Jk Rowling/Transphobia

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her initial snarky Tweet demonstrates that she's confusing sex and gender. Including transgender people with the phrase "people who menstruate" in a WaPo op-ed isn't "erasing the concept of sex".

And then she just doubles down with BS remarks (transgender people is going to affect MS research - WTH?) and inaccuracies and faux concern.

Blech.

Her initial tweet came out when the UK was debating self-id. Basically there’s a push to allow people to simply declare themselves female and change all their legal documentation. Many women are concerned about this. Sex and gender are intertwined and it’s disingenuous to pretend they are somehow completely seperate concepts.

Intentional or not, she conflated sex and gender. And not just in a single tweet - she went on and on about it.

Given that she's an author I'm inclined to think that she knows the power of words. And by conflating sex and gender, she's basically trying to take away "trans".

She's saying female = woman, male = man. Those are the only options and you are stuck with whatever you get at birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong link. Here was the start of the thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689

Once again, instead of quoting JKR people are pointing to a Reddit thread or Twitter feed to be told why to hate her. This cancel culture has got to start thinking for themselves. And she has repeatedly said that she is not an authority. IF you go to her feed, she says that. She states many times how she feels as a woman and what that means.

They won’t. Social media is extremely powerful. As long as Dorsey, Zuckerberg and others are allowed to delete and label to shape a narrative, that narrative will be all people see.

If you take a look through Rumble, Frank Speech, Parler (don’t get me started), telegraph and other ‘RWNJ’ sites, there has never been an effort to shut down the free flow of conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've been reading the thread in the entertainment forum. OP, I'm genuinely interested to understand if it is your view that all spaces that are currently designated as "women only" should also be open to trans women? I'm not talking specifically about bathrooms, but taking two examples raised in that thread:

1. A rape crisis center - is it acceptable to insist that only biological, or female-presenting women work directly with victims?

2. The Vagina Monologues - should this now be banned as being offensive to women who do not have vaginas?

It’s disturbing to find out rape crisis centers only employ cis women... wtf?!?

That can’t be true. What about when men and trans get raped.

Rape crisis centers frequently have a blanket policy that only women can volunteer and work with rape victims. This is common sense.

Haven’t you seen the PP demanding men have access to women-only rape crisis centers? What a great idea! In fact, how about we get male doctors and male nurses too. After a woman comes in, brutally raped and beaten, she can then have her pelvic exam by a male doctor and questioned by her male nurse! Idiots.

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree although it is having the happy upside of making the "traditional" gay / lesbian people seem like the mainstream now that there is a further-out fringe. They seem practically like Ozzie and Harriet compared to some others out there now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong link. Here was the start of the thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689

Once again, instead of quoting JKR people are pointing to a Reddit thread or Twitter feed to be told why to hate her. This cancel culture has got to start thinking for themselves. And she has repeatedly said that she is not an authority. IF you go to her feed, she says that. She states many times how she feels as a woman and what that means.

Someone asked why she’s being attacked. So those are some of the reasons why various people aren’t happy.

It’s easy enough to read JKR’s words yourself and be put off. You don’t even need Twitter for that.

I read her words and they make perfect sense. The fact that the statement “Transwomen aren’t women” is somehow controversial is a sign of the deluded times we’re living in.

100%. It's insanity. Transwomen are not the same as biological woman. We can still support trans women and understand their unique position separate and apart from the issues that plague biological woman. That should be commonly understood, not a reason to cancel someone. Honestly, I'm glad that someone of JKR's stature and clout has taken the position that she has. I'm sure anyone else would've buckled under the pressure. Try to cancel her. No one is going to rock the Harry Potter boat.

Huh? Pretty much everyone associated with Harry Potter has come out in support transwomen, not JKR.

DP. Yes. They are trying to silence and cancel her. They have publicists and pandering to worry about, but she doesn’t. She is just saying what she actually thinks. And good for her!

Right? Who cares if she hurts anyone.

She should have kept her anti-trans comments to herself. It's one thing to think it or say it privately, but another to use her large public platform to spread hate.

You can’t silence her. How typically male to expect a woman you don’t agree with to just shut up. Go to hell and take your “girl dick” with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wrong link. Here was the start of the thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689

There’s literally nothing in this thread that’s remotely factual. Do you really think some malcontent’s unvarnished opinions are gospel on JK Rowling?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her initial snarky Tweet demonstrates that she's confusing sex and gender. Including transgender people with the phrase "people who menstruate" in a WaPo op-ed isn't "erasing the concept of sex".

And then she just doubles down with BS remarks (transgender people is going to affect MS research - WTH?) and inaccuracies and faux concern.

