Trans controvesy engulfs the NYT

[7,052,770]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to watch something longer than the Lord of the Rings movies to find out what the overwhelming evidence is that Rowling is a bigot. 

That's fine, but you ought to modify your argument to say "I don't have time to learn about the things Rowling has said and done" rather than "nobody can ever say anything that Rowling has done that is actually bad, therefore I suspect this is just a witch-hunt."

And the complaint about the time-length is a no-win scenario anyway. If it were a short video, people would say it was just a few things that people are blowing out of proportion. The YouTuber took her time to very carefully document and support every criticism of Rowling so that people could see that it's not just a one-time awkward slip-up or whatever, and now it's too much. You can watch on 1.5x speed and skip around if you actually are curious. I don't think you literally have to watch every minute of it to get the gist.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Again I don't care about Rowling this or that, I can see an argument either way but I don't care. Its more funny as popcorn to me. What I want to know are what are the NYT journal articles that are so transphobic and dangerous that they should be taken down as they cause trans genocide.

Yeah the Rowling part is only relevant because the activists keep citing NYT's willingness to platform people willing to defend Rowling as evidence of their transphobia, because Rowling is so violent and hateful and dangerous that even granting her defenders a voice is a form of violence.

[7,052,770]

because Rowling is so violent and hateful and dangerous that even granting her defenders a voice is a form of violence.

And that's a strawman.

[GeneralMacArthur]

I'm sorry but I'm not going to watch something longer than the Lord of the Rings movies to find out what the overwhelming evidence is that Rowling is a bigot. 

That's fine, but you ought to modify your argument to say "I don't have time to learn about the things Rowling has said and done" rather than "nobody can ever say anything that Rowling has done that is actually bad, therefore I suspect this is just a witch-hunt."

And the complaint about the time-length is a no-win scenario anyway. If it were a short video, people would say it was just a few things that people are blowing out of proportion. The YouTuber took her time to very carefully document and support every criticism of Rowling so that people could see that it's not just a one-time awkward slip-up or whatever, and now it's too much. You can watch on 1.5x speed and skip around if you actually are curious. I don't think you literally have to watch every minute of it to get the gist.

Dude I'm not going to watch a three and a half hour long movie just because you linked it lmao

If Rowling is actually such a dangerous and violent person you should be able to summarize at least one concrete example in just one or two sentences.  It should take two minutes to educate the forum.  Half of the internet seems to believe that Rowling is the new Hitler, surely they didn't all need to watch a lecture longer than Schindler's List to come to that conclusion.

[7,052,770]

Half of the internet seems to believe that Rowling is the new Hitler

And that's another strawman. Why can't you engage on this topic in good faith?

[GeneralMacArthur]

Half of the internet seems to believe that Rowling is the new Hitler

And that's another strawman. Why can't you engage on this topic in good faith?

It's not a strawman, it's a casual exaggeration to illustrate my main point in a colorful way.

It's only a strawman if the basis of my argument rested on dismantling this belief that people allegedly hold.  Whether or not half of the internet literally believes Rowling is Hitler is immaterial to my point that it's not reasonable to ask someone to watch a 3 and a half hour long movie just to figure out how you arrived at your beliefs.

[7,052,770]

Half of the internet seems to believe that Rowling is the new Hitler

And that's another strawman. Why can't you engage on this topic in good faith?

It's not a strawman, it's a casual exaggeration to illustrate my main point in a colorful way.

It's only a strawman if the basis of my argument rested on dismantling this belief that people allegedly hold.  Whether or not half of the internet literally believes Rowling is Hitler is immaterial to my point that it's not reasonable to ask someone to watch a 3 and a half hour long movie just to figure out how you arrived at your beliefs.

Dude, I don't care if you watch it or not. Just don't falsely claim that "no one will ever give me an example of why Rowling is bad!!! " when actually lots of us do, and that 1 video is not the only thing I cited in the thread.

If you don't care enough either way, it's totally fine.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Half of the internet seems to believe that Rowling is the new Hitler

And that's another strawman. Why can't you engage on this topic in good faith?

It's not a strawman, it's a casual exaggeration to illustrate my main point in a colorful way.

