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.
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-54374165https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51806962Doctors 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-51676020Here, 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.
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
**** 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