Blech.

Her initial tweet came out when the UK was debating self-id. Basically there’s a push to allow people to simply declare themselves female and change all their legal documentation. Many women are concerned about this. Sex and gender are intertwined and it’s disingenuous to pretend they are somehow completely seperate concepts.

Intentional or not, she conflated sex and gender. And not just in a single tweet - she went on and on about it.

Given that she's an author I'm inclined to think that she knows the power of words. And by conflating sex and gender, she's basically trying to take away "trans".

She's saying female = woman, male = man. Those are the only options and you are stuck with whatever you get at birth.

Sex and gender are the same thing. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to redefine sex and gender to mean separate things. There is no biological basis for separating sex and gender. None whatsoever. Only abstract theories based on the sketchiest of information and studies.

The whole thing would be neatly resolved in trans activists can accept the biological reality and just base their arguments on free will grounds. And stop calling people who disagree with them phobics. The irony of your post is that trans activists are the ones who are very keenly aware of the power of words and their deliberately near totalitarian, divide and conquer approach to the debate.

Good god. No they are not. I wear pants, play sports, am an engineer and don't wear makeup. I am female (sex, XX chromosomes). I have masculine traits (see above). I also have feminine traits. 99% of people have both except for like weird hyper feminine women and weird hyper masculine men. Biology is sex, culture is gender.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her initial snarky Tweet demonstrates that she's confusing sex and gender. Including transgender people with the phrase "people who menstruate" in a WaPo op-ed isn't "erasing the concept of sex".

And then she just doubles down with BS remarks (transgender people is going to affect MS research - WTH?) and inaccuracies and faux concern.

Blech.

Her initial tweet came out when the UK was debating self-id. Basically there’s a push to allow people to simply declare themselves female and change all their legal documentation. Many women are concerned about this. Sex and gender are intertwined and it’s disingenuous to pretend they are somehow completely seperate concepts.

Intentional or not, she conflated sex and gender. And not just in a single tweet - she went on and on about it.

Given that she's an author I'm inclined to think that she knows the power of words. And by conflating sex and gender, she's basically trying to take away "trans".

She's saying female = woman, male = man. Those are the only options and you are stuck with whatever you get at birth.

Sex and gender are the same thing. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to redefine sex and gender to mean separate things. There is no biological basis for separating sex and gender. None whatsoever. Only abstract theories based on the sketchiest of information and studies.

The whole thing would be neatly resolved in trans activists can accept the biological reality and just base their arguments on free will grounds. And stop calling people who disagree with them phobics. The irony of your post is that trans activists are the ones who are very keenly aware of the power of words and their deliberately near totalitarian, divide and conquer approach to the debate.

Good god. No they are not. I wear pants, play sports, am an engineer and don't wear makeup. I am female (sex, XX chromosomes). I have masculine traits (see above). I also have feminine traits. 99% of people have both except for like weird hyper feminine women and weird hyper masculine men. Biology is sex, culture is gender.

Wearing pants and being an engineer should not be “gendered” activities. It seems unhealthy to divide every single activity into “masculine” and “feminine.” This rigidity seems to be part of the reason that people are so miserable about their “gender” in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong link. Here was the start of the thread:
https://mobile.twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689

Once again, instead of quoting JKR people are pointing to a Reddit thread or Twitter feed to be told why to hate her. This cancel culture has got to start thinking for themselves. And she has repeatedly said that she is not an authority. IF you go to her feed, she says that. She states many times how she feels as a woman and what that means.

They won’t. Social media is extremely powerful. As long as Dorsey, Zuckerberg and others are allowed to delete and label to shape a narrative, that narrative will be all people see.

If you take a look through Rumble, Frank Speech, Parler (don’t get me started), telegraph and other ‘RWNJ’ sites, there has never been an effort to shut down the free flow of conversation.

You would think your takeaway would be to abandon social media, instead you choose more social media owned by other garbage people.

Interesting.

[Anonymous]

In my biology textbook in college there was a picture of individuals with complete androgen insensitivity (this is a condition you can be born with). XY chromosomes, looked completely female. Tell me again how nature clearly delineates sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my biology textbook in college there was a picture of individuals with complete androgen insensitivity (this is a condition you can be born with). XY chromosomes, looked completely female. Tell me again how nature clearly delineates sex.

Nobody was saying sex is binary. There are XYs that present as female. There are XXY, there are XO people, they are rare but certainly they exist. But no woman is 100% feminine gendered as no male is 100% masculine gendered. Do you know men who don't hug their kids and just go around punching people and hunting sht? Do you know women who only knit and speak in a soft voice? Didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her initial snarky Tweet demonstrates that she's confusing sex and gender. Including transgender people with the phrase "people who menstruate" in a WaPo op-ed isn't "erasing the concept of sex".

