J.K. Rowling’s post on trans-identity and modern misogyny

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.

If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.

If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.

Let me introduce you to the internet, where you can be subject to a mob attack for any reason or sometimes no reason, but it's always an unpleasant experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does giving Trans women rights diminish biological women's rights?

We're all in the same group as "female." I don't care if trans women want to join. The more the merrier.

THIS

It doesn't. I think JKR is dumb to make this about the bathrooms. I don't care about trans people advocating for rights at all. They should! They should absolutely do that and feminists should support them as an intersectional partner for advocating for equality.

Changing language so women don't exist is the issue. And it is an issue that trans people would I assume not like either, as they would then not have language to describe their own vision of their gender.

I think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.

I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.

You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.

The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.

If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.

Let me introduce you to the internet, where you can be subject to a mob attack for any reason or sometimes no reason, but it's always an unpleasant experience.

If you feel you would be attacked for saying it out loud, again, question if it’s a belief worth holding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how anyone other than a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome can me strays?

This is going to far if someone tries to argue that.

Meant MENSTRUATE

first - haha i was wondering what that typo was meant to be

second - i think the "people who menstruate" comment is not to include someone that WASN'T a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome (ie a trans woman), it was to include trans men in that sentiment. As they are biogenetic "women" with an X chromosome, but present as men, and do not like to use the pronoun "woman" to refer to themselves, as that isn't their identity ... but they still menstruate, biology being biology.

(also just as a future FYI - you can use the short hand for "biogenetic woman with an X chromosome" which is "cis-woman" just in case you weren't sure of terminology)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds unlikely to you because you’ve never dealt with abusive men.

Women trying to get out of abusive relationships are in a lot of danger. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of scenarios where the abuser could get a friend to go find his wife in a shelter and use the trans-label as a cover. This is exactly what JK Rowling was talking about when she said this destroys safe spaces for women.

How exactly do you think DV shelters work? Do you think anyone can just turn up and walk in?

I think domestic violence shelters have a lot of discretion — however, there’s already been one example where a trans woman (who sounded and presented as male) was not allowed to volunteer with rape victims because it made them feel uncomfortable. The trans woman sued and succeed in shutting down the shelter. This literally “destroyed” a safe space for women.

If you think other shelters haven’t taken notice, you are delusional. For a violent man wanting to locate his wife, the trans exception provides very easy access to formerly safe spaces.

I would really like the PP to provide a link to that story before people just go restating her comments as fact.

Here you go:

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/

Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief

A trans woman sued the Vancouver Rape Relief because she wasn’t allowed to volunteer directly with rape victims — she refused to settle or accept other forms of volunteering. This tied up their efforts and resources for over a decade of defending themselves and defending female-only safe spaces for battered and abused women. In 2020 they were denied funding by the city of Vancouver directly because of their stance that a female only space was critical in making battered women feel safe.

One more thing that’s relevant: The shelter did provide help for trans women as well as cis-women. It’s just that the vast majority of their clients were biological women. Their mission was to provide a safe space for women and they recognized (as most advocates do) that it can be very triggering and frightening to be around men immediately after a woman has been attacked by a man.

It was blatant discrimination. The court upheld it was. If you google Kimberly Nixon she would never be mistaken for a man. It’s horrible that a rape crisis center told a transgender woman she was going to trigger rape victims.

You don’t think there’s something wrong with a person so determined to speak to rape victims that they would sue a rape crisis center for the right to do that? It doesn’t strike you as just a bit self-serving that a trans woman would go that route rather than, say, find a shelter that caters to trans victims of sexual violence, or start such an organization themselves? Why put all that energy into forcing women to give you access to victimized women?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds unlikely to you because you’ve never dealt with abusive men.

Women trying to get out of abusive relationships are in a lot of danger. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of scenarios where the abuser could get a friend to go find his wife in a shelter and use the trans-label as a cover. This is exactly what JK Rowling was talking about when she said this destroys safe spaces for women.

How exactly do you think DV shelters work? Do you think anyone can just turn up and walk in?

I think domestic violence shelters have a lot of discretion — however, there’s already been one example where a trans woman (who sounded and presented as male) was not allowed to volunteer with rape victims because it made them feel uncomfortable. The trans woman sued and succeed in shutting down the shelter. This literally “destroyed” a safe space for women.

If you think other shelters haven’t taken notice, you are delusional. For a violent man wanting to locate his wife, the trans exception provides very easy access to formerly safe spaces.

I would really like the PP to provide a link to that story before people just go restating her comments as fact.

