|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 9:34:28 GMT -5
She has written about her stance on trans activism. www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/It is very interesting to me how “trans women are women” is now a philosophy that must not be questioned, and unwillingness to just accept that hook line and sinker makes one subject to death threats. JK Rowling writes a thoughtful piece on her stance, and still I am seeing so many former fans, fellow authors, etc, proclaim her a veritable monster. It also occurs to me that this is why conservatives vote the way they do—it’s not about Trump, but about the only way to object to a philosophy that to them is the antithesis of any common sense and decency.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 10:34:08 GMT -5
She didn’t do herself any favours by making the villain in her latest book a serial killing man who dresses in women’s clothing. She has also said some stupid shit in the past about how medically transitioning is akin to conversion therapy for gay people. I don’t necessarily agree with every bit of the criticism toward her (and I certainly don’t agree with the name calling and threats), but I think she is being defensive and is just getting more entrenched into her position. She isn’t an expert on trans people. She said in that link that there is no nuance on Twitter; maybe she should stop tweeting about this topic if she feels so misunderstood to the point she needs to write a whole essay to explain herself. As for conservatives and voting, I would guess most people don’t know any trans people, which always makes it harder to see an opposing view.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 12:18:08 GMT -5
Abigail Shrier, author of Irreversible Damage, has also been on the receiving end of harassment and threats. Neither one of them is even saying anything extreme, but to activists it doesn’t matter. Why should either of them stop Tweeting? Because trans activists disagree? That’ll the whole problem—this idea that anyone not woke enough should just shut up and listen, and never point out that there is a harmful trend here. I happen to think her remark about conversion therapy is spot on, and conversion therapy is less damaging.
It’s not either/or, in that either someone doesn’t know any trans people and therefore doesn’t understand anything, or they do know someone trans therefore they think that extreme activists are completely correct. That isn’t reasonable, but activists are hell bent on framing anyone who so much as questions any of their platforms, as a bigot.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 13:23:12 GMT -5
I’m saying if JK Rowling’s complaint about Twitter is that it doesn’t allow for nuance, why is she tweeting about such a nuanced topic and then complaining that her position is misunderstood? I mean, hello? I don’t think she hates trans people or that she has to shut up and go away, but my impression is that she is digging her heels in and is not listening to the criticisms of her with an open mind. As for conversion therapy, I will just say I disagree and the data on transitioning/detransitioning does not support her position. And I didn’t say anything about either/or, or that people who don’t know trans people don’t know anything, or that activists are completely correct. I said not having personal experience/familiarity with something makes it harder to understand an opposing viewpoint.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 13:57:56 GMT -5
The point, though, is that activists are taking what she says on Twitter and inferring her to mean what she did not say. (And I must say, I am not on Twitter but her courage in what she posts there have grown my admiration for her.) Writing a long post explaining her stance is not whining or complaining.
The book “Irreversible Damage” addresses young girls who suddenly experience gender dysphoria and how the medical/industrial complex sweeps them along with treatment, and social pressure leads to both families and medical practitioners being prevented from reasonable objection or even consternation. These children are being rapidly transitioned, given medications and even surgery with permanent side effects, with no research supporting these actions. Many of them are either socially awkward, on the autism spectrum, or just plain gay. So yes, I absolutely think conversion therapy is less harmful.
Emmjay, you may have not said anything about the extreme dichotomy, but that is the entire basis for the harassment showered on people who question any of the trans agenda.
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Sept 24, 2020 14:12:40 GMT -5
I actually don’t disagree with some of the stuff JK says... I have no ill will toward trans folks whatsoever, but biology sometimes is a factor in life. For example I have a close friend who is a competitive weightlifter and runs a weightlifting gym for athletes. Her industry is having some issues because trans women (some transitioned, some not) are competing against cis women In weightlifting. Due to biological difference in muscle mass and hormones the cis women basically can’t compete or place in the tournaments. It seems very unfair to cis women athletes to have to compete against trans women athletes who have a clear biological advantage, despite their gender identity.
It seems that if you don’t agree with 100% of all the trans issues you get cancelled. I don’t really think life works that way. Twitter works that way, but life has many more shades of gray than Twitter.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 14:15:47 GMT -5
I haven’t read that book but there is data showing that detransitioning is extremely rare, and that only a tiny number of people who have transitioned end up regretting it. And you can’t get the surgery in the UK until you are at least 18 (which I thought was the same in the US). I would be interested in seeing the data used in the book based on your description of what it says. I will also say, I do listen more to black activists when they talk about racism, to gay people when they talk about homophobia, to immigrants when they talk about xenophobia, etc. As a woman, I don’t think there’s much a man can explain to me about how sexism works. So I would put trans people and activists in that category as well, and I personally would do a whole lot more listening than talking when it comes to transphobia and how it manifests itself.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 14:27:55 GMT -5
I will add as an example: one of the things she said that people got angry about was that she objected to the phrase “people who menstruate”, and she said those people are called women. Others responded that “people who menstruate” includes some trans men, and pointed out the difference between sex and gender, and she dug in her heels. Maybe the Venn diagram of “women” and “people who menstruate” is *almost* a circle, but my response to that criticism would be, “I never thought about it that way, thanks for pointing it out”. Because a) it’s factually correct, and b) it doesn’t hurt anything to acknowledge a marginalised group.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 14:29:46 GMT -5
Exactly, GoF. It’s not about treated trans people badly or less than or anything of the sort. It’s about questioning the narratives that lead to cotton ceiling arguments and girls losing competitions due to unfair competition. It’s also about vulnerable 14 year old girls deciding in LARGE numbers that they are trans, receiving medical treatment for it, and no one is allowed to even question the train they’re on.
