It ruined a lot of childhood memories, knowing what she thinks of people like me. There's a joke in the trans community that the Harry Potter series was actually written by Hatsune Miku--the same person who created Minecraft! (turns out Notch was also a vocal transphobe).
It ruined a lot of childhood memories, knowing what she thinks of people like me. There's a joke in the trans community that the Harry Potter series was actually written by Hatsune Miku--the same person who created Minecraft! (turns out Notch was also a vocal transphobe).
It may be very different when someone you admired doesn't even acknowledge your existence as a human being. That said, if people want to enjoy art, it's the one place where one really has to separate your political beliefs from the artist. As a person of the left, if I let it dictate my choices, I can think of many things I could never enjoy again:
1.) The Beatles album 'Revolver" starts off with George Harrison bitching about his taxes for 3 minutes.
2.) The Sex Pistols song "Bodies" is so rabidly anti-abortion it could be a theme song for someone who bombs Planned Parenthood Clinics.
3.) The game Kingdoms of Amalur only exists because conservative hypocrite Curt Schilling got a massive loan from the state of Rhode Island he never paid back.
4.) Jon Voight's politics are god-awful, but he still chews the scenery in every movie he is in.
I could go on and on. It's an endless rabbit-hole. Once artists create something and it is consumed by the masses, it is out of their hands at that point and takes on a life of it's own. Harry Potter is still a wonderful story about the power of love and friendship, and is still responsible for millions upon millions of kids picking up a book for the first time, regardless of how horrible Ms. Rowling has turned out to be. Indeed, the reason it is so jarring is that there is NOTHING in those books that would indicate she held these views. In fact, quite the opposite. That is why it's so disappointing.
It ruined a lot of childhood memories, knowing what she thinks of people like me. There's a joke in the trans community that the Harry Potter series was actually written by Hatsune Miku--the same person who created Minecraft! (turns out Notch was also a vocal transphobe).
It may be very different when someone you admired doesn't even acknowledge your existence as a human being. That said, if people want to enjoy art, it's the one place where one really has to separate your political beliefs from the artist. As a person of the left, if I let it dictate my choices, I can think of many things I could never enjoy again:
1.) The Beatles album 'Revolver" starts off with George Harrison bitching about his taxes for 3 minutes.
2.) The Sex Pistols song "Bodies" is so rabidly anti-abortion it could be a theme song for someone who bombs Planned Parenthood Clinics.
3.) The game Kingdoms of Amalur only exists because conservative hypocrite Curt Schilling got a massive loan from the state of Rhode Island he never paid back.
4.) Jon Voight's politics are god-awful, but he still chews the scenery in every movie he is in.
I could go on and on. It's an endless rabbit-hole. Once artists create something and it is consumed by the masses, it is out of their hands at that point and takes on a life of it's own. Harry Potter is still a wonderful story about the power of love and friendship, and is still responsible for millions upon millions of kids picking up a book for the first time, regardless of how horrible Ms. Rowling has turned out to be. Indeed, the reason it is so jarring is that there is NOTHING in those books that would indicate she held these views. In fact, quite the opposite. That is why it's so disappointing.
I dont know. I think there's room for careful self selection and control of the media you consume. It doesnt even have to be particularly political. For example: I'll never pay for *anything* related to Woody Allen ever again. Doesnt necessarily mean I wont watch anything, but I wont be caught dead spending a penny that ends up in his pocket. Same for Roman Polanski.
Comparing Rowling to those two is unfair, and so I dont. I do condemn Rowling in a lot of ways, and also will not spend money that goes back to her anymore. I'm comfortable with that arrangement.
Also, there's a nice side that the large majority of the Harry Potter Fandom are aghast at her stance on this, and are usually a safe space for the trans community.
I can shrug at a lot of the random trash that's come out of the various artists whose work I've enjoyed, but it hits closer to home when it's about you, specifically. I can understand folks who can still enjoy HP even if they disagree with her stance on trans people; they're not the ones she hates.
But I can't do it. She wrote an open letter castigating me and my dearest friends in front of the world. It's not that she has a different opinion about some abstract concept; it's that she specifically dislikes me and my closest friends, for who we are.
Now, when I think of Rowling, all I can remember is all the verbal, physical, and sexual abuse my friends went through because of people like her. It isn't just a stupid opinion that's not going to hurt anyone; it's encouraging people to abuse me and the people I love.
I don't fault other people for treating it as an impersonal thing, but that's not something I can do.
If your favorite musician says something you know is stupid, you can still roll your eyes and listen to the music same as always. But if your favorite musician punches your mom in the face, that's not something you can separate from the art. After all, it's your mom.
It can't be impersonal when they make it personal.
Though we won't know the outcome for another week, I still think Biden has essentially run a flawless campaign given the situation. It's basically been the equivalent of a disappointed parent shaking their head at a child, with bits of well-time righteous indignation:
I've started to understand why good representation is important. I used to think it was just something that fans enjoyed, a little bonus for the diverse section of the fandom, but it has deep meaning and real-world impacts when artists portray us as people.
Steven Universe is famous for its LGBTQ+ representation, and I can't emphasize how incredibly important that show has been for the queer community. The entire show is just so wholesome and educational--they even had an episode about consent; they found a way to make the subject child-friendly and age-appropriate and still take it seriously. Rebecca Sugar is a real treasure.
It's like having people call you a worthless piece of shit all your life, and then you finally run into someone who says you're worth something and won't let you put yourself down anymore. A friend of mine has been treated like garbage all her life for being trans and queer and she was taken aback when I pointed out how sweet she was. I know a couple people like that, actually.
Rick Riordan is a darling in the trans community because, despite being a cishet guy himself, he goes out of his way to make his characters just as diverse as his audience, and he does enough homework to do representation right; he doesn't just throw it in. A friend of mine loves him special because he made one of his characters a nonbinary Latinx critter just like them.
It hits HARD when people go out of their way to be compassionate.
The word TERF is very familiar to me, and while I'd acknowledge it's generally used as a negative term, I wouldn't call it hate speech. Just because the group is deeply unpopular doesn't mean the name is a slur. After all, the words "Nazi" and "pedophile" are almost universally used as negative terms, and yet we do not deem those terms to be hate speech.
"Trans-exclusionary radical feminism" is exactly what the word TERF refers to: a brand of feminism that excludes trans women from the definition of women. TERFs are very vocal about how they feel about trans women: they consider us a threat to both their sexual safety and the feminist cause, and they do not think we should be treated as women. This isn't me editorializing; that's how they describe their viewpoint.
Taking the timely example of J. K. Rowling, I don't use TERF to reduce her views to a stereotype or a caricature; I call her a TERF because she wrote a lengthy screed specifically calling people like me, my girlfriend, and half my friends "predators" (no, she didn't imply it; "predator" was the specific word she used) and has explicitly said she's opposed to trans women being allowed in women-only spaces. She promotes the same stereotypes and the same pseudo-intellectual hate as any other kind of transphobe.
