@_Nightfall_ By the way, you don't need to preemptively apologize for a potentially unpopular opinion. I know you've been through an incredible amount of abuse in your life, but you won't get it from us.
Please stop with the bathroom thing. Please.
You ever had a guy not stop when you are trying to say no?
Ever had a guy grab your butt in a crowded room?
Ever had two giant guys force their way between you and your boyfriend as you are walking into the mall at one in the afternoon. One says nice tits and ass as they are pushing their way through, and the other says, Yeah, I’d get all up in that. ?
Ever had your friend’s husband try to grab your boob in a crowded restaurant?
Ever been pumping gas and had the guy on the other side of the pump looks you right in the and say, The things I would do to you would make you scream all night.?
Ever had the surgeon that just put in your boyfriend’s pacemaker. Say, I don’t think I have to worry about being sued. Good procedure, good results. I say, I would not do that to you. And before I can say anything else he puts his arm around my waist, buries his face in my hair and says, You can do whatever you want to me. ?
Have you? That and so much more, have you?
The bathroom is a place of refuge, safety. Where we can be ourselves. Can I deal with the average man in the bathroom, absolutely, not all are the average man though.
Don’t believe the world is like you, I am telling you with absolute certainty, they are not.
This is not about Rowling. She really spun that article and I could be way off on her. The bathroom thing, the species needs a lot of growth or serious safeguards before we have universal unisex bathrooms.
If all these things were specifically taking place in bathrooms, and the people acting like this were only doing it because they were in a bathroom, then I would agree with you. Please do correct me if I am wrong, but if these incidents (which it goes without saying should have never happened) took place somewhere OTHER than a bathroom, then I truly do fail to understand how they are related. I think your argument is that men don't know what it's like to be a woman on a daily basis, and I 100% agree with you. We don't. I just have absolutely no idea why that is related to a male to female transgender person using a stall in a woman's rest room. There is absolutely no desire or movement among ALL men to use whatever bathroom they want. This debate is specifically about male to female transgender persons feeling, as you put it yourself, "comfortable" about where they are going to the bathroom.
What I'm failing to grasp in this debate is why the bathroom became the hallowed ground upon which this culture war is being fought. I am certainly not a female, but I have been in hundreds if not thousands of bathrooms, and I literally have no idea how they became the equivalent of a dark alley in the worst part of town imaginable, where predators are lurking behind every corner and just waiting to pop out of stalls. Is this happening?? Where is it happening??
I have read this more closely, you mention standing in a crowded room, you mention pumping gas, you mention walking in the mall, which are even MORE mundane activities than going to the bathroom are. Which would indicate to me that the problem is how men treat woman inappropriately in public. Point being, they don't NEED the relative seclusion (if you want to call it that) of a bathroom to engage in this behavior. They are already doing it out in the open for everyone to see.
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.
This is just a baseless assertion. And frankly this is the same tactic that conservatives use when they call Joe Biden a socialist.
If you can read Rowling's article and think its not bigoted or she's firmly anti trans, then there 100% is basis for my assertion. You have demonstrated it.
Here's Trump laying the groundwork for stealing the election with a little help from Amy Covid Barrett. He thinks if they stop counting ballots and they don't count mail in ballots then he will win. He's counting on the packed supreme court to hand him the election.
Please stop with the bathroom thing. Please.
You ever had a guy not stop when you are trying to say no?
...
I've said it before but it bears repeating in this context. You can't make social policy based on anecdote. I don't mean to make light of anyone who has been sexually assaulted in a public restroom, I know it's happened. But again, we can't base laws or social norms around very rare events.
I don't grasp the practical argument being made in your post. Let's think about an everyday possibility. A trans person who went from man-to-woman. Forgive the language here if you find it insensitive, but I'm just trying to be precise. They physically appear to be a woman to a stranger and you wouldn't know otherwise except if you knew them. Is the argument here that this person should have to use the men's room? I just don't understand how that makes any sense as a social norm.
And I don't mean to personally exclude non-passing trans folk for my own philosophy, but just trying to set up what I think is the least controversial example.
Edit to add: To go a step further, there are trans men who have full on facial hair. It's absurd, imo, to ask that they use the women's room. Noone would find that acceptable. And to go even one step further there are plenty of androgynous looking people out there whether because of dress or physicality, plenty who aren't even trans. I just don't see how you can enforce this without violating other norms.
Please stop with the bathroom thing. Please.
You ever had a guy not stop when you are trying to say no?
...
I've said it before but it bears repeating in this context. You can't make social policy based on anecdote. I don't mean to make light of anyone who has been sexually assaulted in a public restroom, I know it's happened. But again, we can't base laws or social norms around very rare events.
I don't grasp the practical argument being made in your post. Let's think about an everyday possibility. A trans person who went from man-to-woman. Forgive the language here if you find it insensitive, but I'm just trying to be precise. They physically appear to be a woman to a stranger and you wouldn't know otherwise except if you knew them. Is the argument here that this person should have to use the men's room? I just don't understand how that makes any sense as a social norm.
And I don't mean to personally exclude non-passing trans folk for my own philosophy, but just trying to set up what I think is the least controversial example.
Edit to add: To go a step further, there are trans men who have full on facial hair. It's absurd, imo, to ask that they use the women's room. Noone would find that acceptable. And to go even one step further there are plenty of androgynous looking people out there whether because of dress or physicality, plenty who aren't even trans. I just don't see how you can enforce this without violating other norms.
Indeed, in the later hypothetical you mention (of female to male with facial hair), the argument is then essentially that they won't be able to use public restrooms AT ALL, as they are in a complete Catch-22.
There are lots of reasons I don't envy trans men (they have to deal with some pretty awful garbage that trans women like me mercifully don't), but trans guys tend to pass really well as men once they've been on testosterone for a while, more so than other trans critters. The average trans woman also passes after a couple years, of course, but trans men often flat-out lose the ability to pass as women even if they stopped binding and tried to go stealth. There are a lot of beards in that crowd, lots of muscles, and some guys even get receding hairlines once they've been on T a while. Plenty of trans guys have complained about getting scolded for going to the women's room when they're doing exactly what the local rules told them to.
Point being, if trans people all went to the bathroom that corresponded to their assigned gender at birth, we'd be seeing MORE hairy, muscled men in women's rooms; not less.
There are lots of reasons I don't envy trans men (they have to deal with some pretty awful garbage that trans women like me mercifully don't), but trans guys tend to pass really well as men once they've been on testosterone for a while, more so than other trans critters. The average trans woman also passes after a couple years, of course, but trans men often flat-out lose the ability to pass as women even if they stopped binding and tried to go stealth. There are a lot of beards in that crowd, lots of muscles, and some guys even get receding hairlines once they've been on T a while. Plenty of trans guys have complained about getting scolded for going to the women's room when they're doing exactly what the local rules told them to.
Point being, if trans people all went to the bathroom that corresponded to their assigned gender at birth, we'd be seeing MORE hairy, muscled men in women's rooms; not less.
