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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She is a TERF and the rest of you that agree with her are TERFs too.

Ohhhhhh a “terf”!!! Lololol

You can call me all the names you want, but on this Jk Rowling is correct, and people have lots the damn minds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read it? It’s certainly well-thought out. She essentially says she’s spent 3 years studying the concept of trans identity and while she supports it -

a) she doesn’t think the rights of women who sexually identify as female should be diminished,

b) young adults (under 18) should not be allowed gender reassignment surgery and even adults need to have more rigorous standards for completion since its irreversible, and

c) trans being a identity more than a sexuality is subject to groupthink which is why it’s exploded in culture recently.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

To me, this is the equivalent of All Lives Matter. By promoting awareness of and requesting protection for trans women, no one is saying that cis women are worth any less.

To me it is actually trans people doing that to women's rights, not vice versa. I am VERY pro LGBTQ and fully fully believe in their ability to live freely. But I do not want have women's rights and Trans rights under the same umbrella. Gay rights didn't want to be under the same umbrella as women's rights because they are different things. By trying to combine women's rights and trans rights (which, again, both are worthy causes deserving of public support) you are, by definition, obfuscating many women's rights that derive specifically from female anatomy (ie, abortion rights).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with JKR.

I am also BLM supporter and will vote Democratic. I am for all civil, domestic partnership and democratic rights to LGBTQ community and support seperate bathrooms for them if needed in public spaces.

Separate but equal, right?

Are men and women separate but equal? I actually don't care about the bathroom thing but this is a very silly argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her completely. It is not about rejecting trans identity. It is about saying that our lives are indeed shaped by our outward-facing gender. A trans woman who passes as their "assigned" gender until adulthood DOES have certain privileges not available to women raised as women from birth. Their experiences are different. They are socialized differently. It is like light-skinned AA who passed for white and had entree into higher education opportunities as a result. Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid woman in American because she used to be a Martin (and had a wife who raised her and Martine's children) so that Martine could benefit from male privilege: https://www.thewrap.com/highest-paid-woman-ceo-used-to-be-a-man/. Intersectionality is often framed as focusing on the most marginalized sub-group with a given group, to the exclusion of other narratives. So, here, we would be being asked to focus on trans women experiences, to the exclusion of other women who were socialized as women from an early age. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It also, in effect, erases the voices of most women. If we frame it as trans women are women and they experiences - but we also need to listen to other women who might have different experiences - I think everyone is on board.

I'm not quite clear on what you are getting at here. I think most trans women would admit that they benefited from male privilege while presenting as men, and many have used their platforms to discuss misogyny from the perspective of someone used to being treated one way, and now being treated another.

What I don't understand is what you think is actually lost when we as women include the concerns of trans women in our feminism. What does it actually mean to "focus on trans women's experiences to the exclusion of other women?" Why can't we have a feminism that includes the needs of all women, no matter what their chromosomes say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her completely. It is not about rejecting trans identity. It is about saying that our lives are indeed shaped by our outward-facing gender. A trans woman who passes as their "assigned" gender until adulthood DOES have certain privileges not available to women raised as women from birth. Their experiences are different. They are socialized differently. It is like light-skinned AA who passed for white and had entree into higher education opportunities as a result. Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid woman in American because she used to be a Martin (and had a wife who raised her and Martine's children) so that Martine could benefit from male privilege: https://www.thewrap.com/highest-paid-woman-ceo-used-to-be-a-man/. Intersectionality is often framed as focusing on the most marginalized sub-group with a given group, to the exclusion of other narratives. So, here, we would be being asked to focus on trans women experiences, to the exclusion of other women who were socialized as women from an early age. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It also, in effect, erases the voices of most women. If we frame it as trans women are women and they experiences - but we also need to listen to other women who might have different experiences - I think everyone is on board.

I'm not quite clear on what you are getting at here. I think most trans women would admit that they benefited from male privilege while presenting as men, and many have used their platforms to discuss misogyny from the perspective of someone used to being treated one way, and now being treated another.

What I don't understand is what you think is actually lost when we as women include the concerns of trans women in our feminism. What does it actually mean to "focus on trans women's experiences to the exclusion of other women?" Why can't we have a feminism that includes the needs of all women, no matter what their chromosomes say?