Here you go:

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/

Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief

A trans woman sued the Vancouver Rape Relief because she wasn’t allowed to volunteer directly with rape victims — she refused to settle or accept other forms of volunteering. This tied up their efforts and resources for over a decade of defending themselves and defending female-only safe spaces for battered and abused women. In 2020 they were denied funding by the city of Vancouver directly because of their stance that a female only space was critical in making battered women feel safe.

One more thing that’s relevant: The shelter did provide help for trans women as well as cis-women. It’s just that the vast majority of their clients were biological women. Their mission was to provide a safe space for women and they recognized (as most advocates do) that it can be very triggering and frightening to be around men immediately after a woman has been attacked by a man.

It was blatant discrimination. The court upheld it was. If you google Kimberly Nixon she would never be mistaken for a man. It’s horrible that a rape crisis center told a transgender woman she was going to trigger rape victims.

You don’t think there’s something wrong with a person so determined to speak to rape victims that they would sue a rape crisis center for the right to do that? It doesn’t strike you as just a bit self-serving that a trans woman would go that route rather than, say, find a shelter that caters to trans victims of sexual violence, or start such an organization themselves? Why put all that energy into forcing women to give you access to victimized women?

I am sure it actually hurt quite a bit to sue a rape center but I believe this person was thinking bigger than herself and fighting blanket discrimination which does in fact benefit many people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how anyone other than a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome can me strays?

This is going to far if someone tries to argue that.

People who menstruate include women and trans men. That wasn't difficult or confusing.

In other words, women.

You do realize you have a choice, right? You don't have to be so vile and hateful. You could just choose to be kind.

So why do women have to give up all women's issues in order to be inclusive of everything? Menstruation (and the huge issues it causes in girls' education around the world)and pregnancy are issues that affect women. It just seems like it is always women who have to be nice and kind and give way to men, including women who used to be men. Men seem to always come out on top.

[Anonymous]

Like how many people would this effect? We are talking about being elite, best of the best and also trans....we can't make our lives around someone being able to "steal" a gold medal in women's slalom or some shit.

No, we are NOT talking about elite. The greatest impact is at the high school level. That's because in college sports governed by the NCAA a MTF trans can only compete as a woman after a minimum of one year of hormonal suppression. So, the MTF competitor doesn't have an advantage in terms of testosterone. IMO, the MTF may still have an advantage based on bio differences such as lung capacity.

In many states, including Connecticut, to compete in high school sports all you have to do is declare your gender identity. So, some of the athletes competing have not yet done anything physical to transition. So, they do have the advantage of higher testosterone levels, in addition to the other physical advantages of having been born male.

The plaintiffs in the Connecticut case are high school students and recent grads. Having several MTFs at the high school you attend may mean that you don't get to be on the team at all or you're never chosen when the number of entrants from each high school is limited. It may not matter to you if a MTF holds the record in a high school female sport, but if you are the born female athlete who would have been the record holder if a MTF athlete hadn't competed and broken the record, you might care. And if you didn't even get to compete at a big meet where the college scouts will be watching because MTFs got all the qualifier spots and that means a much lower chance of being recruited, that matters too. It may mean scholarship money. It may be the chance to go to a college with a good enough coach to give you a shot at the Olympics. It may mean a better chance of getting into an Ivy or a Division 3 college.

So, no, I don't think my priorities are f*d up; I think anyone thinks the most important thing is for MTF trans people to compete in sports as females has the wrong priorities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does giving Trans women rights diminish biological women's rights?

We're all in the same group as "female." I don't care if trans women want to join. The more the merrier.

THIS

It doesn't. I think JKR is dumb to make this about the bathrooms. I don't care about trans people advocating for rights at all. They should! They should absolutely do that and feminists should support them as an intersectional partner for advocating for equality.

Changing language so women don't exist is the issue. And it is an issue that trans people would I assume not like either, as they would then not have language to describe their own vision of their gender.

I think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.

I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.

You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.

The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.

No, she didn't. Saying that women menstruate is still a true statement and doesn't negate that trans men or others might menstruate, just like saying Black Lives Matter is a true statement and doesn't negate that other lives have value. It's logic 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It sounds unlikely to you because you’ve never dealt with abusive men.

Women trying to get out of abusive relationships are in a lot of danger. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of scenarios where the abuser could get a friend to go find his wife in a shelter and use the trans-label as a cover. This is exactly what JK Rowling was talking about when she said this destroys safe spaces for women.

How exactly do you think DV shelters work? Do you think anyone can just turn up and walk in?

I think domestic violence shelters have a lot of discretion — however, there’s already been one example where a trans woman (who sounded and presented as male) was not allowed to volunteer with rape victims because it made them feel uncomfortable. The trans woman sued and succeed in shutting down the shelter. This literally “destroyed” a safe space for women.