And not to get too into the weeds on this, but if they have NOT had gender-reassignment surgery, then literally the only thing they are doing is going into a stall (as a urinal isn't going to work, obviously), closing a door, and doing their business. Why does such a mundane act need to be the subject of any debate whatsoever?? Sorta reminds me of this:
I think the lesson is that fearmongering politics never make sense when you actually think about details and reality. It was a manufactured fear.
It's not like there was a string of bathroom assaults that prompted this fear. There wasn't. At least with gun control legislation people can point to an ongoing, long-running problem that's gotten countless people killed.
But this? It's just a hypothetical fantasy, the only thing the GOP is good at protecting people from.
I dont think there can be any doubt - Trump intends to sue to stop counting absentee ballots if he is ahead at the end of election night. This seems pretty much baked in.
I think the court will probably side with him. I suspect a 5-4 wouldnt have, with Roberts interested in his legitimacy. That's out the window.
@jjstraka34 is right - Democrats need to be ahead virtually everywhere at the end of the election night. If Trump is up in enough states to reach 270, he will try to kill counting in elections.
I do not support it because it's "progressive", I support it because 99,999/100,000 when this comes up, someone who is transgender, gender fluid etc etc etc is going to walk into the bathroom, go into a stall, close the door, sit on the toilet taking a shit for 5-10 minutes, open the stall door, wash their hands, and leave. I support it because it's an almost inconsequential act that is only slightly less controversial than breathing. Or at least it was. I also disagree STRONGLY that Obama is the one who made this a cultural wedge issue. That was the NC State Legislature.
I dont think there can be any doubt - Trump intends to sue to stop counting absentee ballots if he is ahead at the end of election night. This seems pretty much baked in.
I think the court will probably side with him. I suspect a 5-4 wouldnt have, with Roberts interested in his legitimacy. That's out the window.
@jjstraka34 is right - Democrats need to be ahead virtually everywhere at the end of the election night. If Trump is up in enough states to reach 270, he will try to kill counting in elections.
If they stop legitimate ballots mailed ON-TIME from being counted because of nothing but how long it is taking, there need to be millions of people in the streets, or they will destroy whatever is left of this democracy. There will be absolutely no legitimacy to the government, and citizens should not and will not accept it. I haven't even been around that long, but it's possible I WILL be old enough to have seen TWO elections stolen by the Supreme Court before I reach the age of 40.
AFTER being sworn in tonight, Barrett basically participated in a campaign photo-op with the President on the White House balcony. 7 days before an election she may be asked to rule on. Absolutely obscene.
Nightfall, I get that you seem to have a lot of personal experience with assault or harassment but again, personal experience cannot be our main guide for making policies that are going to affect everyone.
I think it's important to note that studies have shown that trans people are disproportionately the victims of sexual assault and harassment, not perpetrators. (One reference on high victimization rates from the US DOJ) I think it's important recognize the statistical reality here. Whatever unwanted sexual encounters you've experienced as a woman, it's likely that the average trans person (esp MtF) has experienced those as well, if not worse. Except with a diminished capacity to achieve any redress or support.
What I don't see is any data that indicates sexual assaults are going to climb because you've let trans people use the restroom of their choice. This doesn't have to be a progressive or conservative issue. If there was a compelling case to be made that inconveniencing trans people was worth because it helped plummet sexual assaults and/or harassment, I could be persuaded. But I've never even seen an attempt at that advanced.
Lastly, to address a concern you added, about people perhaps seeking state-issued identification that says they're trans, I just think this is another boogeyman. Being trans is, generally, still not something that's widely accepted. It's going to be rare to seek that unless that's a sincerely held identity. Again, there might be a case of some handful of people engaging in that behavior but it's impossible to design perfect policy. The key is what are the aggregate trade offs.
Nightfall, I get that you seem to have a lot of personal experience with assault or harassment but again, personal experience cannot be our main guide for making policies that are going to affect everyone.
I think it's important to note that studies have shown that trans people are disproportionately the victims of sexual assault and harassment, not perpetrators. (One reference on high victimization rates from the US DOJ) I think it's important recognize the statistical reality here. Whatever unwanted sexual encounters you've experienced as a woman, it's likely that the average trans person (esp MtF) has experienced those as well, if not worse. Except with a diminished capacity to achieve any redress or support.
What I don't see is any data that indicates sexual assaults are going to climb because you've let trans people use the restroom of their choice. This doesn't have to be a progressive or conservative issue. If there was a compelling case to be made that inconveniencing trans people was worth because it helped plummet sexual assaults and/or harassment, I could be persuaded. But I've never even seen an attempt at that advanced.
There are already laws in place to discourage the behavior in question. The fact that such laws may, once in a blue moon, be broken in a bathroom, doesn't seem any more consequential to me than if they are broken in a garage or a movie theater. Someone needs to explain to me why bathrooms, specifically, are likely to be a hotbed of the behavior we all agree shouldn't be happening ANYWHERE.
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.
@semiticgod this is a very difficult post to respond to because I'm conscious of the possibility it will come across as condescending or even perhaps as reflecting that I have my own prejudices against trans people. However, I am trying hard to evaluate this issue rationally. I have no particular interest in defending Rowling herself, but in general I don't think people should be pilloried for explaining why they hold views important to them. I'll respond to some of the points you made above and use Rowling's words from her article to illustrate why it seems to me that her attitude is exactly what she says it is, i.e. one that is protective of women, rather than anti-trans. As I referred to before, I think her attitude is understandable given her personal history (as of course is yours, given your history). While I don't agree with her view on this particular issue, I don't think it's necessary to see that as the sole or main determinant of who she is or how she's regarded.
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.
As has already been mentioned during the discussion on this issue, bathrooms are not an entirely safe space now - and if that's the case for natal women, it certainly also is for trans people of either sex. Coming up with policy proposals that would be immune from being misunderstood would seem to be an impossibility to me, so I'm not surprised she didn't try it in that article. However, I don't think her attitude is as cut and dried as you suggest. She refers several times in the article to indicators of being trans, for instance in this paragraph: "So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."
From the article it seems to me that she is not concerned about people who have demonstrated they really are trans, but about those who merely claim to be as a means to an end. The extent to which that might actually happen may be questionable, but I see no reason to question that she is concerned about 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.
I suggested earlier that her strong reaction to this issue, at least partially reflected her own life experiences. Others have noted they've found her attitude to trans people disappointing or shocking because it's out of line with the concerns she's shown more generally to vulnerable people. It seems to me though that her article consistently illustrates that she is concerned about trans people - but her over-riding concern is to protect the rights of natal women. Take the following: "If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.
I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men."
She's demonstrating empathy here, with the ability to put herself in the shoes of trans people and that's not the only time she does that - see the following for instance: "The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred."
Again though, I think her concerns about the safety of women are not with what might be done by trans women, but what might be done by those pretending to be trans.
