Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 10512 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7961
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1440 on: September 07, 2020, 12:36:03 pm »
I think that it needs to be emphasised that this is not just a trans rights question but also a women's rights question and in many cases a religious rights question.

Of course - all rights questions impact others and can involve balancing of rights.

Quote
It seems to me that in other areas, we consider potentially bad outcomes beforehand when we are designing legislation.  When we draw up gun laws, we consider that some number of bad-people will try to obtain guns and shoot people, and consider ways to make that less likely.  When we design driving laws, we consider ways to make sure that people who drive cars have some level of competency.   To me it seems like in giving trans people access to women's spaces, little if any thought has been given to potential bad outcomes.

Yes, we do, but we also recognize that no system is foolproof.  We have a system called 'parole' which releases offenders before their sentence is complete.  There WILL be folks who reoffend coming out of the system.  It doesn't mean the people who design the system will ignore this, nor will it mean that they cancel the parole system.

There's a balance that is struck. 

Quote

Our current government promised that "Gender Based Analysis" would be applied to policies, and I'd be very interested to know if such an analysis was ever done in regard to C-16.

I don't remember but I agree.

Quote
If you hear Jesse Brown or Carol Off or some other media figure describe someone or something as transphobic is that sufficient in your mind to decide that they deserve no attention? 

As journalists, it would surprise me for them to take it upon themselves to do that.  And obviously I have read/listened to the people who are labelled as such so I pay them attention.

Quote
To me it seems like we are at a point where contrary opinions are dismissed out of hand because some random mob has decided they're wrong-think.

Why are the people who disagree with you a 'random mob' and the ones whose decisions you support not ?  I would say publications that intentionally stir up angertainment are at the head of the mob.

Quote
Did Jesse Brown read a single one of those Quillette articles he dismissed as transphobic nonsense, or did he just assume that to be the case because "everybody says so"? 


He quotes a few of them, so I imagine he had a look.

Quote
Did Carol Off watch a Meghan Murphy speech before comparing her to a Neo Nazi, or was she basing that on the opinion of the mob with the fake guillotine shouting death threats outside the library?

You would have to quote that one to me.  I am putting enough time into this to re-listen.

Quote
This is somewhat a circular argument, though. If we're only supposed to consider stuff that centrist and mainstream outlets would publish, and mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement, then by by definition we're only listening to stuff that is favorable to the trans movement.

That's a false choice.  What was the Globe or the National Posts's coverage ?

Quote
  Quillette may not be a centrist or mainstream publication, but it is a publication that is willing to post the other side of the argument, including pieces from accomplished writers and commentators.

The complaint that Rogan and Brown have is the provocative nature of the articles, describing threats and so on.

Rogan talks about 'monetization of provcation' which is what I'm talking about also.  "We go from outrage to outrage" is her comment.    She says they are "saying things that are explosive to guarantee an emotional response".

----

I listened again.  The assertion is that much of the media is taking a sensational and provocative angle on this story, including Alex Jones.  Brown and Rogan quote The Post Millennial as saying "Why is mainstream media ignoring Yaniv ?" - which is bullshit - etc. and Barbara Kay imagined Yaniv as a corpse in the PM and asked who would wax her genitals there.

This is about quality of coverage, period.  So you can stop saying now that people don't want to hear the other side.   

Here's some coverage.  It covers the facts and doesn't wade into angertainment, so your assertion that "mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement". doesn't fly.

https://nationalpost.com/news/trans-activist-jessica-yaniv-files-second-lawsuit-against-3-beauticians-after-losing-human-rights-suit-to-them-in-2019


Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1441 on: September 07, 2020, 10:52:20 pm »
They don't like that qualifier. Their main mantra is "Trans women are women." They see "cisgender" women (ie, actual vag1na people) as simply a subset of women. They don't believe woman is defined by biological factors at all, they believe woman is a notion in peoples' heads.

Disconnected from biological reality, "woman" becomes basically just an expression of affinity towards traditional gender roles, which isn't "progressive" at all, it's actually incredibly regressive.

 -k

Interesting, I see trans men and women refer to themselves as trans and I wasn't aware there is a movement to erase the qualifier.  I thought the argument is whether identifying as woman truly makes someone a woman, which in a way is the same thing, but this is the first time I've heard of dropping trans out of it.

I'm torn on this one tbh.  I see your point about regressiveness on gender roles, I've often thought the same thing myself.  In a way many are caricatures of what women have strived not to be, well, in the feminist sphere anyway.

