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 think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.
I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.
You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.
The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.
No, she didn't. Saying that women menstruate is still a true statement and doesn't negate that trans men or others might menstruate, just like saying Black Lives Matter is a true statement and doesn't negate that other lives have value. It's logic 101.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how anyone other than a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome can me strays?
This is going to far if someone tries to argue that.
People who menstruate include women and trans men. That wasn't difficult or confusing.
In other words, women.
You do realize you have a choice, right? You don't have to be so vile and hateful. You could just choose to be kind.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.
If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.
Let me introduce you to the internet, where you can be subject to a mob attack for any reason or sometimes no reason, but it's always an unpleasant experience.
If you feel you would be attacked for saying it out loud, again, question if it’s a belief worth holding.
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 think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.
I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.
You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.
The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It sounds unlikely to you because you’ve never dealt with abusive men.
Women trying to get out of abusive relationships are in a lot of danger. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of scenarios where the abuser could get a friend to go find his wife in a shelter and use the trans-label as a cover. This is exactly what JK Rowling was talking about when she said this destroys safe spaces for women.
How exactly do you think DV shelters work? Do you think anyone can just turn up and walk in?
I think domestic violence shelters have a lot of discretion — however, there’s already been one example where a trans woman (who sounded and presented as male) was not allowed to volunteer with rape victims because it made them feel uncomfortable. The trans woman sued and succeed in shutting down the shelter. This literally “destroyed” a safe space for women.
If you think other shelters haven’t taken notice, you are delusional. For a violent man wanting to locate his wife, the trans exception provides very easy access to formerly safe spaces.
I would really like the PP to provide a link to that story before people just go restating her comments as fact.
Here you go:
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/
Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief
A trans woman sued the Vancouver Rape Relief because she wasn’t allowed to volunteer directly with rape victims — she refused to settle or accept other forms of volunteering. This tied up their efforts and resources for over a decade of defending themselves and defending female-only safe spaces for battered and abused women. In 2020 they were denied funding by the city of Vancouver directly because of their stance that a female only space was critical in making battered women feel safe.
One more thing that’s relevant: The shelter did provide help for trans women as well as cis-women. It’s just that the vast majority of their clients were biological women. Their mission was to provide a safe space for women and they recognized (as most advocates do) that it can be very triggering and frightening to be around men immediately after a woman has been attacked by a man.
It was blatant discrimination. The court upheld it was. If you google Kimberly Nixon she would never be mistaken for a man. It’s horrible that a rape crisis center told a transgender woman she was going to trigger rape victims.
You don’t think there’s something wrong with a person so determined to speak to rape victims that they would sue a rape crisis center for the right to do that? It doesn’t strike you as just a bit self-serving that a trans woman would go that route rather than, say, find a shelter that caters to trans victims of sexual violence, or start such an organization themselves? Why put all that energy into forcing women to give you access to victimized women?
I am sure it actually hurt quite a bit to sue a rape center but I believe this person was thinking bigger than herself and fighting blanket discrimination which does in fact benefit many people.
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 think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.
I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.
You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.
The issue is JK said they only term for people who menstruate should be “women.” This is a fallacy because many women don’t even menstruate, and trans men still menstruate and gender non binary people menstruate. So no, menstruation = woman is false.
Like how many people would this effect? We are talking about being elite, best of the best and also trans....we can't make our lives around someone being able to "steal" a gold medal in women's slalom or some shit.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how anyone other than a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome can me strays?
This is going to far if someone tries to argue that.
People who menstruate include women and trans men. That wasn't difficult or confusing.
In other words, women.
You do realize you have a choice, right? You don't have to be so vile and hateful. You could just choose to be kind.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It sounds unlikely to you because you’ve never dealt with abusive men.
Women trying to get out of abusive relationships are in a lot of danger. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of scenarios where the abuser could get a friend to go find his wife in a shelter and use the trans-label as a cover. This is exactly what JK Rowling was talking about when she said this destroys safe spaces for women.
How exactly do you think DV shelters work? Do you think anyone can just turn up and walk in?
I think domestic violence shelters have a lot of discretion — however, there’s already been one example where a trans woman (who sounded and presented as male) was not allowed to volunteer with rape victims because it made them feel uncomfortable. The trans woman sued and succeed in shutting down the shelter. This literally “destroyed” a safe space for women.
If you think other shelters haven’t taken notice, you are delusional. For a violent man wanting to locate his wife, the trans exception provides very easy access to formerly safe spaces.