DP. I want to include concerns of trans women as part of intersectional feminism, and welcome trans women into the discussion when discussing how misogyny effects them as women but I am super super super against language that waters down issues that are inherently female and that are used to oppress women around the world. IE, what set her off in the first place, which is saying 'people who menstruate' or 'people who birth children'.

As I frequently bring up, if there was no meaningful difference between being a man and being a woman, people wouldn't want to transition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone else read it? It’s certainly well-thought out. She essentially says she’s spent 3 years studying the concept of trans identity and while she supports it -

a) she doesn’t think the rights of women who sexually identify as female should be diminished,

b) young adults (under 18) should not be allowed gender reassignment surgery and even adults need to have more rigorous standards for completion since its irreversible, and

c) trans being a identity more than a sexuality is subject to groupthink which is why it’s exploded in culture recently.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

To me, this is the equivalent of All Lives Matter. By promoting awareness of and requesting protection for trans women, no one is saying that cis women are worth any less.

Except when it comes to demanding things that might hurt natural born women such as trans women competing in female sports or going into female bathrooms.

Well, cis girls and women just need to accept that. If cis girls lose to trans girls in women's sports, then they need to be good losers. Not bad losers.

Troll

I'm not a troll, I'm stating the only reasonable position to take wrt women's sports and trans women. Some people also think it's problematic, but what's a better alternative? Barring trans athletes, imposing a transition period hiatus, something else? All problematic.

If you are a trans woman, then you are a biological man who has chosen to become a woman and you have your Y DNA and years of male hormones that have shaped your physique. Therefore you are genetically and physically different from biological women. Trans women could always choose to compete against the gender they were born as, or we can create a separate category for trans women.

[Anonymous]

The only reservation I have is children (under the age of 18) making changes to their bodies that are permanent and irreversible. I couldn't care less about debating whether it's identity or sexuality. It's not for me to debate. My rights have never been impeded by a trans or gay person and I think they should have all of the same protections under the law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her completely. It is not about rejecting trans identity. It is about saying that our lives are indeed shaped by our outward-facing gender. A trans woman who passes as their "assigned" gender until adulthood DOES have certain privileges not available to women raised as women from birth. Their experiences are different. They are socialized differently. It is like light-skinned AA who passed for white and had entree into higher education opportunities as a result. Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid woman in American because she used to be a Martin (and had a wife who raised her and Martine's children) so that Martine could benefit from male privilege: https://www.thewrap.com/highest-paid-woman-ceo-used-to-be-a-man/. Intersectionality is often framed as focusing on the most marginalized sub-group with a given group, to the exclusion of other narratives. So, here, we would be being asked to focus on trans women experiences, to the exclusion of other women who were socialized as women from an early age. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It also, in effect, erases the voices of most women. If we frame it as trans women are women and they experiences - but we also need to listen to other women who might have different experiences - I think everyone is on board.

I'm not quite clear on what you are getting at here. I think most trans women would admit that they benefited from male privilege while presenting as men, and many have used their platforms to discuss misogyny from the perspective of someone used to being treated one way, and now being treated another.

What I don't understand is what you think is actually lost when we as women include the concerns of trans women in our feminism. What does it actually mean to "focus on trans women's experiences to the exclusion of other women?" Why can't we have a feminism that includes the needs of all women, no matter what their chromosomes say?

DP. I want to include concerns of trans women as part of intersectional feminism, and welcome trans women into the discussion when discussing how misogyny effects them as women but I am super super super against language that waters down issues that are inherently female and that are used to oppress women around the world. IE, what set her off in the first place, which is saying 'people who menstruate' or 'people who birth children'.

As I frequently bring up, if there was no meaningful difference between being a man and being a woman, people wouldn't want to transition.

I guess I just don't see the harm of inclusive language. Like, let's say I want my employer to put tampons and pads in the restroom, in order to provide for employees who experience menstrual emergencies. It is possible for someone who presents as a man to experience a menstrual emergency. How does it harm me to include that person in my advocacy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only reservation I have is children (under the age of 18) making changes to their bodies that are permanent and irreversible. I couldn't care less about debating whether it's identity or sexuality. It's not for me to debate. My rights have never been impeded by a trans or gay person and I think they should have all of the same protections under the law.