On the other hand, I can empathise with transgenderism.  In my university days I was taught that gender is a social construct.  That we fall into our roles because from a young age we are dressed in gender specific colours and play with gender specific toys.  Yet, during the same time we had stories like David Reimer's where in spite of all efforts to the contrary, a boy who was raised as a girl always felt misgendered. 

Gender and sex do co-exist independent of each other and if a trans-woman feels she is a woman, I can't argue with that experience.  Using the qualifier 'trans' is a way of othering their experiences so I understand why the effort is being made to erase it.

Having said that, I remember a trans woman discussing how different it feels to walk at night as a woman, how much less safe it feels.  That's something we women have lived with all our lives.  At the end of the day, our experiences as women and as trans-women are quite different. 

I am completely on the fence on this one.   
« Last Edit: September 07, 2020, 10:57:28 pm by BC_cheque »

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7961
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1442 on: September 08, 2020, 08:57:56 am »

I am completely on the fence on this one.

The thing about it is... the arguments have bleeded from practical ones into theoretical, which is messy.

Trans people are a tiny segment of the population, however they are abused and targeted at a very high rate.  The idea of protecting their rights, to allow them to live safety in society is laudable, but there are always limits to rights as well.

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1142
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1443 on: September 09, 2020, 01:58:55 am »
The thing about it is... the arguments have bleeded from practical ones into theoretical, which is messy.

Trans people are a tiny segment of the population, however they are abused and targeted at a very high rate.  The idea of protecting their rights, to allow them to live safety in society is laudable, but there are always limits to rights as well.

I'm not sure anyone argues against trans-rights per se, not even kimmy.  She's arguing against idiots who abuse trans rights as loopholes.

When there are social changes people get outside their comfort zone.  Admittedly pronouns created outside the English language is not a trend I'm fired up about even though intellectually I grasp it.

Give it 30 years and it won't matter just like gays fought 30 years ago and blacks 30 years before that.

Just like both those civil rights movements, it'll never go away entirely but ultimately we'll be pulled out of our ignorance surely on this one too on a collective scale.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7961
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1444 on: September 09, 2020, 08:24:47 am »
1. I'm not sure anyone argues against trans-rights per se, not even kimmy.  She's arguing against idiots who abuse trans rights as loopholes.

2. When there are social changes people get outside their comfort zone.  Admittedly pronouns created outside the English language is not a trend I'm fired up about even though intellectually I grasp it.

3. Give it 30 years and it won't matter just like gays fought 30 years ago and blacks 30 years before that. Just like both those civil rights movements, it'll never go away entirely but ultimately we'll be pulled out of our ignorance surely on this one too on a collective scale.

1. Nobody on this board, maybe but lots of people don't think they need protection.
2. I did it again last night, thankfully though not in the presence of the subject.  They use "they" and I called them "she" talking to a friend.
3. It will matter in 30 years, but less - I agree.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4063
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1445 on: September 13, 2020, 02:04:02 pm »

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1446 on: September 13, 2020, 04:19:02 pm »
CPC leader O'Tool says: "I'm here to fight for you!" - really; are you sure?  ;D

That's a nice video. It illustrates how the mindset around gender is changing.

Yesterday's feminists would look at this video and say "It's nice that we live in a society where that gender-non-conforming young man can express himself freely."

Today's gender theory people would look at this video and say "That young man is a woman."

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1447 on: September 13, 2020, 05:33:54 pm »

The complaint that Rogan and Brown have is the provocative nature of the articles, describing threats and so on.

Rogan talks about 'monetization of provcation' which is what I'm talking about also.  "We go from outrage to outrage" is her comment.    She says they are "saying things that are explosive to guarantee an emotional response".

This was a provocative story. It did get people riled up, and for good reason. I don't think trying to sweep it under the rug would have served anybody well.

I listened again.  The assertion is that much of the media is taking a sensational and provocative angle on this story, including Alex Jones.  Brown and Rogan quote The Post Millennial as saying "Why is mainstream media ignoring Yaniv ?" - which is bullshit - etc.

I'm not sure Alex Jones qualifies for any discussion of media.  While the actual media didn't ignore Yaniv, they were very selective in what they did report, and as I've said before I think this paints an inaccurate picture of Yaniv's so-called activism.  Morgane Oger dropped Yaniv like a hot potato; not because of anything Oger learned from mainstream media coverage.  cybercoma unloaded on Yaniv earlier in this thread; nothing cybercoma used in coming to his conclusions about Yaniv's character came from mainstream media coverage.  I think that sanitized coverage of stories like this is one of the things that drives readers to outlets like The Post-Millennial.

and Barbara Kay imagined Yaniv as a corpse in the PM and asked who would wax her genitals there.