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 don't find it difficult at all to assume she sees any difference between trans women and predators. In order to assume that she doesn't you have to assume that she is consistently lying in what she says in the article. I see no basis for that assumption. She is clearly very aware that her expressed views may incite strong opinions against her, so why bother to lie about those views? It's also clear to me that a lot of her article is indeed about the violence and wider forms of abuse perpetrated by men. That's the basis of the whole major section about her own experience of abuse and she's clearly concerned about trends denigrating women, e.g. see the following: "We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else."
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.
The only one of her books I've read is the first Harry Potter, so I can't comment directly. However, this is what Wikipedia has to say about the issue:
Some media outlets observed that the inclusion of a male villain who dresses as a woman in order to kill women was bound to be ill-received by part of the public, given the author's past comments on transgender people that were considered transphobic. Laura Bradley, reviewing in The Daily Beast, claimed "pernicious anti-trans tropes" in the novel, while Kerridge observed that the book's "moral seems to be: never trust a man in a dress".
Nick Cohen, writing for The Spectator, argued that the transphobia accusations were baseless and slanderous, noting that Dennis Creed is investigated along with a dozen other suspects. He also stated that the book does not engage in the politics of women-only spaces and access to gender reassignment treatments. Alison Flood, writing for The Guardian, expressed similar views, arguing that people who have not read the book were making wrong assumptions based on a single review.
I'm sure most of us remember how so much of the reaction to Siege of Dragonspear mis-characterized the nature of the game. From what I've read about the book it sounds to me like portraying it as anti-trans is probably similarly making a mountain out of a molehill, but I'd need to read it to be sure of that of course.
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 saw nothing in the article to support the view she hates trans people and I've included quotes above that don't support this view - here's another of those: "I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this."
As with the article as a whole, I think this quote reflects her concerns are not with trans people per se, but more specific issues - in this case the potential to abuse a system that makes it too easy to pretend to be trans.
I remember some time ago there was a discussion about abortion, where I expressed concerns about taking absolutist views of any sort. There are a small number of people who take the line that 'every sperm (and egg) is sacred' and there are also a small number that believe a woman should be able to control her own body irrespective of what is developing inside it. The vast majority though accept that a more nuanced view of the issue is required, even if there are considerable disagreements about where to draw the line to best reflect the potentially competing rights of woman and child. It seems to me that the argument about trans people has some similar features. An absolutist position that there's no difference between trans women and other women makes no more sense to me than saying trans women should not exist. I'm all for the proposition that all people should be valued, but that does not require a belief that all people are identical. If you accept that trans women are not identical to other women, it's no surprise if there are arguments about whether those differences should be reflected in policy (and of course there are similar debates about the extent to which differences between men and women should be reflected in policy).
Edit: not sure why font colors seem to not be supported any more - I've put extracts from Rowling's article in bold instead.
I don't buy this argument there is a "middle ground" here at all, and that is because of gay marriage. The right in America INSISTED for DECADES that allowing homosexuals to marry would DESTROY heterosexual marriage. They wanted to deny rights and flat-out control the lives of other people based on a fantasy in their own head. We have now had over a decade of gay people getting married, heterosexual marriage did NOT collapse, so every single one of those people was dead fucking wrong, not by a percentage, but in TOTALITY. I fail to understand why I should listen to them about abortion and transgender rights as well. I'll go with the side that was actually correct and wasn't relying on a book of Jewish folklore to make up excuses for their own psychological issues. In fact, my entire adult has been spent having to pretend these people know what they are talking about, and the rest of the country (the majority) being forced to live in a society dictated to their antiquated whims, and now it's costing hundreds of thousands of lives to boot. I'm done with it.
I don't buy this argument at all, and that is because of gay marriage. The right in America INSISTED for DECADES that allowing homosexuals to marry would DESTROY heterosexual marriage.
To be fair, they did nominate a thrice-married serial philanderer with numerous allegations of sexual assault after gay marriage became legal. So, maybe it was just a confession.
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.
For this analogy to make sense, IMO you would need to provide some evidence that the people called "TERF" are in some way morally comparable to Nazis or pedophiles. I think that's a very, very extreme exaggeration. Given the lack of evidence of such morally abhorrent behavior on their part as a group (no cherry picking 1-2 people please), their labeling with such a term coupled with the extreme wishes of violence (and some real-life vandalism, intimidation, and physical assault) is reason enough for me to consider it a form of hate speech.
There's also the issue here, though I'm going on a tangent, that the term "TERF" is nowadays applied with such a low bar, that almost anyone and their cat could be considered a "TERF." For instance I'm pretty sure that almost all of the women I know in meatspace would take up a position deemed "TERFy" if they read about this political debate, yet nearly none of them are radical feminists. That's a further reason I don't consider it a valid descriptor and more just a label to demonize and intimidate women with.
"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.
Nothing wrong about what you're saying per se, though I'd like to point out a very important thing: they see transwomen as a "threat" insofar they also see men as a "threat" i.e. on a group level based on statistics. As a man, I don't see anything wrong with the statement "men are a threat to women's sexual safety" because I know that it's based on women's overall experience with men, and statistics of crime. I.e. it's not about me as a person, or any of the men/boys I hold dear.
The only study we have so far that looks into group-level criminality patterns of the general population and the transgender population (Dhejne et al., 2011) suggests that transwomen show roughly the same pattern of criminality as the general population of men, i.e. significantly higher numbers of crimes of a violent or sexual nature when compared to the general population of women.
That does not mean that individual transwomen we meet in life should be seen as suspects, but it's reason enough for women to feel very uneasy at the prospect of being forced by law to share female-only sex segregated spaces with transwomen.
The issue is further worsened by the principle of pure self-identification, which allows a person who is still anatomically and physiologically 100% male (i.e. not even taking hormones or anything) to become legally a woman or to morally force society to consider them a woman (otherwise one is being "transphobic"). The negative effects of this can be seen in cases like Jessica Yaniv and Karen White. I personally don't believe that either of them is genuine in their identification as transwomen, but Jessica Yaniv is legally a woman, and Karen White was convincing enough to the authorities be put in a woman's prison, and that is despite White being, and I quote The Guardian: "a convicted paedophile and on remand for grievous bodily harm, burglary, multiple rapes and other sexual offences against women." (You can imagine what happened after White was put in a woman's prison.)
Please note that I'm mentioning these cases not to cherry-pick but to give concrete examples. I've mentioned statistics above. Further interesting statistics:
These numbers are possibly inflated by the fact that manipulative men merely claim to be transgender. But then that's exactly the point, because questioning the validity of someone's self-declared gender identity is considered a very big taboo.
Note that transgender inmates in male prisons in turn are in danger themselves which means that a complex solution rather than black-and-white mentality is required.
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.
Let's quote Rowling's essay. Below are two paragraphs from the middle of the essay, followed by the (only) paragraph in the essay that contains the word "predator."
"I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
"[...]
"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 think it's very clear that in the essay, she's making a strong distinction between the majority of transwomen, who are innocent, and a minority of predators, who manipulatively use the transgender movement for ulterior motives.
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.