When you explicitly justify excluding trans people on the grounds of your own specific brand of feminism, "trans exclusionary radical feminism" is very much the literal description of your worldview.
They call themselves "gender critical feminists" because adding the word "critical" makes them seem less like reactionaries and more like free-thinking dissenters. Thing is, they're not actually about taking a critical look at gender binaries; they are very big on accepting them. It's double-speak.
In fact, "gender critical" feminists often explicitly describe themselves as feminists who "defend" gender!
"Gender critical" is a conscious misrepresentation of their own views to make them seem less regressive. Old-school racists have been trying to rebrand themselves as "race realists" for the same reasons, and it's just as dishonest.
It might make me unpopular, but I think I need to add some context to this. Trans issues are not something I have much knowledge of, but like most topics about humans I'm pretty sure the issues are complex and not easy to represent by saying people have to be on one side or the other.
I remember reading Rowling's article some months ago when that was highlighted in the news. I didn't agree with her views then and, after just re-reading it, I don't agree with them now. However, I don't agree with a lot of people's views about a lot of things and I don't think that's enough of a basis for saying they're bad people. In her case I suspect her views have been strongly influenced by the abuse she suffered when younger. I can question the idea that allowing trans women into a bathroom has any perceptible effect on the safety of that bathroom - men who would be inclined to abuse women may not be put off by the fact that they are currently 'not allowed' entry, unless they have a gender reassignment certificate. However, I have never been abused. If I had I think it's quite possible I would have a different view of lots of issues - and of course the views of many trans people are shaped by their difficult experiences.
Here is the article I'm referring to. I've also read some of her other writings about this issue and I think the article is representative of those. She clearly has strong feelings about the topic, but I don't think from a fair reading of the article she should be categorized as being a transphobe. As for her use of "predators", I think that comes from the following quote : "But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces." It's clear, to me at least, that she is not referring here to trans women as predators. Rather she is concerned that the changes being pushed for by some in the trans community will make it easier for male predators to be, well, predatory.
While I've already said I don't agree with her conclusions, I think some of the points she makes need to be considered further. One of those is the need for free speech, which I think most of the people reading this thread have sympathy with. As has been demonstrated multiple times in this forum, despite it generally being a relatively benign environment as internet forums go, once attacks become personal rather than relating to the subject matter, the quality of discussion sharply reduces.
Another point relates to the very sharp increases in the number of people seeking transitioning treatment - and the swing from being mainly men wishing to transition to mainly women. It may well be the case that these changes can be explained purely in terms of the greater knowledge about and acceptance of transitioning, but I think it's worth considering whether there are other factors. For instance, the support available on social media can be hugely beneficial for individuals struggling to come to terms with who they are. However, there are plenty of other sorts of social media groupings where the line between support and coercion seems to get blurred - whether that's radical religions, racist or sexist groups, or indeed political ones. I would hesitate to say that social pressure in this area is incapable of having an effect on vulnerable young people.
I think I mostly agree with you Grond0, I think some of Rowling's points in that essay were read in the least charitable way. I'm not really a fan of her work either, so I have no bias here or even interest in her views frankly. But, as you say, it did seem at the time and still seems today that some people are unfairly conflating her views with some of the more anti-trans views out there.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone can make a compelling argument, Rowling's thoughts are not something I feel strongly about.
When it comes to enjoying problematic work, I usually ask myself a few questions before engaging with it:
1. Is said person being directly supported by the work?
2. Are the views presented changing me in a negative way?
3. Does the work glorify said views?
If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", then I do not engage with it.
As for the subject being complex, I disagree. There are certainly complex views and politics out there; but if you think a group of people are inherently bad, or should be removed from society, or should not exist at all simply because they EXIST a certain way, well your a bad person. End of story. You CANNOT hold human life at such a low value for no reason other than "They are different from me" and be a good person. It really is that simple.
As for the subject being complex, I disagree. There are certainly complex views and politics out there; but if you think a group of people are inherently bad, or should be removed from society, or should not exist at all simply because they EXIST a certain way, well your a bad person. End of story. You CANNOT hold human life at such a low value for no reason other than "They are different from me" and be a good person. It really is that simple.
Is it really so simple? What about a religious person who says that a marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman? That doesn't strictly meet your criteria above, but many people still find it an offensive belief. Or, following on from the topic being discussed, what about Rowling? She's said consistently she doesn't have a problem with trans people - and I believe her. What she does have a problem with is blurring of certain lines, such as in the argument over women only spaces. While I don't agree with her position, that will at least partly reflect how I prioritize competing rights. It doesn't seem that important to me to have women only spaces - but I can appreciate how much more important that is likely to be to someone who's been abused.
To take another example that may resonate with users of this forum, I'm fond of Orson Scott Card's stories. However, I find his views on homosexuality problematic. He's stated in the past that the state should legislate against homosexuality and made plenty of other controversial statements as well. I find that difficult to understand as "Songmaster" is one of my favorite books and contains a very sympathetic portrayal of a gay man. I think that's possible because Card believes homosexuality is a sin - but he takes the line that, while sin should be condemned, the sinner should not. I don't find that an easy mindset to share, which is perhaps why I don't see any problem with Rowling as a person, but I do with Card.
Researchers from Sweden-based V-Dem Institute have determined that US Republicans are now more similar to authoritarian ruling parties in Turkey, Hungary, Poland and India than to typical centre-right governing parties in Western democracies such as the Conservatives in the UK or the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) in Germany.
For example look at the company the Trump administration is making the US join.
The US joined far right authoritarian regimes and dictators from Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Bahrain, UAE, Iraq, Uganda and Sudan in an anti-abortion declaration.
The Republican party wants to downgrade America to keep company like that. No offense to the countries in question but our society used to be a lot freer than yours and we should not be trending in your direction towards human rights.
As for the subject being complex, I disagree. There are certainly complex views and politics out there; but if you think a group of people are inherently bad, or should be removed from society, or should not exist at all simply because they EXIST a certain way, well your a bad person. End of story. You CANNOT hold human life at such a low value for no reason other than "They are different from me" and be a good person. It really is that simple.
I think this is exactly what I mentioned when I said people are being uncharitable. Rowling never came close to saying trans people should be removed from society.
I genuinely don't believe her when she says she doesn't have a problem with trans people.
When she says she wants trans people to have safe places and then immediately says she's opposed to trans women being allowed to use the women's room, that's not a complicated view; that's just obfuscation. Saying you want trans people to be safe and then decrying a policy that will keep them safe, without even trying to suggest any safe alternative, is disingenuous.
Bigots deny their bigotry. Of course she says she has nothing against trans people--but saying you're not prejudiced doesn't demonstrate a lack of prejudice, no matter how often you repeat it.
