The left eats JK Rowling over transgender comments

[Politesse]

So, it seems to me that nobody so far can explain why what Rowling wrote was transphobic.

it's transphobic because it's apparently been decided recently that the extent to which the rest of us are required to participate in the self-image of a miniscule subset of people is "totally, unequivocally, and unquestioningly."

Why would we accord you the "right" to deny someone else existence on their own terms? If you don't like being called "transphobic" when your self-perception is that you are a harmless liberal, think how much more unpleasant it must be to be constantly referred to as "a woman" when your self-perception is that you are and have always been a man, or called by a dead name that you rejected long ago?

 

[prideandfall]

Why would we accord you the "right" to deny someone else existence on their own terms?

why is it a denial of existence to recognize that one is participating in an act of self delusion?

If you don't like being called "transphobic" when your self-perception is that you are a harmless liberal, think how much more unpleasant it must be to be constantly referred to as "a woman" when your self-perception is that you are and have always been a man, or called by a dead name that you rejected long ago?

i have no idea what you're talking about in either case, since i would never even conceive of referring to a trans person as other than their expressed gender.

just because i can't get on board with the narrative that being trans has magical transformative powers that alter the nature of reality itself doesn't mean i don't respect others and oblige their wishes on matters that make no difference to me whatsoever.

 

[Politesse]

why is it a denial of rights to recognize that one is participating in an act of self delusion?

Because that is both none of your business, and not accurate anyway. It's harmless if you keep your bullshit to yourself but not if, like Rowling, you're pushing for political suppression of trans identities. Then it becomes everyone's problem, and we have every right to respond in kind. If you can't handle criticism, don't blog.

 

[prideandfall]

why is it a denial of rights to recognize that one is participating in an act of self delusion?

Because that is both none of your business, and not accurate anyway.

i'd agree it's none of my business, which is why i don't get involved in this sort of thing whatsoever aside from conversations on the subject which i enjoy engaging in for the chance to discuss the issue and look at it in a way which isn't just inside my own head, but i have to disagree with you that it's not accurate.

It's harmless if you keep your bullshit to yourself but not if, like Rowling, you're pushing for political suppression of trans identities. Then it becomes everyone's problem, and we have every right to respond in kind.

i never suggested there was any sort of lack of credibility in responding to it. you seem to be quite jumping the gun here.

 

[ruby sparks]

why is it a denial of existence to recognize that one is participating in an act of self delusion?

Sorry, but are you, as well as metaphor, saying gender identities are not real? If so, on what basis? Please don't say because we can't see them with the naked eye.

 

[ronburgundy]

The GLAAD media guide tells journalists that they should avoid ever using the "problematic" terms “biologically male,” “biologically female,” “genetically male,” “genetically female,”


This is a sentiment that gets to the heart of the conflict between many feminists, lesbians, and their allies vs. many trans-activists.

Biology has long used "female" and "male" to refer to distinct reproductive systems and the gametes they produce, applying the same definition to non-humans, including plants (which have no "gender", and thus psychological gender is not part of the concept of male-female sex categories in biological science. Thus, to claim that people should never discuss the categories of biological females and males goes way beyond the more reasonable request that transwomen be included as a subcategory within the broader category of "women", which applying only to humans can more sensibly include psychological characteristics that are highly correlated with sex but can diverge in ways that lead to the phenomena of gender dysphoria.

 

[Politesse]

The GLAAD media guide tells journalists that they should avoid ever using the "problematic" terms “biologically male,” “biologically female,” “genetically male,” “genetically female,”


This is a sentiment that gets to the heart of the conflict between many feminists, lesbians, and their allies vs. many trans-activists.

Biology has long used "female" and "male" to refer to distinct reproductive systems and the gametes they produce, applying the same definition to non-humans, including plants (which have no "gender", and thus psychological gender is not part of the concept of male-female sex categories in biological science. Thus, to claim that people should never discuss the categories of biological females and males goes way beyond the more reasonable request that transwomen be included as a subcategory within the broader category of "women", which applying only to humans can more sensibly include psychological characteristics that are highly correlated with sex but can diverge in ways that lead to the phenomena of gender dysphoria.

No one has a problem with studying biological sex as a scientific topic. What they object to is being referred to, individually, by inaccurate and demeaning labels. Unless you've pulled someone's pants down and violated them, you're in no position whatsoever to call them "biologically male" or "biologically female". And "genetically male/female" makes no sense at all if you've studied genetics. We all have "female genetics" if by that you mean at least one x chromosome, and something close to half of us also have at least one y chromosome that can be expressed or go unexpressed in a lot of ways for a lot for reasons. If you're just referring to someone you know socially, there is no way for you to reliably intuit what their genome looks like or why their phenotypic expression has gone one way or another. You don't have that information as a journalist, nor is it any of your business to try and get it. There's no good reason for a news reporter to call anyone by a sex label other than whatever they themselves have affirmed as their gender.