The book is both excellent and horrifying. For an intro, she did an interview with Joe Rogan.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 14:38:00 GMT -5
I would rather just read the book and look at her data. Not a Joe Rogan fan.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 15:19:00 GMT -5
The book offers far more in depth information and I recommend it. Informally, in my own professional life I have observed exactly what she is talking about.
I listen to probably 15-20% of Rogan’s podcasts. While he can be repetitive and I sometimes think he misses the point on certain topics, I appreciate that he brings long conversations to the media table. It’s a lost art.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 15:29:19 GMT -5
I don’t appreciate that Joe Rogan brings alt-light and alt-right assholes like Jordan Peterson and Milos Yiannopoulos to the table. More importantly, I have found him annoying and obnoxious since the 90s. Not for me. Always happy to read a book though!
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 16:38:06 GMT -5
I haven’t listened to Milos, but I enjoyed the Jordan Peterson interviews and found many of his concepts very insightful. I also listened to his interviews with Ben Shapiro. I agreed with almost nothing, but that is exactly why I listen.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 16:57:07 GMT -5
Jordan Peterson is extremely popular with misogynists and incels, and the more you read about his view on women, and what constitutes “masculine” and “feminine”, the easier it is to understand why. He also has some interesting views on race/ethnicity that border on eugenics. He’s actually very similar to Ben Shapiro in that they both talk a lot of nonsense and their fans interpret their rhetoric for intellect.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 17:06:45 GMT -5
Yes, I am quite aware of both. That doesn’t mean I want to never hear what they have to say, or that everything they say is wrong. I actively choose to read and listen to viewpoints that challenge my own, and often I find there is more common ground up close. I have also found that what Peterson actually says is very, very different from what his critics say he says.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 17:17:11 GMT -5
I also actively choose to listen to and read viewpoints that are different from my own, which is why I am so familiar with Jordan Peterson (and Ben Shapiro, and Milos, and others). What I have found is that Peterson tries to spin his words when he is called out on them, and he doesn’t like being challenged.
|
|
|
Post by villanelle on Sept 24, 2020 19:00:29 GMT -5
I am coming to the conclusion that I guess I'm a TERF. I don't think that biological males should compete with biological females in women's sporting events. It sucks for them that there isn't a sporting category for them, but the solution to that is not to ruin the category of sporting events for women by making them uncompetitive or less competitive.
When your life sucks (and I certainly acknowledge that being trans is a difficult path), the solution isn't to shit on someone else's life, especially when that life sucks, too, and more especially in the spaces that were actually made to make their lives suck a bit less. Women's sports were made to given them a place to be competitive in sports, against people with similar musculature and other issues. Now we take that away? And women are supposed to STFU and take it, and surrender that hard-won territory because...? Because it's expected that this is what women do? We graciously cede our position for the sake of the greater good? No. Fuck that.
But saying that makes me a "TERF" and an asshole and a Cis bitch and someone not woke enough?
|
|
|
Post by GiftOfFlavor on Sept 24, 2020 19:09:39 GMT -5
I am coming to the conclusion that I guess I'm a TERF. I don't think that biological males should compete with biological females in women's sporting events. It sucks for them that there isn't a sporting category for them, but the solution to that is not to ruin the category of sporting events for women by making them uncompetitive or less competitive. When your life sucks (and I certainly acknowledge that being trans is a difficult path), the solution isn't to shit on someone else's life, especially when that life sucks, too, and more especially in the spaces that were actually made to make their lives suck a bit less. Women's sports were made to given them a place to be competitive in sports, against people with similar musculature and other issues. Now we take that away? And women are supposed to STFU and take it, and surrender that hard-won territory because...? Because it's expected that this is what women do? We graciously cede our position for the sake of the greater good? No. Fuck that. But saying that makes me a "TERF" and an asshole and a Cis bitch and someone not woke enough? Yup. The feelings of women born with penises are obviously more important than the feelings of women born with vaginas.
|
|
|
Post by alicechalmers on Sept 24, 2020 19:56:26 GMT -5
Same. There is so much irony in expecting young women to just cede the field to biological males because otherwise they’re being selfish bitches. Excuse me, is that not what previous generations fought against??? No wonder so many young teen girls think being a boy is a better option.
|
|
emmjay
Full Member
Posts: 1,734
|
Post by emmjay on Sept 24, 2020 23:34:20 GMT -5
I don't think that biological males should compete with biological females in women's sporting events [...] Women's sports were made to given them a place to be competitive in sports, against people with similar musculature and other issues. I agree with this as well, and I think you said something in the past about how trans women were brought up as boys/men with all of the privilege involved there, so they automatically assume they can be in whatever space they want. I think that is an interesting way to look at it and makes a lot of sense to me.
|
|