Rowling is doing the same thing every other transphobe does: saying she has nothing against us and is perfectly chill with our existence, all while criticizing the right to transition, criticizing people who speak out on behalf of trans people, and painting our existence as a dangerous opinion that needs to be destroyed.
It IS too charitable to assume that she really meant hypothetical cis men hijacking the trans movement when she was talking about "predators." Why is that assumption unfounded?
Because she never complains about cis men anywhere else in the entire article. Indeed, she never even alludes to their existence. Her only two targets are trans women and the folks who defend us.
To say that she was talking about cis male predators, rather than trans women, is to say she's talking about a subject she never even mentioned. I say that she was talking about trans women, because that's what her entire article is about.
This becomes even more obvious when you reflect on the fact that Rowling considers trans women to be men to begin with. To assume that "predators" referred to men instead of trans women is to assume that Rowling believes there is any difference.
I know you see a difference between them, @Grond0, but Rowling is emphatic that she does not. You're understanding her article through the lens of your own tolerance.
You know, before this article came out, people said folks were overreacting when they criticized Rowling for liking some transphobes' tweets. They said we were assuming the worst and that Rowling's views were more moderate.
Then she comes out with this article, repeating the same rhetoric you see in every other opponent of trans rights. Still, people say we're assuming the worst, and that Rowling doesn't really view us that badly.
Then news breaks that Rowling's next book is literally about a male serial killer who dresses up as woman in order to get away with his murders. She wrote an entire book dedicated to portraying gender-nonconforming people as violent criminals. Anyone who has written a full manuscript knows that this isn't something you write unless you're deeply passionate about the story.
I also assumed the best of intentions at first, and I only found myself more wrong. Underneath the veiled bigotry was blatant bigotry, and underneath that was visceral hatred.
I was bitterly disappointed in her when this all started, it felt like she was enjoying using her huge influence in a fairly smug manner to marginalise and push out a section of society without nuance or compassion. She used to be an inspiration to me, now I think she should stop weighing in on things she doesn’t understand. I do struggle to separate the creator from the work and there are certain music artists where if they come on the radio, the radio goes off.
Personally I do separate the art from the person, except when it is blatant propaganda. I give even more of a pass when it comes to artists that don't live in the present day. H.P. Lovecraft is a prime example. His views were not radical when he was writing (and a lot of the racism was implied, rather than implicit). The fact that the writer of the Necronomicon was Arab didn't strike me as racist at the time I first read it. I think a lot of the 'implicit' racism we see in earlier works are more because people were less exposed to other cultures and more apt to believe the stereo-types than because they were evil people per se. Just my $0.02 worth (before taxes).
My friend Dustin taught me the same lesson, that bigotry loved to hide under pleasant masks.
Many years ago, we were talking in the car, and he made some off-hand comment that he felt that racism was overblown, and much of the stuff we called racism was actually classism--the bigotry was focused about a particular kind of person and a particular kind of dress that just happened to be common among lower-income folks in the black community.
Flash forward a few years and Dustin is telling me his theories about black people being genetically stupider than whites and Asians.
I stayed friends with him thinking that I could push him in the right direction, but eventually I discovered that he would discard our friendship before he would rethink his prejudices. It wasn't that he started out unsympathetic and then fell down an alt-right rabbit hole; his views were always deep-seated. Same reason he always cracked jokes about liberals on literally every occasion we hung out. It made him feel superior to other people.
Tolerant people give bigots a pass because they assume that other folks are just as openminded. They offer alternate explanations because full-blown bigotry seems alien to their understanding of how humans think. But one of the things I've learned is that a lack of sympathy is just a screen for full-blown hatred.
Dustin was very, very nice to me when I came out, at least at first. He kept stressing that we were still friends and nothing would change that. But he never expressed full support, and we danced around the issue for a while. Eventually I realized he was hoping that I would change my mind and turn out to not be trans after all.
The instant he realized I wasn't going back, everything changed. All pretense faded away, and that's when the insults came. That's when he told me that we could never be friends, and that I was crazy and delusional and maybe he could have "fixed" me if he had bought me a prostitute in Vegas like he always wanted.
Bigots hide their prejudices. Dustin knew it wasn't acceptable to say that white people were superior to blacks and Rowling knows it isn't acceptable to say that trans women are violent criminals, so they don't show it. They disguise their extremism in moderate garb, knowing that other bigots will nod knowingly, and good people will assume it's just another harmless moderate.
@Grond0 "Is it really so simple? What about a religious person who says that a marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman? That doesn't strictly meet your criteria above, but many people still find it an offensive belief."
Like you say, it doesn't fit my criteria above, at least on its own. That's a different discussion though. I'm up for it if you want to have that discussion, but I don't see how it relates to Rowling's transphobia.
As for the subject being complex, I disagree. There are certainly complex views and politics out there; but if you think a group of people are inherently bad, or should be removed from society, or should not exist at all simply because they EXIST a certain way, well your a bad person. End of story. You CANNOT hold human life at such a low value for no reason other than "They are different from me" and be a good person. It really is that simple.
I think this is exactly what I mentioned when I said people are being uncharitable. Rowling never came close to saying trans people should be removed from society.
If you think her language and attitude tracks, you clearly haven't been around enough bigoted people to pick up on the rhetoric and double talk.
Personally I do separate the art from the person, except when it is blatant propaganda. I give even more of a pass when it comes to artists that don't live in the present day. H.P. Lovecraft is a prime example. His views were not radical when he was writing (and a lot of the racism was implied, rather than implicit). The fact that the writer of the Necronomicon was Arab didn't strike me as racist at the time I first read it. I think a lot of the 'implicit' racism we see in earlier works are more because people were less exposed to other cultures and more apt to believe the stereo-types than because they were evil people per se. Just my $0.02 worth (before taxes).
I think the name of the cat in "The Rats in the Walls" was PRETTY implicit, and there was a heavy implication that people of African descent (and cultures where voodoo was prevalent) were predisposed to worshipping the Old Ones. That said, it doesn't really bother me all that much, and he certainly isn't seeing any money, and even when he was around, he died miserable and broke. But it's definitely there, and sticks out like a sore thumb. But is it surprising coming from a guy raised in an uptight, almost Victorian Rhode Island household?? Not really. My understanding is his views moderated over time, but in his early years, he absolutely believed in the superiority of the white race. Which is interesting, because in every photograph of him, Lovecraft looks like he isn't even comfortable in his own skin.
1 - I'm open to giving people a lot of latitude for speaking incorrectly or accidentally misrepresenting their beliefs when discussing a topic. We all do it. I have less sympathy for that argument when we're talking about a carefully crafted opinion article written by the most successful author in the English language in the past 20 years. I struggle immensely to believe she did not choose each word carefully and specifically. I dont think she was accidental in her use of the word predator when discussing the invasion of safe spaces in an argument about combination of the trans community and feminism.