Sorry but IMO this is a very direct misrepresentation and tells me that you haven't seriously conversed with any of the women who get called "TERF." Their position on sex and gender is actually very simple: the word "woman" literally means "adult human female" which expressly includes gender non-conforming women, lesbian women, "masculine" women, and so on. And vice-versa for the term "man."
So while in the regressive conservative world-view a transwoman would be seen as a "broken" or "wrong" or "devious" etc. man, in the "TERF" world-view a transwoman is as valid and legitimate a man as any other, because there is no right or wrong way to be a woman/man or in other words there are no prescriptions on how people with female or male anatomy are "supposed to be."
To quote Penny White (paraphrased because I can't find the source for the quote), "transwomen can be beautiful and feminine, they just cannot be women."
It's worth mentioning that lesbians in particular are very strongly represented in "TERF" communities, apart from life-long feminists and otherwise generally progressive women.
Last but not least there's another reason why I think "TERF" is an illegitimate descriptor. The "RF" i.e. radical feminist part of the term already covers the ideology that implicates the "TE" i.e. not considering transwomen to be literally women. I've searched far and wide and could only find one prominent radical feminist, Catharine MacKinnon, who expressly stated that she sees transwomen as women. Other than that, it seems to be the norm among radical feminists to either voice a critical position against the transgender world-view, or to ignore the topic. As such, IMO it would make more sense to say either just "radical feminist" (implies TE or TE-ish positions) or something like "TWIRF" (trans-woman-inclusionary explicitly specified, as it's the exception; the W added because transmen are usually included anyway for being female-born). Like I said at the beginning though, most uses are completely wrong as the person in question is often not a radical feminist at all, e.g. a conservative and reactionary woman can never be a "TERF," by definition.
After packing the supreme court with Barrett, McConnell has put the Senate in recess until Nov 9th which happens to be the day before Obamacare goes before the Supreme Court (again).
Republicans don't give a damn about you.
Barrett's there to help Trump steal the election and defend corporate interests against the little guy. Period.
The Trump White House has already admitted that they are giving up, waving the white flag, on doing anything about the Coronavirus. They don't care if their (lack of a) plan will see millions die.
I dont think there can be any doubt - Trump intends to sue to stop counting absentee ballots if he is ahead at the end of election night. This seems pretty much baked in.
I think the court will probably side with him. I suspect a 5-4 wouldnt have, with Roberts interested in his legitimacy. That's out the window.
jjstraka34 is right - Democrats need to be ahead virtually everywhere at the end of the election night. If Trump is up in enough states to reach 270, he will try to kill counting in elections.
Sadly, this election will be riding on the integrity of Fox News covering the election.
If Fox calls it prematurely for Trump, as they did with Bush, then we’re going to see this get ugly.
Trump and his followers have already labeled all other media as enemy of the people and will use that rhetoric if they do not call it for him on election night.
I also think that the 3 judges who were nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court should recuse themselves of any election related decisions. That is the ethical thing to do.
Sadly relying on their ethics and even any broadcasters integrity is a stretch these days.
2020 isn’t over yet. Good luck with what it’s going to throw at us next.
I'm about to go volunteer at the polls, so I don't have much time, but I do want to address a few points that have been brought up:
@Grond0: First and most importantly, I know you're not trying to be condescending, and I know you have no prejudices towards trans people. I know your arguments have always been well-thought-out and reasoned. You don't have to worry about me getting the wrong idea. Disagreeing with you has always been a pleasant and respectful experience
You mention several quotes from Rowling expressing empathy for trans people--those things were exactly why I first thought Rowling was doing the right thing, when I first read that article months ago. It was only when I noticed the shift in her tone that I realized they were insincere.
We're coming back to the same problem: as you mentioned, Rowling knows expressing certain views will incite criticism. This is more reason for her to pretend to be sympathetic; it is LESS reason to be honest. And when you say feel "empathy and solidarity" for trans women, all while vocally opposing any attempt to protect them or their interests, the phrase is meaningless.
The only time she indicates any amount of respect for any trans woman's identity is for a woman she met who is older than her, and in the quote you provide, she goes on to specify that she believes that trans women must undergo a yearslong process to "prove" their dysphoria is real. She explicitly criticizes any attempt to make it easy for women to transition.
The thing is, transitioning legally is the first step in any trans woman's journey to get the same legal rights as anyone else. And when you say it shouldn't be easy for trans women to get equal treatment, that it should only be accessible after years of legal hoops, you're knowingly demanding that trans people are treated worse than others.
You also invert her own words here:
"When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."
From the article it seems to me that she is not concerned about people who have demonstrated they really are trans, but about those who merely claim to be as a means to an end.
This is the exact opposite of what she said--she specifically refers to "any man who believes or feels he’s a woman." This is not a reference to cis men pretending to be women for ulterior motives; this is Rowling's definition of a trans woman: a man who "believes" he is a woman.
You say we're talking about men who pretend to be women (cis men), but Rowling says she's talking about men who "believe" they're women (trans women).
And as I've mentioned before, Rowling is by her own admission opposing anything that makes it easier to meet those standards and get equal treatment.
If somebody tells you that you have to undergo a 5-year waiting period before you're allowed to vote, would you say they support your right to vote? I cannot emphasize this enough: one of the main legal ways that trans people lose their rights is by governments putting up obstacles to transitioning legally.
When you put equal treatment behind a barrier, making that barrier higher means opposing equal treatment. That's the entire problem.
@Taylan: I shouldn't have to say that TERFs aren't comparable morally to pedophiles or Nazis; I made it clear I was talking about the terminology rather than the people. I did not say the people were similar; I said that TERF isn't a slur for the same reasons that Nazi and pedophile are not slurs.
If that seems implausible, ask yourself why Nazi and pedophile are not slurs. I'm assuming you'd agree they were not slurs, and if you had to explain why not, I'm guessing your argument would be fairly similar to mine.
For the record, "radical feminist" is a broad term in the feminist community; a lot of feminists call themselves radical, as a positive term. Radical doesn't have the same meaning as it does in the general population. And again, the majority of people who call themselves "radical feminist" are critics of TERFs. Yet feminists who exclude trans women also often call themselves "radical feminists." Radical feminist, by itself, is too broad of a term.
And for the record, the majority of lesbians are also trans-inclusionary.
@semiticgod I'm not sure how productive it would be to take the debate about the article much further. I can see your point of view and accept it's possible I'm taking the best interpretation of her words because my general view of people is positive. I suppose I'm just hoping that you can similarly keep an open mind that you may be taking the worst interpretation of her words because of your particular experiences relating to this issue. For instance you referred specifically to the following quote: "When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."
and suggested that the specific wording means Rowling is concerned about all trans women. I don't think that's the correct interpretation of this paragraph - what I think she's saying is that if you make access easy for all existing trans women, you also open the door to others, i.e. the predators she referred to in the article. To me that would be the natural interpretation of this paragraph in any case, but the fact that she said flatly elsewhere in the article that trans women generally are not a threat just emphasizes that interpretation to me.