While perhaps Brown and Rogan would have you think Kay is fantasizing about Yaniv being dead, the point she was trying to make is that Yaniv's biological reality is what it is, regardless of how he identifies.   If Yaniv were incapacitated and paramedics needed to make medical treatment, they wouldn't be able to ask her preferred pronouns or identity. They'd need to make diagnosis and treatment based on the fact that she's male. If she was conscious and aware, they'd still hopefully make diagnosis and treatment based on the fact that she's male. Kay's thought experiment of "what if Yaniv were a corpse" was poorly thought out, mostly because it invites people like Rogan and Brown to claimi Kay is fantasizing about Yaniv being dead.  Kay would have been smarter to just reference Yaniv's attempts to get an appointment with the gynecologist to make the point.

semi-related: I was reading that a trans man almost died because doctors had assumed he was male. They were trying to diagnose his kidney failure, running diagnostic tests intended for male patients, administering treatment intended for a male patient, and only found out that the patient was biologically female when he was at death's door.

This is about quality of coverage, period.  So you can stop saying now that people don't want to hear the other side.   

Here's some coverage.  It covers the facts and doesn't wade into angertainment, so your assertion that "mainstream and centrist outlets are only willing to publish stuff that is favorable to the trans movement". doesn't fly.

https://nationalpost.com/news/trans-activist-jessica-yaniv-files-second-lawsuit-against-3-beauticians-after-losing-human-rights-suit-to-them-in-2019

It's one news outlet reporting on the ongoing shenanigans of a notorious individual.  It doesn't really build a case that media coverage of trans issues in general is of particularly good quality.

Here are two articles covering events yesterday in Vancouver.  One pretty balanced, one pretty awful.  I offer the CTV article as an example of the kind of slanted, biased coverage that has been pretty typical of coverage of trans issues.  Compare and contrast the two:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/i-love-j-k-rowling-sign-makes-brief-controversial-appearance-in-vancouver-1.5722244

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/j-k-rowling-billboard-condemned-as-transphobic-and-removed-as-advocates-speak-out-1.5102493

 -k
« Last Edit: September 13, 2020, 05:43:03 pm by kimmy »
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7961
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1448 on: September 13, 2020, 06:59:30 pm »
I don't think trying to sweep it under the rug would have served anybody well.

 I don't want to suppress discussion of it, though, as I said umpteen (and one) times.

Quote
I'm not sure Alex Jones qualifies for any discussion of media.  While the actual media didn't ignore Yaniv, they were very selective in what they did report, and as I've said before I think this paints an inaccurate picture of Yaniv's so-called activism.

It's one news outlet reporting on the ongoing shenanigans of a notorious individual.  It doesn't really build a case that media coverage of trans issues in general is of particularly good quality.


Here are two articles covering events yesterday in Vancouver.  One pretty balanced, one pretty awful.  I offer the CTV article as an example of the kind of slanted, biased coverage that has been pretty typical of coverage of trans issues.  Compare and contrast the two:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/i-love-j-k-rowling-sign-makes-brief-controversial-appearance-in-vancouver-1.5722244

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/mobile/j-k-rowling-billboard-condemned-as-transphobic-and-removed-as-advocates-speak-out-1.5102493

 

Ah, ok.  Well all I can say to those posts is "it's difficult".  You described one of them as 'balanced' so that means the MSM is, at least, redeemable.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1449 on: September 14, 2020, 12:42:23 pm »
I don't want to suppress discussion of it, though, as I said umpteen (and one) times.

I feel that reasonably balanced coverage of this troubling individual, and the nature of this case, and the way the defendants were treated by the tribunal process, would be inherently provocative.  I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story.    I understand the concern that if media outlets cover a story like this, people might get angry about it and that trans people might face some degree of backlash as a result.

Jesse Brown's own transgender employee wrote about this as well:
In short, there is reason to believe we’re talking about a bad-faith actor here.

But she still exists, and is a very real person who has managed to force businesses to shut their doors and is currently taking people to the human rights tribunal. And yet, to date, the media outlets covering her story have tended to be far-right-leaning places. It wasn’t until Yaniv had her most recent tribunal hearings that more mainstream media outlets picked up her story at all. By then, the conversation around her was already dominated by sources that are known to be transphobic, or the slightly less-menacing-sounding “gender-critical.” They have warned us enough about people like her, they say, and now she’s been given form. Like Bloody Mary of the transgender set.

