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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is Sienna an insult? What?

It’s an anti-millennial slur. Millennials are the most discriminated, and marginalized humans, as we all know too well.

Literally every generation has called the generation after it nasty names. It's not terribly useful so just knock it off.

[Anonymous]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/more-millennials-are-living-at-home-than-at-any-other-time-this-century/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sienna and Linda are both misogynist insults and have no place here. Also, the horrific ageism isn't helping.

Sadly DCUM is never short on misogyny.

Do trans women really know what they're getting themselves in to? How much time have they spent on DCUM?

Bahahahahahahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/more-millennials-are-living-at-home-than-at-any-other-time-this-century/

I'm an Xer so dont have a dog in this fight. Personally, I think the nuclear family, 2 gen household, was a capitalist construct foisted upon a displaced post ww2 population, designed to sell more stuff, and inherently anti-woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sienna and Linda are both misogynist insults and have no place here. Also, the horrific ageism isn't helping.

Sadly DCUM is never short on misogyny.

Do trans women really know what they're getting themselves in to? How much time have they spent on DCUM?

Bahahahahahahaha

Hahaha no they do not. Because they had the privilege of growing up male and didn't experience sexism first hand until transitioning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sienna and Linda are both misogynist insults and have no place here. Also, the horrific ageism isn't helping.

Sadly DCUM is never short on misogyny.

Do trans women really know what they're getting themselves in to? How much time have they spent on DCUM?

Bahahahahahahaha

Hahaha no they do not. Because they had the privilege of growing up male and didn't experience sexism first hand until transitioning.

DP. I do think a lot of them experienced tangential crap about being sissies etc. but it’s not the same thing, agreed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ok I want to take a step back from the name calling and point out where we agree and where we disagree, because I think some people are mistaking my stance (which I think is the same as JKR and other posters)

1. Only people with XX chromosomes menstruate

2. There are people with XX chromosomes but who don’t identify as women who menstruate

3. Trans people deserve to live life in peace and dignity, and we should call people by their preferred names and pronouns

4. Transwomen and ciswomen have differences, which include biology and how they were socialized as children

Ok, here’s where I disagree:

1. There are limited situations where it is legitimate to limit a space to only ciswomen. This includes certain battered women’s shelters if there are victims there who would be triggered around people with male characteristics; competitive women’s sports; and I don’t believe service providers like bikini waxers should be forced to service people with male genitalia (in Canada, many female aestheticians were actually sued for refusing to wax a trans women with male genetalia and some lost their businesses). Some people also have a problem with trans women in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms although I don’t really.

2. Language about XX bodies (Menstruation, pregnancy, breast and ovarian health, etc) should default to using the word woman, unless there is a specific reason not to. This is because saying “people who menstruate” “uterus owners” “people with front holes” (yes this is preferred terminology in some circles) is unnecessarily confusing, and alienating to many women who have already been told by society over and over again that our bodies and reproductive organs are gross. Obviously, if an article or pamphlet is trying to reach the trans and non-binary community specifically, they can use different language as they see fit.

3. Minors should not be allowed to make permanent body alterations. Many minors change their mind about their gender identity later on. And, puberty blockers can cause permanent damage to the development of genitalia. If a minor wants to dress differently and go by a different name and pronouns that’s fine.

4. Preferring to date people who only have certain body types is not transphobic. (Yes, there are some very vocal trans people who think that having a preference for dating cis people is transphobic. I am pretty sure they’re the minority but they are very vocal so it’s hard to tell).

Ok... that’s it. To all those who legitimately want to learn the other sides actual opinions, I hope this is helpful.

^^^This is such a thoughtful post that captures exactly how I feel. You express yourself in a way I haven’t been able to. Actually, all of your responses in this thread have been thoughtful, clear, and they mirror my beliefs. (I’m pretty sure I can tell which posts are yours, as you have a distinctive writing style.)

Thank you, PP!