It's only a strawman if the basis of my argument rested on dismantling this belief that people allegedly hold.  Whether or not half of the internet literally believes Rowling is Hitler is immaterial to my point that it's not reasonable to ask someone to watch a 3 and a half hour long movie just to figure out how you arrived at your beliefs.

Dude, I don't care if you watch it or not. Just don't falsely claim that "no one will ever give me an example of why Rowling is bad!!! " when actually lots of us do, and that 1 video is not the only thing I cited in the thread.

If you don't care enough either way, it's totally fine.

OK, so, I just looked through the whole thread and the only thing you linked was the YouTube video.

You actually did give an example of Rowling's "bigotry" though, you cited her opening of a trans-exclusive* rape crisis center (which you called a "women's shelter").  We had a long back-and-forth about it which I came away from unconvinced that this is a good example of bigotry, since Rowling is not actually trying to prevent trans-inclusive shelters from existing, she just thinks there should be a trans-exclusive alternative available for women who do not want to share their rape experience with biological men.

At any rate, if opening a trans-exclusive* rape crisis center is the best example you've got of Rowling's violence and bigotry and hate speech then I'm skeptical of the notion that there's more beneath the surface that just hasn't been brought up yet in any of these threads and which can only be revealed to me by spending four hours of my life watching your YouTube video.



*(it's actually not trans exclusive since I assume trans men, being biological women, would be welcomed)

[DaleCooper]

The disconnect over the Rowling thing (and all trans issues) stems from the fact that most people don't disagree with what she is saying, and I'm sure that'd be a similar phenomenon with the long video if anyone ends up watching it. 3 hours of "Rowling said this" and the reaction wouldn't be that they don't believe she said it, but rather that they don't think what she said is wrong. The left is delusional about this and seems to think that what it calls "Trans rights" are as settled of a moral issue as interracial marriage or letting women vote. Then they act incredulous when people say they don't like the idea of giving kids chemical castration drugs when they say they believe they're trapped in the wrong body. and their incredulity makes the left look even more out of touch, and the genocide claims end up looking downright unhinged.

[GeneralMacArthur]

The disconnect over the Rowling thing (and all trans issues) stems from the fact that most people don't disagree with what she is saying, and I'm sure that'd be a similar phenomenon with the long video if anyone ends up watching it. 3 hours of "Rowling said this" and the reaction wouldn't be that they don't believe she said it, but rather that they don't think what she said is wrong. The left is delusional about this and seems to think that what it calls "Trans rights" are as settled of a moral issue as interracial marriage or letting women vote. Then they act incredulous when people say they don't like the idea of giving kids chemical castration drugs when they say they believe they're trapped in the wrong body. and their incredulity makes the left look even more out of touch, and the genocide claims end up looking downright unhinged.

Without having watched it I would assume most of the video is "Rowling liked a tweet by this person, here's a 20 minute segment on why that person is pure evil".  There's just no way you can come up with 3.5 hours of content about Rowling's trans views alone, and a lot of the anti-Rowling discourse follows this pattern of bigotry by association.

[DaleCooper]

The disconnect over the Rowling thing (and all trans issues) stems from the fact that most people don't disagree with what she is saying, and I'm sure that'd be a similar phenomenon with the long video if anyone ends up watching it. 3 hours of "Rowling said this" and the reaction wouldn't be that they don't believe she said it, but rather that they don't think what she said is wrong. The left is delusional about this and seems to think that what it calls "Trans rights" are as settled of a moral issue as interracial marriage or letting women vote. Then they act incredulous when people say they don't like the idea of giving kids chemical castration drugs when they say they believe they're trapped in the wrong body. and their incredulity makes the left look even more out of touch, and the genocide claims end up looking downright unhinged.

Without having watched it I would assume most of the video is "Rowling liked a tweet by this person, here's a 20 minute segment on why that person is pure evil".  There's just no way you can come up with 3.5 hours of content about Rowling's trans views alone, and a lot of the anti-Rowling discourse follows this pattern of bigotry by association.

Yeah, so much of it revolving around social media and Twitter specifically is another part of the disconnect.

[7,052,770]

Rowling's violence and bigotry and hate speech

.... and that's another strawman. I've never used the word "violence" to describe her.