The real prompt for my original post though was not to defend Rowling - she's quite capable of doing that herself. Rather, I was wanting to express a more general concern about what seems to be an increasing tendency to define your 'side' in absolutist terms - you're either with us or against us and, if you're with us, you'd better agree with everything we say.
You can just about get away with that sort of position when you're dealing with a narrow slice of society - like a sports team for instance. However, politics is (or should be) about the whole of society and no absolutist program can take along enough people to give a democratic mandate. I suppose I'm influenced by Treebeard in my thinking here in that "I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side". Like Treebeard though, that doesn't mean I won't take sides when a particular issue seems clear, but just that I wouldn't expect to agree about everything even with my allies of the moment.
Hmm, I think I'm rambling again. I'd better get on with some work and see if I can express myself more clearly at some later point ...
@Grond0 With Rowling, I think its also worth mentioning that she also stops following anyone on Twitter immiediatly if they say anything positive about trans' rights. You can't be neutral on trans issues if you refuse to even be seen in any kind of positive context with someone who supports trans rights.
Or that she publicly defended someone who went on a tirade against the trans community.
I want to focus again on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Because it proves Kavanaugh is not, in fact, a "brilliant jurist" as he was sold at the time. Kavanaugh talks about late votes "flipping" a result. Kagan points out that until those votes are counted, there are no results to flip. One of those statements (Kagan's) is just a stone-cold FACT. The other (Kavanaugh's) is nothing but partisan hackery dressed up in an exceptionally shitty legal argument.
The mail is also experiencing significant delays again. Right on schedule. The combination of that fact and a rigged court essentially means Democrats can't just win the game by a field goal. They have to win by three touchdowns. It's absolutely maddening. It's ridiculous to have to say this a week out, but mail-in votes are no longer an option. If you haven't voted already, you need to make other arrangements to get it in on time.
I want to focus again on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Because it proves Kavanaugh is not, in fact, a "brilliant jurist" as he was sold at the time. Kavanaugh talks about late votes "flipping" a result. Kagan points out that until those votes are counted, there are no results to flip. One of those statements (Kagan's) is just a stone-cold FACT. The other (Kavanaugh's) is nothing but partisan hackery dressed up in an exceptionally shitty legal argument.
The mail is also experiencing significant delays again. Right on schedule. The combination of that fact and a rigged court essentially means Democrats can't just win the game by a field goal. They have to win by three touchdowns. It's absolutely maddening. It's ridiculous to have to say this a week out, but mail-in votes are no longer an option. If you haven't voted already, you need to make other arrangements to get it in on time.
The tired "constitutional originalist" these extremists always pull out is nothing but a schtick. It's a lie to cover up and excuse doing whatever partisan ruling they want to do anyway.
Kavanaugh nor Barrett has no place on the Supreme Court. Barrett might I guess, we can't really tell because she has NO experience at all but her handmaid's tale style beliefs should be disqualifying. In any case Kavanaugh definitively does not belong on the Supreme Court at all.
I want to focus again on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Because it proves Kavanaugh is not, in fact, a "brilliant jurist" as he was sold at the time. Kavanaugh talks about late votes "flipping" a result. Kagan points out that until those votes are counted, there are no results to flip. One of those statements (Kagan's) is just a stone-cold FACT. The other (Kavanaugh's) is nothing but partisan hackery dressed up in an exceptionally shitty legal argument.
The mail is also experiencing significant delays again. Right on schedule. The combination of that fact and a rigged court essentially means Democrats can't just win the game by a field goal. They have to win by three touchdowns. It's absolutely maddening. It's ridiculous to have to say this a week out, but mail-in votes are no longer an option. If you haven't voted already, you need to make other arrangements to get it in on time.
The tired "constitutional originalist" these extremists always pull out is nothing but a schtick. It's a lie to cover up and excuse doing whatever partisan ruling they want to do anyway.
Kavanaugh nor Barrett has no place on the Supreme Court. Barrett might I guess, we can't really tell because she has NO experience at all but her handmaid's tale style beliefs should be disqualifying. In any case Kavanaugh definitively does not belong on the Supreme Court at all.
Once she was sworn in last night, she had a lifetime appointment. She no longer realistically needed Trump for anything. The fact that she appeared at a political event with him anyway is ominous at best. Tells you everything you need to know about her.
I want to focus again on the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling. Because it proves Kavanaugh is not, in fact, a "brilliant jurist" as he was sold at the time. Kavanaugh talks about late votes "flipping" a result. Kagan points out that until those votes are counted, there are no results to flip. One of those statements (Kagan's) is just a stone-cold FACT. The other (Kavanaugh's) is nothing but partisan hackery dressed up in an exceptionally shitty legal argument.
The mail is also experiencing significant delays again. Right on schedule. The combination of that fact and a rigged court essentially means Democrats can't just win the game by a field goal. They have to win by three touchdowns. It's absolutely maddening. It's ridiculous to have to say this a week out, but mail-in votes are no longer an option. If you haven't voted already, you need to make other arrangements to get it in on time.
The tired "constitutional originalist" these extremists always pull out is nothing but a schtick. It's a lie to cover up and excuse doing whatever partisan ruling they want to do anyway.
Kavanaugh nor Barrett has no place on the Supreme Court. Barrett might I guess, we can't really tell because she has NO experience at all but her handmaid's tale style beliefs should be disqualifying. In any case Kavanaugh definitively does not belong on the Supreme Court at all.
Once she was sworn in last night, she had a lifetime appointment. She no longer realistically needed Trump for anything. The fact that she appeared at a political event with him anyway is ominous at best. Tells you everything you need to know about her.
If the ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day, they should count. Period. Any other conclusion, barring evidence of shenanigans, is bullshit.
Having said that, if I were not going to my polling place (I am), I would definitely not trust the Post Office to deliver my vote this election cycle. I'd be dropping it off at City Hall...
Comments
If all these things were specifically taking place in bathrooms, and the people acting like this were only doing it because they were in a bathroom, then I would agree with you. Please do correct me if I am wrong, but if these incidents (which it goes without saying should have never happened) took place somewhere OTHER than a bathroom, then I truly do fail to understand how they are related. I think your argument is that men don't know what it's like to be a woman on a daily basis, and I 100% agree with you. We don't. I just have absolutely no idea why that is related to a male to female transgender person using a stall in a woman's rest room. There is absolutely no desire or movement among ALL men to use whatever bathroom they want. This debate is specifically about male to female transgender persons feeling, as you put it yourself, "comfortable" about where they are going to the bathroom.
What I'm failing to grasp in this debate is why the bathroom became the hallowed ground upon which this culture war is being fought. I am certainly not a female, but I have been in hundreds if not thousands of bathrooms, and I literally have no idea how they became the equivalent of a dark alley in the worst part of town imaginable, where predators are lurking behind every corner and just waiting to pop out of stalls. Is this happening?? Where is it happening??
