Canadian Politics Today

Fortunately there are testosterone limits for women's sport. It doesn't address the gender issue specifically but at least it is one ceiling.

If a woman doesn't want a man touching her punani, she has that right to refuse.  Any reasonable man or transwoman should be able to understand that.

Well... I am just saying that your general assertion isn't clear to me.  Could *I* refuse a trans doctor ?  A gay doctor ?

I'm not on twitter, so don't feel I can say much about the bullying that goes on there.  But I wonder what you think they should do to address this, exactly?  If they remove those 'bullying' posts, they'll be accused of interfering with "free speech" and the people prone to bullying will go to Reddit (I suppose they're already there), FB, snapchat, instagram, etc., - wherever they feel they can express their disapproval.   

Twitter already has a zero tolerance policy in regard to speech they consider transphobic. Why can't they do the same in regard to violent misogyny?

I think there are a lot of moderate people in the world; I think they're the majority.   I also think they're the ones least likely to engage in conflict online, so the majority of what we see in the online world are the extremes of any viewpoint.  It's easy to forget that those are not really representative of what most people think.  I think its easy to see a problem as bigger than it is, if too much attention is paid to what is happening online.  It also seems to me that what was big news/scandal/event in the online world this week is practically forgotten in a few months time.

I do think that for the most part people overestimate how much power these online mobs actually have.  Pen1s News has been gleefully predicting the demise of JKR's book sales due to the online controversy; her books have actually surged in popularity (with the help of the pandemic of course).  Angry incel dudes organized boycotts and review-bombing for Captain Marvel; it was a gigantic hit.

But, if you're a small business or a private citizen, can you risk it?

I think at some point, companies, not media companies, but just regular companies, will have to take a stand about firing as a result of social media mob action.  They should, perhaps, devise a 'standard' for which people can be fired - outright cruelty to animals, making death threats, online or not, getting arrested for racism, spousal abuse, sexual assault - but not for being mobbed on Twitter or any other platform for an expressed opinion.  I think more moderate people should find a way to speak up if they see mobbing on social media - but I don't have much hope for that, since yeah - who likes to deal with all that conflict?  Not many.

If you run a pub near campus, and students come to you and say "this employee of yours said some very hateful things on social media, and we are organizing a student boycott unless you fire her," wouldn't that be scary?  You could talk to your employee and get her side of the story, but if you decide that what she said isn't something she should be fired over... what then?  Can you risk losing the business from the college students?   You could hope that they're bluffing, or that most of the college students wouldn't actually know or care that there's a boycott going on.  And it might turn out that way... but what if it didn't? 

There is a lot about social media that has to change, but I do think the priority has to be the spread of misinformation online.  It's not that this issue of online bullying/cancel culture isn't important, but in my view it's less of a priority than misinformation that can cause rather more societal harm than whether JK Rowling (or anyone else) loses book sales. 

I agree. The potential to impact elections, the spread of conspiracy theories and false medical information, there are potentially some very dangerous things going on.

Btw, as a result of this thread and in a roundabout way her attackers, I'll be looking to read her new series.  Kind of an unintended consequence of this, eh?

Me too. I have never bought a JKR book before, but what I've heard about her current "Robert Galbraith" books did make me somewhat interested. The new one is apparently selling very well for the moment, in spite of (or perhaps with the help of) the controversy.

 -k

Nobody is suggesting that people need to buy Rowling's books or that she's being silenced if people won't buy her books.  Book stores don't need to carry them either-- some have taken her books off their shelves, and good for them I guess.

But the campaign to destroy her reputation based on misrepresentation of her views and inaccurate claims about her work goes beyond that. It's pretty similar to the fake news campaigns being waged in politics. "JKR is transphobic, she wrote a book about a trans serial killer!" is about the same level of discourse as "Candidate X has ties to Islamic extremists!", "Candidate Y wants to disband the police and leave the streets to the gangs!"  "OMG it's true I read it on Facebook plz share this info with everyone!"  As the saying goes, lies can run halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes laced up, and we see that in social media all the time.


And obviously the deluge of threats of violence and gendered slurs directed toward Rowling speaks for itself. As does the "#RIPJKRowling" hashtag that was trending this week.

Violent misogyny is completely normalized on Twitter, to the extent that women who click the "report" button don't even get replies. But misgender a trans person and BOOM the Twitter riot police are there in a heartbeat.


 -k

You're taking twitter way too seriously.  People shout down their opponents on every topic, whether it's vaccines, Bernie Sanders or COVID.  The most ridiculous hashtags start to trend.

There is no conspiracy.

I suppose so.  But it's NOT the same as a "right".  The difference is subtle but if we're labelling things let's make sure we agree, since conclusions can be made about the legal foundations we are laying down in our discussion.

If you have a "right" to refuse a doctor without stating a reason, then that is your right.  If you have to give a reason, and that reason must be valid then I doubt the courts would guarantee you a right to discriminate there. 

Very nebulous and overthought but there you are 

You don’t have to give a reason at all, nor should you have to. You might just think they are a crappy doctor or don’t like their bedside manner. It doesn’t matter. Depending on the circumstances you might have trouble finding another but that is up to you.

Fortunately there are testosterone limits for women's sport. It doesn't address the gender issue specifically but at least it is one ceiling.

Whew.... given the money and attention given to the WNBA by straight white men, I'll bet we're all relieved by this... 

My concern is for women who want to compete on an even field, not what straight white men like.

Why do you care ?

Why do you care ?

On a personal level, I have two grand daughters who play rugby at a high level. Both have represented BC in age group interprovincial competitions and the USA Sevens tournaments in Las Vegas. The oldest plays for UBC, or at least did before covid but they are still training and practicing without contact. Why should she have to go up against someone with a dick who decides to call himself a woman, outweighs her by 50 lbs, has a testosterone level ten times as high and probably doesn't even train as hard? It's a contact sport, not tiddlywinks.

On a general level, women's testosterone levels range between 0.12 to 1.79 nanomoles,  men range from 7.7 to 29.4 nanomoles. The IAAF has set a maximum of 5 nanomoles for women athletes, still way above the normal range for women, including elite athletes. An athlete who is above that is  allowed to lower their level by surgical or chemical means not specified. A CIS woman who used chemical means to raise their level to that maximum allowed would be slapped with a doping ban quicker than they could blink.

Why is it always women who are having to deal with this bullshit?