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

[garbon]

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

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.

This is a legitimate concern and simple truth?

[garbon]

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

Most people probably aren't aware – I certainly wasn't, until I started researching this issue properly – that ten years ago, the majority of people wanting to transition to the opposite sex were male. That ratio has now reversed. The UK has experienced a 4400% increase in girls being referred for transitioning treatment. Autistic girls are hugely overrepresented in their numbers.

Now she's considered about autistic girls and how they are being pushed into transitioning?

[garbon]

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

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.

When I read about the theory of gender identity, I remember how mentally sexless I felt in youth. I remember Colette's description of herself as a 'mental hermaphrodite' and Simone de Beauvoir's words: 'It is perfectly natural for the future woman to feel indignant at the limitations posed upon her by her sex. The real question is not why she should reject them: the problem is rather to understand why she accepts them.'

As I didn't have a realistic possibility of becoming a man back in the 1980s, it had to be books and music that got me through both my mental health issues and the sexualised scrutiny and judgement that sets so many girls to war against their bodies in their teens. Fortunately for me, I found my own sense of otherness, and my ambivalence about being a woman, reflected in the work of female writers and musicians who reassured me that, in spite of everything a sexist world tries to throw at the female-bodied, it's fine not to feel pink, frilly and compliant inside your own head; it's OK to feel confused, dark, both sexual and non-sexual, unsure of what or who you are.

So JK views trans as a legitimate thing but then also muses how perhaps she would have been trans had she had 'community and sympathy online' but 'fortunately' she 'found [her] own sense of otherness' in pop culture at the time and realized she could be okay with confusion about who she was without a need to transition?

[Sheilbh]

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.

Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?

[Admiral Yi]

Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?

That's a reasonable question.  I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.

[garbon]

Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?

That's a reasonable question.  I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.

She isn't raising questions though. Rather she's make pronouncements. Like the following statement that kicked it all off:

If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth.

[Sheilbh]

That's a reasonable question.  I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.

Okay but the issue is - is it factual? If it's not I don't see any difference between raising this question than, say, "gays - are they paedos?" "Jews - why do they love money?" etc. For me the answer isn't to say well those are legitimate questions but actually to not tolerate them and to educate people.

If it isn't factual and you just have philosophical issues then, you know, I'd still object to that but you either need to present a practical alternative or you're just saying trans people don't get these servies - whether its gyms, or bathrooms, or domestic violence shelters. You have to engage at the practical level on this and there's too many people who just operate in the sort of ether about gender or sex (which I don't find that interesting) without engaging with actual reality.

[Admiral Yi]

Okay but the issue is - is it factual? If it's not I don't see any difference between raising this question than, say, "gays - are they paedos?" "Jews - why do they love money?" etc. For me the answer isn't to say well those are legitimate questions but actually to not tolerate them and to educate people.

If it isn't factual and you just have philosophical issues then, you know, I'd still object to that but you either need to present a practical alternative or you're just saying trans people don't get these servies - whether its gyms, or bathrooms, or domestic violence shelters. You have to engage at the practical level on this and there's too many people who just operate in the sort of ether about gender or sex (which I don't find that interesting) without engaging with actual reality.

First, the Scout leader paedo thing is not such a great data point for you, seeing as the Boy Scouts recently filed for bankruptcy after a number of abuse cases.

Second, aside from the factual chance of being assaulted, there is simple discomfort.  Why can't a woman feel uncomfortable in a battered shelter in the company of a person who has the build of a man and was born with a penis?  Likewise in a bathroom?  Does trans discomfort trump cis discomfort?

[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.

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

This might be a language thing. I meant persons who were born with the chromosome pair which was in the past associated with being male.

[Tamas]

Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.

If Person X can freely be Gender A, B, C, D, E, F, G, even H regardless of their genetics, and if there should be no discrimination or special rules/laws applicable to an of those genders, then A=B=C=D=E=F=G=H, which means we can just use A in all situations.

[Valmy]

Also while we are at the topic of sex not determining your gender: should not we just eliminate all genders altogether? What is the point of distinguishing them? Serious question.

Who is "we" in this case? The central gender committee? I am not sure how one would go about doing that.

I mean the number of trans and nonbinary and fluid and so forth people are pretty small. Just do whatever is reasonable to accomodate them and move forward. Maybe we slowly move towards a genderless society but I don't see how it is feasible to just decide to do that overnight.

[Sheilbh]

First, the Scout leader paedo thing is not such a great data point for you, seeing as the Boy Scouts recently filed for bankruptcy after a number of abuse cases.