You seem to understand that it would be silly to refer to a pond lily as "a man", simply because it contains male genetic material. It is similarly ridiculous to do this to a human being, especially if you don't actually know whether that is even true.

 

[prideandfall]

Sorry, but are you, as well as metaphor, saying gender identities are not real? If so, on what basis? Please don't say because we can't see them with the naked eye.

ok so before i reply to this let me be clear on terms, since they matter in this kind of discussion: i personally use the term 'gender' to refer to the cultural norms and personal expression surrounding biological sex, and biological sex to refer to physical anatomy (genitalia, hormones, DNA expression, etc).
as a general rule for semantic shorthand i use 'man/woman' for the first definition and 'male/female' for the second definition.

internally i have four categories for people these days: men, women, trans men, and trans women.

i feel like my liberalism dictates i should view trans women as just 'women' but i can't stop always putting an asterisks on it.
(and again as i mentioned a few posts ago it turns out i've got some kind of internal bias to where this doesn't apply to trans men)

anyways, my point is twofold:
trans people should be be treated with respect and dignity, their preferences for how they are referred to should be used always, and they should be given legal and cultural protection from discrimination.
but, they're also engaging in an act of self delusion about the nature of physical reality, which is fine and doesn't negate any of their rights as per the point above, but in the end it's still basically a subset of people doing cosplay and there comes a certain point at which i think it's kind of weird that everyone is expected to play along with that and act like that isn't happening.

 

[Trausti]

Sorry, but are you, as well as metaphor, saying gender identities are not real? If so, on what basis? Please don't say because we can't see them with the naked eye.

ok so before i reply to this let me be clear on terms, since they matter in this kind of discussion: i personally use the term 'gender' to refer to the cultural norms and personal expression surrounding biological sex, and biological sex to refer to physical anatomy (genitalia, hormones, DNA expression, etc).
as a general rule for semantic shorthand i use 'man/woman' for the first definition and 'male/female' for the second definition.

internally i have four categories for people these days: men, women, trans men, and trans women.

i feel like my liberalism dictates i should view trans women as just 'women' but i can't stop always putting an asterisks on it.
(and again as i mentioned a few posts ago it turns out i've got some kind of internal bias to where this doesn't apply to trans men)

anyways, my point is twofold:
trans people should be be treated with respect and dignity, their preferences for how they are referred to should be used always, and they should be given legal and cultural protection from discrimination.
but, they're also engaging in an act of self delusion about the nature of physical reality, which is fine and doesn't negate any of their rights as per the point above, but in the end it's still basically a subset of people doing cosplay and there comes a certain point at which i think it's kind of weird that everyone is expected to play along with that and act like that isn't happening.

Right. A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

 

[repoman]

Most people who have not been "educated" think that this position is madness.

But they will be educated by their betters.

 

[ruby sparks]

Sorry, but are you, as well as metaphor, saying gender identities are not real? If so, on what basis? Please don't say because we can't see them with the naked eye.

ok so before i reply to this let me be clear on terms, since they matter in this kind of discussion: i personally use the term 'gender' to refer to the cultural norms and personal expression surrounding biological sex, and biological sex to refer to physical anatomy (genitalia, hormones, DNA expression, etc).
as a general rule for semantic shorthand i use 'man/woman' for the first definition and 'male/female' for the second definition.

internally i have four categories for people these days: men, women, trans men, and trans women.

i feel like my liberalism dictates i should view trans women as just 'women' but i can't stop always putting an asterisks on it.
(and again as i mentioned a few posts ago it turns out i've got some kind of internal bias to where this doesn't apply to trans men)

anyways, my point is twofold:
trans people should be be treated with respect and dignity, their preferences for how they are referred to should be used always, and they should be given legal and cultural protection from discrimination.
but, they're also engaging in an act of self delusion about the nature of physical reality, which is fine and doesn't negate any of their rights as per the point above, but in the end it's still basically a subset of people doing cosplay and there comes a certain point at which i think it's kind of weird that everyone is expected to play along with that and act like that isn't happening.

Ok. Which part is the delusion though? That’s the only bit of what you’re saying that seems unreasonable to me. I’m good with the rest and in fact I might have said it all myself.

And I don’t know what cosplay is.

