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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything “Harry Potter” needs to be cancelled.

All of it. The books, those disgusting movies full of white actors - everything.

Erase it like it never existed.

Like women are who are born women are being erased?

DP. I’m a cigendered woman and in no way feel like I’m being erased.

I’m cisgendered too and don’t particularly like Harry Potter books....but people are completely overreacting.

I don’t feel erased either (another cisgendered woman here). That said, there is a difference between a biological woman and a transwoman and that difference isn’t a bad one - it doesn’t make one “better” or finished the value of either. But I take Rowling’s point that it’s off to pretend there’s no difference.

It’s like when people say “I’m not racist; I don’t see color.” Instead of acknowledging, yes, I see color (because you do) but I don’t inherently devalue people or project harmful biases on them because of their color.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:51 pages in, I still don't understand the central argument of this debate.
If the question is, are trans women the same as cis women?
The answer is, yes trans women can identify as women (or anything else they want to) because gender is an identity.
At the same time trans women are obviously not the same as cis women biologically, just look at the difference in sex chromosomes.
To sum up, trans women are males (biologically) who identify as female (as a social gender).
Trans women share some similarities as cis women but since they are also different biologically, trans women =/= cis women.

This seems pretty simple.

I had to read your post several times because at first you say yes, trans women can identify as women, then at the end you say transwomen are not women.

I don't quite buy the argument that gender is an identity insomuch as it is, first and foremost, a biology. That is the basis of the gender. The social construct argument wants to weaken this basis, but it is a very powerful basis that can't be ignored. See the rubbish earlier about menstruating as someone tries to circumvent basic science.

Things would be much simpler if transwomen accepted they are not women but transwomen and that the extreme advocates among them accept there are places they may not be able to use because they are reserved for biological women (women's sports, for example). They should make their peace with it. The reason the debate has become so polarizing is because trans activists have turned it into an all but nothing cause. It also doesn't help that the angry activists tried to deplatform and cancel JK Rowling, who is otherwise sympathetic to those who feel the need to live as the opposite gender, for simply pointing out the basic reality of the science, which is why the trans activists are very much a case of emperor's new clothing.

Cis women and trans women are the same gender (social). However, cis women and trans women are not the same sex (biological). In other words, both cis women and trans women are women but only cis women are female.

Acknowledging this reality does not conflict with trans rights.

This is not reality

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everything “Harry Potter” needs to be cancelled.

All of it. The books, those disgusting movies full of white actors - everything.

Erase it like it never existed.

Like women are who are born women are being erased?

DP. I’m a cigendered woman and in no way feel like I’m being erased.

I’m cisgendered too and don’t particularly like Harry Potter books....but people are completely overreacting.

I don’t feel erased either (another cisgendered woman here). That said, there is a difference between a biological woman and a transwoman and that difference isn’t a bad one - it doesn’t make one “better” or finished the value of either. But I take Rowling’s point that it’s off to pretend there’s no difference.

It’s like when people say “I’m not racist; I don’t see color.” Instead of acknowledging, yes, I see color (because you do) but I don’t inherently devalue people or project harmful biases on them because of their color.

Exactly. Great analogy, PP.

[black NP]

[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.

Trans women are not women-they are trans women!

[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.

[u]



AND they are also WOMEN=XX chromosomes women.

[Anonymous]

You mean they're female