[New Poster]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I want to take a step back from the name calling and point out where we agree and where we disagree, because I think some people are mistaking my stance (which I think is the same as JKR and other posters)

1. Only people with XX chromosomes menstruate

2. There are people with XX chromosomes but who don’t identify as women who menstruate

3. Trans people deserve to live life in peace and dignity, and we should call people by their preferred names and pronouns

4. Transwomen and ciswomen have differences, which include biology and how they were socialized as children

Ok, here’s where I disagree:

1. There are limited situations where it is legitimate to limit a space to only ciswomen. This includes certain battered women’s shelters if there are victims there who would be triggered around people with male characteristics; competitive women’s sports; and I don’t believe service providers like bikini waxers should be forced to service people with male genitalia (in Canada, many female aestheticians were actually sued for refusing to wax a trans women with male genetalia and some lost their businesses). Some people also have a problem with trans women in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms although I don’t really.

2. Language about XX bodies (Menstruation, pregnancy, breast and ovarian health, etc) should default to using the word woman, unless there is a specific reason not to. This is because saying “people who menstruate” “uterus owners” “people with front holes” (yes this is preferred terminology in some circles) is unnecessarily confusing, and alienating to many women who have already been told by society over and over again that our bodies and reproductive organs are gross. Obviously, if an article or pamphlet is trying to reach the trans and non-binary community specifically, they can use different language as they see fit.

3. Minors should not be allowed to make permanent body alterations. Many minors change their mind about their gender identity later on. And, puberty blockers can cause permanent damage to the development of genitalia. If a minor wants to dress differently and go by a different name and pronouns that’s fine.

4. Preferring to date people who only have certain body types is not transphobic. (Yes, there are some very vocal trans people who think that having a preference for dating cis people is transphobic. I am pretty sure they’re the minority but they are very vocal so it’s hard to tell).

Ok... that’s it. To all those who legitimately want to learn the other sides actual opinions, I hope this is helpful.

I disagree with you and find your reasons for excluding people weak (“too confusing”?).

Your positions are harmful to others.

Same old same old key catchphrases, zero effort to meaningfully respond. I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.

Nothing wrong with being concise.

I’ve already addressed your points in prior posts and I’m now on my phone so I don’t feel like typing it all out again. It’s repetitive anyway. “Too confusing” is a weak cop-out and no excuse to harm others.

I think you need to work on your advocacy skills, then, because I've read this entire thread and still haven't seen a response that actually details the harm.

Did you miss the posts from the mom of a trans girl/woman?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it harm trans women to call them trans women?

Because they’re deluded men and need to usurp and undermine women in any way possible, and feel entitled to do so.

This hateful crap is exactly what fuels my anger.

I don’t see any of the JKR-minded people denouncing this.

I posted a few pages back specifically saying I did not support language like this. And I’ll reaffirm that I think this poster does sound hateful and bigoted

Thank you.

Can the question be answered? What is the harm caused to trans women by calling them trans women?

None as long as you acknowledge that being trans is part of their identity but they are also women. They’re women. If you can agree to that basic fact, then saying they are trans is fine because you aren’t using it to diminish or deny their womanhood.

NP. I don’t want to agree with that. I don’t agree. I will call anyone whatever name or pronoun they want, I don’t care what bathroom they use or what they wear. I support publicly funded reassignment surgery for those with dysphoria. I will always decry violence against trans people and support trans advocacy. But privately, I do not acknowledge their womanhood. The only thing that makes me a woman is my biological femaleness and the way I have been treated and socialized because of it.

It’s these purity tests that drive people away. They are not women and will never have womanhood. Step off.

And there you have it.

Sure you want to cast out trans people, JKR fans? This is the BS they deal with every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it harm trans women to call them trans women?

Because they’re deluded men and need to usurp and undermine women in any way possible, and feel entitled to do so.

This hateful crap is exactly what fuels my anger.

I don’t see any of the JKR-minded people denouncing this.

I posted a few pages back specifically saying I did not support language like this. And I’ll reaffirm that I think this poster does sound hateful and bigoted

Thank you.

Can the question be answered? What is the harm caused to trans women by calling them trans women?