2 - I dont think someone can be pro trans, and simultaneously hold the belief that trans women are not women or shouldnt be treated as women in every sense that a cis woman would... That argument is fundamentally at odds with itself. It's akin to saying "I'm not racist, I just believe white people are superior"
1 - I'm open to giving people a lot of latitude for speaking incorrectly or accidentally misrepresenting their beliefs when discussing a topic. We all do it. I have less sympathy for that argument when we're talking about a carefully crafted opinion article written by the most successful author in the English language in the past 20 years. I struggle immensely to believe she did not choose each word carefully and specifically. I dont think she was accidental in her use of the word predator when discussing the invasion of safe spaces in an argument about combination of the trans community and feminism.
2 - I dont think someone can be pro trans, and simultaneously hold the belief that trans women are not women or shouldnt be treated as women in every sense that a cis woman would... That argument is fundamentally at odds with itself. It's akin to saying "I'm not racist, I just believe white people are superior"
The fact that she choose the topic she did for her novel is a pretty big giveaway. At that point, she might as well be a Republican legislator from North Carolina when they started this whole "bathroom" non-issue, because homophobia was past it's sell-date. Writing a full-length novel is basically rubbing it in the face of the trans community out of spite. I doubt she expects to sell many copies (because it won't) and she receives more in royalty checks every year than the GDP of whole countries. She can afford to do such a thing, because her monetary situation has been completely irrelevant to her since the Chamber of Secrets came out. The only thing that can be harmed is her reputation, and even that is going to end up as a rounding error as far as it effects her checkbook.
This will probably win me no friends.
I don't have a problem with most of what Rowling says, almost all of it if I am being honest. It is no secret that I am not a part of the community though and don't agree with many of their views. Simplest one for me to explain, men in the women's room. Nope, not good with that. Not that I am afraid of predators, I have seen that as pretty blown out of proportion. Not that I have never been in fear of men while being alone in a bathroom, actual trans people though? Not really. Now this is being said having been in an anyone restroom, eh not so bad that, urinals in another room and you only see men when you are washing your hands but... no one is seeing through gaps in those doors and it was in a club so people were constantly in and out. Full disclosure, it was a lgbtq club and most of the men were not in anyway interested in a woman, the women were a different story. Wow, gotta say that women can be as forward as men, they do seem to understand "No" better though. I went to one trans conference, only one and will never go to another. I was completely out of place, it seemed more like they were looking for a weekend of play but this is my life. Bathrooms really bothered me, I mean if you are going to be in the women's room act like a woman, and for the love of god if you can't be bothered to sit down to pee put the toilet seat back down! Oddly enough I have been to a drag show were there was a room for the male performers to dress and the transitioning performers got dressed in the girls bathroom, it wasn't uncomfortable at all, like being in any other girl's room. There are too many bathrooms that are isolated and seldom used to allow any man who has a paper that says he identifies as a woman access to all women's rooms. It is just being irresponsible and putting women at risk. That is the biggest problem but! In the isolated restroom case, they don't need a piece of paper do they? So don't know really. It is uncomfortable being in a bathroom with people that are not even trying to be a woman though. For me, if they walk like a duck and talk like a duck, they need to stay the fuck out of the swan's restroom. If they look and behave like a swan it should never be a problem.
Much of what Rowling is saying is not against trans women but in protection of women period. Not menstruating women when I say period but all women, trans and cis. I also agree that it has seems to have become a fad, that worries me also. I have been this way my whole life, I have seen many that are not like me though. I want everyone to understand that when I say the next it is not that there is anything wrong with any of them, just that there are differences. This is touchy and please believe that it is not ment with any rancor or belief that it is in anyway wrong to be any of this. I have known many crossdressers that think that they are just like me. Nope, not even close, nothing wrong with crossdressing, just that is not me. I have known crossdressers that have decided to transition late in life because, why not, nothing to lose at this point, which is okay in my book. I know many trans women that it was always and only about having a vagina, also okay, I am not their therapist. Grown people can do what they want as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Again, not like me though. I do not like how they are making it easier for children to transition. My one therapist that I needed to get a conformation letter for my surgery had a twelve year trans boy that was already on testosterone. I find that to be criminal and I left without ever getting my letter, had to find a more responsible therapist to get my letter from. I say that I am in the extreme minority in the trans community, I have always been like this and was not able to live any other way. Never about the clothes, though I do have a preference, not about the body, but I do want to be normal, it's about being myself and having the world see me as I see me. Not the only way to be trans and not in anyway better, just different. That is the biggest thing about trans people that most don't understand, there are many, many differences. Until they can seperate the terminology and educate people, it is going to be hard to really reach a way forward that works for everyone.
I understand what she says about scars. My mind, heart and body are so scarred that sometimes it seems there is more scar tissue than normal tissue. Most therapists read my file and say that it would take a lifetime to separate it all, what they would work on is coping with some things, and getting me as happy and mentally healthy as possible. Would work better if some of those scars didn't come from therapists, I don't really trust or keep therapists long. I know I am broken, and I feel for those that have lived through any of that. It is hard to get past abuse. After my year with uncle molester believe it or not my mom was the one who came to get me from the state home. It didn't last long, not my stepfather this time I suppose he was tired of going to jail for beating me, it was me. I could not be around people, my only friend lived in a crappy trailer like ours not far over the hill and through the woods from us. Her father treated her the way that my uncle had treated me, we never talked just it was easier being together than alone or with more normal or unbroken people. I asked my sister years later what happened to her, she said the Wanda had committed suicide only months after my mom put me back in the state home. She was 12. Don't judge Rowling for how her abuse has affected how she feels, she has lived a more functional life than I have and she seems to actually care about others.
The reason I find this bathroom debate ridiculous is because there has really never been anything stopping a man from using a woman's restroom previous to this coming up. It's not like there are rent-a-cops posted outside checking everyone's genitals. The only difference is that there is a dress on the stick figure on the door, and that behind that door there are more stalls than in the men's room. How do I know this?? Because OF COURSE I have, at a few certain random times in my life, used a woman's bathroom that wasn't currently occupied in what we'll call an "emergency" when the men's room was all in use. Not to mention if you happen to have a kid with you who needs to go and it's what's available. There wasn't anything nefarious about it. And I think most people are lying if they say that situation hasn't come up.
And, again, I ask, who gives a shit?? It's like worrying about razorblades in Halloween candy. If a bathroom is a dangerous place (such as at a rest stop) it isn't the BATHROOM that is the issue. It's the LOCATION. Before this issue came up, a man could still VERY EASILY go hide in a woman's rest room at a interstate rest stop if his intent was to commit assault. And they still can now. They could also hop in the backseat of the unlocked car of whoever just went in to go to the bathroom. We are granting some kind of mythical significance to a place where 99.9999% of the time all anyone wants to do is take a piss. It's not even in the same ballpark as a locker room, where it is fully expected that other people are going to be naked in front of you.