If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we don’t care that said allegations exist.

This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.

When those demands for more were met with relative silence, they were shifted to the trans community. Transphobic individuals have come out of the woodwork to hold her up as an example of everything they warned would happen with our right to self-identification, protected thanks to Bill C-16 in Canada. She is the bad apple — according to the many vocal critics of her and of self-ID and of trans people in general — that spoils the bunch.

Many of the allegations against her are, at this stage, unsubstantiated. We don’t know if they’re true or if she’s being used as a weapon against us. The issue is that, whether real or not, it makes us seem like we’re actively obfuscating when we don’t talk about them.


If people don't feel they're getting the whole story from the media, they'll go to The Post Millennial or The Daily Caller or Twitter or someplace else looking for information. Self-censorship of potentially controversial aspects doesn't keep people from finding it out, it just undermines trust. It sends traffic to sources with lower standards. It makes people feel that they are hearing a slanted version of the truth from the mainstream press.

Ah, ok.  Well all I can say to those posts is "it's difficult".  You described one of them as 'balanced' so that means the MSM is, at least, redeemable.

Honestly, yes. This is really all I'm asking for.  The CBC article accurately notes that Rowling's opinions are "controversial", gives a brief summary of what she said and why some people object.  It contacts various stakeholders for their side of the story, including the people who put up the billboard, the city councillor who called for its removal, as well as some members of the trans community. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised by it.

The CTV report, by contrast, doesn't contact (or even name) the principals, only contacts the city councillor who complained, only includes a tweet from trans activist Nicola Spurling by way of trans community reaction (Spurling had, months ago, been threatened by legal action by Rowling after Spurling posted a tweet stating that Rowling shouldn't be left alone with minors, which the article fails to mention) and is full of editorialized content:
Quote
A billboard in East Vancouver championing author J.K. Rowling, who has been widely accused of transphobia, was removed Saturday after drawing outrage and condemnation.

The billboard, which was visible from busy Hastings Street, was black with white text that read, "I (heart) JK Rowling."

Vancouver city councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung said she was discouraged to see the billboard put up in her city, given Rowling's controversial statements criticizing the trans rights movement.


Rowling, author of the Harry Potter books, has been outspoken about her criticisms of transgender people and even went so far as to write an essay about her views on the topic.

(...)

The people claiming responsibility for the billboard issued a statement on Twitter Saturday insisting they aren't transphobic, while also openly denying the identities of trans women. They described womanhood as "a biological reality, not a feeling," which is a common refrain among opponents of transgender rights.

The difference in tone is quite marked. The CBC article sets out that there's a controversy surrounding JKR, explains the controversy to the uninitiated, and gets opinions from several perspectives. The CTV piece starts with the premise that JKR has committed egregious sins and explains the controversy to the reader from that perspective. 

 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7961
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1450 on: September 14, 2020, 01:07:12 pm »
I feel that reasonably balanced coverage of this troubling individual, and the nature of this case, and the way the defendants were treated by the tribunal process, would be inherently provocative.  I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story.   

Ok, there are some new elements you introduced here aren't there ?  How the defendants were treated - I don't remember that from before.

"Presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated" ... that's not journalism.  You present the facts.  Maybe people get agitated maybe they don't.  Of course stories are written with a point of view and we're all human.  But writing a story to make people get pissed off on purpose is stupid.

Public affairs don't necessarily need an emotional component.  That's actually the problem with public affairs today - if there's no entertainment value the issue gets neglected.

Quote
If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we don’t care that said allegations exist.

It's a completely separate issue.  If Yaniv is suspected of being a bad actor, then you can still report that in journalistic tones.  You don't have to sensationalize it.  And as to the relevance of her character - it's about whether the claim is made in good faith.  She could be a convicted murderer and still have the right to file a human rights claim.

 
Quote
This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.

Because it's a separate issue.  If she was a convicted murderer would that give the tribunal authority to toss the case ?  No.  The ruling isn't for *her* it's for everybody.

 
 
Quote
If people don't feel they're getting the whole story from the media, they'll go to The Post Millennial or The Daily Caller or Twitter or someplace else looking for information. Self-censorship of potentially controversial aspects doesn't keep people from finding it out, it just undermines trust. It sends traffic to sources with lower standards. It makes people feel that they are hearing a slanted version of the truth from the mainstream press.
 

"Lower standards", though, are exactly what you are calling for.  You're not simply calling for details to be reported, but you are calling for the story to be presented to as to anger people.

