation, as a way to understand his personal opinions about trans persons, perhaps especially trans women, since that is the subject of the OP. In other words, it's his views on trans I'm interested in, not his views on the facilities per se.

Alternatively, metaphor might say that he is ok with both women using men's facilities and men using women's ones. But then that would not accord with what I think is his position on trans men and women.

My whole point in this is to ask (and explore the reasons) why, for example, trans women, should not be freely allowed to use currently segregated women's facilities of these sorts (toilets, showers and changing rooms).

Unless I'm wrong and metaphor has no issues with that.

 

[ruby sparks]

So, gay men should not be allowed in men's bathrooms or locker rooms, because they want to fuck men and therefore it's not a safe space for other men.

That's an interesting tangent. I, as a straight man, for example, could hypothetically say that I want gay men to use separate facilities, because I'm not comfortable with them looking at my naked or partially naked body. If I were an especially small and weak straight man, I might even perceive a threat from a large, well-built gay man (perhaps I should say overtly or apparently gay, because as with trans, it isn't always obvious by looking) in a way that is not dissimilar to the threat a typical/average woman might perceive by sharing changing rooms with a typical/average man, even if full nudity was not involved. In both cases of course the other, the man (gay or straight) might not actually be a threat, of any sort, obviously, not least because he may not be attracted to me or to a particular woman.

I could even, if I were prejudiced about orientations, say that I do not in principle want to share facilities with someone who is not in my opinion a proper man in what I (if I were prejudiced) would say was a crucial way.

Slightly different issue though, even if analogous in a few ways. Possibly best not explored or detoured into again here, in case it muddies the waters, except as a partial analogy. Which is how it was treated previously (in this thread, I think, or maybe it was a related one).

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Because as far as I am aware, and to tie all this back to the OP, metaphor would, I think, say that a trans woman should not use the women's toilets/changing rooms/showers (in a given situation where there are separate facilities) because 'he is really a man'. So I am asking him about a slightly different scenario, one which is more like the reverse, someone who is really a woman using the men's facilities (hypothetically including showers and changing rooms). And if metaphor has no major issue with the latter then I'm interested in why that is.

Yet, the example you use, according to the video you posted, is that of a trans woman.

By the way, do you have those links to the social media posts in question?

 

[Metaphor]

But what I'm asking metaphor is whether she should be freely allowed to use the men's toilets (and showers and changing rooms) without for example apologising.

Because as far as I am aware, and to tie all this back to the OP, metaphor would, I think, say that a trans woman should not use the women's toilets/changing rooms/showers (in a given situation where there are separate facilities) because 'he is really a man' (metaphor can take the inverted commas off that if he wants to). So I am asking him about a slightly different scenario, one which is more like the reverse, someone who is really a woman using the men's facilities (hypothetically including showers and changing rooms). And if metaphor has no major issue with the latter then I'm interested in why that is.

But he isn't really a woman. That's Jackie Green, and he used to the toilets that accorded with his sex.

Obviously, an overall reply and a way to avoid answering the question could be to say that he would advocate for provision of only one set of unisex toilets, changing rooms and showers for all persons, but, not least because that may have its own pros and cons and would be subject to long discussion, I am simply asking him specifically about his views on the current usual situation in which there is segregation, as a way to understand his personal opinions about trans persons, perhaps especially trans women, since that is the subject of the OP. In other words, it's his views on trans I'm interested in, not his views on the facilities per se.

Jackie Green no longer has a penis and testicles; his mother flew him, when he was 16, to get a procedure done outside Britain because the procedure is illegal for minors there.

Now, my stance is that bathrooms have been (historically) sex segregated. If they are instead to become gender-segregated, who is going to do the gatekeeping? Your answer might be 'nobody', in which case there is no sex or gender segregation.

Most transwomen do not have bottom surgery, so they have a penis and testicles. (Indeed, some transwomen very vocally tell people who don't believe them to be women to 'suck their lady dick'. 'Suck my dick' is the kind of vulgar, sexualised utterance feminists usually call 'toxic'--if it comes from a cis man.

Alternatively, metaphor might say that he is ok with both women using men's facilities and men using women's ones. But then that would not accord with what I think is his position on trans men and women.

My whole point in this is to ask (and explore the reasons) why, for example, trans women, should not be freely allowed to use currently segregated women's facilities of these sorts (toilets, showers and changing rooms).

Unless I'm wrong and metaphor has no issues with that.

Because there is a difference between transwomen and women. Transwomen are men, they tend not to pass (in my experience), and if they do pass outwardly, the spell is broken when they take out their lady dick.

For me personally, while I don't want to see transmen in the men's, since they are women, I would not feel particularly traumatised or in danger or that uncomfortable. Hell, I know some men who are so femme they sit down to piss anyway.

But I feel (and the focus of debates shows this) that some women and girls don't want to see men in their toilets and changing areas, even if these men are transwomen.