None as long as you acknowledge that being trans is part of their identity but they are also women. They’re women. If you can agree to that basic fact, then saying they are trans is fine because you aren’t using it to diminish or deny their womanhood.

NP. I don’t want to agree with that. I don’t agree. I will call anyone whatever name or pronoun they want, I don’t care what bathroom they use or what they wear. I support publicly funded reassignment surgery for those with dysphoria. I will always decry violence against trans people and support trans advocacy. But privately, I do not acknowledge their womanhood. The only thing that makes me a woman is my biological femaleness and the way I have been treated and socialized because of it.

This is a major point in my disagreement with activists. There is a vociferous point of view that there is no difference between growing up as a boy or as a girl that can lead towards a unifying experience of manhood or womanhood and this just doesn't fit with my lived experience.

Sounds like you had a very gendered childhood. I’m sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
NP, and I've read your responses, and they just don't hold together. You seem to take it as a given that it would be too confusing to advocate for women if you have to account for trans women in the definition, but you don't explain why it would be confusing, or how, or give any examples. And it isn't as obvious as you seem to think.

DP.

For a biological woman, having or not having a period can be a serious thing. If we reduce women to "menstruators" we hide that issue. A young woman who's gotten to be age 16 or 17 without having a period may well assume she's just not a menstruator. She may have no idea that's an issue she should bring up with a medical professional. Girls and womens health concerns are undervalued. We are ignored from research to implementation. And now we're supposed to avoid centering womens health and health issues, because a tiny minority of people might possibly have to deal with the fact that their biology is different from the biology of people they'd like to align themselves with.

We don't avoid pushing for prenatal care because of a minority of women who can't get pregnant - even when it causes them serious distress to deal with this knowledge. Why? Because making sure women have access to care before and during pregnancy is critical to the health of those women and the resulting infants. But perhaps we should prioritize women who are dealing with infertility, and just leave it to all other women to make sure they know exactly what they'll need, and that they're effective self-advocates.

No one is saying anything of the sort. We can talk about more than one thing at once. We can advocate for women's health and health issues, and we can include trans women, just like we include women who have had hysterectomies. And just like we advocate for health professionals to actually listen to black women's pain even though that isn't an issue that generally affects white women. We can hold more than one thought in our head at once. We can do all of those things. It's actually quite easy: just don't be a d!ck. As it were.

Yes, people are saying exactly that. If we no longer have a word for girls, or women, if we're reduced to "menstruators" then we are not, and cannot, be centering womens health issues. We've removed the ability for girls to know what is normal as they grow, that periods are normal, that if they're having a different experience, it's not that, oh well, they're just like those other-women-who-don't-menstruate.

Words are important. When you remove the ability of groups to describe their experiences, you remove the ability of groups to center those experience, and demand equity.

We do not remove all public talk about pregnancy to accommodate those who are traumatized by it, because it is important even in its own right, while ALSO being challenging for some people to deal with.

This is one of those areas. If trans men are traumatized by public discussion of womens health issues, I'm sorry. I truly am. But girls and womens health is too important to tip toe around, we will never have our health concerns treated as legitimate concerns if we are not blatant about them, and too many girls and women are dying because of it. Trans men are never going to be able to escape the fact that they were born biologically female, and it's not the responsibility of the world around them to erase every aspect of womanhood in order to make it easier. Just as it's not the responsibility of the world around infertile people to hide every aspect of pregnancy, and it would be irresponsible to suggest it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don't understand the emphasis on denying any difference, physical or life experience, between ciswomen and transwomen. I don't understand why it is transphobic to say that growing up female is a formative experience. It seems like in every other area, we (rightly, I think) insist on recognizing and supporting physical differences that lead people to have different life experiences and needs.

+1

And it seems like women are always the ones who are told to ignore their needs (both medical and mental) in an effort to be inclusive. When there is nothing wrong with advocating that certain issues are inherent only to women (menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, etc.)

Women are not being “told to ignore their needs”.

Yes, we are. The ejaculators get to keep their word for themselves. The menstruators have to shut up and sit down. Again.