But the HEAVY implication is that this only became "dangerous" once trans people starting doing it, implying by default that trans people are UNIQUELY dangerous. And it's complete poppycock. It's an issue because certain people find the idea of someone being transgender uncomfortable. That's it. There isn't anything else to it. Transgender folks have become the "acceptable" target of widespread discrimination, because homophobia is now, at long last, seen as (for the most part) completely socially unacceptable. So the same people moved onto a new target.
The reason I find this bathroom debate ridiculous...
I do agree here. And it's a disagreement I have with Rowling's essay. FWIW, some nightclubs and restaurants do have a bathroom attendant, so, could technically be an issue there. Though assault concerns certainly aren't. But, especially if people are presenting as women or men, I just don't even understand why someone would want to argue that such a person should use a different restroom. That would seem to create even more social awkwardness.
Also it's just a poor understanding of how sexual assault happens. The percentage of cases that would fit into a concern here are so absurdly small, like you say, it's a boogeyman.
The reason I find this bathroom debate ridiculous...
I do agree here. And it's a disagreement I have with Rowling's essay. FWIW, some nightclubs and restaurants do have a bathroom attendant, so, could technically be an issue there. Though assault concerns certainly aren't. But, especially if people are presenting as women or men, I just don't even understand why someone would want to argue that such a person should use a different restroom. That would seem to create even more social awkwardness.
Also it's just a poor understanding of how sexual assault happens. The percentage of cases that would fit into a concern here are so absurdly small, like you say, it's a boogeyman.
There was a kidnapping in 1989 in Minnesota of a young boy, about 2 1/2 hours from where I lived. The reason I still remember it so vividly to this day, is that it convinced every parent in the state that some random stranger was going to hop off the interstate, snatch your kid off his/her bike, and take off and never be seen again, completely ignoring the fact that almost ALL incidences like this are perpetrated by someone the child already knows. And guess what?? Though the working theory was the "random stranger", 30 years later we did in fact learn that the person responsible for the abduction and murder lived less than a mile away from the family home.
My friend Dustin taught me the same lesson, that bigotry loved to hide under pleasant masks.
.....
The instant he realized I wasn't going back, everything changed. All pretense faded away, and that's when the insults came. That's when he told me that we could never be friends, and that I was crazy and delusional and maybe he could have "fixed" me if he had bought me a prostitute in Vegas like he always wanted
When the bigots drop their pretenses that's when we are all in trouble.
Barrett is in. It was fait accompli. I don't care whether you think AOC's politics are too far left or not. She is 1000% right about what she mentions here, and until the vast majority of the Democratic Party realizes it, they will continue to get steamrolled, regardless of the results of any individual election:
As I have said before, she should be teaching a class to every elected Democratic representative in the country about how to stand up for yourself and fight back. This weak-kneed bullshit needs to end. Instead, we just wait around for Republicans to let society collapse around us, and then spend the entire time cleaning up the mess, which isn't even half-completed before they slink back into power again.
Also, watch the fuck out. They have the court, and they WILL use it to usurp the will of the people, with NO QUALMS. It is ridiculous and unfortunate, but this NEEDS to be a blowout:
Biden has to be ahead at the end of the night next Tuesday, or they are going to steal this. They are telling us what the play is in advance. The train whistle is blowing, the cross guards are down and the light is flashing. Do NOT let the train run you over. This is not a drill. The Republicans have no fear of "losing" elections. Because winning at the ballot box is only step one of their options. If that fails, they'll go to any lengths to preserve their power. We can't let them. Win Florida, win Arizona, win Ohio, and drive this son of a bitch out of office before it's too late. We can't under any circumstances allow this court to invalidate ballots in a partisan political decision. They will if it is close:
Kavanaugh is arguing that optics and the impatience of the electorate are valid reasons to THROW OUT VOTES. Of course even as ridiculous as that is, it's not his REAL reasoning. It's what he could come up with to write in the decision. His real position is "fuck you, we win no matter what the score is."
@_Nightfall_ I remember when you first told me that story about the trans women's event, and I found it terribly odd that any of them would leave the seat up, even if there was no one but trans women there.
I mean, I stand, but that's only for single occupancy, gender neutral restrooms like in my home, and even then I couldn't bear to leave the seat up. That would just be hideously embarrassing, if I left it up. I'm not in the closet or in denial about my lack of bottom surgery, but I'd hate to advertise it.
Putting a trans boy on T at age 12 doesn't seem like it would be legal anywhere. Are you sure the kid wasn't just on puberty blockers? I can't imagine a medical health professional who would go straight to HRT for such a young critter without doing blockers first. There would be almost no circumstance where T would be the answer at 12.
Comments
It may be very different when someone you admired doesn't even acknowledge your existence as a human being. That said, if people want to enjoy art, it's the one place where one really has to separate your political beliefs from the artist. As a person of the left, if I let it dictate my choices, I can think of many things I could never enjoy again:
1.) The Beatles album 'Revolver" starts off with George Harrison bitching about his taxes for 3 minutes.
2.) The Sex Pistols song "Bodies" is so rabidly anti-abortion it could be a theme song for someone who bombs Planned Parenthood Clinics.
3.) The game Kingdoms of Amalur only exists because conservative hypocrite Curt Schilling got a massive loan from the state of Rhode Island he never paid back.
4.) Jon Voight's politics are god-awful, but he still chews the scenery in every movie he is in.
I could go on and on. It's an endless rabbit-hole. Once artists create something and it is consumed by the masses, it is out of their hands at that point and takes on a life of it's own. Harry Potter is still a wonderful story about the power of love and friendship, and is still responsible for millions upon millions of kids picking up a book for the first time, regardless of how horrible Ms. Rowling has turned out to be. Indeed, the reason it is so jarring is that there is NOTHING in those books that would indicate she held these views. In fact, quite the opposite. That is why it's so disappointing.
I dont know. I think there's room for careful self selection and control of the media you consume. It doesnt even have to be particularly political. For example: I'll never pay for *anything* related to Woody Allen ever again. Doesnt necessarily mean I wont watch anything, but I wont be caught dead spending a penny that ends up in his pocket. Same for Roman Polanski.
Comparing Rowling to those two is unfair, and so I dont. I do condemn Rowling in a lot of ways, and also will not spend money that goes back to her anymore. I'm comfortable with that arrangement.
Also, there's a nice side that the large majority of the Harry Potter Fandom are aghast at her stance on this, and are usually a safe space for the trans community.
I can shrug at a lot of the random trash that's come out of the various artists whose work I've enjoyed, but it hits closer to home when it's about you, specifically. I can understand folks who can still enjoy HP even if they disagree with her stance on trans people; they're not the ones she hates.
But I can't do it. She wrote an open letter castigating me and my dearest friends in front of the world. It's not that she has a different opinion about some abstract concept; it's that she specifically dislikes me and my closest friends, for who we are.