 
Quote
Honestly, yes. This is really all I'm asking for.  The CBC article accurately notes that Rowling's opinions are "controversial", gives a brief summary of what she said and why some people object.  It contacts various stakeholders for their side of the story, including the people who put up the billboard, the city councillor who called for its removal, as well as some members of the trans community. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised by it.
 

But it's NOT written to anger people.  If people get angered, it's because the facts make them angry ... not tangential details.

There is a wide gap between what the right-media covered and what CBC said.  I don't think Canadaland would have accused the CBC article of being written to sensationalize the article.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1451 on: September 14, 2020, 07:49:55 pm »
Ok, there are some new elements you introduced here aren't there ?  How the defendants were treated - I don't remember that from before.

I'm sure that we talked about this at some point. How Yaniv was able to use the HRC process to shake down numerous women who couldn't find legal representation because no lawyers would take their case, and how some of them closed their businesses because of Yaniv's harassment.  The three women who did ultimately stand up to Yaniv were represented by Justic Center for Constitutional Freedoms, a Bible-thumper type organization who took the case pro-bono. JCCF has had some controversy of their own, after some remarks by their leader John Carpay were considered homophobic.  It doesn't thrill me that a Bible-thumper group emerged as the hero in all this, but that's where we're at.  JCCF posted this story from the perspective of one of Yaniv's targets.

https://www.jccf.ca/sandeep-benipal/

It's a completely separate issue.  If Yaniv is suspected of being a bad actor, then you can still report that in journalistic tones.  You don't have to sensationalize it.  And as to the relevance of her character - it's about whether the claim is made in good faith.  She could be a convicted murderer and still have the right to file a human rights claim.

 
Because it's a separate issue.  If she was a convicted murderer would that give the tribunal authority to toss the case ?  No.  The ruling isn't for *her* it's for everybody.

"we shouldn't pay attention to this case because Yaniv is a nutjob" is actually Jesse Brown's argument, as I wrote earlier:

Quote
Brown goes on to argue that we shouldn't take Yaniv seriously because there's reason to believe Yaniv is acting in bad faith and isn't a real activist.  Well, guess what: Yaniv's case is going to set a precedent whether Yaniv is acting in good faith or not. Yaniv might well be a creep or a predator or a racist or a goon trying to shake down immigrants by filing bogus HRC claims, or all of the above. But the HRC has decided that they have to give these complaints a fair hearing, and rule on the merits of the complaint regardless of how scummy Yaniv's character may be, and when the ruling is delivered it will affect real people in the real world who have to live with the results.  Jesse Brown seems oblivious to all of this.  He seems to think that since Yaniv is a scumbag the HRC process isn't real, or something. Brown is wrong. 

https://canadianpoliticalevents.createaforum.com/general-discussion/canadaland-podcast/msg52202/#msg52202

 
"Lower standards", though, are exactly what you are calling for.  You're not simply calling for details to be reported, but you are calling for the story to be presented to as to anger people.


That's not true at all.  I'm not suggesting that stories should be written so as to make people angry. I'm suggesting that pertinent information was held back to try to avoid making people angry.


 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline MH

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7961
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1452 on: September 14, 2020, 08:45:59 pm »
I'm sure that we talked about this at some point. How Yaniv was able to use the HRC process to shake down numerous women who couldn't find legal representation because no lawyers would take their case, and how some of them closed their businesses because of Yaniv's harassment.

Ok, well that sucks.  I am not happy with the HRCs not having a public defender available.

 
Quote
"we shouldn't pay attention to this case because Yaniv is a nutjob" is actually Jesse Brown's argument, as I wrote earlier:

I don't think so.

 
Quote
That's not true at all.  I'm not suggesting that stories should be written so as to make people angry. I'm suggesting that pertinent information was held back to try to avoid making people angry.

" I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story. "

And yet, the CBC story you lauded wouldn't get ME agitated.  The other stories would.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1453 on: October 04, 2020, 07:23:03 pm »
JuniperRose wrote here about a post on reddit that she found very persuasive in regard to JK Rowling's comments.
 
This is the post:
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/iuof3u/cmv_jk_rowling_isnt_saying_anything_transphobic/g5m3qfi/

 and I wanted to respond to some of the content here.