Like, I would be more than happy to spend a couple hours typing up an "effortpost" that compiles everything that Rowling has said and done (and generally been linked to here) into a single post that we could all reference, but it's pretty obvious that you would first complain about how long it is, and then say something like "well that's not the violence you promised!" and dismiss the whole thing out of hand. It would just be a huge waste of time.

[7,052,770]

Then they act incredulous when people say they don't like the idea of giving kids chemical castration drugs when they say they believe they're trapped in the wrong body.

...

Rowling doesn't even really talk about the youth stuff. It's all about adult transwomen with her and whether they should have the same rights and privileges as if they were ciswomen.

[7,052,770]

Without having watched it I would assume most of the video is "Rowling liked a tweet by this person, here's a 20 minute segment on why that person is pure evil".

Please. I wouldn't link or endorse a stupid video. You know me better than that.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Rowling's violence and bigotry and hate speech

.... and that's another strawman. I've never used the word "violence" to describe her.

Like, I would be more than happy to spend a couple hours typing up an "effortpost" that compiles everything that Rowling has said and done (and generally been linked to here) into a single post that we could all reference, but it's pretty obvious that you would first complain about how long it is, and then say something like "well that's not the violence you promised!" and dismiss the whole thing out of hand. It would just be a huge waste of time.

This is the fourth post in this genre that you've written.  This is an internet conversation, not a legal argument before the Supreme Court.  It's imprecise and casual.  I do not have every single poster on this forum's exact position memorized, and if I accidentally ascribe minor elements of someone else's position to you, such as the exact language you use to characterize your opposition to J.K. Rowling, you should just clarify your position and move on.  It is not intentional and it is certainly not some nefarious attempt to strawman you into submission.

[7,052,770]

Rowling's violence and bigotry and hate speech

.... and that's another strawman. I've never used the word "violence" to describe her.

Like, I would be more than happy to spend a couple hours typing up an "effortpost" that compiles everything that Rowling has said and done (and generally been linked to here) into a single post that we could all reference, but it's pretty obvious that you would first complain about how long it is, and then say something like "well that's not the violence you promised!" and dismiss the whole thing out of hand. It would just be a huge waste of time.

This is the fourth post in this genre that you've written.  This is an internet conversation, not a legal argument before the Supreme Court.  It's imprecise and casual.  I do not have every single poster on this forum's exact position memorized, and if I accidentally ascribe minor elements of someone else's position to you, such as the exact language you use to characterize your opposition to J.K. Rowling, you should just clarify your position and move on.  It is not intentional and it is certainly not some nefarious attempt to strawman you into submission.

Which posters do say Rowling uses "violence" ? I'm not asserting that no one ever has (because it's not like anyone can read and memorize every post year), but it's not like everyone else does and it's some strange idiosyncrasy that I do not.

[GeneralMacArthur]

Rowling's violence and bigotry and hate speech

.... and that's another strawman. I've never used the word "violence" to describe her.

Like, I would be more than happy to spend a couple hours typing up an "effortpost" that compiles everything that Rowling has said and done (and generally been linked to here) into a single post that we could all reference, but it's pretty obvious that you would first complain about how long it is, and then say something like "well that's not the violence you promised!" and dismiss the whole thing out of hand. It would just be a huge waste of time.

This is the fourth post in this genre that you've written.  This is an internet conversation, not a legal argument before the Supreme Court.  It's imprecise and casual.  I do not have every single poster on this forum's exact position memorized, and if I accidentally ascribe minor elements of someone else's position to you, such as the exact language you use to characterize your opposition to J.K. Rowling, you should just clarify your position and move on.  It is not intentional and it is certainly not some nefarious attempt to strawman you into submission.

Which posters do say Rowling uses "violence" ? I'm not asserting that no one ever has (because it's not like anyone can read and memorize every post year), but it's not like everyone else does and it's some strange idiosyncrasy that I do not.