Now, when I think of Rowling, all I can remember is all the verbal, physical, and sexual abuse my friends went through because of people like her. It isn't just a stupid opinion that's not going to hurt anyone; it's encouraging people to abuse me and the people I love.
I don't fault other people for treating it as an impersonal thing, but that's not something I can do.
If your favorite musician says something you know is stupid, you can still roll your eyes and listen to the music same as always. But if your favorite musician punches your mom in the face, that's not something you can separate from the art. After all, it's your mom.
It can't be impersonal when they make it personal.
Steven Universe is famous for its LGBTQ+ representation, and I can't emphasize how incredibly important that show has been for the queer community. The entire show is just so wholesome and educational--they even had an episode about consent; they found a way to make the subject child-friendly and age-appropriate and still take it seriously. Rebecca Sugar is a real treasure.
It's like having people call you a worthless piece of shit all your life, and then you finally run into someone who says you're worth something and won't let you put yourself down anymore. A friend of mine has been treated like garbage all her life for being trans and queer and she was taken aback when I pointed out how sweet she was. I know a couple people like that, actually.
Rick Riordan is a darling in the trans community because, despite being a cishet guy himself, he goes out of his way to make his characters just as diverse as his audience, and he does enough homework to do representation right; he doesn't just throw it in. A friend of mine loves him special because he made one of his characters a nonbinary Latinx critter just like them.
It hits HARD when people go out of their way to be compassionate.
It might make me unpopular, but I think I need to add some context to this. Trans issues are not something I have much knowledge of, but like most topics about humans I'm pretty sure the issues are complex and not easy to represent by saying people have to be on one side or the other.
I remember reading Rowling's article some months ago when that was highlighted in the news. I didn't agree with her views then and, after just re-reading it, I don't agree with them now. However, I don't agree with a lot of people's views about a lot of things and I don't think that's enough of a basis for saying they're bad people. In her case I suspect her views have been strongly influenced by the abuse she suffered when younger. I can question the idea that allowing trans women into a bathroom has any perceptible effect on the safety of that bathroom - men who would be inclined to abuse women may not be put off by the fact that they are currently 'not allowed' entry, unless they have a gender reassignment certificate. However, I have never been abused. If I had I think it's quite possible I would have a different view of lots of issues - and of course the views of many trans people are shaped by their difficult experiences.
Here is the article I'm referring to. I've also read some of her other writings about this issue and I think the article is representative of those. She clearly has strong feelings about the topic, but I don't think from a fair reading of the article she should be categorized as being a transphobe. As for her use of "predators", I think that comes from the following quote : "But endlessly unpleasant as its constant targeting of me has been, I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it. I stand alongside the brave women and men, gay, straight and trans, who’re standing up for freedom of speech and thought, and for the rights and safety of some of the most vulnerable in our society: young gay kids, fragile teenagers, and women who’re reliant on and wish to retain their single sex spaces." It's clear, to me at least, that she is not referring here to trans women as predators. Rather she is concerned that the changes being pushed for by some in the trans community will make it easier for male predators to be, well, predatory.
While I've already said I don't agree with her conclusions, I think some of the points she makes need to be considered further. One of those is the need for free speech, which I think most of the people reading this thread have sympathy with. As has been demonstrated multiple times in this forum, despite it generally being a relatively benign environment as internet forums go, once attacks become personal rather than relating to the subject matter, the quality of discussion sharply reduces.
Another point relates to the very sharp increases in the number of people seeking transitioning treatment - and the swing from being mainly men wishing to transition to mainly women. It may well be the case that these changes can be explained purely in terms of the greater knowledge about and acceptance of transitioning, but I think it's worth considering whether there are other factors. For instance, the support available on social media can be hugely beneficial for individuals struggling to come to terms with who they are. However, there are plenty of other sorts of social media groupings where the line between support and coercion seems to get blurred - whether that's radical religions, racist or sexist groups, or indeed political ones. I would hesitate to say that social pressure in this area is incapable of having an effect on vulnerable young people.
I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if someone can make a compelling argument, Rowling's thoughts are not something I feel strongly about.
1. Is said person being directly supported by the work?
2. Are the views presented changing me in a negative way?
3. Does the work glorify said views?
If the answer to any of these questions is "yes", then I do not engage with it.
As for the subject being complex, I disagree. There are certainly complex views and politics out there; but if you think a group of people are inherently bad, or should be removed from society, or should not exist at all simply because they EXIST a certain way, well your a bad person. End of story. You CANNOT hold human life at such a low value for no reason other than "They are different from me" and be a good person. It really is that simple.
Is it really so simple? What about a religious person who says that a marriage should be defined as being between a man and a woman? That doesn't strictly meet your criteria above, but many people still find it an offensive belief. Or, following on from the topic being discussed, what about Rowling? She's said consistently she doesn't have a problem with trans people - and I believe her. What she does have a problem with is blurring of certain lines, such as in the argument over women only spaces. While I don't agree with her position, that will at least partly reflect how I prioritize competing rights. It doesn't seem that important to me to have women only spaces - but I can appreciate how much more important that is likely to be to someone who's been abused.
To take another example that may resonate with users of this forum, I'm fond of Orson Scott Card's stories. However, I find his views on homosexuality problematic. He's stated in the past that the state should legislate against homosexuality and made plenty of other controversial statements as well. I find that difficult to understand as "Songmaster" is one of my favorite books and contains a very sympathetic portrayal of a gay man. I think that's possible because Card believes homosexuality is a sin - but he takes the line that, while sin should be condemned, the sinner should not. I don't find that an easy mindset to share, which is perhaps why I don't see any problem with Rowling as a person, but I do with Card.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/gop-trump-republican-democrats-authoritarian-hungary-austria-india-poland-turkey-b1343847.html
For example look at the company the Trump administration is making the US join.
The US joined far right authoritarian regimes and dictators from Belarus, Hungary, Poland, Brazil, Bahrain, UAE, Iraq, Uganda and Sudan in an anti-abortion declaration.
The Republican party wants to downgrade America to keep company like that. No offense to the countries in question but our society used to be a lot freer than yours and we should not be trending in your direction towards human rights.
https://www.jurist.org/news/2020/10/us-joins-belarus-hungary-poland-brazil-bahrain-uae-iraq-uganda-and-sudan-in-anti-abortion-declaration/
I think this is exactly what I mentioned when I said people are being uncharitable. Rowling never came close to saying trans people should be removed from society.
When she says she wants trans people to have safe places and then immediately says she's opposed to trans women being allowed to use the women's room, that's not a complicated view; that's just obfuscation. Saying you want trans people to be safe and then decrying a policy that will keep them safe, without even trying to suggest any safe alternative, is disingenuous.
Bigots deny their bigotry. Of course she says she has nothing against trans people--but saying you're not prejudiced doesn't demonstrate a lack of prejudice, no matter how often you repeat it.