Okay. But, gay men are no more of a risk to children than straight men (according to some research they present less of a risk). Despite that homophobic campaigns have focused on the need to "save our children" or, as you've just mentioned, the boy scouts or the Catholic Church. And a big part of homophobia in earlier years was this lie that gay men were predators - in the 70s over 70% of people thought were dangerous because they would try to sexually molest children. It's why there were campaigns against gays having certain jobs like teachers, or restricting what children could be taugh. Even 20 years ago about a fifth of straight men thought gay men were "likely or very likely" to try and molest children. It is the trope that Putin's current campaign against gays rests on - it isn't intolerance it's about protecting children. It's untrue - but it has been and still is at the base of a lot homophobia, that gay men in particular are ultimately "recruiting" children in some way.

So in the nicest possible way your point isn't true and is repeating a homophobic trope.

Second, aside from the factual chance of being assaulted, there is simple discomfort.  Why can't a woman feel uncomfortable in a battered shelter in the company of a person who has the build of a man and was born with a penis?  Likewise in a bathroom?  Does trans discomfort trump cis discomfort?

But the alternatives aren't discomfort v discomfort. It's discomfort v accessing a service.

[The Brain]

Sure and I sympathise with that - but we know trans women face significant threat of violence in society and at home. So what's the practical solution for them? Should they go to a domestic violence shelter for ment (to the extent they exist) or should there be separate domestic violence shelters for trans women or even LGBT people?

That's a reasonable question.  I don't have an answer. Raising this question shouldn't make one a pariah.

She isn't raising questions though. Rather she's make pronouncements. Like the following statement that kicked it all off:

If sex isn't real, there's no same-sex attraction. If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn't hate to speak the truth.

A statement that isn't in any way unreasonable or transphobic. Do YOU have a problem with that statement?

[HVC]

Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists are a thing in NA too (correct me if I have the term wrong Garbon). It seems to be tied with "man hating" I think. They're not real women so are bad. Let them in the shelters and they'll harass women. Or other men will take advantage of the situation (allowing transgender women into bathroom) because men are evil.

[Malthus]

First, the Scout leader paedo thing is not such a great data point for you, seeing as the Boy Scouts recently filed for bankruptcy after a number of abuse cases.

Okay. But, gay men are no more of a risk to children than straight men (according to some research they present less of a risk). Despite that homophobic campaigns have focused on the need to "save our children" or, as you've just mentioned, the boy scouts or the Catholic Church. And a big part of homophobia in earlier years was this lie that gay men were predators - in the 70s over 70% of people thought were dangerous because they would try to sexually molest children. It's why there were campaigns against gays having certain jobs like teachers, or restricting what children could be taugh. Even 20 years ago about a fifth of straight men thought gay men were "likely or very likely" to try and molest children. It is the trope that Putin's current campaign against gays rests on - it isn't intolerance it's about protecting children. It's untrue - but it has been and still is at the base of a lot homophobia, that gay men in particular are ultimately "recruiting" children in some way.

So in the nicest possible way your point isn't true and is repeating a homophobic trope.

Second, aside from the factual chance of being assaulted, there is simple discomfort.  Why can't a woman feel uncomfortable in a battered shelter in the company of a person who has the build of a man and was born with a penis?  Likewise in a bathroom?  Does trans discomfort trump cis discomfort?

But the alternatives aren't discomfort v discomfort. It's discomfort v accessing a service.

As an aside, it is amazing to me how that 'gay = pervert, protect them kids' thing has so totally died out in my own society. I can remember that from when I was a kid, no-one much questioned it. Gays were, at best, pitied. But adults certainly felt totally justified in completely excluding them from having any contact with kids.

I think the whole thing is self-referential. If being gay us a source of shame and exclusion, it makes sense for people who are not gay to think 'these guys are breaking social norms. So they must be up to no good, or sick, or desperate'. Then they just mix "being gay" in the same mental category of everyone else who is breaking social norms. All are by definition "perverts" and so why distinguish between them? A guy willing to have sex with another guy is a "pervert" and so is a guy willing to have sex with a kid. Both are 'basically' in the same category, so one is seen as being likely to also be the other.

Same way as many people felt for years that people smoking pot were "the same" as hardcore heroin addicts in terms of being addicted - the activity was "drug taking" and no distinction was made. Not to say being gay equates in any way with taking drugs, just that the mental acrobatics involved in stereotyping the two groups are the same.

Once non-gay people ceased to put gays in the same mental category, saw being gay as simply a different orientation, the connection broke and so there was no more push to equate the two.