The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[viper37]

That explains why the Russian invasion of Ukraine as been so piss poor, if they've been staging it via having invaded Canada.

Even in Canada, some Ukrainians get a lot of hate because of Russian propaganda.

[Josquius]

Nothing promotes inclusion more than "you're a cis male, you need to STFU".

So you ignore Gups's formulation of "you're a man, you need to STFU"?

Not my formulation.

There's a big difference between (a) telling abused women that they should accept a change in law allowing self ID trans women entry into refuges because it is irrational for them to feel unsafe and (b) denying trans people unchallengeable jurisdiction over the definition of the word "transphobic", especially since the latter can be a criminal offence.

Thats not what any of this is about.
Trans people already have access to womens refuges assuming they meet the usual criteria.
Also, incidentally, you know these places aren't just school halls where they throw all the abused women right? They're places with pretty tight security. A lot of the women in them tend to have some damage.
If a creeper does decide to be clever and manages to talk their way into a womens refuge to abuse more women (something that has never happened in the 2 decades trans people have been allowed into refuges) then they'd be in for a nasty surprise as they find that quite shockingly its really hard to abuse women in a building specifically designed and staffed to protect abused women.

Jos - are you not in fact a cis straight man?

I am indeed.
Any of us telling trans people what to feel would be a bit rich.
But then I'm not doing that.

What I'm doing is seeing that an overwhelmingly huge number of trans people in recent years have noted that they find Rowlings actions to be deeply hurtful and transphobic. That is people who have actually followed the story closely and who are the actual wronged party in it, are saying that she has behaved in an inappropriate way.

Much like a bunch of white guys arguing over whether something is racist when you have tonnes of black people going "Yes. Yes it is", IMO this the key argument.
There's no reason for trans people to have anything against Rowling independent of what she has said, there's no ulterior motive at work, it isn't just the screeching pink haired professionally offended lunatics* but normal people just trying to live their lives too who are saying that the past few years she has doubled down, from open to interpretation iffy statements, to full blown support for transphobia.

I back trans people. The evidence is overwhelming that Rowling has been transphobic in the eyes of trans people (yes, you will find some Candace Owens types out there if you google). So... Lets believe that they might know what they're talking about.


*incidentally, its interesting that its cool to paint an entire side as being of this group where even mentioning that fascists are a big part of the anti-trans side is not OK.

This is a weird play of the identity card, I must admit.  In particular since you're playing it against Gups, a non-white cis straight man.

Its a slightly altered quote of something he said. I felt it worked well for making the key point.

[Tamas]

Much like a bunch of white guys arguing over whether something is racist when you have tonnes of black people going "Yes. Yes it is"

Ok but what IS happening with this is a bunch of (biological) men telling women what and how it is to be a woman, or to be more precise, how they are supposed to feel about the disadvantages and dangers they have experienced due to being a woman. It is NOT different to a white guy telling blacks about what is and isn't racist.

It's kind of funny how cultural appropriation is a bad thing (where if you didn't born into a particular culture then its off limits for you) but this isn't

Women like Rowling might be over-reacting to what they (probably incorrectly) are seeing as men encroaching on their safe spaces, but I don't think men (including those who are now trans women) can or should judge that.

[Josquius]

Much like a bunch of white guys arguing over whether something is racist when you have tonnes of black people going "Yes. Yes it is"

Ok but what IS happening with this is a bunch of (biological) men telling women what and how it is to be a woman, or to be more precise, how they are supposed to feel about the disadvantages and dangers they have experienced due to being a woman. It is NOT different to a white guy telling blacks about what is and isn't racist.

Again thats not what has happening.
Trans women have had these rights for a long time and nothing bad has come of it.
Now you have a bunch of men and a small group of women making shit up about how there's this big nasty progressive push to give trans people rights they already have and which would be an absolute disaster if it comes to pass.
The majority of women are cool with trans people having rights and have no interest in trying to push this back.

This IS the equivalent of the pink haired lunatic professionally offended trans activist insisting that gendering babies is genocide or whatever the nonsense of the week is.

It's kind of funny how cultural appropriation is a bad thing (where if you didn't born into a particular culture then its off limits for you) but this isn't

Its a fair bit more detailed than that.