And then she just doubles down with BS remarks (transgender people is going to affect MS research - WTH?) and inaccuracies and faux concern.

Blech.

Her initial tweet came out when the UK was debating self-id. Basically there’s a push to allow people to simply declare themselves female and change all their legal documentation. Many women are concerned about this. Sex and gender are intertwined and it’s disingenuous to pretend they are somehow completely seperate concepts.

Intentional or not, she conflated sex and gender. And not just in a single tweet - she went on and on about it.

Given that she's an author I'm inclined to think that she knows the power of words. And by conflating sex and gender, she's basically trying to take away "trans".

She's saying female = woman, male = man. Those are the only options and you are stuck with whatever you get at birth.

Sex and gender are the same thing. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to redefine sex and gender to mean separate things. There is no biological basis for separating sex and gender. None whatsoever. Only abstract theories based on the sketchiest of information and studies.

The whole thing would be neatly resolved in trans activists can accept the biological reality and just base their arguments on free will grounds. And stop calling people who disagree with them phobics. The irony of your post is that trans activists are the ones who are very keenly aware of the power of words and their deliberately near totalitarian, divide and conquer approach to the debate.

Good god. No they are not. I wear pants, play sports, am an engineer and don't wear makeup. I am female (sex, XX chromosomes). I have masculine traits (see above). I also have feminine traits. 99% of people have both except for like weird hyper feminine women and weird hyper masculine men. Biology is sex, culture is gender.

Wearing pants and being an engineer should not be “gendered” activities. It seems unhealthy to divide every single activity into “masculine” and “feminine.” This rigidity seems to be part of the reason that people are so miserable about their “gender” in the first place.

I agree. They are gendered by society however. And there is extreme misogyny in a lot of trans men. They are moving away from being female/feminine because it's considered so awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In my biology textbook in college there was a picture of individuals with complete androgen insensitivity (this is a condition you can be born with). XY chromosomes, looked completely female. Tell me again how nature clearly delineates sex.

people are born with abnormalities all the time. Does the presence of someone born with a malformed foot mean that two feet aren't standard for humans?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her initial snarky Tweet demonstrates that she's confusing sex and gender. Including transgender people with the phrase "people who menstruate" in a WaPo op-ed isn't "erasing the concept of sex".

And then she just doubles down with BS remarks (transgender people is going to affect MS research - WTH?) and inaccuracies and faux concern.

Blech.

Her initial tweet came out when the UK was debating self-id. Basically there’s a push to allow people to simply declare themselves female and change all their legal documentation. Many women are concerned about this. Sex and gender are intertwined and it’s disingenuous to pretend they are somehow completely seperate concepts.

Intentional or not, she conflated sex and gender. And not just in a single tweet - she went on and on about it.

Given that she's an author I'm inclined to think that she knows the power of words. And by conflating sex and gender, she's basically trying to take away "trans".

She's saying female = woman, male = man. Those are the only options and you are stuck with whatever you get at birth.

Sex and gender are the same thing. I'm not sure why people feel compelled to redefine sex and gender to mean separate things. There is no biological basis for separating sex and gender. None whatsoever. Only abstract theories based on the sketchiest of information and studies.

The whole thing would be neatly resolved in trans activists can accept the biological reality and just base their arguments on free will grounds. And stop calling people who disagree with them phobics. The irony of your post is that trans activists are the ones who are very keenly aware of the power of words and their deliberately near totalitarian, divide and conquer approach to the debate.

Good god. No they are not. I wear pants, play sports, am an engineer and don't wear makeup. I am female (sex, XX chromosomes). I have masculine traits (see above). I also have feminine traits. 99% of people have both except for like weird hyper feminine women and weird hyper masculine men. Biology is sex, culture is gender.

Wearing pants and being an engineer should not be “gendered” activities. It seems unhealthy to divide every single activity into “masculine” and “feminine.” This rigidity seems to be part of the reason that people are so miserable about their “gender” in the first place.

DP. As another pants-wearing, female engineer I don’t think *anything* should be “gendered”. But in our culture today, “genders” do exist. And they are separate from sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In my biology textbook in college there was a picture of individuals with complete androgen insensitivity (this is a condition you can be born with). XY chromosomes, looked completely female. Tell me again how nature clearly delineates sex.

people are born with abnormalities all the time. Does the presence of someone born with a malformed foot mean that two feet aren't standard for humans?

Exactly. People are born with their hearts on the right side, with two heads, with no arms, with missing organs. I guess those people disapprove everything we know about the human body!