Once we remove "men" as often as we remove "women" maybe I'll believe you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ok I want to take a step back from the name calling and point out where we agree and where we disagree, because I think some people are mistaking my stance (which I think is the same as JKR and other posters)

1. Only people with XX chromosomes menstruate

2. There are people with XX chromosomes but who don’t identify as women who menstruate

3. Trans people deserve to live life in peace and dignity, and we should call people by their preferred names and pronouns

4. Transwomen and ciswomen have differences, which include biology and how they were socialized as children

Ok, here’s where I disagree:

1. There are limited situations where it is legitimate to limit a space to only ciswomen. This includes certain battered women’s shelters if there are victims there who would be triggered around people with male characteristics; competitive women’s sports; and I don’t believe service providers like bikini waxers should be forced to service people with male genitalia (in Canada, many female aestheticians were actually sued for refusing to wax a trans women with male genetalia and some lost their businesses). Some people also have a problem with trans women in women’s bathrooms and locker rooms although I don’t really.

2. Language about XX bodies (Menstruation, pregnancy, breast and ovarian health, etc) should default to using the word woman, unless there is a specific reason not to. This is because saying “people who menstruate” “uterus owners” “people with front holes” (yes this is preferred terminology in some circles) is unnecessarily confusing, and alienating to many women who have already been told by society over and over again that our bodies and reproductive organs are gross. Obviously, if an article or pamphlet is trying to reach the trans and non-binary community specifically, they can use different language as they see fit.

3. Minors should not be allowed to make permanent body alterations. Many minors change their mind about their gender identity later on. And, puberty blockers can cause permanent damage to the development of genitalia. If a minor wants to dress differently and go by a different name and pronouns that’s fine.

4. Preferring to date people who only have certain body types is not transphobic. (Yes, there are some very vocal trans people who think that having a preference for dating cis people is transphobic. I am pretty sure they’re the minority but they are very vocal so it’s hard to tell).

Ok... that’s it. To all those who legitimately want to learn the other sides actual opinions, I hope this is helpful.

^^^This is such a thoughtful post that captures exactly how I feel. You express yourself in a way I haven’t been able to. Actually, all of your responses in this thread have been thoughtful, clear, and they mirror my beliefs. (I’m pretty sure I can tell which posts are yours, as you have a distinctive writing style.)

Thank you, PP!

[New Poster]

+2

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. I don't understand the emphasis on denying any difference, physical or life experience, between ciswomen and transwomen. I don't understand why it is transphobic to say that growing up female is a formative experience. It seems like in every other area, we (rightly, I think) insist on recognizing and supporting physical differences that lead people to have different life experiences and needs.

+1

And it seems like women are always the ones who are told to ignore their needs (both medical and mental) in an effort to be inclusive. When there is nothing wrong with advocating that certain issues are inherent only to women (menstruation, pregnancy, menopause, etc.)

Women are not being “told to ignore their needs”.

Yes, we are. The ejaculators get to keep their word for themselves. The menstruators have to shut up and sit down. Again.

Once we remove "men" as often as we remove "women" maybe I'll believe you.

You don’t need to sit down. Just realize that many people who menstruate have challenges and open your arms to them instead of callously turning your back.

We are all better off if we lift each other up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why does it harm trans women to call them trans women?

Because they’re deluded men and need to usurp and undermine women in any way possible, and feel entitled to do so.

This hateful crap is exactly what fuels my anger.

I don’t see any of the JKR-minded people denouncing this.

I posted a few pages back specifically saying I did not support language like this. And I’ll reaffirm that I think this poster does sound hateful and bigoted

+2
That is hateful and bigoted. And OBVIOUSLY one of the many reasons trans women want to pass fully as biologically female is to reduce their risks of violence. I guess I’m one of the “JK” minded people and I maintain that trans people should be treated as the gender they wish to be.

Trans women are at risk of violence from men.
But they focus their rage on women, which is why there's a word for women who want to retain women-only spaces ("TERF") and not for men who would kill women and trans women.

It's all horrifically misogynistic.