Women like Rowling might be over-reacting to what they (probably incorrectly) are seeing as men encroaching on their safe spaces, but I don't think men (including those who are now trans women) can or should judge that.

Trans women are women.

[Tamas]

Fair enough, and I am well aware that right wing assholes ARE using their "newly found" feminist sides to attack trans gender people.

And again I am not necessarily agreeing with Rowling (especially hard to agree since I haven't see the comments warranting this levels of hostility), but I do find it problematic that biological men are allowed and in fact encouraged to dismiss the stated experience of a biological women on how it is to live like a women.

We'd never allow ourselves to do this regarding race or culture. And women's opinions and concerns being dismissed regarding their own life is something that we spent about ten thousand years doing, so I can't help but be suspicious about it when I see it happening. We cannot do mansplaining about trivial conversational subjects, but apparently it's fine when it comes to the core of women's identity.

[Josquius]

Fair enough, and I am well aware that right wing assholes ARE using their "newly found" feminist sides to attack trans gender people.

And again I am not necessarily agreeing with Rowling (especially hard to agree since I haven't see the comments warranting this levels of hostility), but I do find it problematic that biological men are allowed and in fact encouraged to dismiss the stated experience of a biological women on how it is to live like a women.

Like in so much of this stuff, I find the key is to avoid thinking too much in strict binaries.
From one extreme I could see your point- I decide I'm now trans and then next week start mouthing off on what it means to be a woman... Obviously thats a load of bollocks. What about all those people who've been women for decades?
On the other extreme though... imagine a 50 year old transwoman who has known and lived as a woman since she was a teenager. Up against her is a shouty 18 year old terf. Why does the terf get to be labelled as the expert on being a woman because she got to properly experience being a little girl rather than the person who has been a woman for longer than the terf has been alive?

Just how do you measure who is a "more worthy woman" in all this? Its just not something that can be solidly quantified. Is there even such a measure? - down this avenue leads the same sort of thinking as toxic masculinity, not into hunting and fighting then you're not a man, etc...

We'd never allow ourselves to do this regarding race or culture. And women's opinions and concerns being dismissed regarding their own life is something that we spent about ten thousand years doing, so I can't help but be suspicious about it when I see it happening.

Getting super off topic here, but I do think things are rather more open on culture. I can envision a situation like The Diamond Age coming to pass in the not too distant future. Already things are pretty flexible there Mr. Britishman you.
Race...I can see the entire unscientific concept dying eventually and some random pale guy calling themselves black will be like a randomer today calling themselves a spartiate.

We cannot do mansplaining about trivial conversational subjects, but apparently it's fine when it comes to the core of women's identity.

Thats exactly my point

[Tamas]

On this bit:

Why does the terf get to be labelled as the expert on being a woman because she got to properly experience being a little girl rather than the person who has been a woman for longer than the terf has been alive?

I think this is were larger society comes into it. If the 50 years old trans woman is not accepted as an actual woman by society, but rather is treated like a man dressed as a woman, then the experience of these two persons will be radically different. Not in terms of the young girl having it rougher (quite the opposite in most cases, I'd wager), but in terms of what challenges and threats they have to deal with.

[Admiral Yi]

If every trans woman very much wanted to have access to women's shelters and cis women were largely indifferent then I don't think there would be much to debate.  Similarly with trans participation in sports.  I haven't seen any data that answers those questions.  In the absence of data since these are legal issues we still have to vote on them if it gets to that point.  So we are compelled to have an opinion regardless of whether we have the right to one as cis straight white men.

I very much doubt I will have to vote on whether J.K. Rowling is a transphobe or not.  But I can read what she wrote and determine for myself if she fits my criteria of a transphobe.  Same with somebody who has been called a racist.  I used to defer to the protected group but then I saw too many cases of accusations that I disagreed with so I don't do that any more. 

[DGuller]

I think that's the crux of the issue.  I think determining what is and isn't phobic/bigoted is always for everyone in society to decide, because it's always a social norms issue.  Yes, that means men get a say in what is judged to be sexist, straight people get a say in what's judged to be homophobic, and white people get a say in what is judged to be racist. 

Obviously you may not start at the right point, but the way to get to the right point is not by disenfranchising some in society and saying they're not qualified to have a say in norms they have to live by, but by having a dialogue and getting them to empathize.  The reason democratic societies are the most stable ones is because everyone in society is treated as a stakeholder rather than as a subject, and bad shit starts happening when you deviate from that ideal.