I am not asserting that it's some strange idiosyncrasy that you do not.  Likewise I do not have every post memorized.  Looking at the other thread, I originally started mocking the concept of "violence" based on the Onion article everyone was celebrating that (ironically) strawmanned NYT columnists as wanting to "put trans people further at risk of trauma and violence."  I do remember making fun of leecannon for posting that the GLAAD article was evidence of her "lengthy war against human rights."  At any rate I'm simply referencing language that I've repeatedly seen use in a variety of contexts, not any specific post by any specific poster on Atlas.

Putting all the semantic back-and-forth aside, the central point I was making by bringing up Rowling was the more general point I've made repeatedly on this forum that people who try to provide moderate points of view in this space tend to get smeared by trans-rights activists as bigots, but those activists rarely provide any actual quotes, and the argument is usually based on either mischaracterizing what they've said or trying to link them, even by the flimsiest links imaginable, to very real, very horrible far-right anti-trans bigots -- or, more commonly, people who aren't those sorts of horrible people, but who have already been characterized as a bigot by a successful execution of the same strategy.

[7,052,770]

Putting all the semantic back-and-forth aside, the central point I was making by bringing up Rowling was the more general point I've made repeatedly on this forum that people who try to provide moderate points of view in this space tend to get smeared by trans-rights activists as bigots, but those activists rarely provide any actual quotes, and the argument is usually based on either mischaracterizing what they've said or trying to link them, even by the flimsiest links imaginable, to very real, very horrible far-right anti-trans bigots -- or, more commonly, people who aren't those sorts of horrible people, but who have already been characterized as a bigot by a successful execution of the same strategy.

And I will reiterate my point that I believe you are entirely wrong, that Rowling isn't "moderate" by any reasonable definition but actually quite strongly on the anti-trans side (though as always I will sincerely acknowledge that there are others in America who are worse), and that I along with others have posted many concrete and valid examples that you have either missed, ignored, forgotten, or dismissed.

[lfromnj]

I decided to start watching the video and this is the first thing after the introduction/sponsor stuff. That is the author literally claiming any support of Rowling is violence against Trans people.

Anyway that cares of GMacs argument. Let's get back to the NYT articles that should be censored which is actually what the main focus of this thread should be.

[GeneralMacArthur]

And I will reiterate my point that I believe you are entirely wrong, that Rowling isn't "moderate" by any reasonable definition but actually quite strongly on the anti-trans side (though as always I will sincerely acknowledge that there are others in America who are worse), and that I along with others have posted many concrete and valid examples that you have either missed, ignored, forgotten, or dismissed.

I wrote this post in the other thread... in short, in my view, there's four groups of people -- bonafide bigots and extremists (1), bullies and harassers (2), rude and disrespectful people (3), and people who just disagree with parts of the trans rights activism agenda (4).

Do you agree with this characterization and if so do you agree with my assessment that Rowling is in group (4)?

I would say group 4 is overwhelmingly composed as political liberals/moderates, most of whom are quite socially liberal, who are only really "moderates" in the context of the current spectrum of debate on this subject taking place on social media and in ivory tower publications like the New York Times.  The actual spectrum in the real world has group 4 on one side and groups 1/2 on the other.

Agree with this post.  I'd say there's four categories of issues on the table:

1) Very real, impactful discrimination against trans people and denial of fundamental human rights.  This could include being fired from your job or denied promotions simply for being trans, being denied housing, or service at a restaurant, etc. running the spectrum all the way to trans people being imprisoned or executed in miserable, oppressive right-wing autocracies like Iran, Russia, and the hellscape version of America that Republicans gleefully fantasize about building.

2) Bullying and hate crimes that trans people suffer to a disproportionate degree.  Whether it's trans teens being bullied in school, trans people being harassed and degraded in real life, or the entire group enduring daily assault from right-wing talking heads and politicians trying to paint them as universally pedophiles or lunatics.

3) General rudeness about trans people -- misgendering, deadnaming, judgmental comments about how they choose to present, speculation about their genitalia, things like that.

4) Cases where trans people want society to change in fundamental ways in order to either accommodate treating them as their chosen sex or reject the concept of general sexual dimorphism altogether.


I put these in a ranking because most people who do (1) also do (2), (3) and (4), most people who do (2) also do (3) and (4), and most people who do (3) also do (4), so each group is a superset of the following groups.