 

[ruby sparks]

But he isn't really a woman. That's Jackie Green, and he used to the toilets that accorded with his sex.



Jackie Green no longer has a penis and testicles; his mother flew him, when he was 16, to get a procedure done outside Britain because the procedure is illegal for minors there.

Now, my stance is that bathrooms have been (historically) sex segregated. If they are instead to become gender-segregated, who is going to do the gatekeeping? Your answer might be 'nobody', in which case there is no sex or gender segregation.

Most transwomen do not have bottom surgery, so they have a penis and testicles. (Indeed, some transwomen very vocally tell people who don't believe them to be women to 'suck their lady dick'. 'Suck my dick' is the kind of vulgar, sexualised utterance feminists usually call 'toxic'--if it comes from a cis man.

Alternatively, metaphor might say that he is ok with both women using men's facilities and men using women's ones. But then that would not accord with what I think is his position on trans men and women.

My whole point in this is to ask (and explore the reasons) why, for example, trans women, should not be freely allowed to use currently segregated women's facilities of these sorts (toilets, showers and changing rooms).

Unless I'm wrong and metaphor has no issues with that.

Because there is a difference between transwomen and women. Transwomen are men, they tend not to pass (in my experience), and if they do pass outwardly, the spell is broken when they take out their lady dick.

For me personally, while I don't want to see transmen in the men's, since they are women, I would not feel particularly traumatised or in danger or that uncomfortable. Hell, I know some men who are so femme they sit down to piss anyway.

But I feel (and the focus of debates shows this) that some women and girls don't want to see men in their toilets and changing areas, even if these men are transwomen.

So....what you are saying (I think) is that if a trans woman has physically changed enough, including surgery, basically looks sufficiently like a woman (Jackie Green for example) you're ok with them using women's facilities. I did not realise that was your view.

And perhaps, by extension, if they make changes in the equivalent or relevant ways in sports (including losing any innate male advantage, or enough of it as is reasonable) it might be ok for them to compete in women's sports?

Which would mean that your position and for example krypton Iodine Sulphur's, are not quite as far apart as it had seemed (to me), and that there is some common ground.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

https://www.theguardian.com/society...website-apologises-jk-rowling-trans-tweet-day

A news website aimed at British schoolchildren has agreed to pay an unsubstantiated amount after it implied that JK Rowling’s comments on gender caused harm to trans people.

The Day, which is recommended by the Department for Education and is designed to prompt teenagers to discuss current affairs, faced legal action from the Harry Potter author after publishing an article entitled: “Potterheads cancel Rowling after trans tweet”.

In the article, which some schools issued as homework, children were told that Rowling had objected to the use of the expression “people who menstruate” in place of “women”. It also referenced objections to Rowling’s recent comments from Harry Potter actors such as Daniel Radcliffe.

The original article in the Day asked teenagers to consider whether it is possible still to enjoy great works of art by “deeply unpleasant people” such as Pablo Picasso and Richard Wagner.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-...ransphobia-the-day-harry-potter-a9635346.html

In a statement, The Day has now apologised to Rowling after she hired libel lawyers.

“We accept that our article implied that what JK Rowling had tweeted was objectionable and that she had attacked and harmed trans people,” the statement reads. “The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic.
“We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling was transphobic or that she should be boycotted. We accept that our comparisons of JK Rowling to people such as Picasso, who celebrated sexual violence, and Wagner, who was praised by the Nazis for his antisemitic and racist views, were clumsy, offensive and wrong.


“Debate about a complex issue where there is a range of legitimate views should have been handled with much more sensitivity and more obvious recognition of the difference between fact and opinion. We unreservedly apologise to JK Rowling for the offence caused, are happy to retract these false allegations and to set the record straight. We shall be making a financial contribution to a charity of JK Rowling’s choice.”
Earlier this month, Rowling was among 150 public figures to sign an open letter condemning “cancel culture” and calling for “the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences”.

 

[ruby sparks]

1. “The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic."


2. “ We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling.... should be boycotted.

Does not compute.

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

1. “The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic."


2. “ We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling.... should be boycotted.

Does not compute.

The original article isn't available on their site. I don't know if it is available anywhere else. If I had to guess, the allegations from Rowling's legal team were something to the effect that the article suggested readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. The Day agrees or concedes while that wasn't their intent, it was ultimately the effect of their article.

 

[ruby sparks]

1. “The article was critical of JK Rowling personally and suggested that our readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. Our intention was to provoke debate on a complex topic."


2. “ We did not intend to suggest that JK Rowling.... should be boycotted.

Does not compute.

The original article isn't available on their site. I don't know if it is available anywhere else. If I had to guess, the allegations from Rowling's legal team were something to the effect that the article suggested readers should boycott her work and shame her into changing her behaviour. The Day agrees or concedes while that wasn't their intent, it was ultimately the effect of their article.

Yeah, probably something like that.

Anyhows, it looks like this particular cancelling has been cancelled.