Jk Rowling/Transphobia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1
Stop trying to demonize her.

+1000

+100,000

I want to know what anyone believes is to be gained by quashing meaningful and challenging dialog about ideas.

The same thing happened to the researcher in womens health who dared to ask the question about what is going on with so many teen girls suddenly identifying as trans boys, and could the sharp spike in numbers be something other than just people feeling more free? Its an absolutely legitimate _question_ of public health.

She asked the question, did the research, and paid for it in ways that are totally wrong.

People are being demonized in the same way feminists once were, and on whose shoulders all gender related issues even have been able to reach the light of day. We make enemies of those who could be allies by making them pass a purity test. Huh, kinda like the Republican party is trying to do.

This idea that you must accept a concept, an idea, without dissent is very very dangerous and I am confused as to why the demonization of Rowling is not understood as a sign of something not good.

She is after all entitled to feel and express what she does. She is not hurting anyone with her views, not in any way that can be demonstrated. Is she?

Yes, she is hurting trans people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1
Stop trying to demonize her.

+1000

+100,000

I want to know what anyone believes is to be gained by quashing meaningful and challenging dialog about ideas.

The same thing happened to the researcher in womens health who dared to ask the question about what is going on with so many teen girls suddenly identifying as trans boys, and could the sharp spike in numbers be something other than just people feeling more free? Its an absolutely legitimate _question_ of public health.

She asked the question, did the research, and paid for it in ways that are totally wrong.

People are being demonized in the same way feminists once were, and on whose shoulders all gender related issues even have been able to reach the light of day. We make enemies of those who could be allies by making them pass a purity test. Huh, kinda like the Republican party is trying to do.

This idea that you must accept a concept, an idea, without dissent is very very dangerous and I am confused as to why the demonization of Rowling is not understood as a sign of something not good.

She is after all entitled to feel and express what she does. She is not hurting anyone with her views, not in any way that can be demonstrated. Is she?

Yes, she is hurting trans people.

No she isn't. She is expressing an opinion that some trans people don't agree with. She is not hoping anyone comes to harm. She just doesn't agree that trans women are the exact same thing as biological women. There are many of us who agree with her. I have no issue with any person born a male who wants to live as a female, but I will never say they are the exact same as those of us who were born female. If they were the exact same, they wouldn't be trans in the first place. For their own well-being re: some medical care, it should be acknowledged that they are not. The problem isn't with those of us who refuse to say that transwomen are the same as women born female. The problem is with people who would discriminate against or harm trans individuals for being trans. There is a big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think she’s an anti-trans monster but I’m perplexed about why she keeps wading in. (Im definitely not anti-trans however the idea that it’s wrong to not be open to pre-surgery trans men is absolutely appalling and nuts.)

Her initial Twitter posts were when the UK was actively debating proposed legislation allowing anyone to merely “self-id” to change their gender. There are consequences to that, hence the debate. Most Americans are ignorant of other countries’ legislative process and had no clue that she might be responding to an issue that involved politics that was local for her.

[Anonymous]

I agree with the PP. JK Rowling isn’t hurting anyone. Trans women who think she is hurting them are dangerously conflating polite disagreement with violence. She is expressing an opinion that many women share. I feel that trans women ( and trans men) have every right to live as they wish to and I have no problem with them being a part of any group or organization I belong to. But, they are not the same as biological women in certain ways and it is fine if those differences are preserved when it is necessary to keep the needs of biological women at the forefront.

JK Rowling comes to this debate from a lifetime of advocating for the rights of battered women. She was a victim of domestic abuse herself. Both biological women and trans women face issues of violence, but they are not the same issues and the abusers are different. It is appropriate if a group focused on violence against women focuses on biological women and does not get involved with issues of violence against trans women. It’s important that biological women’s issues do not get lost within the larger umbrella that includes trans women.