I have read this more closely, you mention standing in a crowded room, you mention pumping gas, you mention walking in the mall, which are even MORE mundane activities than going to the bathroom are. Which would indicate to me that the problem is how men treat woman inappropriately in public. Point being, they don't NEED the relative seclusion (if you want to call it that) of a bathroom to engage in this behavior. They are already doing it out in the open for everyone to see.
If you can read Rowling's article and think its not bigoted or she's firmly anti trans, then there 100% is basis for my assertion. You have demonstrated it.
I've said it before but it bears repeating in this context. You can't make social policy based on anecdote. I don't mean to make light of anyone who has been sexually assaulted in a public restroom, I know it's happened. But again, we can't base laws or social norms around very rare events.
I don't grasp the practical argument being made in your post. Let's think about an everyday possibility. A trans person who went from man-to-woman. Forgive the language here if you find it insensitive, but I'm just trying to be precise. They physically appear to be a woman to a stranger and you wouldn't know otherwise except if you knew them. Is the argument here that this person should have to use the men's room? I just don't understand how that makes any sense as a social norm.
And I don't mean to personally exclude non-passing trans folk for my own philosophy, but just trying to set up what I think is the least controversial example.
Edit to add: To go a step further, there are trans men who have full on facial hair. It's absurd, imo, to ask that they use the women's room. Noone would find that acceptable. And to go even one step further there are plenty of androgynous looking people out there whether because of dress or physicality, plenty who aren't even trans. I just don't see how you can enforce this without violating other norms.
Indeed, in the later hypothetical you mention (of female to male with facial hair), the argument is then essentially that they won't be able to use public restrooms AT ALL, as they are in a complete Catch-22.
Point being, if trans people all went to the bathroom that corresponded to their assigned gender at birth, we'd be seeing MORE hairy, muscled men in women's rooms; not less.
And not to get too into the weeds on this, but if they have NOT had gender-reassignment surgery, then literally the only thing they are doing is going into a stall (as a urinal isn't going to work, obviously), closing a door, and doing their business. Why does such a mundane act need to be the subject of any debate whatsoever?? Sorta reminds me of this:
It's not like there was a string of bathroom assaults that prompted this fear. There wasn't. At least with gun control legislation people can point to an ongoing, long-running problem that's gotten countless people killed.
But this? It's just a hypothetical fantasy, the only thing the GOP is good at protecting people from.
I think the court will probably side with him. I suspect a 5-4 wouldnt have, with Roberts interested in his legitimacy. That's out the window.
@jjstraka34 is right - Democrats need to be ahead virtually everywhere at the end of the election night. If Trump is up in enough states to reach 270, he will try to kill counting in elections.
If they stop legitimate ballots mailed ON-TIME from being counted because of nothing but how long it is taking, there need to be millions of people in the streets, or they will destroy whatever is left of this democracy. There will be absolutely no legitimacy to the government, and citizens should not and will not accept it. I haven't even been around that long, but it's possible I WILL be old enough to have seen TWO elections stolen by the Supreme Court before I reach the age of 40.
AFTER being sworn in tonight, Barrett basically participated in a campaign photo-op with the President on the White House balcony. 7 days before an election she may be asked to rule on. Absolutely obscene.
I think it's important to note that studies have shown that trans people are disproportionately the victims of sexual assault and harassment, not perpetrators. (One reference on high victimization rates from the US DOJ) I think it's important recognize the statistical reality here. Whatever unwanted sexual encounters you've experienced as a woman, it's likely that the average trans person (esp MtF) has experienced those as well, if not worse. Except with a diminished capacity to achieve any redress or support.
What I don't see is any data that indicates sexual assaults are going to climb because you've let trans people use the restroom of their choice. This doesn't have to be a progressive or conservative issue. If there was a compelling case to be made that inconveniencing trans people was worth because it helped plummet sexual assaults and/or harassment, I could be persuaded. But I've never even seen an attempt at that advanced.
Lastly, to address a concern you added, about people perhaps seeking state-issued identification that says they're trans, I just think this is another boogeyman. Being trans is, generally, still not something that's widely accepted. It's going to be rare to seek that unless that's a sincerely held identity. Again, there might be a case of some handful of people engaging in that behavior but it's impossible to design perfect policy. The key is what are the aggregate trade offs.
There are already laws in place to discourage the behavior in question. The fact that such laws may, once in a blue moon, be broken in a bathroom, doesn't seem any more consequential to me than if they are broken in a garage or a movie theater. Someone needs to explain to me why bathrooms, specifically, are likely to be a hotbed of the behavior we all agree shouldn't be happening ANYWHERE.
@semiticgod this is a very difficult post to respond to because I'm conscious of the possibility it will come across as condescending or even perhaps as reflecting that I have my own prejudices against trans people. However, I am trying hard to evaluate this issue rationally. I have no particular interest in defending Rowling herself, but in general I don't think people should be pilloried for explaining why they hold views important to them. I'll respond to some of the points you made above and use Rowling's words from her article to illustrate why it seems to me that her attitude is exactly what she says it is, i.e. one that is protective of women, rather than anti-trans. As I referred to before, I think her attitude is understandable given her personal history (as of course is yours, given your history). While I don't agree with her view on this particular issue, I don't think it's necessary to see that as the sole or main determinant of who she is or how she's regarded.
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.
As has already been mentioned during the discussion on this issue, bathrooms are not an entirely safe space now - and if that's the case for natal women, it certainly also is for trans people of either sex. Coming up with policy proposals that would be immune from being misunderstood would seem to be an impossibility to me, so I'm not surprised she didn't try it in that article. However, I don't think her attitude is as cut and dried as you suggest. She refers several times in the article to indicators of being trans, for instance in this paragraph:
"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."
From the article it seems to me that she is not concerned about people who have demonstrated they really are trans, but about those who merely claim to be as a means to an end. The extent to which that might actually happen may be questionable, but I see no reason to question that she is concerned about 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.
I suggested earlier that her strong reaction to this issue, at least partially reflected her own life experiences. Others have noted they've found her attitude to trans people disappointing or shocking because it's out of line with the concerns she's shown more generally to vulnerable people. It seems to me though that her article consistently illustrates that she is concerned about trans people - but her over-riding concern is to protect the rights of natal women. Take the following:
"If you could come inside my head and understand what I feel when I read about a trans woman dying at the hands of a violent man, you’d find solidarity and kinship. I have a visceral sense of the terror in which those trans women will have spent their last seconds on earth, because I too have known moments of blind fear when I realised that the only thing keeping me alive was the shaky self-restraint of my attacker.
I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men."
She's demonstrating empathy here, with the ability to put herself in the shoes of trans people and that's not the only time she does that - see the following for instance:
"The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition. The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred."
Again though, I think her concerns about the safety of women are not with what might be done by trans women, but what might be done by those pretending to be trans.
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 don't find it difficult at all to assume she sees any difference between trans women and predators. In order to assume that she doesn't you have to assume that she is consistently lying in what she says in the article. I see no basis for that assumption. She is clearly very aware that her expressed views may incite strong opinions against her, so why bother to lie about those views? It's also clear to me that a lot of her article is indeed about the violence and wider forms of abuse perpetrated by men. That's the basis of the whole major section about her own experience of abuse and she's clearly concerned about trends denigrating women, e.g. see the following:
"We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else."