 

[ronburgundy]

The GLAAD media guide tells journalists that they should avoid ever using the "problematic" terms “biologically male,” “biologically female,” “genetically male,” “genetically female,”


This is a sentiment that gets to the heart of the conflict between many feminists, lesbians, and their allies vs. many trans-activists.

Biology has long used "female" and "male" to refer to distinct reproductive systems and the gametes they produce, applying the same definition to non-humans, including plants (which have no "gender", and thus psychological gender is not part of the concept of male-female sex categories in biological science. Thus, to claim that people should never discuss the categories of biological females and males goes way beyond the more reasonable request that transwomen be included as a subcategory within the broader category of "women", which applying only to humans can more sensibly include psychological characteristics that are highly correlated with sex but can diverge in ways that lead to the phenomena of gender dysphoria.

No one has a problem with studying biological sex as a scientific topic. What they object to is being referred to, individually, by inaccurate and demeaning labels. Unless you've pulled someone's pants down and violated them, you're in no position whatsoever to call them "biologically male" or "biologically female".

Except the GLAAD guidelines tell you that the direct preferred alternative to saying "biological male" is "assigned male at birth", which is based upon direct inspection of reproductive organs and which you wouldn't know either about an given person. So, that exposes that it is not just about making assumptions about an individual. It is that even if you are accurately referring to people, including groups of people, who do have male reproductive organs, you should never imply they are "male" in any aspect but rather phrase it only as though the doctor made an error by assigning that label based biological sex as defined by reproductive organs.

Numerous uses of these terms to refer to hypothetical female or groups of females further show that you're wrong. Such as when biological females in general are being referred to preciously b/c they have female reproductive systems (like in a TV ad for an AIDS prep medication) and instead of referring to them as females or biological females the ad says "This drug has not been tested on people who were assigned female at birth."

You seem to understand that it would be silly to refer to a pond lily as "a man", simply because it contains male genetic material. It is similarly ridiculous to do this to a human being, especially if you don't actually know whether that is even true.

No, it's silly to call a pond lilly a man, b/c we know for certainty that it lacks the neccessary characteristics of being an adult human, which only when added to a lily having a male reproductive system would qualify it a man. And anytime that it is silly to call and individual a "biological male" it is equally silly and possibly untrue to refer to them as "assigned male at birth", which proves that the use of that phrase in place of biologically female has nothing to do with not being presumptive, it's about pretending that biological sex doesn't exist.

It might be true that the original objection was limited only to assuming the biological sex of individual persons, but as if often the case with political activism it's gone off the deep end into anti-science territory, and now is being used to coerce people from ever talking about people as having a biological sex, even when talking only about those people who do have female reproductive organs.

 

[ruby sparks]

A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

I mightn’t go as far as to call it much of an imposition, but in any case we’re not here to judge you on your personal issues, and so I for one am happy to let you keep posting anyway.

 

[Trausti]

A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

I mightn’t go as far as to call it much of an imposition, but in any case we’re not here to judge you on your personal issues, and so I for one am happy to let you keep posting anyway.

Hello, non sequitur.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But god help the rest of us who believe facts like that biological sex is real and you cannot change sex.

Yes, facts. Just like all mammals give birth to live young.

 

[ronburgundy]

Sorry, but are you, as well as metaphor, saying gender identities are not real? If so, on what basis? Please don't say because we can't see them with the naked eye.

ok so before i reply to this let me be clear on terms, since they matter in this kind of discussion: i personally use the term 'gender' to refer to the cultural norms and personal expression surrounding biological sex, and biological sex to refer to physical anatomy (genitalia, hormones, DNA expression, etc).
as a general rule for semantic shorthand i use 'man/woman' for the first definition and 'male/female' for the second definition.

internally i have four categories for people these days: men, women, trans men, and trans women.

i feel like my liberalism dictates i should view trans women as just 'women' but i can't stop always putting an asterisks on it.
(and again as i mentioned a few posts ago it turns out i've got some kind of internal bias to where this doesn't apply to trans men)

anyways, my point is twofold:
trans people should be be treated with respect and dignity, their preferences for how they are referred to should be used always, and they should be given legal and cultural protection from discrimination.
but, they're also engaging in an act of self delusion about the nature of physical reality, which is fine and doesn't negate any of their rights as per the point above, but in the end it's still basically a subset of people doing cosplay and there comes a certain point at which i think it's kind of weird that everyone is expected to play along with that and act like that isn't happening.

