JK Rowling is a TERF

[Figueira]

What exactly is wrong about what Rowling said?

A lot.

She said that they should have said "women" instead of "people who menstruate", when these two groups are not actually the same thing. Many women do not menstruate, and there are some trans men and non-binary people who do menstruate. This is a bad faith argument because their goal is to make it look like trans activists are trying to erase the word "women" when in fact they're simply not using it in that specific instance because it's not correct. Even if you don't think that trans men are men (which they are), you should be able to see how wrong this line of reasoning is.

Looking at the linked article, she also seems to be suggesting that trans men are only transitioning to "escape womanhood" (not true), saying that allowing trans women in women's bathrooms would "open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside" (in which case, why not also be concerned about men in men's bathrooms?) and implying that supporting trans rights is somehow supporting sexual assault.

[Figueira]

The controversy here is just looking for excuses to be pissed off.

Yes, that's what Rowling was doing.

[Figueira]

Ok can someone please explain to me the differences between Transgender and Intersex in LGBTQIA+ I don't mean to offend anyone but they sound like the same thing.

A transgender (trans) person is someone whose gender identity does not match the one they were assigned at birth (determined by biological sex).

An intersex person is someone whose biological sex does not fit neatly into male or female.

[Figueira]

Ok can someone please explain to me the differences between Transgender and Intersex in LGBTQIA+ I don't mean to offend anyone but they sound like the same thing.

A transgender (trans) person is someone whose gender identity does not match the one they were assigned at birth (determined by biological sex).

An intersex person is someone whose biological sex does not fit neatly into male or female.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sex binary you're either Male or Female genetically i.e. Y/X or X/X but gender is more of a spectrum so how does Intersex work with that?

Like almost everything in biology, "sex is binary" is a rule with lots of exceptions. Biological sex is binary for somewhere around 99% of people (I'm not an expert so I'm not going to try to pinpoint an exact number) but for the remaining ~1%, either the chromosomes are something other than XX or XY (like, for example, XXY) or some medical condition causes people's genitals or some other aspect of their biological sex to form in an unusual way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Again, I'm not an expert on the subject so I might not have used all the terms exactly right. But the existence of intersex people is not something that anyone in the know denies.

[Figueira]

Ok can someone please explain to me the differences between Transgender and Intersex in LGBTQIA+ I don't mean to offend anyone but they sound like the same thing.

A transgender (trans) person is someone whose gender identity does not match the one they were assigned at birth (determined by biological sex).

An intersex person is someone whose biological sex does not fit neatly into male or female.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't Sex binary you're either Male or Female genetically i.e. Y/X or X/X but gender is more of a spectrum so how does Intersex work with that?

Like almost everything in biology, "sex is binary" is a rule with lots of exceptions. Biological sex is binary for somewhere around 99% of people (I'm not an expert so I'm not going to try to pinpoint an exact number) but for the remaining ~1%, either the chromosomes are something other than XX or XY (like, for example, XXY) or some medical condition causes people's genitals or some other aspect of their biological sex to form in an unusual way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex

Again, I'm not an expert on the subject so I might not have used all the terms exactly right. But the existence of intersex people is not something that anyone in the know denies.

Yes. And some people are born with one eye, or with three arms. But if you ask someone how many arms or how many eyes a person has, they will say "two." The same is true for genders. Acknowledging statistical anomalies does not mean that we must incorporate them into our everyday lexicon.

Someone asked me what intersex means, and I replied. Was my reply wrong?

[Figueira]

The controversy here is just looking for excuses to be pissed off.

Yes, that's what Rowling was doing.

She doesn't seem pissed off.

I can't read her mind so I don't know how she's really feeling. But she saw the innocuous term "people who menstruate" and decided she had to use it to make a transphobic point.

[Figueira]

Am I the only one who thinks Rowling was right on this one?

Sure she may be a transphobe or something in other aspects; but saying "women who menstruate" is extremely dumb unless you are talking in a very specific medical sense (which I do not think was the case here).

Broken clock and what not.

Again, the phrase was "people who menstruate" and the point is to include trans men. If you don't believe that trans men exist or you think their needs shouldn't ever be considered, you're a transphobe.

[Figueira]

Am I the only one who thinks Rowling was right on this one?

No, but it's best/easiest not to engage the three or four completely insane people who don't even belong on this planet. Everyone agrees with her, but why fight with the angry mob as if they would listen to reason over their indoctrination?

You're neither cute nor funny.

[Figueira]

Rowling has made some comments about trans people that are legitimately quite bigoted and seemed to express support for "bathroom bills" which is pretty nasty and I won't defend her statements. However the initial backlash to her seemed to be about saying things or liking tweets that just said "lesbians shouldn't be pressured into attraction to penises" which strikes me as pretty much common sense and find it mind boggling this is even something controversial today.

That isn't what this thread is about. Why bring it up?

[Figueira]

Rowling has made some comments about trans people that are legitimately quite bigoted and seemed to express support for "bathroom bills" which is pretty nasty and I won't defend her statements. However the initial backlash to her seemed to be about saying things or liking tweets that just said "lesbians shouldn't be pressured into attraction to penises" which strikes me as pretty much common sense and find it mind boggling this is even something controversial today.

That isn't what this thread is about. Why bring it up?

Because it's what started the rift between Rowling and trans activists.

