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

[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 don't think the issue is about bathroom as much as it is safe space. JK Rowling is a sexual and domestic abuse servivor and supports shelters for women who have been abused. Her concern is that under Scottish law a man can show up and state they are a women no matter if the person has not had any surgery, not taking hormones, not doing anything to identify as a women but merely state they are a woman. Men historically have oppressed women, she is concerned safe spaces for women are being taken away.

This is a specious argument as trans individuals are MULTIPLE times more likely to experience violence for being trans than they are to inflict it.

I am not pp I agree with you but I think what pp/jkr are worried about is a cis-man falsely claiming to be trans and gaining access. (Which does not seem likely, of course.)

[Anonymous]

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 don't think the issue is about bathroom as much as it is safe space. JK Rowling is a sexual and domestic abuse servivor and supports shelters for women who have been abused. Her concern is that under Scottish law a man can show up and state they are a women no matter if the person has not had any surgery, not taking hormones, not doing anything to identify as a women but merely state they are a woman. Men historically have oppressed women, she is concerned safe spaces for women are being taken away.

I am a poster who has, here, been arguing emphatically against stripping the word woman out of language to describe biologically female issues. Just to put my response to this in context.

I think the bathroom thing is a nonissue because trans women are more likely (by far) to be attacked than to do the attacking and there is virtually no danger in these imaginary men using trans laws to stalk women in bathrooms. I am not familiar with the details of the Scottish law, but I have seen no evidence that there is a rash of violent men hiding beneath transgender activism to hurt women. Focusing on such an imaginary boogeyman hurts both causes.

[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 don't think the issue is about bathroom as much as it is safe space. JK Rowling is a sexual and domestic abuse servivor and supports shelters for women who have been abused. Her concern is that under Scottish law a man can show up and state they are a women no matter if the person has not had any surgery, not taking hormones, not doing anything to identify as a women but merely state they are a woman. Men historically have oppressed women, she is concerned safe spaces for women are being taken away.

This is a specious argument as trans individuals are MULTIPLE times more likely to experience violence for being trans than they are to inflict it.

I am not pp I agree with you but I think what pp/jkr are worried about is a cis-man falsely claiming to be trans and gaining access. (Which does not seem likely, of course.)

That literally never happens!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one point I will give her is that pressuring/shaming people about not wanting to date trans men or women who haven’t transitioned is just absolutely crazy. Wtf-if I can have a preference for not dating gingers why in the world wouldn’t people be able to have a preference re: type of genitals?

FWIW, I run in very lefty, very queer, circles and have never seen anyone shamed for who they don't date. I have seen people shamed for being jerks about who they don't date, though. So, if you are putting an ad up on a queer dating site, and lead with NO FATTIES, you are going to get pushback. If you just happen to only date super fit women, no one is going to harass you about it.

The point is that leading with exclusionary language is hurtful, where as just having a preference is being human.

Let me push back a little bit: So, how would you suggest that a lesbian say that she’s only interested in biological women? Is there any “non-transphobic or non-a$$hole” way of saying that?

As a cis-woman I know I would consider it a huge betrayal if I met a nan on a dating site specifying that I was interested in men, then I went on a few dates and found out he had a vagina when we were starting to get intimate. That would end the relationship right there because I want to have sex with biological men. It’s a deal breaker.

Can you tell me the correct way for a lesbian to express that sane sentiment? Like the exact words she should use on a dating site?
Thanks!

One of the great things about dating women, and dating queer people in general, is that they are (typically) much better at words-using than your average cishet man. I literally cannot imagine a scenario in which this information isn't in the profile. Just as I tell people potential dealbreakers (bisexual, parent to young kids), someone who is NB, GQ, or trans is going to have that information in their profile. If that doesn't work for me, I can just not date them.

[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 don't think the issue is about bathroom as much as it is safe space. JK Rowling is a sexual and domestic abuse servivor and supports shelters for women who have been abused. Her concern is that under Scottish law a man can show up and state they are a women no matter if the person has not had any surgery, not taking hormones, not doing anything to identify as a women but merely state they are a woman. Men historically have oppressed women, she is concerned safe spaces for women are being taken away.

This is a specious argument as trans individuals are MULTIPLE times more likely to experience violence for being trans than they are to inflict it.