Right. A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

This is pure bigotry, and just as irrational and anti-science as the denial of biological sex based on reproductive systems. Psychological gender is real and a product of brain biology. The brain undergoes sexual differentiation that is only partly influenced by chromosomes but also influenced by factors that do not impact the development of reproductive organs. That leads to people having brains that have structural features far more similar to what is typical of people with reproductive systems of the "opposite" sex. It is no more a psychological disorder than it is a disorder of their reproductive system. It is neither. It is a discordance between the reproductive system and brain development that only leads to psychological problems and only requires a "therapist" b/c it is atypical and society does not accept or accommodate what is atypical, especially as relates to biological sex and gender roles.

This is the kind of bullshit that has lead to the forms of counter-extremism I'm arguing with Politesse about. Some trans-activist seek to suppress the reality of biological sex, b/c bigots try to use that reality against them, to harm them with accusations of delusion, and to deny the equal scientific realty of brain based psychological gender. At least their unreasonableness stems from self defense and not a desire to be a cruel bigot.

 

[Trausti]

Right. A mental issue best left between a therapist and patient has been made a political issue imposed on us all.

This is pure bigotry, and just as irrational and anti-science as the denial of biological sex based on reproductive systems. Psychological gender is real and a productive of brain biology. The brain undergoes sexual differentiation that is only partly influenced by chromosomes but also influenced by factors that do not impact the development of reproductive organs. That leads to people having brains that have structural features far more similar to what is typical of people with reproductive systems of the "opposite" sex. It is no more a psychological disorder than it is a disorder of their reproductive system. It is neither. It is a discordance between the reproductive system and brain development that only leads to psychological problems and only requires a "therapist" b/c it is atypical and society does not accept or accommodate what is atypical, especially as relates to biological sex and gender roles.

This is the kind of bullshit that has lead to the forms of counter-extremism I'm arguing with Politesse about. Some trans-activist seek to suppress the reality of biological sex, b/c bigots try to use that reality against them, to harm them with accusations of delusion, and to deny the equal scientific realty of brain based psychological gender. At least their unreasonableness stems from self defense and not a desire to be a cruel bigot.

Why should someone’s gender dysphoria be a political issue? It wasn’t before recently. Yet now everyone has to sit in on the group session.

 

[repoman]

Struggle session

 

[Trausti]

Most people who have not been "educated" think that this position is madness.

But they will be educated by their betters.

There’s the idea that the way modern elites differentiate themselves from the masses is with cultural/political positions at odds with common experience. As before material wealth separated the elites from the unwashed; that won’t do when even the poorest can have high tech in his pocket. It’s probably why the elites fawn over modern art when the masses think it’s shit. Thus, only the sophisticated can appreciate it. And to signal your elitist bonafides, you parrot the elite positions, regardless how absurd. Like being assign male at birth, when the 20-week ultrasound already gave you away. Like being assigned ten fingers and toes.

 

[Politesse]

Except the GLAAD guidelines tell you that the direct preferred alternative to saying "biological male" is "assigned male at birth", which is based upon direct inspection of reproductive organs and which you wouldn't know either about an given person. So, that exposes that it is not just about making assumptions about an individual. It is that even if you are accurately referring to people, including groups of people, who do have male reproductive organs, you should never imply they are "male" in any aspect but rather phrase it only as though the doctor made an error by assigning that label based biological sex as defined by reproductive organs.

Numerous uses of these terms to refer to hypothetical female or groups of females further show that you're wrong. Such as when biological females in general are being referred to preciously b/c they have female reproductive systems (like in a TV ad for an AIDS prep medication) and instead of referring to them as females or biological females the ad says "This drug has not been tested on people who were assigned female at birth."

You seem to understand that it would be silly to refer to a pond lily as "a man", simply because it contains male genetic material. It is similarly ridiculous to do this to a human being, especially if you don't actually know whether that is even true.

No, it's silly to call a pond lilly a man, b/c we know for certainty that it lacks the neccessary characteristics of being an adult human, which only when added to a lily having a male reproductive system would qualify it a man. And anytime that it is silly to call and individual a "biological male" it is equally silly and possibly untrue to refer to them as "assigned male at birth", which proves that the use of that phrase in place of biologically female has nothing to do with not being presumptive, it's about pretending that biological sex doesn't exist.

It might be true that the original objection was limited only to assuming the biological sex of individual persons, but as if often the case with political activism it's gone off the deep end into anti-science territory, and now is being used to coerce people from ever talking about people as having a biological sex, even when talking only about those people who do have female reproductive organs.

"Assigned male at birth" is a factual statement, and is not contingent on that assignment having been correct or arrived at by any particular means.