This isn't a "rift between Rowling and trans activists", this is Rowling being transphobic and trans people and allies calling out her transphobia. She didn't develop a grudge against all trans people because some trans people had a problem with something she liked on Twitter (and even if that was somehow the case, she'd still be transphobic for taking it out on all trans people). Similarly, trans people and their allies don't have some sort of deep-seated grudge against Rowling: many were and are fans of her work and would be delighted if she came around on this issue.

Also, where are you getting the thing about lesbians and penises? This is the earliest thing I can find about Rowling liking a transphobic tweet: https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-accidentally-liked-tweet-857503

"Men in dresses" is a pretty obvious attack on trans women, and it has nothing to do with people's sexual preference. But maybe there's something earlier; Google is being difficult.

[Figueira]

What is the point in having gendered restrooms if there is no circumstance under which you could tell someone they're using the wrong one?

Because the vast majority of people aren't douchebags who pretend to be trans in order to either (a) make a transphobic point or (b) stalk people in the bathroom. And if they were stalking people in the bathroom, THAT WOULD STILL BE ILLEGAL regardless of gender. But I agree, we should move toward gender-neutral bathrooms that have more privacy than bathrooms have currently.

Also I'm still waiting for a response: was my definition of intersex wrong? Also, are there other medical conditions we should stop using words to refer to, because they're uncommon?

[Figueira]

Also as per usual, many anti-trans people in this thread are either extremely misinformed or are themselves being intentionally misleading. It's weird seeing people make broad generalizations about what feminists, trans ppl, or any other particular group supposedly believe, when it's painfully obvious they have never been exposed to any of those communities and are relying on second- and third-hand knowledge to inform their opinions

John Dule isn't even making a coherent argument--he's just throwing out every anti-trans argument he's ever heard and hoping that something sticks. Furthermore, he's another example of a "libertarian" who only supports "liberty" for privileged people. Look, now he's accusing you of calling him a "toothless hick".

[Figueira]

while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

Nope, nobody's rights are being taken away here!

[Figueira]

Nothing is stopping a man from entering a woman's bathroom-- his behavior might get him kicked out, but apparently the fact that he is in there is not enough to remove him from the premises by your standards.

I should probably respond to this as well.

What exactly would this person gain from entering a women's bathroom? If you try to answer this question, you'll realize why it doesn't happen in real life.

[Figueira]

while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

Nope, nobody's rights are being taken away here!

What rights does he want to specifically deny an adult transgender person?
Go ahead.

The right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity?

There, that wasn't too hard.

[Figueira]

while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

Nope, nobody's rights are being taken away here!

What rights does he want to specifically deny an adult transgender person?
Go ahead.

The right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity?

There, that wasn't too hard.

If you look back through this thread, you will find-- to your surprise, perhaps-- that I never said that.

OK, so what solution do you propose that would allow trans people to use their correct bathroom and keep unwanted people out? (I don't think the unwanted people are actually an issue, but you seem to.)

[Figueira]

while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

Nope, nobody's rights are being taken away here!

What rights does he want to specifically deny an adult transgender person?
Go ahead.

The right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity?

There, that wasn't too hard.

Is he arguing for a bathroom bill or just saying private companies can reasonably set their own rules in a Bathroom

If that's the case, then that's more of an issue of libertarian policies having the effect of denying rights to people, even if it isn't actually the government banning people from doing something. But fair enough, that would technically mean I was wrong.

[Figueira]

OK, so what solution do you propose that would allow trans people to use their correct bathroom and keep unwanted people out? (I don't think the unwanted people are actually an issue, but you seem to.)

I don't care about the issue of bathroom discrimination. If you noticed, I actually endorsed the idea of having one gender-neutral bathroom for everyone earlier in this thread. It worked for my dorm and it should work for the rest of the country. My point with these comments is to get you guys to understand that if "identifying" as the opposite gender is the only criteria for entering that restroom, a whole lot of logical conclusions necessarily follow that I don't think you fully appreciate.

If you're in favor of gender neutral bathrooms, why are you so concerned about bathrooms being imperfectly segregated?

[Figueira]

Do you have a "right" to be a woman that was denied to you by your chromosomes? Of course not.

Devastating... people no longer have the right to dye their hair because their chromosomes told them they must be blonde/brunette/redhead.

Oooooh, really bad analogy. If a person has brown hair and dyes it blonde, we differentiate them from a "natural blonde," do we not? This is because we understand that they are visually presenting themselves in one way, but that their blonde hair color was not determined by their genes. This comparison supports my argument, and you should've thought it through better before posting it.

Edit: He deleted the post lol.

Yes, and we also distinguish trans women from cis women, but they're still both women.

(It's true that it's often a more inappropriate distinction to bring up than the blond one, but that's because people with dyed hair aren't systematically discriminated against.)

[Figueira]

while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

Nope, nobody's rights are being taken away here!

What rights does he want to specifically deny an adult transgender person?
Go ahead.

The right to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity?

There, that wasn't too hard.

Is he arguing for a bathroom bill or just saying private companies can reasonably set their own rules in a Bathroom

If that's the case, then that's more of an issue of libertarian policies having the effect of denying rights to people, even if it isn't actually the government banning people from doing something. But fair enough, that would technically mean I was wrong.

No you are just wrong, you accused him of being a faux Libertarian here, despite the fact he hasn't said anything in this thread contrary to his political beliefs for anyone above the age of 18.(His views on children could be considered ill libertarian or whatever) Criticize his views for what they are, but not hypocrisy.

OK fine, his views aren't hypocritical, just wrong.