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

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous]I read this thread and I see confusion between PPs, all of good intent, because of what looks like semantics to me.  When you use the word “woman”, how do you mean it?  How do you define it?  If you are talking about biological sex, the definition is based on chromosomes. XX is female.  XY is male.  We must acknowledge that there are a small group of people who do not fit into either of these boxes due to chromosomal abnormalities, but I don’t see that this third group is what we are talking about here.  Another discussion perhaps.

Then there is the use of “woman” to denote a gender.  Here things get more slippery for me.  What does this mean?  If you separate this from biological sex, then you are talking purely about things that result from socialization.  I submit that when it comes to the idea of gender separate from biological sex, that the definition of what is “woman” would be unique to each individual depending on the place/time/culture in which they were raised and their own unique life experiences.  The same for “man.” The more I think about it, the more the idea that some people would refuse to pick one of the other with all the baggage that can come with these terms makes perfect sense to me.

It feels like some of the PPs who would call themselves trans advocates and call the rest of us anti-trans are making some broad and unfair assumptions about what is required to be a trans supporter.  What you are really concerned about, what we are all concerned about, is the safety and well-being of trans people. BUT you are getting hung up on convincing people to believe something that is simply, factually untrue as a litmus test for our support.  The supporters of JKR seem to be trying to say to you that, based on biological sex, you cannot say that a trans woman is the same as a biologically-born woman.  There are consequences of this that are important to acknowledge and navigate, as many posters on this thread have discussed more eloquently than I could.

The problem is not to acknowledge the differences.  What we should all be worried about for trans people, or any group of people, really, is that differences are not used to harm them, bully them, marginalize them.  We are looking for everyone to be treated as having the same worth as human beings, to receive the same respect as human beings, to having their emotional and physical needs met.  Outside of a few trolls, I would say that those of us arguing on this thread all want those needs met for trans people.  Period.

But the people who are saying that trans women are women, completely the same, are asking many of us to accept something we see as fundamentally untrue.  They are presenting it as an absolute criterion for being pro-trans and the only way we can affirm the things I wrote in the previous paragraph.  I would submit that I can disagree, and see trans women as fundamentally different than biologically born women, and still support them and want all those things for them. In some cases, I would say to ignore the differences is to their peril.  Take the example of health care.  The fact that the Trump administration would roll back anti-discrimination protections for trans people is abhorrent to me.  But I would also submit to you that to ignore the original biological sex of a trans person in the course of their health care would be to their detriment.  What we need to be advocating for is more attention in research and medical education to produce doctors who are versed in the unique medical needs of this population.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics