JK Rowling is a TERF

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

The "anti-TERF" hysteria you see in some circles is kind of amazing. It seems like many feminist forums on the internet are now dominated by discussions of transgender issues. It does seem at many points to be erasing women's issues. The over-sensitivity of the phrase "people who menstruate" is probably a good example of that.

Sure she's wealthy now. But to my knowledge she does not exactly come from a "privileged" background. I'm not a big fan of her books and I don't care one way or another what she thinks of anything, but if she has a valid point, I'm not a fan of "intersectional" progressives silencing her for it.

[Former President tack50]

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.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

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?

[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.

[Santander]

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.

I assure you he is both.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

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.

I assure you he is both.

That's what the boys on Tinder tell me too, but at the end of the day, those are subjective measures that will fade in time. My greatest quality, by far, is that I'm rich since that is a measurable greatness. And the person who is allegedly making these 'problematic' statements is also very rich.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[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?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

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.

[John Dule]

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?

[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?

[SevenEleven]

Who cares about a restroom anyway?

Get in, do your thing, wash your hands, get out.

What a stupid issue to focus on, and if someone does want to focus on it they should encourage persons with penises to use urinals for environmental reasons. A restroom is not a place for community or a badge of identity. It's a convenient place to do inconvenient things.

[John Dule]

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?

Good, I'm glad you take the position that we should have gender-neutral bathrooms. Most people I've heard speak on this subject still think that we should have segregated restrooms, even though there is apparently no way to identify a man or a woman who is using the incorrect one. Seems pretty pointless.

However, the "vast majority of people" may not take advantage of this, but apparently nothing is stopping them. Nothing is stopping me-- a 6'3" man-- from "identifying" as a woman and joining the WNBA. 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 think there is a way to compromise here that preserves the rights of transgenders while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

Also, I did not call your definition of intersex wrong. I was adding a footnote of sorts to your post.

[HisGrace]

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?

Good, I'm glad you take the position that we should have gender-neutral bathrooms. Most people I've heard speak on this subject still think that we should have segregated restrooms, even though there is apparently no way to identify a man or a woman who is using the incorrect one. Seems pretty pointless.

However, the "vast majority of people" may not take advantage of this, but apparently nothing is stopping them. Nothing is stopping me-- a 6'3" man-- from "identifying" as a woman and joining the WNBA. 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 think there is a way to compromise here that preserves the rights of transgenders while simultaneously rejecting the (obviously wrong) radical idea that anyone can "identify" as whatever they please.

I think the key thing here that a lot of the trans movement seems to have forgotten is that there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity. Sometimes your gender identity is the relevant thing. Other times your biological sex is what's relevant, like in elite sports leagues or what bathroom you use, particularly if it's one where people shower or change clothes. You've got people now earnestly calling biological sex a "social construct". Pretty sure no one "decided" that some people would have penises and others would have vaginas unless you believe in god.

[John Dule]

I think the key thing here that a lot of the trans movement seems to have forgotten is that there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity. Sometimes your gender identity is the relevant thing. Other times your biological sex is what's relevant, like in elite sports leagues or what bathroom you use, particularly if it's one where people shower or change clothes. You've got people now earnestly calling biological sex a "social construct". Pretty sure no one "decided" that some people would have penises and others would have vaginas unless you believe in god.

They also appear to have forgotten that the distinction to which you refer was created out of thin air by a quack child abuser. After many years of asking questions on this subject, I still don't understand what people mean by "gender identity" because every gender activist seems to have their own imaginary definition. If it simply relates to gender roles-- the clothes you choose to wear, how long you cut your hair, your interests, your hobbies-- then that's fine. Those are gender roles. But I don't see how that relates to things like pronouns, ID cards, sports, restrooms, or locker rooms, all of which have to do with your actual gender, not how you choose to express yourself.

[HisGrace]

I think the key thing here that a lot of the trans movement seems to have forgotten is that there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity. Sometimes your gender identity is the relevant thing. Other times your biological sex is what's relevant, like in elite sports leagues or what bathroom you use, particularly if it's one where people shower or change clothes. You've got people now earnestly calling biological sex a "social construct". Pretty sure no one "decided" that some people would have penises and others would have vaginas unless you believe in god.

They also appear to have forgotten that the distinction to which you refer was created out of thin air by a quack child abuser. After many years of asking questions on this subject, I still don't understand what people mean by "gender identity" because every gender activist seems to have their own imaginary definition. If it simply relates to gender roles-- the clothes you choose to wear, how long you cut your hair, your interests, your hobbies-- then that's fine. Those are gender roles. But I don't see how that relates to things like pronouns, ID cards, sports, restrooms, or locker rooms, all of which have to do with your actual gender, not how you choose to express yourself.

A lot of people say they felt like they were in the wrong body even before puberty. I think some people are born in the body of one sex but have the mind and hormones of another. That creates an intellectual difficulty for feminists because they would have to concede that gender is not a social construct and that there are generally some non physical differences between men and women. That's why I think "woketers" seemed to have backed off the old argument I talked about and are now attacking the idea of biological sex itself which makes them come off as blatantly ridiculous to most people, so it's a losing strategy.

[Bacon King]

I think the key thing here that a lot of the trans movement seems to have forgotten is that there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity. Sometimes your gender identity is the relevant thing. Other times your biological sex is what's relevant, like in elite sports leagues or what bathroom you use, particularly if it's one where people shower or change clothes. You've got people now earnestly calling biological sex a "social construct". Pretty sure no one "decided" that some people would have penises and others would have vaginas unless you believe in god.

They also appear to have forgotten that the distinction to which you refer was created out of thin air by a quack child abuser. After many years of asking questions on this subject, I still don't understand what people mean by "gender identity" because every gender activist seems to have their own imaginary definition. If it simply relates to gender roles-- the clothes you choose to wear, how long you cut your hair, your interests, your hobbies-- then that's fine. Those are gender roles. But I don't see how that relates to things like pronouns, ID cards, sports, restrooms, or locker rooms, all of which have to do with your actual gender, not how you choose to express yourself.

Hey remember back when you were pretending to not be offensively transphobic lol

[John Dule]

I think the key thing here that a lot of the trans movement seems to have forgotten is that there is a difference between biological sex and gender identity. Sometimes your gender identity is the relevant thing. Other times your biological sex is what's relevant, like in elite sports leagues or what bathroom you use, particularly if it's one where people shower or change clothes. You've got people now earnestly calling biological sex a "social construct". Pretty sure no one "decided" that some people would have penises and others would have vaginas unless you believe in god.

They also appear to have forgotten that the distinction to which you refer was created out of thin air by a quack child abuser. After many years of asking questions on this subject, I still don't understand what people mean by "gender identity" because every gender activist seems to have their own imaginary definition. If it simply relates to gender roles-- the clothes you choose to wear, how long you cut your hair, your interests, your hobbies-- then that's fine. Those are gender roles. But I don't see how that relates to things like pronouns, ID cards, sports, restrooms, or locker rooms, all of which have to do with your actual gender, not how you choose to express yourself.

Hey remember back when you were pretending to not be offensively transphobic lol

I don't recall any time when I was not fully up front with regards to my views on this subject.

[Bacon King]

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]

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

Well, then this is an excellent chance for you to educate us poor toothless hick bigots on what "gender identity" means! Good of you to take this opportunity instead of falling back into smug mischaracterizations and personal attacks.

[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".

[John Dule]

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".

I have never advocated taking away anyone's rights on this forum.

[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!