So in Vancouver, a rape crisis center had only women volunteers answer calls to their hotline. They understood that many women would not feel safe talking to a man about their experiences being raped. A trans woman wanted to be one of those volunteers. The center refused, as she still would sound male on the phone. She was offered other volunteer opportunities that would not put her in contact with rape victims, but she was not happy with that, sued the center, and got them defunded for only serving and working with people who are born women. These are the outcomes of laws that let people legally change their gender identity. I think it’s a reasonable thing to be concerned about these sorts of outcomes. Do you disagree with that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The one point I will give her is that pressuring/shaming people about not wanting to date trans men or women who haven’t transitioned is just absolutely crazy. Wtf-if I can have a preference for not dating gingers why in the world wouldn’t people be able to have a preference re: type of genitals?

FWIW, I run in very lefty, very queer, circles and have never seen anyone shamed for who they don't date. I have seen people shamed for being jerks about who they don't date, though. So, if you are putting an ad up on a queer dating site, and lead with NO FATTIES, you are going to get pushback. If you just happen to only date super fit women, no one is going to harass you about it.

The point is that leading with exclusionary language is hurtful, where as just having a preference is being human.

This is absurd. Even if you're poly, dating is still about exclusion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s awful. Transphobia is gross.

She doesn’t have transphobia. You missed the point entirely.

Nah. They just didn’t read the article. It’s so much easier to get in the Twitter bandwagon.

[Anonymous]

Good for her, glad she has the balls to speak up on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s awful. Transphobia is gross.

She doesn’t have transphobia. You missed the point entirely.

Nah. They just didn’t read the article. It’s so much easier to get in the Twitter bandwagon.

No, I read the article. It’s Jo deflecting and trying to shoehorn some advocacy into her transphobia. She has done this for years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good for her, glad she has the balls to speak up on this.

My exact feelings too!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s awful. Transphobia is gross.

She doesn’t have transphobia. You missed the point entirely.

Nah. They just didn’t read the article. It’s so much easier to get in the Twitter bandwagon.

No, I read the article. It’s Jo deflecting and trying to shoehorn some advocacy into her transphobia. She has done this for years.

Or it is her articulating concerns many women have, even women who support trans people and their ability to live their lives freely and happily.

[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 don't think the issue is about bathroom as much as it is safe space. JK Rowling is a sexual and domestic abuse servivor and supports shelters for women who have been abused. Her concern is that under Scottish law a man can show up and state they are a women no matter if the person has not had any surgery, not taking hormones, not doing anything to identify as a women but merely state they are a woman. Men historically have oppressed women, she is concerned safe spaces for women are being taken away.

This is a specious argument as trans individuals are MULTIPLE times more likely to experience violence for being trans than they are to inflict it.

I am not pp I agree with you but I think what pp/jkr are worried about is a cis-man falsely claiming to be trans and gaining access. (Which does not seem likely, of course.)

That literally never happens!

You’re joking, right?

[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 don't think the issue is about bathroom as much as it is safe space. JK Rowling is a sexual and domestic abuse servivor and supports shelters for women who have been abused. Her concern is that under Scottish law a man can show up and state they are a women no matter if the person has not had any surgery, not taking hormones, not doing anything to identify as a women but merely state they are a woman. Men historically have oppressed women, she is concerned safe spaces for women are being taken away.

This is a specious argument as trans individuals are MULTIPLE times more likely to experience violence for being trans than they are to inflict it.

So in Vancouver, a rape crisis center had only women volunteers answer calls to their hotline. They understood that many women would not feel safe talking to a man about their experiences being raped. A trans woman wanted to be one of those volunteers. The center refused, as she still would sound male on the phone. She was offered other volunteer opportunities that would not put her in contact with rape victims, but she was not happy with that, sued the center, and got them defunded for only serving and working with people who are born women. These are the outcomes of laws that let people legally change their gender identity. I think it’s a reasonable thing to be concerned about these sorts of outcomes. Do you disagree with that?

I think a) this is an incredibly rare circumstance that b) has nothing to do with Jo’s garbage and c) discrimination is discrimination. A woman with a deep voice can’t work there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good for her, glad she has the balls to speak up on this.

My exact feelings too!

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She’s awful. Transphobia is gross.

She doesn’t have transphobia. You missed the point entirely.

Nah. They just didn’t read the article. It’s so much easier to get in the Twitter bandwagon.

The Twitter bandwagon is real. And people have ulterior motives, post divisive remarks, which then get retweeted by people who don’t realize they’re getting played. It’s ugly.

Be more discerning people!