(1) is obviously f---ing horrifying and awful and thankfully this isn't George W. Bush's America anymore and we've largely moved past this kind of behavior as a society, although there are still some disgraceful little pockets of the former Confederacy that engage in this type of crap and deserve to be ground into the dirt.

(2) is also horrifying and sadly far more common.  Engaging in this directly, or encouraging it, is something many far-right-wig actors are proud to be a part of.  Not to "all lives matter this" but extreme bullying has been a tremendous problem for centuries in American high schools -- just go watch literally any 50s movie -- and our society has proven totally inadequate at addressing it.  There were several article in the NYT just this week about teens driven to suicide by cyberbullying and ostracization.  Obviously a trans teen is going to experience this with far greater likelihood than a randomly-selected teen.  But this is a serious societal problem.

(3) is mainly just people doing it on accident, or being assholes.  And when people do this intentionally they should be treated like assholes.  I would distinguish this from (2) because in (2) the intent is generally to cause harm and hurt the other person's feelings, while most people doing (3) are either doing it totally unintentionally or lazily, or at worst, just protesting against what they feel is society demanding something of them.  You have to go out of your way to aggressively bully someone in the way I'm describing in (2).  But (3) is something you can just do passively, by failing to change your standard behavior to accommodate trans people.  Which you should, because it literally costs you nothing at all and requires minimal mental energy to treat someone like the gender they prefer (this obviously doesn't apply to ridiculous people demanding Ze/Yis/Xem pronouns, but those people don't actually exist in real life so it's ok).

(4) is where most of the actual debate is happening, and where I think it should be perfectly acceptable for people to diverge from the point of view of trans activists.


In short, (1) and (2) make you a really really bad person, (3) can make you kind of an asshole if you're going out of your way to do it, (4) is ok, in my book.  But it feels like a lot of activists conflate (3) and (4) with (1) and (2) to try and accuse people of "violence against trans people" either directly (by comparing them to the far-right-wing bigots who actually do want violence) or indirectly (by comparing them to the bigots trying to bully trans people into suicide).

The reality is that I think we're doing very well as a society because most of what I describe as my preferred state of affairs in this post, is the way things actually are in most of the western world.  (1) and (2) get treated like the miserable sons of bitches they are.  (3) are seen as cringey and treated like kind of assholes, or at least politely corrected.  I mean I wouldn't even put J.K. Rowling in group (3), she just doesn't do that kind of thing.

[No War, but the War on Christmas]

I decided to start watching the video and this is the first thing after the introduction/sponsor stuff. That is the author literally claiming any support of Rowling is violence against Trans people.

No she isn't? She said it's 'harmful to trans people' not that it was 'literally violence' against them.

If you're gonna act like you just scored an own by posting a tweet at least don't embellish it to make your point.

[DaleCooper]

I decided to start watching the video and this is the first thing after the introduction/sponsor stuff. That is the author literally claiming any support of Rowling is violence against Trans people.

No she isn't? She said it's 'harmful to trans people' not that it was 'literally violence' against them.

If you're gonna act like you just scored an own by posting a tweet at least don't embellish it to make your point.

I will eat my shoe if nobody over the course of that 200 minute video at least strongly implies that Rowling is responsible for violence against trans people.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Megathread

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

For the love on god can we have a two week ban on threads on trans issues. This spam of threads that are being used to spew hate it getting old and clogging up the forum

[Torie]

And here I thought that posting a trans related article under cover of the NYT's respectability would prove mitigating. Oh well. Perhaps another approach would be to allow posts on this thread only by those who have proved to my satisfaction that they not only watched the entirety of the 3.5 hour video, but did so with rapt attention, taking extensive notes.

Given the passions created, trans issues must trip some wire deep within the human psyche of those still facing the challenge of coping with their hormones.

Anyway, because I created the thread, I did feel duty bound to read it all. Wearing the editor hat, prior to publication I would  I would have culled the word count way down, given how much of it was repetitive. And it would be nice to have had at least one smoking gun just for shock and awe purposes. But alas no.

I suspect some of the passion is precisely because much is just not known about the issue at present, but that is just a suspicion. Unlike so many here, I don't pretend to have much knowledge about the issue. I really don't.