Women’s health is another area where is it appropriate to make a distinction. Biological women’s bodies have specific needs and health risks that have often been overlooked or underrepresented in medical literature. It is important to keep the specific health concerns of biological women separate and at the forefront. Trans women are biologically men and their health needs when it comes to things like cancer, heart disease, bone density, high blood pressure, etc are more closely aligned with men’s health.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP. JK Rowling isn’t hurting anyone. Trans women who think she is hurting them are dangerously conflating polite disagreement with violence. She is expressing an opinion that many women share. I feel that trans women ( and trans men) have every right to live as they wish to and I have no problem with them being a part of any group or organization I belong to. But, they are not the same as biological women in certain ways and it is fine if those differences are preserved when it is necessary to keep the needs of biological women at the forefront.

JK Rowling comes to this debate from a lifetime of advocating for the rights of battered women. She was a victim of domestic abuse herself. Both biological women and trans women face issues of violence, but they are not the same issues and the abusers are different. It is appropriate if a group focused on violence against women focuses on biological women and does not get involved with issues of violence against trans women. It’s important that biological women’s issues do not get lost within the larger umbrella that includes trans women.

Women’s health is another area where is it appropriate to make a distinction. Biological women’s bodies have specific needs and health risks that have often been overlooked or underrepresented in medical literature. It is important to keep the specific health concerns of biological women separate and at the forefront. Trans women are biologically men and their health needs when it comes to things like cancer, heart disease, bone density, high blood pressure, etc are more closely aligned with men’s health.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP. JK Rowling isn’t hurting anyone. Trans women who think she is hurting them are dangerously conflating polite disagreement with violence. She is expressing an opinion that many women share. I feel that trans women ( and trans men) have every right to live as they wish to and I have no problem with them being a part of any group or organization I belong to. But, they are not the same as biological women in certain ways and it is fine if those differences are preserved when it is necessary to keep the needs of biological women at the forefront.

JK Rowling comes to this debate from a lifetime of advocating for the rights of battered women. She was a victim of domestic abuse herself. Both biological women and trans women face issues of violence, but they are not the same issues and the abusers are different. It is appropriate if a group focused on violence against women focuses on biological women and does not get involved with issues of violence against trans women. It’s important that biological women’s issues do not get lost within the larger umbrella that includes trans women.

Women’s health is another area where is it appropriate to make a distinction. Biological women’s bodies have specific needs and health risks that have often been overlooked or underrepresented in medical literature. It is important to keep the specific health concerns of biological women separate and at the forefront. Trans women are biologically men and their health needs when it comes to things like cancer, heart disease, bone density, high blood pressure, etc are more closely aligned with men’s health.

Couldn’t everything you state in your last paragraph be said about black women vs white woken?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP. JK Rowling isn’t hurting anyone. Trans women who think she is hurting them are dangerously conflating polite disagreement with violence. She is expressing an opinion that many women share. I feel that trans women ( and trans men) have every right to live as they wish to and I have no problem with them being a part of any group or organization I belong to. But, they are not the same as biological women in certain ways and it is fine if those differences are preserved when it is necessary to keep the needs of biological women at the forefront.

JK Rowling comes to this debate from a lifetime of advocating for the rights of battered women. She was a victim of domestic abuse herself. Both biological women and trans women face issues of violence, but they are not the same issues and the abusers are different. It is appropriate if a group focused on violence against women focuses on biological women and does not get involved with issues of violence against trans women. It’s important that biological women’s issues do not get lost within the larger umbrella that includes trans women.

Women’s health is another area where is it appropriate to make a distinction. Biological women’s bodies have specific needs and health risks that have often been overlooked or underrepresented in medical literature. It is important to keep the specific health concerns of biological women separate and at the forefront. Trans women are biologically men and their health needs when it comes to things like cancer, heart disease, bone density, high blood pressure, etc are more closely aligned with men’s health.

Couldn’t everything you state in your last paragraph be said about black women vs white woken?