Quote
This is a direct quote from Rowling. She’s recycling a couple common anti-trans talking points that don’t have much of a basis in reality. The primary one being that there is some huge “explosion” of young girls mistakenly transitioning because they’re gay. Not only is this not backed up by data (which suggests only about 2% of former trans children detransition, and a significant portion of those are due to the struggles that come with being trans) but it makes absolutely no practical sense. In most of the modern world, including the UK, being a lesbian is much more widely accepted than being a trans man. There is no way a young girl would choose transitioning over coming out, as it’s both more disruptive to your regular life and carries a greater stigma.

It's beyond dispute that there's been an explosion in the number of girls who are transitioning, and the only question is why.  "JimboMan1234" seems very confident in speaking about what young girls feel.

He later talks about " there are still rigorous psychological evals you have to go through, that take months or even years if you’re underage, if you want to be legally trans."  But there are a lot of concerns about how rigorous those evaluations actually are:
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-54374165
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51806962
Doctors expressing concerns were "shut down".


This young woman, Keira Bell, was given hormone treatment starting at age 15 after 3 one-hour appointments, was rendered infertile, and is currently suing Tavistock because she claims they failed to adequately assess her before prescribing this treatment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51676020

Quote
Here, Rowling indulges the idea that inclusive language is actually hostile to cis women, “dehumanizing” because it focuses on their bodies. But the only difference between trans women and cis women is their reproductive organs, as well as being the only trait universally shared by trans men and cis women. Likewise, the only social issue for women that includes cis women but excludes trans women is reproductive rights. So I’m not sure what Rowling’s game is here. It seems like she is trying to frame trans-inclusive language as violent, which is just completely baseless and only serves to make trans people as a group look hostile and crazy.

And personally I hate that we're now expected to use language like "menstruators" and "people with vulvas", and vow to use "defecators" to describe people who encourage the use of such language.  I also feel that people who wish to refer to women by their body parts have no right to complain if I refer to "transbians" as "lesbians with dicks" or similar.

Quote
She equates her own experience of abuse with the theoretical abuse of men entering women’s bathrooms to abuse girls and women. Bathrooms are the Rome of anti-trans arguments, somehow every road leads back to them. Transphobes have this paranoid fantasy of men, disguised as women, being allowed to enter women’s bathrooms where they can...kidnap girls? Pull them into a stall? Just look at them? I really don’t know, the details about exactly what they’re afraid of never come out, but they’re afraid of something.

But it’s asinine, because cis men completely undisguised can already do this. Not legally, but abuse is illegal regardless. If the bathroom is empty, literally anyone can enter regardless of gender. If the bathroom is full, it’s no easier to kidnap or abuse someone than it would be in any other public space.

If the bathroom is full, nothing bad will happen. And if it's empty then it's no different from being in any other empty room. But if there's one person in there, especially a vulnerable person, then who knows what might happen.  The phrase "crime of opportunity" exists for a reason.    To flip that argument on its head: if nothing could go wrong in a public washroom, why are transwomen afraid of using the men's room?

And I have to point out that implicit in the Reddit poster's thinking is that unless some sort of physical assault occurs, no harm has been done. The University of Toronto experimenting with unisex washrooms at their dorms a few years ago and surprise, found male students trying to record female students showering. BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted!  A school in England changed their washrooms to unisex last year, and surprise, male students were trying to listen at the doors, peek through the cracks or over the the barriers, and even install recording devices. All the female students in the school ended up lining up to use the lone single-sex washroom left at the school BUT HEY, nobody got assaulted!

It bothers me that women's feelings at present have no value and are so casually dismissed.  Don't feel comfortable showering with an erect penis pointed at you? You'll just have to overcome your discomfort. Your expectations of dignity and privacy no longer have any value.

And on a personal note, I disagree with the claim that "Bathrooms are the Rome of anti-trans arguments".  A few short years ago I was all on board the trans rights train, back when I thought it was "we just need a place to pee".  I was 100% supportive back when it was about fighting against "bathroom bills".   There have been a lot of things that have gotten me off the train since then, but it wasn't bathrooms.


 -k
Masked for your safety.

Offline Gorgeous Graham

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5146
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #1454 on: October 04, 2020, 11:16:50 pm »
And personally I hate that we're now expected to use language like "menstruators" and "people with vulvas", and vow to use "defecators" to describe people who encourage the use of such language.  I also feel that people who wish to refer to women by their body parts have no right to complain if I refer to "transbians" as "lesbians with dicks" or similar.

You will comply to forced newspeak terms or suffer the consequences.  We'll take your job then your soul.  Resistance is futile.  Your original thoughts will be assimilated.
I can tell how good of a person you are by how you treat the people you disagree with.