If you think other shelters haven’t taken notice, you are delusional. For a violent man wanting to locate his wife, the trans exception provides very easy access to formerly safe spaces.

I would really like the PP to provide a link to that story before people just go restating her comments as fact.

Here you go:

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/

Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief

A trans woman sued the Vancouver Rape Relief because she wasn’t allowed to volunteer directly with rape victims — she refused to settle or accept other forms of volunteering. This tied up their efforts and resources for over a decade of defending themselves and defending female-only safe spaces for battered and abused women. In 2020 they were denied funding by the city of Vancouver directly because of their stance that a female only space was critical in making battered women feel safe.

One more thing that’s relevant: The shelter did provide help for trans women as well as cis-women. It’s just that the vast majority of their clients were biological women. Their mission was to provide a safe space for women and they recognized (as most advocates do) that it can be very triggering and frightening to be around men immediately after a woman has been attacked by a man.

It was blatant discrimination. The court upheld it was. If you google Kimberly Nixon she would never be mistaken for a man. It’s horrible that a rape crisis center told a transgender woman she was going to trigger rape victims.

You don’t think there’s something wrong with a person so determined to speak to rape victims that they would sue a rape crisis center for the right to do that? It doesn’t strike you as just a bit self-serving that a trans woman would go that route rather than, say, find a shelter that caters to trans victims of sexual violence, or start such an organization themselves? Why put all that energy into forcing women to give you access to victimized women?

I am sure it actually hurt quite a bit to sue a rape center but I believe this person was thinking bigger than herself and fighting blanket discrimination which does in fact benefit many people.

Sure. I bet it benefited Kimberly Nixon.

It does not benefit the women who are survivors of male violence and no longer have a safe space to heal. Since when is it discrimination for women’s shelters to provide safety for women recovering from male violence???

At first I thought JK Rowling was ridiculous, but all the people arguing that rape victims should have to accommodate trans women who present as men are making me rethink this. Ugh! It’s an attack on the most vulnerable members of society in their most vulnerable moment (immediately after being raped.) Wow. You really want to eliminate every safe space for women???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does giving Trans women rights diminish biological women's rights?

We're all in the same group as "female." I don't care if trans women want to join. The more the merrier.

THIS

It doesn't. I think JKR is dumb to make this about the bathrooms. I don't care about trans people advocating for rights at all. They should! They should absolutely do that and feminists should support them as an intersectional partner for advocating for equality.

Changing language so women don't exist is the issue. And it is an issue that trans people would I assume not like either, as they would then not have language to describe their own vision of their gender.

I think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.

I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.

You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.

The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.

If you are female, and you don’t menstruate, it’s because there is a problem. The female body is supposed to menstruate for purposes of reproduction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.

If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.

Let me introduce you to the internet, where you can be subject to a mob attack for any reason or sometimes no reason, but it's always an unpleasant experience.

If you feel you would be attacked for saying it out loud, again, question if it’s a belief worth holding.

By your logic, should anti-racists sit back and keep quiet in racist parts of the country if they fear attack?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how anyone other than a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome can me strays?

This is going to far if someone tries to argue that.

People who menstruate include women and trans men. That wasn't difficult or confusing.

In other words, women.

You do realize you have a choice, right? You don't have to be so vile and hateful. You could just choose to be kind.

Original pp ohhh now I get it because men have an X chrom they think they can menstruated as a trans? Are you serious? that’s the argument? When I see a trans man with a period then you can try to make a point. this is lunacy!!!!! Trans men do not have a period and cannot get pregnant. They are not women end of story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How does giving Trans women rights diminish biological women's rights?

We're all in the same group as "female." I don't care if trans women want to join. The more the merrier.

THIS

It doesn't. I think JKR is dumb to make this about the bathrooms. I don't care about trans people advocating for rights at all. They should! They should absolutely do that and feminists should support them as an intersectional partner for advocating for equality.

Changing language so women don't exist is the issue. And it is an issue that trans people would I assume not like either, as they would then not have language to describe their own vision of their gender.

I think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.

I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.

You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.

The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.

No, she didn't. Saying that women menstruate is still a true statement and doesn't negate that trans men or others might menstruate, just like saying Black Lives Matter is a true statement and doesn't negate that other lives have value. It's logic 101.

No. Last week she retweeted an article that had the headline including “people who menstruate.” She said “there used to be a word for that..” referencing women:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1269382518362509313?s=21

The response to THAT is why she had to write this long BS post. She’s a known TERF.