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.
The only one of her books I've read is the first Harry Potter, so I can't comment directly. However, this is what Wikipedia has to say about the issue:
Nick Cohen, writing for The Spectator, argued that the transphobia accusations were baseless and slanderous, noting that Dennis Creed is investigated along with a dozen other suspects. He also stated that the book does not engage in the politics of women-only spaces and access to gender reassignment treatments. Alison Flood, writing for The Guardian, expressed similar views, arguing that people who have not read the book were making wrong assumptions based on a single review.
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 saw nothing in the article to support the view she hates trans people and I've included quotes above that don't support this view - here's another of those:
"I want to be very clear here: I know transition will be a solution for some gender dysphoric people, although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria. Again and again I’ve been told to ‘just meet some trans people.’ I have: in addition to a few younger people, who were all adorable, I happen to know a self-described transsexual woman who’s older than I am and wonderful. Although she’s open about her past as a gay man, I’ve always found it hard to think of her as anything other than a woman, and I believe (and certainly hope) she’s completely happy to have transitioned. Being older, though, she went through a long and rigorous process of evaluation, psychotherapy and staged transformation. The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this."
As with the article as a whole, I think this quote reflects her concerns are not with trans people per se, but more specific issues - in this case the potential to abuse a system that makes it too easy to pretend to be trans.
I remember some time ago there was a discussion about abortion, where I expressed concerns about taking absolutist views of any sort. There are a small number of people who take the line that 'every sperm (and egg) is sacred' and there are also a small number that believe a woman should be able to control her own body irrespective of what is developing inside it. The vast majority though accept that a more nuanced view of the issue is required, even if there are considerable disagreements about where to draw the line to best reflect the potentially competing rights of woman and child. It seems to me that the argument about trans people has some similar features. An absolutist position that there's no difference between trans women and other women makes no more sense to me than saying trans women should not exist. I'm all for the proposition that all people should be valued, but that does not require a belief that all people are identical. If you accept that trans women are not identical to other women, it's no surprise if there are arguments about whether those differences should be reflected in policy (and of course there are similar debates about the extent to which differences between men and women should be reflected in policy).
Edit: not sure why font colors seem to not be supported any more - I've put extracts from Rowling's article in bold instead.
To be fair, they did nominate a thrice-married serial philanderer with numerous allegations of sexual assault after gay marriage became legal. So, maybe it was just a confession.
For this analogy to make sense, IMO you would need to provide some evidence that the people called "TERF" are in some way morally comparable to Nazis or pedophiles. I think that's a very, very extreme exaggeration. Given the lack of evidence of such morally abhorrent behavior on their part as a group (no cherry picking 1-2 people please), their labeling with such a term coupled with the extreme wishes of violence (and some real-life vandalism, intimidation, and physical assault) is reason enough for me to consider it a form of hate speech.
There's also the issue here, though I'm going on a tangent, that the term "TERF" is nowadays applied with such a low bar, that almost anyone and their cat could be considered a "TERF." For instance I'm pretty sure that almost all of the women I know in meatspace would take up a position deemed "TERFy" if they read about this political debate, yet nearly none of them are radical feminists. That's a further reason I don't consider it a valid descriptor and more just a label to demonize and intimidate women with.
Nothing wrong about what you're saying per se, though I'd like to point out a very important thing: they see transwomen as a "threat" insofar they also see men as a "threat" i.e. on a group level based on statistics. As a man, I don't see anything wrong with the statement "men are a threat to women's sexual safety" because I know that it's based on women's overall experience with men, and statistics of crime. I.e. it's not about me as a person, or any of the men/boys I hold dear.
The only study we have so far that looks into group-level criminality patterns of the general population and the transgender population (Dhejne et al., 2011) suggests that transwomen show roughly the same pattern of criminality as the general population of men, i.e. significantly higher numbers of crimes of a violent or sexual nature when compared to the general population of women.
That does not mean that individual transwomen we meet in life should be seen as suspects, but it's reason enough for women to feel very uneasy at the prospect of being forced by law to share female-only sex segregated spaces with transwomen.
The issue is further worsened by the principle of pure self-identification, which allows a person who is still anatomically and physiologically 100% male (i.e. not even taking hormones or anything) to become legally a woman or to morally force society to consider them a woman (otherwise one is being "transphobic"). The negative effects of this can be seen in cases like Jessica Yaniv and Karen White. I personally don't believe that either of them is genuine in their identification as transwomen, but Jessica Yaniv is legally a woman, and Karen White was convincing enough to the authorities be put in a woman's prison, and that is despite White being, and I quote The Guardian: "a convicted paedophile and on remand for grievous bodily harm, burglary, multiple rapes and other sexual offences against women." (You can imagine what happened after White was put in a woman's prison.)
Please note that I'm mentioning these cases not to cherry-pick but to give concrete examples. I've mentioned statistics above. Further interesting statistics:
"Transgender prisoners are five times more likely to carry out sex attacks on inmates at women’s jails than other prisoners are, official figures show."
"The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) have confirmed by Freedom of Information requests that 60 of the 125 transgender prisoners known to be in prison in England and Wales are convicted sex offenders."
These numbers are possibly inflated by the fact that manipulative men merely claim to be transgender. But then that's exactly the point, because questioning the validity of someone's self-declared gender identity is considered a very big taboo.
Note that transgender inmates in male prisons in turn are in danger themselves which means that a complex solution rather than black-and-white mentality is required.
Let's quote Rowling's essay. Below are two paragraphs from the middle of the essay, followed by the (only) paragraph in the essay that contains the word "predator."
"I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.
"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.
"[...]
"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 think it's very clear that in the essay, she's making a strong distinction between the majority of transwomen, who are innocent, and a minority of predators, who manipulatively use the transgender movement for ulterior motives.
Sorry but IMO this is a very direct misrepresentation and tells me that you haven't seriously conversed with any of the women who get called "TERF." Their position on sex and gender is actually very simple: the word "woman" literally means "adult human female" which expressly includes gender non-conforming women, lesbian women, "masculine" women, and so on. And vice-versa for the term "man."
So while in the regressive conservative world-view a transwoman would be seen as a "broken" or "wrong" or "devious" etc. man, in the "TERF" world-view a transwoman is as valid and legitimate a man as any other, because there is no right or wrong way to be a woman/man or in other words there are no prescriptions on how people with female or male anatomy are "supposed to be."
To quote Penny White (paraphrased because I can't find the source for the quote), "transwomen can be beautiful and feminine, they just cannot be women."
It's worth mentioning that lesbians in particular are very strongly represented in "TERF" communities, apart from life-long feminists and otherwise generally progressive women.
