JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Josquius]

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

Yep. This attempt to try and paint transphobia as about women's rights is just ridiculous. And sadly effective in brainwashing many.

[Sheilbh]

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.

[Josquius]

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.

I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still  effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?

You see them a lot trying to turn progressive arguments against the left. "I'm not the racist, you're the racist because blah blah" et al.

[Syt]

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

It came across as the classic response to me. "I'm not anti-(x), some of my best friends are (x). However ...."

[Sheilbh]

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.

I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still  effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?

Yeah but I'm not talking about right-wingers. I'm talking about feminists and people who are allies on other issues. I've seen US gay folks commenting on how they'll read nice comments from UK people and then do about of research and find they've got a big strain of transphobia as well - which is not the norm in the US or Canada. Over there if you are a prominent feminist or speaking out on gay rights issues, chances are you're also not transphobic.

[The Brain]

Watching the Twitter Left is like watching the abused become the abuser.

Eh, she retweeted and posted crappy shit and is being called out on it. Doesn't matter if she was abused or not, she's not immune to criticism because of it.

Yeah, she taints the purity of the revolution at her own peril, amiright?

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

People who are anti-something will often, if they have half a brain, use any available non-insane arguments about it (and often also other, insane, arguments). Does that make using such non-insane arguments about something mean that a person is anti-something? NB JK's arguments may well be insane (I haven't seen the juicy ones), but the fact that anti-trans people use them (if that is so) seems to me to be less than important. Guilt-by-association for arguments seems to me to be destructive. If her arguments are poor then surely they are poor even if anti-trans people didn't use them.

[Josquius]

From what I saw in her essay (and what she posted on twitter), she claims she is a trans ally but then parrots all of the standard scaremongering lines that are used by people who are anti-trans.

I don't know why but it is striking how much more often you see these scaremongering lines in the UK press and from UK feminists than in North America. It's a very weird divergence - I've seen gay folk in the US commenting on it.

I guess in the US more traditional right wing arguments about God and such nonsense is still  effective whilst our hard right have to pretend to be nice?

Yeah but I'm not talking about right-wingers. I'm talking about feminists and people who are allies on other issues. I've seen US gay folks commenting on how they'll read nice comments from UK people and then do about of research and find they've got a big strain of transphobia as well - which is not the norm in the US or Canada. Over there if you are a prominent feminist or speaking out on gay rights issues, chances are you're also not transphobic.

I still ultimately blame the far right. This stuff originates with them, they then sway otherwise more moderate peolle with it.
I really believe if it wasn't for the bathroom nonsense in the US and the efforts to turn this into a key wedge issue that TERFs would be much of a thing in the UK.
Maybe it's that the culture war is far more advanced in the US that insideous bollocks isnt given room to sprout amongst moderate feminists?

[Admiral Yi]

I find it immensely ironic that a social movement predicated on the desirability of people feeling more uncomfortable condemns a person who says they feel uncomfortable.

woops.  sb comfortable

[Tamas]

Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.

[Admiral Yi]

Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.

This, and I don't get "fearmongering" either.

[Sheilbh]

Also, I don't think what I read from JK is "transphobic". Unless being non-transphobic means never being in disagreement with an argument that is nominally put forward to support trans people.

This, and I don't get "fearmongering" either.

I haven't read JK's comments because I cannot be arsed with the discourse.

But I think the issue is it's easy to make comments that are supportive of trans people, but unless you're engaging with how they practically live that's not actually very supportive (and it's a little bit - "I've got nothing against the gays I just wish they wouldn't push it in our faces"). So, for example, I see trans men as men and trans women as women. So to use the bathroom example I don't mind trans men using the men's room and trans women using the women's bathroom.

So if your point is sex is determinative in some way - I suppose I just don't understand the pratical impact of that. If you've got no issue with them using the bathroom of their gender - but you think sex is determinative - then fine. I mean I don't know that you need to keep raising points that are purely sort of theoretical about other people, but okay. If not, then presumably trans men should be in the women's loo and trans women in the men's - is that what you want because I can see issues with that, or are we saying there should be two separate trans bathrooms instead? What's the practical solution?

In terms of fearmongering, I think the general point is that the fears that are raised around trans people are incredibly rare. It, again, reminds me of the old link people used to make between gay men and paedophilia.

[Tamas]

I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.

As Sheilbh said this may very well be incorrect due to the scale of things we are talking about, the point itself however should be not be shunned out of discussion by the convenient label of "transphobia".

[Admiral Yi]

I haven't read JK's comments because I cannot be arsed with the discourse.

But I think the issue is it's easy to make comments that are supportive of trans people, but unless you're engaging with how they practically live that's not actually very supportive (and it's a little bit - "I've got nothing against the gays I just wish they wouldn't push it in our faces"). So, for example, I see trans men as men and trans women as women. So to use the bathroom example I don't mind trans men using the men's room and trans women using the women's bathroom.

So if your point is sex is determinative in some way - I suppose I just don't understand the pratical impact of that. If you've got no issue with them using the bathroom of their gender - but you think sex is determinative - then fine. I mean I don't know that you need to keep raising points that are purely sort of theoretical about other people, but okay. If not, then presumably trans men should be in the women's loo and trans women in the men's - is that what you want because I can see issues with that, or are we saying there should be two separate trans bathrooms instead? What's the practical solution?

In terms of fearmongering, I think the general point is that the fears that are raised around trans people are incredibly rare. It, again, reminds me of the old link people used to make between gay men and paedophilia.

I personally don't care if a trans man takes a piss next to me.  What I do care about is when a person raises what, to me, are valid and sincere concerns, that she not be immediately branded a transphobe and accused of fearmongering.  I sympathize with women in battered shelters who object to trans women being allowed in.  I think people like those should not be internet blacklisted.

[Solmyr]

I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.

But nobody is doing that, because trans women are not male. They are actually in many ways less protected/safe than cis women.

[Sheilbh]

I could be entirely wrong because I really haven't been following her tweets and such either, but my impression has been that Rowling's general point is that you cannot fully extend the legal and social aspects/protections allowed to women to males, without creating some level of extra risk to females in the process.

As Sheilbh said this may very well be incorrect due to the scale of things we are talking about, the point itself however should be not be shunned out of discussion by the convenient label of "transphobia".

But again while I've not engaged with the discourse on JK's comments, so I don't know the specifics. If you're raising risks then I think it needs to be grounded in facts - because otherwise it all reminds me of the furore around gay men teaching or teaching about homosexuality in a positive way (such as by depicting "pretended family relationships") in schools (the former was a big issue in the US and, to a lesser extent, UK; the latter was illegal in the UK from the mid-80s to 1998). It turns out, factually, that gay men are no more likely to be paedos than straight men and, it turns out, that allowing positive depictions of gay people in schools didn't put children at risk either. So personally I think because there's no factual basis, actually gay men presenting a threat to children should be shunned out of discussion and is homophobic.

From everything I've read there is no evidence that transpeople present an extra risk than other people, so for me it just boils down to the practical issue.