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

[Barrister]

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.

Of course that's what it means.

[merithyn]

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.

Sadly, that isn't always the case, but yeah, I think in general it is.

That being said, there are plenty of "feminist gatherings" that specifically state that only those born a woman are allowed to attend. It's gotten better, but they still exist.

[merithyn]

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.

Yes. That is the thinking behind this.

[Tamas]

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.

Yes. That is the thinking behind this.

So you disagree with the men are evil premise? 

[merithyn]

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.

We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.

The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.

There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.

[merithyn]

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.

Yes. That is the thinking behind this.

So you disagree with the men are evil premise? 

I think that enough men are dangerous as to pose a constant risk. I am never not on alert when I'm out in public. But do I think that transwomen are men and therefore should have the same level of fear? No, not at all. They are women. As much as I am one. So having them in the same space as an all-women concert is just fine with me.

That being said, I struggle with M-to-F transfolk (especially white ones) who try to explain the "plight" of women in this country to me. You don't say? Huh. I wonder how I missed it all these years....

[Barrister]

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.

We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.

The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.

There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.

Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.

[The Brain]

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.

We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.

The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.

There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.

Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.

But it doesn't mean women can't do sports.

[merithyn]

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.

We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.

The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.

There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.

Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

[The Brain]

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.

We should. We should get rid of M/F bathrooms. We should change shower rooms to be unisex with individual cubbies. We should eliminate any need to differentiate between men and women in any capacity. I've advocated for this for years.

The reality is that in our misogynistic society, men being equated with women is still so highly problematic that it's not going to happen. Women can - and regularly do - dress, talk, and act like men, and that's okay. No one bats an eye at that, really. But the moment that a man does he's either gay (which not all effeminate men are) or trans. He can't just be a guy who likes girlie things because they're fun.

There are some changes happening in that regard. I see men wearing nail polish now, and skirts more often. But I also live in Portland, OR. Those things are more accepted here. I can't imagine those going over so well in Champaign, IL, or Des Moines, IA.

Getting rid of any distinction between men and women means getting rid of women's sports.

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

[Sheilbh]

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

And this applies regardless of trans issues - see the incredibly sad story of Caster Semenya on this and, of course, the slightly horrible "debate" about an individual.

[The Brain]

If we stop distinguishing between men and women then the trans-women "problem" in sports (I don't see a problem but some people do) will disappear.

[Barrister]

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

[Syt]

Basically, Rowling is saying, "You might feel like you're a woman, and you may have the artificially created outward anatomy of a woman - and I'm fine with that. But you will never BE a woman, and we shouldn't treat you like one."

Which has to be one of the most hurtful things for a transitioning person. It's unfortunate Josie doesn't post here anymore, I'm sure she could explain it much better.

[Valmy]

Yes Rowling was wrong and shouldn't have said that.