For the most part, no one is doing that. The standard of care is hormonal blockers for those under 18. The whole point of hormonal blockers is that they would allow adolescence to proceed normally if you stopped them, so it buys people some time to engage in therapy and determine what it is that they really want.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The only reservation I have is children (under the age of 18) making changes to their bodies that are permanent and irreversible. I couldn't care less about debating whether it's identity or sexuality. It's not for me to debate. My rights have never been impeded by a trans or gay person and I think they should have all of the same protections under the law.

For the most part, no one is doing that. The standard of care is hormonal blockers for those under 18. The whole point of hormonal blockers is that they would allow adolescence to proceed normally if you stopped them, so it buys people some time to engage in therapy and determine what it is that they really want.

DP. I don't agree with that either. I don't see hormones as being "safer" than surgery. And I doubt that "delaying" puberty is harmless either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her completely. It is not about rejecting trans identity. It is about saying that our lives are indeed shaped by our outward-facing gender. A trans woman who passes as their "assigned" gender until adulthood DOES have certain privileges not available to women raised as women from birth. Their experiences are different. They are socialized differently. It is like light-skinned AA who passed for white and had entree into higher education opportunities as a result. Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid woman in American because she used to be a Martin (and had a wife who raised her and Martine's children) so that Martine could benefit from male privilege: https://www.thewrap.com/highest-paid-woman-ceo-used-to-be-a-man/. Intersectionality is often framed as focusing on the most marginalized sub-group with a given group, to the exclusion of other narratives. So, here, we would be being asked to focus on trans women experiences, to the exclusion of other women who were socialized as women from an early age. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It also, in effect, erases the voices of most women. If we frame it as trans women are women and they experiences - but we also need to listen to other women who might have different experiences - I think everyone is on board.

I'm not quite clear on what you are getting at here. I think most trans women would admit that they benefited from male privilege while presenting as men, and many have used their platforms to discuss misogyny from the perspective of someone used to being treated one way, and now being treated another.

What I don't understand is what you think is actually lost when we as women include the concerns of trans women in our feminism. What does it actually mean to "focus on trans women's experiences to the exclusion of other women?" Why can't we have a feminism that includes the needs of all women, no matter what their chromosomes say?

DP. I want to include concerns of trans women as part of intersectional feminism, and welcome trans women into the discussion when discussing how misogyny effects them as women but I am super super super against language that waters down issues that are inherently female and that are used to oppress women around the world. IE, what set her off in the first place, which is saying 'people who menstruate' or 'people who birth children'.

As I frequently bring up, if there was no meaningful difference between being a man and being a woman, people wouldn't want to transition.

I guess I just don't see the harm of inclusive language. Like, let's say I want my employer to put tampons and pads in the restroom, in order to provide for employees who experience menstrual emergencies. It is possible for someone who presents as a man to experience a menstrual emergency. How does it harm me to include that person in my advocacy?

Those are trans men, not trans women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her completely. It is not about rejecting trans identity. It is about saying that our lives are indeed shaped by our outward-facing gender. A trans woman who passes as their "assigned" gender until adulthood DOES have certain privileges not available to women raised as women from birth. Their experiences are different. They are socialized differently. It is like light-skinned AA who passed for white and had entree into higher education opportunities as a result. Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid woman in American because she used to be a Martin (and had a wife who raised her and Martine's children) so that Martine could benefit from male privilege: https://www.thewrap.com/highest-paid-woman-ceo-used-to-be-a-man/. Intersectionality is often framed as focusing on the most marginalized sub-group with a given group, to the exclusion of other narratives. So, here, we would be being asked to focus on trans women experiences, to the exclusion of other women who were socialized as women from an early age. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It also, in effect, erases the voices of most women. If we frame it as trans women are women and they experiences - but we also need to listen to other women who might have different experiences - I think everyone is on board.

I'm not quite clear on what you are getting at here. I think most trans women would admit that they benefited from male privilege while presenting as men, and many have used their platforms to discuss misogyny from the perspective of someone used to being treated one way, and now being treated another.