Rowling is doing the same thing every other transphobe does: saying she has nothing against us and is perfectly chill with our existence, all while criticizing the right to transition, criticizing people who speak out on behalf of trans people, and painting our existence as a dangerous opinion that needs to be destroyed.
It IS too charitable to assume that she really meant hypothetical cis men hijacking the trans movement when she was talking about "predators." Why is that assumption unfounded?
Because she never complains about cis men anywhere else in the entire article. Indeed, she never even alludes to their existence. Her only two targets are trans women and the folks who defend us.
To say that she was talking about cis male predators, rather than trans women, is to say she's talking about a subject she never even mentioned. I say that she was talking about trans women, because that's what her entire article is about.
This becomes even more obvious when you reflect on the fact that Rowling considers trans women to be men to begin with. To assume that "predators" referred to men instead of trans women is to assume that Rowling believes there is any difference.
I know you see a difference between them, @Grond0, but Rowling is emphatic that she does not. You're understanding her article through the lens of your own tolerance.
You know, before this article came out, people said folks were overreacting when they criticized Rowling for liking some transphobes' tweets. They said we were assuming the worst and that Rowling's views were more moderate.
Then she comes out with this article, repeating the same rhetoric you see in every other opponent of trans rights. Still, people say we're assuming the worst, and that Rowling doesn't really view us that badly.
Then news breaks that Rowling's next book is literally about a male serial killer who dresses up as woman in order to get away with his murders. She wrote an entire book dedicated to portraying gender-nonconforming people as violent criminals. Anyone who has written a full manuscript knows that this isn't something you write unless you're deeply passionate about the story.
I also assumed the best of intentions at first, and I only found myself more wrong. Underneath the veiled bigotry was blatant bigotry, and underneath that was visceral hatred.
Many years ago, we were talking in the car, and he made some off-hand comment that he felt that racism was overblown, and much of the stuff we called racism was actually classism--the bigotry was focused about a particular kind of person and a particular kind of dress that just happened to be common among lower-income folks in the black community.
Flash forward a few years and Dustin is telling me his theories about black people being genetically stupider than whites and Asians.
I stayed friends with him thinking that I could push him in the right direction, but eventually I discovered that he would discard our friendship before he would rethink his prejudices. It wasn't that he started out unsympathetic and then fell down an alt-right rabbit hole; his views were always deep-seated. Same reason he always cracked jokes about liberals on literally every occasion we hung out. It made him feel superior to other people.
Tolerant people give bigots a pass because they assume that other folks are just as openminded. They offer alternate explanations because full-blown bigotry seems alien to their understanding of how humans think. But one of the things I've learned is that a lack of sympathy is just a screen for full-blown hatred.
Dustin was very, very nice to me when I came out, at least at first. He kept stressing that we were still friends and nothing would change that. But he never expressed full support, and we danced around the issue for a while. Eventually I realized he was hoping that I would change my mind and turn out to not be trans after all.
The instant he realized I wasn't going back, everything changed. All pretense faded away, and that's when the insults came. That's when he told me that we could never be friends, and that I was crazy and delusional and maybe he could have "fixed" me if he had bought me a prostitute in Vegas like he always wanted.
Bigots hide their prejudices. Dustin knew it wasn't acceptable to say that white people were superior to blacks and Rowling knows it isn't acceptable to say that trans women are violent criminals, so they don't show it. They disguise their extremism in moderate garb, knowing that other bigots will nod knowingly, and good people will assume it's just another harmless moderate.
Like you say, it doesn't fit my criteria above, at least on its own. That's a different discussion though. I'm up for it if you want to have that discussion, but I don't see how it relates to Rowling's transphobia.
If you think her language and attitude tracks, you clearly haven't been around enough bigoted people to pick up on the rhetoric and double talk.
I think the name of the cat in "The Rats in the Walls" was PRETTY implicit, and there was a heavy implication that people of African descent (and cultures where voodoo was prevalent) were predisposed to worshipping the Old Ones. That said, it doesn't really bother me all that much, and he certainly isn't seeing any money, and even when he was around, he died miserable and broke. But it's definitely there, and sticks out like a sore thumb. But is it surprising coming from a guy raised in an uptight, almost Victorian Rhode Island household?? Not really. My understanding is his views moderated over time, but in his early years, he absolutely believed in the superiority of the white race. Which is interesting, because in every photograph of him, Lovecraft looks like he isn't even comfortable in his own skin.
1 - I'm open to giving people a lot of latitude for speaking incorrectly or accidentally misrepresenting their beliefs when discussing a topic. We all do it. I have less sympathy for that argument when we're talking about a carefully crafted opinion article written by the most successful author in the English language in the past 20 years. I struggle immensely to believe she did not choose each word carefully and specifically. I dont think she was accidental in her use of the word predator when discussing the invasion of safe spaces in an argument about combination of the trans community and feminism.
2 - I dont think someone can be pro trans, and simultaneously hold the belief that trans women are not women or shouldnt be treated as women in every sense that a cis woman would... That argument is fundamentally at odds with itself. It's akin to saying "I'm not racist, I just believe white people are superior"
This is just a baseless assertion. And frankly this is the same tactic that conservatives use when they call Joe Biden a socialist.
The fact that she choose the topic she did for her novel is a pretty big giveaway. At that point, she might as well be a Republican legislator from North Carolina when they started this whole "bathroom" non-issue, because homophobia was past it's sell-date. Writing a full-length novel is basically rubbing it in the face of the trans community out of spite. I doubt she expects to sell many copies (because it won't) and she receives more in royalty checks every year than the GDP of whole countries. She can afford to do such a thing, because her monetary situation has been completely irrelevant to her since the Chamber of Secrets came out. The only thing that can be harmed is her reputation, and even that is going to end up as a rounding error as far as it effects her checkbook.
I don't have a problem with most of what Rowling says, almost all of it if I am being honest. It is no secret that I am not a part of the community though and don't agree with many of their views. Simplest one for me to explain, men in the women's room. Nope, not good with that. Not that I am afraid of predators, I have seen that as pretty blown out of proportion. Not that I have never been in fear of men while being alone in a bathroom, actual trans people though? Not really. Now this is being said having been in an anyone restroom, eh not so bad that, urinals in another room and you only see men when you are washing your hands but... no one is seeing through gaps in those doors and it was in a club so people were constantly in and out. Full disclosure, it was a lgbtq club and most of the men were not in anyway interested in a woman, the women were a different story. Wow, gotta say that women can be as forward as men, they do seem to understand "No" better though. I went to one trans conference, only one and will never go to another. I was completely out of place, it seemed more like they were looking for a weekend of play but this is my life. Bathrooms really bothered me, I mean if you are going to be in the women's room act like a woman, and for the love of god if you can't be bothered to sit down to pee put the toilet seat back down! Oddly enough I have been to a drag show were there was a room for the male performers to dress and the transitioning performers got dressed in the girls bathroom, it wasn't uncomfortable at all, like being in any other girl's room. There are too many bathrooms that are isolated and seldom used to allow any man who has a paper that says he identifies as a woman access to all women's rooms. It is just being irresponsible and putting women at risk. That is the biggest problem but! In the isolated restroom case, they don't need a piece of paper do they? So don't know really. It is uncomfortable being in a bathroom with people that are not even trying to be a woman though. For me, if they walk like a duck and talk like a duck, they need to stay the fuck out of the swan's restroom. If they look and behave like a swan it should never be a problem.