Are you saying black women are biologically men? Wtf is wrong with you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP. JK Rowling isn’t hurting anyone. Trans women who think she is hurting them are dangerously conflating polite disagreement with violence. She is expressing an opinion that many women share. I feel that trans women ( and trans men) have every right to live as they wish to and I have no problem with them being a part of any group or organization I belong to. But, they are not the same as biological women in certain ways and it is fine if those differences are preserved when it is necessary to keep the needs of biological women at the forefront.

JK Rowling comes to this debate from a lifetime of advocating for the rights of battered women. She was a victim of domestic abuse herself. Both biological women and trans women face issues of violence, but they are not the same issues and the abusers are different. It is appropriate if a group focused on violence against women focuses on biological women and does not get involved with issues of violence against trans women. It’s important that biological women’s issues do not get lost within the larger umbrella that includes trans women.

Women’s health is another area where is it appropriate to make a distinction. Biological women’s bodies have specific needs and health risks that have often been overlooked or underrepresented in medical literature. It is important to keep the specific health concerns of biological women separate and at the forefront. Trans women are biologically men and their health needs when it comes to things like cancer, heart disease, bone density, high blood pressure, etc are more closely aligned with men’s health.

Couldn’t everything you state in your last paragraph be said about black women vs white woken?

There is more overlap in health issues between black females and white females than there is between trans females of any race and other females.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think the “with us or against us” attitude of some trans activists is dividing the LGB from the TQ.

A few years ago it was acceptable to say, for example, a trans woman is a person who is male by sex but female by gender identity. Today that is considered wrong — sex is now a spectrum and we can’t say male/female bodies.

Most people agree trans people to be free from discrimination. But the insistence that we can’t have any distinction at all between trans and cis women — and the fact that women, and especially lesbians, bear the brunt of the vitriol — will be the downfall of this movement.

Lesbians “face the brunt of vitriol”? How so? Were you personally criticized for your views? Do you think it’s common for other lesbians to think in binary terms?

Lesbian here, not sure what you mean by thinking in binary terms.
If anything, I believe a lack of distinction between trans and cis women only feeds more into the reinforcement of gender viewed in binary terms.
I have not personally been criticized for my views, but that is probably because I am quiet on social media where I am not anonymous..
I also do not believe that all trans women share an identical opinion about these matters.
I’m personally not worried about being harmed by a trans woman.
What is most concerning about the whole issue is what J. K. Rowling articulated so well: that even questioning some of the ideas put forth my some trans activists is unacceptable and makes one a bigot. I am sure I would be unfriended, if not viciously attacked, if I posted my support of J.K. Rowling on FB. Ironically, it would be by a friend who identifies as asexual. She is a nice person, but I am not sure that someone who does not experience sexual attraction should be the one to tell me I am a bigot if I do not want to be intimate with someone with a penis.

Yes to all of this. As a gender non-conforming (butch?) 48 y.o. woman, I spent my life fighting gender stereotypes. No, make up, dresses, heels and long hair do not make me a woman - biology does. But I would never ever say this on social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with the PP. JK Rowling isn’t hurting anyone. Trans women who think she is hurting them are dangerously conflating polite disagreement with violence. She is expressing an opinion that many women share. I feel that trans women ( and trans men) have every right to live as they wish to and I have no problem with them being a part of any group or organization I belong to. But, they are not the same as biological women in certain ways and it is fine if those differences are preserved when it is necessary to keep the needs of biological women at the forefront.

JK Rowling comes to this debate from a lifetime of advocating for the rights of battered women. She was a victim of domestic abuse herself. Both biological women and trans women face issues of violence, but they are not the same issues and the abusers are different. It is appropriate if a group focused on violence against women focuses on biological women and does not get involved with issues of violence against trans women. It’s important that biological women’s issues do not get lost within the larger umbrella that includes trans women.

Women’s health is another area where is it appropriate to make a distinction. Biological women’s bodies have specific needs and health risks that have often been overlooked or underrepresented in medical literature. It is important to keep the specific health concerns of biological women separate and at the forefront. Trans women are biologically men and their health needs when it comes to things like cancer, heart disease, bone density, high blood pressure, etc are more closely aligned with men’s health.