Last but not least there's another reason why I think "TERF" is an illegitimate descriptor. The "RF" i.e. radical feminist part of the term already covers the ideology that implicates the "TE" i.e. not considering transwomen to be literally women. I've searched far and wide and could only find one prominent radical feminist, Catharine MacKinnon, who expressly stated that she sees transwomen as women. Other than that, it seems to be the norm among radical feminists to either voice a critical position against the transgender world-view, or to ignore the topic. As such, IMO it would make more sense to say either just "radical feminist" (implies TE or TE-ish positions) or something like "TWIRF" (trans-woman-inclusionary explicitly specified, as it's the exception; the W added because transmen are usually included anyway for being female-born). Like I said at the beginning though, most uses are completely wrong as the person in question is often not a radical feminist at all, e.g. a conservative and reactionary woman can never be a "TERF," by definition.
Republicans don't give a damn about you.
Barrett's there to help Trump steal the election and defend corporate interests against the little guy. Period.
The Trump White House has already admitted that they are giving up, waving the white flag, on doing anything about the Coronavirus. They don't care if their (lack of a) plan will see millions die.
Sadly, this election will be riding on the integrity of Fox News covering the election.
If Fox calls it prematurely for Trump, as they did with Bush, then we’re going to see this get ugly.
Trump and his followers have already labeled all other media as enemy of the people and will use that rhetoric if they do not call it for him on election night.
I also think that the 3 judges who were nominated by Trump to the Supreme Court should recuse themselves of any election related decisions. That is the ethical thing to do.
Sadly relying on their ethics and even any broadcasters integrity is a stretch these days.
2020 isn’t over yet. Good luck with what it’s going to throw at us next.
@Grond0: First and most importantly, I know you're not trying to be condescending, and I know you have no prejudices towards trans people. I know your arguments have always been well-thought-out and reasoned. You don't have to worry about me getting the wrong idea. Disagreeing with you has always been a pleasant and respectful experience
You mention several quotes from Rowling expressing empathy for trans people--those things were exactly why I first thought Rowling was doing the right thing, when I first read that article months ago. It was only when I noticed the shift in her tone that I realized they were insincere.
We're coming back to the same problem: as you mentioned, Rowling knows expressing certain views will incite criticism. This is more reason for her to pretend to be sympathetic; it is LESS reason to be honest. And when you say feel "empathy and solidarity" for trans women, all while vocally opposing any attempt to protect them or their interests, the phrase is meaningless.
The only time she indicates any amount of respect for any trans woman's identity is for a woman she met who is older than her, and in the quote you provide, she goes on to specify that she believes that trans women must undergo a yearslong process to "prove" their dysphoria is real. She explicitly criticizes any attempt to make it easy for women to transition.
The thing is, transitioning legally is the first step in any trans woman's journey to get the same legal rights as anyone else. And when you say it shouldn't be easy for trans women to get equal treatment, that it should only be accessible after years of legal hoops, you're knowingly demanding that trans people are treated worse than others.
You also invert her own words here: This is the exact opposite of what she said--she specifically refers to "any man who believes or feels he’s a woman." This is not a reference to cis men pretending to be women for ulterior motives; this is Rowling's definition of a trans woman: a man who "believes" he is a woman.
You say we're talking about men who pretend to be women (cis men), but Rowling says she's talking about men who "believe" they're women (trans women).
And as I've mentioned before, Rowling is by her own admission opposing anything that makes it easier to meet those standards and get equal treatment.
If somebody tells you that you have to undergo a 5-year waiting period before you're allowed to vote, would you say they support your right to vote? I cannot emphasize this enough: one of the main legal ways that trans people lose their rights is by governments putting up obstacles to transitioning legally.
When you put equal treatment behind a barrier, making that barrier higher means opposing equal treatment. That's the entire problem.
@Taylan: I shouldn't have to say that TERFs aren't comparable morally to pedophiles or Nazis; I made it clear I was talking about the terminology rather than the people. I did not say the people were similar; I said that TERF isn't a slur for the same reasons that Nazi and pedophile are not slurs.
If that seems implausible, ask yourself why Nazi and pedophile are not slurs. I'm assuming you'd agree they were not slurs, and if you had to explain why not, I'm guessing your argument would be fairly similar to mine.
For the record, "radical feminist" is a broad term in the feminist community; a lot of feminists call themselves radical, as a positive term. Radical doesn't have the same meaning as it does in the general population. And again, the majority of people who call themselves "radical feminist" are critics of TERFs. Yet feminists who exclude trans women also often call themselves "radical feminists." Radical feminist, by itself, is too broad of a term.
And for the record, the majority of lesbians are also trans-inclusionary.
"When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth."
and suggested that the specific wording means Rowling is concerned about all trans women. I don't think that's the correct interpretation of this paragraph - what I think she's saying is that if you make access easy for all existing trans women, you also open the door to others, i.e. the predators she referred to in the article. To me that would be the natural interpretation of this paragraph in any case, but the fact that she said flatly elsewhere in the article that trans women generally are not a threat just emphasizes that interpretation to me.
The real prompt for my original post though was not to defend Rowling - she's quite capable of doing that herself. Rather, I was wanting to express a more general concern about what seems to be an increasing tendency to define your 'side' in absolutist terms - you're either with us or against us and, if you're with us, you'd better agree with everything we say.
You can just about get away with that sort of position when you're dealing with a narrow slice of society - like a sports team for instance. However, politics is (or should be) about the whole of society and no absolutist program can take along enough people to give a democratic mandate. I suppose I'm influenced by Treebeard in my thinking here in that "I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on my side". Like Treebeard though, that doesn't mean I won't take sides when a particular issue seems clear, but just that I wouldn't expect to agree about everything even with my allies of the moment.
Hmm, I think I'm rambling again. I'd better get on with some work and see if I can express myself more clearly at some later point ...
Or that she publicly defended someone who went on a tirade against the trans community.
The mail is also experiencing significant delays again. Right on schedule. The combination of that fact and a rigged court essentially means Democrats can't just win the game by a field goal. They have to win by three touchdowns. It's absolutely maddening. It's ridiculous to have to say this a week out, but mail-in votes are no longer an option. If you haven't voted already, you need to make other arrangements to get it in on time.
The tired "constitutional originalist" these extremists always pull out is nothing but a schtick. It's a lie to cover up and excuse doing whatever partisan ruling they want to do anyway.
Kavanaugh nor Barrett has no place on the Supreme Court. Barrett might I guess, we can't really tell because she has NO experience at all but her handmaid's tale style beliefs should be disqualifying. In any case Kavanaugh definitively does not belong on the Supreme Court at all.
Once she was sworn in last night, she had a lifetime appointment. She no longer realistically needed Trump for anything. The fact that she appeared at a political event with him anyway is ominous at best. Tells you everything you need to know about her.
Also this:
If the ballots are postmarked on or before Election Day, they should count. Period. Any other conclusion, barring evidence of shenanigans, is bullshit.
Having said that, if I were not going to my polling place (I am), I would definitely not trust the Post Office to deliver my vote this election cycle. I'd be dropping it off at City Hall...