I would really like the PP to provide a link to that story before people just go restating her comments as fact.
Here you go:
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/
Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief
A trans woman sued the Vancouver Rape Relief because she wasn’t allowed to volunteer directly with rape victims — she refused to settle or accept other forms of volunteering. This tied up their efforts and resources for over a decade of defending themselves and defending female-only safe spaces for battered and abused women. In 2020 they were denied funding by the city of Vancouver directly because of their stance that a female only space was critical in making battered women feel safe.
One more thing that’s relevant: The shelter did provide help for trans women as well as cis-women. It’s just that the vast majority of their clients were biological women. Their mission was to provide a safe space for women and they recognized (as most advocates do) that it can be very triggering and frightening to be around men immediately after a woman has been attacked by a man.
It was blatant discrimination. The court upheld it was. If you google Kimberly Nixon she would never be mistaken for a man. It’s horrible that a rape crisis center told a transgender woman she was going to trigger rape victims.
You don’t think there’s something wrong with a person so determined to speak to rape victims that they would sue a rape crisis center for the right to do that? It doesn’t strike you as just a bit self-serving that a trans woman would go that route rather than, say, find a shelter that caters to trans victims of sexual violence, or start such an organization themselves? Why put all that energy into forcing women to give you access to victimized women?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:It sounds unlikely to you because you’ve never dealt with abusive men.
Women trying to get out of abusive relationships are in a lot of danger. It doesn’t take much imagination to think of scenarios where the abuser could get a friend to go find his wife in a shelter and use the trans-label as a cover. This is exactly what JK Rowling was talking about when she said this destroys safe spaces for women.
How exactly do you think DV shelters work? Do you think anyone can just turn up and walk in?
I think domestic violence shelters have a lot of discretion — however, there’s already been one example where a trans woman (who sounded and presented as male) was not allowed to volunteer with rape victims because it made them feel uncomfortable. The trans woman sued and succeed in shutting down the shelter. This literally “destroyed” a safe space for women.
If you think other shelters haven’t taken notice, you are delusional. For a violent man wanting to locate his wife, the trans exception provides very easy access to formerly safe spaces.
I would really like the PP to provide a link to that story before people just go restating her comments as fact.
Here you go:
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2012/05/14/rape-relief-v-nixon-transphobia-and-the-value-of-women-only-space-an-interview-with-lee-lakeman/
Kimberly Nixon vs. Vancouver Rape Relief
A trans woman sued the Vancouver Rape Relief because she wasn’t allowed to volunteer directly with rape victims — she refused to settle or accept other forms of volunteering. This tied up their efforts and resources for over a decade of defending themselves and defending female-only safe spaces for battered and abused women. In 2020 they were denied funding by the city of Vancouver directly because of their stance that a female only space was critical in making battered women feel safe.
One more thing that’s relevant: The shelter did provide help for trans women as well as cis-women. It’s just that the vast majority of their clients were biological women. Their mission was to provide a safe space for women and they recognized (as most advocates do) that it can be very triggering and frightening to be around men immediately after a woman has been attacked by a man.
It was blatant discrimination. The court upheld it was. If you google Kimberly Nixon she would never be mistaken for a man. It’s horrible that a rape crisis center told a transgender woman she was going to trigger rape victims.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain to me how anyone other than a biogenetic woman with an X chromosome can me strays?
This is going to far if someone tries to argue that.
Meant MENSTRUATE
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.
If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.
Let me introduce you to the internet, where you can be subject to a mob attack for any reason or sometimes no reason, but it's always an unpleasant experience.
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 think you would do well to reframe your analysis here. No one is changing language so that women don't exist. Women exist, but not everyone who menstruates is a woman, and not all women menstruate.
I'm using the menstruation example because it is what set Rowling off this time. You can say that women exist, and you can say that some men menstruate. Neither invalidates the other.
You can also say women menstruate, just like JKR did. It is a true statement and doesn't negate the fact that some trans men menstruate, or that some women don't menstruate. Saying that women menstruate shouldn't be controversial. just like saying that women get breast cancer shouldn't be controversial and doesn't negate the fact that men can get it too.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.
If you need guts to say it and feels ashamed to say you believe something, that’s your first clue it’s maybe a wrong thing to believe.
Anonymous wrote:I'm glad someone like her has the guts to say something that a lot of us feel. Shame on the mob mentality attacking her for actually being very affirming and reasonable with her views.