Couldn’t everything you state in your last paragraph be said about black women vs white woken?

There are “safe spaces” for black women. There are programs and organizations serving specifically them, not just women, and they advertise as such.

[Anonymous]

This is an old thread and interesting to come back to now.

Today I was thinking about what is seemingly happening in academia: many are repeating the “trans women are completely indistinguishable from cis women” line. Which is completely unscientific and incorrect. And much of the media goes right along with it.

I would not be surprised to find that academics and media pushing this groupthink are responsible for the increased distrust of media and academia by certain sectors of our society, to grave effect.

[Anonymous]

Just follow the money. https://www.insidephilanthropy.com/lgbt/2016/1/20/which-chicago-billionaire-is-giving-big-for-transgender-stud.html

Go look at ACLU's Instagram. It looks like a trans advocacy account. They care more about pronouns than the death penalty these days. I wonder who donates... Billionaire "Jen" Pritzker...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is an old thread and interesting to come back to now.

Today I was thinking about what is seemingly happening in academia: many are repeating the “trans women are completely indistinguishable from cis women” line. Which is completely unscientific and incorrect. And much of the media goes right along with it.

I would not be surprised to find that academics and media pushing this groupthink are responsible for the increased distrust of media and academia by certain sectors of our society, to grave effect.

It's not just unscientifically incorrect, it's illogical and absurd. If trans women are just like cis women, then the reverse would be true. I was never born with a penis, never had to have any part of me altered to fit what I felt like on the inside. My experience as a cis woman is completely different than that of a trans woman. I would not pretend to understand their experience on any level. It must be incredibly difficult. I've had difficulties from being a woman, but I can't think of one true overlap with a trans woman. I've never had to struggle to get anyone else to accept me as being a woman.

We have all been told that using common sense is unacceptable. And so here we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an old thread and interesting to come back to now.

Today I was thinking about what is seemingly happening in academia: many are repeating the “trans women are completely indistinguishable from cis women” line. Which is completely unscientific and incorrect. And much of the media goes right along with it.

I would not be surprised to find that academics and media pushing this groupthink are responsible for the increased distrust of media and academia by certain sectors of our society, to grave effect.

It's not just unscientifically incorrect, it's illogical and absurd. If trans women are just like cis women, then the reverse would be true. I was never born with a penis, never had to have any part of me altered to fit what I felt like on the inside. My experience as a cis woman is completely different than that of a trans woman. I would not pretend to understand their experience on any level. It must be incredibly difficult. I've had difficulties from being a woman, but I can't think of one true overlap with a trans woman. I've never had to struggle to get anyone else to accept me as being a woman.

We have all been told that using common sense is unacceptable. And so here we are.

And my experience as a cis woman is completely different than your experience as a cis woman. I would never to pretend to understand your experience either. And you don't understand mine either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is an old thread and interesting to come back to now.

Today I was thinking about what is seemingly happening in academia: many are repeating the “trans women are completely indistinguishable from cis women” line. Which is completely unscientific and incorrect. And much of the media goes right along with it.

I would not be surprised to find that academics and media pushing this groupthink are responsible for the increased distrust of media and academia by certain sectors of our society, to grave effect.

It's not just unscientifically incorrect, it's illogical and absurd. If trans women are just like cis women, then the reverse would be true. I was never born with a penis, never had to have any part of me altered to fit what I felt like on the inside. My experience as a cis woman is completely different than that of a trans woman. I would not pretend to understand their experience on any level. It must be incredibly difficult. I've had difficulties from being a woman, but I can't think of one true overlap with a trans woman. I've never had to struggle to get anyone else to accept me as being a woman.

We have all been told that using common sense is unacceptable. And so here we are.

And my experience as a cis woman is completely different than your experience as a cis woman. I would never to pretend to understand your experience either. And you don't understand mine either.

DP. Of course each individual has different experiences. You know full well there are shared experiences that many if not most cis women tend to have, and that those experiences are not the same common experiences that trans women tend to have. Didn’t you grow up with female friends?