What I don't understand is what you think is actually lost when we as women include the concerns of trans women in our feminism. What does it actually mean to "focus on trans women's experiences to the exclusion of other women?" Why can't we have a feminism that includes the needs of all women, no matter what their chromosomes say?

DP. I want to include concerns of trans women as part of intersectional feminism, and welcome trans women into the discussion when discussing how misogyny effects them as women but I am super super super against language that waters down issues that are inherently female and that are used to oppress women around the world. IE, what set her off in the first place, which is saying 'people who menstruate' or 'people who birth children'.

As I frequently bring up, if there was no meaningful difference between being a man and being a woman, people wouldn't want to transition.

I guess I just don't see the harm of inclusive language. Like, let's say I want my employer to put tampons and pads in the restroom, in order to provide for employees who experience menstrual emergencies. It is possible for someone who presents as a man to experience a menstrual emergency. How does it harm me to include that person in my advocacy?

Women all over the world are denied access to education because they have periods. They are entrapped in lifetimes of being less than because they bear children and bear the responsibility of raising them more than male counterparts.

Women are held down in society by restricting access to birth control and abortion. Women bear a substantially increased cost of being raped for the same reason. These are issues women face that women advocate for. I have NO problem with trans rights, literally none. But I want to talk about how these things effect WOMEN, not 'people who menstruate' because the reality is that women have been held back for centuries because of these issues. And we have been held back BY MEN (and trans women have, until they transitioned, enjoyed the benefits that men enjoy in our society). And so by being vague in language, we once again put women in the backseat, even in the space of advocating for their own rights.

When men and women share an entirely equal place in society and we aren't in a position where women's rights are being stripped away daily across this country, then I will not care what language we use. But right now women are having their SPECIFIC rights that are tied specifically to their biological reality stripped away. And anything that makes that unclear is, to me, unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with her completely. It is not about rejecting trans identity. It is about saying that our lives are indeed shaped by our outward-facing gender. A trans woman who passes as their "assigned" gender until adulthood DOES have certain privileges not available to women raised as women from birth. Their experiences are different. They are socialized differently. It is like light-skinned AA who passed for white and had entree into higher education opportunities as a result. Martine Rothblatt is the highest paid woman in American because she used to be a Martin (and had a wife who raised her and Martine's children) so that Martine could benefit from male privilege: https://www.thewrap.com/highest-paid-woman-ceo-used-to-be-a-man/. Intersectionality is often framed as focusing on the most marginalized sub-group with a given group, to the exclusion of other narratives. So, here, we would be being asked to focus on trans women experiences, to the exclusion of other women who were socialized as women from an early age. That doesn't make a lot of sense. It also, in effect, erases the voices of most women. If we frame it as trans women are women and they experiences - but we also need to listen to other women who might have different experiences - I think everyone is on board.

I'm not quite clear on what you are getting at here. I think most trans women would admit that they benefited from male privilege while presenting as men, and many have used their platforms to discuss misogyny from the perspective of someone used to being treated one way, and now being treated another.

What I don't understand is what you think is actually lost when we as women include the concerns of trans women in our feminism. What does it actually mean to "focus on trans women's experiences to the exclusion of other women?" Why can't we have a feminism that includes the needs of all women, no matter what their chromosomes say?

DP. I want to include concerns of trans women as part of intersectional feminism, and welcome trans women into the discussion when discussing how misogyny effects them as women but I am super super super against language that waters down issues that are inherently female and that are used to oppress women around the world. IE, what set her off in the first place, which is saying 'people who menstruate' or 'people who birth children'.

As I frequently bring up, if there was no meaningful difference between being a man and being a woman, people wouldn't want to transition.

I guess I just don't see the harm of inclusive language. Like, let's say I want my employer to put tampons and pads in the restroom, in order to provide for employees who experience menstrual emergencies. It is possible for someone who presents as a man to experience a menstrual emergency. How does it harm me to include that person in my advocacy?

Those are trans men, not trans women.

....but that's the language JKR was objecting to. She objects to talking about "people who menstruate" but the point is that not everyone who menstruates identifies as a woman, but that doesn't mean they don't need menstrual supplies. It is literally the exact thing she got upset about.

[Anonymous]

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