Much of what Rowling is saying is not against trans women but in protection of women period. Not menstruating women when I say period but all women, trans and cis. I also agree that it has seems to have become a fad, that worries me also. I have been this way my whole life, I have seen many that are not like me though. I want everyone to understand that when I say the next it is not that there is anything wrong with any of them, just that there are differences. This is touchy and please believe that it is not ment with any rancor or belief that it is in anyway wrong to be any of this. I have known many crossdressers that think that they are just like me. Nope, not even close, nothing wrong with crossdressing, just that is not me. I have known crossdressers that have decided to transition late in life because, why not, nothing to lose at this point, which is okay in my book. I know many trans women that it was always and only about having a vagina, also okay, I am not their therapist. Grown people can do what they want as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Again, not like me though. I do not like how they are making it easier for children to transition. My one therapist that I needed to get a conformation letter for my surgery had a twelve year trans boy that was already on testosterone. I find that to be criminal and I left without ever getting my letter, had to find a more responsible therapist to get my letter from. I say that I am in the extreme minority in the trans community, I have always been like this and was not able to live any other way. Never about the clothes, though I do have a preference, not about the body, but I do want to be normal, it's about being myself and having the world see me as I see me. Not the only way to be trans and not in anyway better, just different. That is the biggest thing about trans people that most don't understand, there are many, many differences. Until they can seperate the terminology and educate people, it is going to be hard to really reach a way forward that works for everyone.
I understand what she says about scars. My mind, heart and body are so scarred that sometimes it seems there is more scar tissue than normal tissue. Most therapists read my file and say that it would take a lifetime to separate it all, what they would work on is coping with some things, and getting me as happy and mentally healthy as possible. Would work better if some of those scars didn't come from therapists, I don't really trust or keep therapists long. I know I am broken, and I feel for those that have lived through any of that. It is hard to get past abuse. After my year with uncle molester believe it or not my mom was the one who came to get me from the state home. It didn't last long, not my stepfather this time I suppose he was tired of going to jail for beating me, it was me. I could not be around people, my only friend lived in a crappy trailer like ours not far over the hill and through the woods from us. Her father treated her the way that my uncle had treated me, we never talked just it was easier being together than alone or with more normal or unbroken people. I asked my sister years later what happened to her, she said the Wanda had committed suicide only months after my mom put me back in the state home. She was 12. Don't judge Rowling for how her abuse has affected how she feels, she has lived a more functional life than I have and she seems to actually care about others.
And, again, I ask, who gives a shit?? It's like worrying about razorblades in Halloween candy. If a bathroom is a dangerous place (such as at a rest stop) it isn't the BATHROOM that is the issue. It's the LOCATION. Before this issue came up, a man could still VERY EASILY go hide in a woman's rest room at a interstate rest stop if his intent was to commit assault. And they still can now. They could also hop in the backseat of the unlocked car of whoever just went in to go to the bathroom. We are granting some kind of mythical significance to a place where 99.9999% of the time all anyone wants to do is take a piss. It's not even in the same ballpark as a locker room, where it is fully expected that other people are going to be naked in front of you.
But the HEAVY implication is that this only became "dangerous" once trans people starting doing it, implying by default that trans people are UNIQUELY dangerous. And it's complete poppycock. It's an issue because certain people find the idea of someone being transgender uncomfortable. That's it. There isn't anything else to it. Transgender folks have become the "acceptable" target of widespread discrimination, because homophobia is now, at long last, seen as (for the most part) completely socially unacceptable. So the same people moved onto a new target.
I do agree here. And it's a disagreement I have with Rowling's essay. FWIW, some nightclubs and restaurants do have a bathroom attendant, so, could technically be an issue there. Though assault concerns certainly aren't. But, especially if people are presenting as women or men, I just don't even understand why someone would want to argue that such a person should use a different restroom. That would seem to create even more social awkwardness.
Also it's just a poor understanding of how sexual assault happens. The percentage of cases that would fit into a concern here are so absurdly small, like you say, it's a boogeyman.
There was a kidnapping in 1989 in Minnesota of a young boy, about 2 1/2 hours from where I lived. The reason I still remember it so vividly to this day, is that it convinced every parent in the state that some random stranger was going to hop off the interstate, snatch your kid off his/her bike, and take off and never be seen again, completely ignoring the fact that almost ALL incidences like this are perpetrated by someone the child already knows. And guess what?? Though the working theory was the "random stranger", 30 years later we did in fact learn that the person responsible for the abduction and murder lived less than a mile away from the family home.
When the bigots drop their pretenses that's when we are all in trouble.
The Alt-Right Playbook: The Death of a Euphemism
As I have said before, she should be teaching a class to every elected Democratic representative in the country about how to stand up for yourself and fight back. This weak-kneed bullshit needs to end. Instead, we just wait around for Republicans to let society collapse around us, and then spend the entire time cleaning up the mess, which isn't even half-completed before they slink back into power again.
Also, watch the fuck out. They have the court, and they WILL use it to usurp the will of the people, with NO QUALMS. It is ridiculous and unfortunate, but this NEEDS to be a blowout:
Biden has to be ahead at the end of the night next Tuesday, or they are going to steal this. They are telling us what the play is in advance. The train whistle is blowing, the cross guards are down and the light is flashing. Do NOT let the train run you over. This is not a drill. The Republicans have no fear of "losing" elections. Because winning at the ballot box is only step one of their options. If that fails, they'll go to any lengths to preserve their power. We can't let them. Win Florida, win Arizona, win Ohio, and drive this son of a bitch out of office before it's too late. We can't under any circumstances allow this court to invalidate ballots in a partisan political decision. They will if it is close:
Kavanaugh is arguing that optics and the impatience of the electorate are valid reasons to THROW OUT VOTES. Of course even as ridiculous as that is, it's not his REAL reasoning. It's what he could come up with to write in the decision. His real position is "fuck you, we win no matter what the score is."
I mean, I stand, but that's only for single occupancy, gender neutral restrooms like in my home, and even then I couldn't bear to leave the seat up. That would just be hideously embarrassing, if I left it up. I'm not in the closet or in denial about my lack of bottom surgery, but I'd hate to advertise it.
Putting a trans boy on T at age 12 doesn't seem like it would be legal anywhere. Are you sure the kid wasn't just on puberty blockers? I can't imagine a medical health professional who would go straight to HRT for such a young critter without doing blockers first. There would be almost no circumstance where T would be the answer at 12.