[viper37]

Thats not what any of this is about.
Trans people already have access to womens refuges assuming they meet the usual criteria.
Also, incidentally, you know these places aren't just school halls where they throw all the abused women right? They're places with pretty tight security. A lot of the women in them tend to have some damage.
If a creeper does decide to be clever and manages to talk their way into a womens refuge to abuse more women (something that has never happened in the 2 decades trans people have been allowed into refuges) then they'd be in for a nasty surprise as they find that quite shockingly its really hard to abuse women in a building specifically designed and staffed to protect abused women.

A) You don't want that to happen in the first place, if possible.
B) When it does happen, as a shelter, that last thing you want is to have a bunch of activist protest against you and call you transphobic for refusing to shelter trans people who create problem.  It's supposed to be a shelter where damaged women will find peace and quiet from a turbulent life.  It's not the same as an hotel were vacationers will have experienced some minor discomfort due to a traffic accident.

[Josquius]

I think that's the crux of the issue.  I think determining what is and isn't phobic/bigoted is always for everyone in society to decide, because it's always a social norms issue.  Yes, that means men get a say in what is judged to be sexist, straight people get a say in what's judged to be homophobic, and white people get a say in what is judged to be racist. 

Obviously you may not start at the right point, but the way to get to the right point is not by disenfranchising some in society and saying they're not qualified to have a say in norms they have to live by, but by having a dialogue and getting them to empathize.  The reason democratic societies are the most stable ones is because everyone in society is treated as a stakeholder rather than as a subject, and bad shit starts happening when you deviate from that ideal.

Nobody is talking about sending JKR to prison here though.
Instead what we have is trans people writing articles saying you shouldn't buy Harry Potter Legacy because part of the profits go to a woman who has a history of saying hurtful things about trans people and funding hate groups.
Whether you ultimately do buy the game or not is up to you. That they've got this view on it though...Well, totally understandable.

A) You don't want that to happen in the first place, if possible.
B) When it does happen, as a shelter, that last thing you want is to have a bunch of activist protest against you and call you transphobic for refusing to shelter trans people who create problem.  It's supposed to be a shelter where damaged women will find peace and quiet from a turbulent life.  It's not the same as an hotel were vacationers will have experienced some minor discomfort due to a traffic accident.

So might as well strip trans people of their rights on the very remote chance (0 incidents in the last 2 decades) a dishonest guy posting as a trans woman could manage to evade all safeguards and talk their way into a women's shelter where all they do is try to cause trouble?

[Gups]

Again thats not what has happening.
Trans women have had these rights for a long time and nothing bad has come of it.
Now you have a bunch of men and a small group of women making shit up about how there's this big nasty progressive push to give trans people rights they already have and which would be an absolute disaster if it comes to pass.
The majority of women are cool with trans people having rights and have no interest in trying to push this back.

This is emphatically not the case and you must surely know that.

If the rights had already been in existence "for a long time" then why would there be any need to change the law?

The changes that Rowling and co. are campaigning against are self-identification being sufficient as a matter of law to allow the claimant access to women's only spaces. That is regarded by them as a significant step change in access to women's only spaces.

You keep saying "trans women are women" but do you really believe that? As others have pointed out there is an inconsistency between that mantra and the existence of protections you allege to be in place to prevent abusive men gaming the system.

If (a) self-identification is sufficient to to secure gender change recognition so that if a person declares themselves to be a trans woman then they are a trans women with no third party certification 
and (b) trans women are women
then (c) on what basis can any safe guards be applied to a subset of women requesting use of women's only spaces?

Finally, you have have said on several occasions that a majority of women are supportive of self-ID. As with your claim that Rowling is transphobic you have failed to provide any evidence for this, so I thought I better check myself. Every poll taken has found a large majority of both men and women against Scotland's Gender Recognition Act.

For example this survey from December 2022 found 20% in support of self-ID and 60% opposed. Amongst women it was 21% support, 60% opposed. No material difference between the genders.

https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/plh4depnh8/Times_Scot_Gender_221209.pdf

[Gups]

Nobody is talking about sending JKR to prison here though.
Instead what we have is trans people writing articles saying you shouldn't buy Harry Potter Legacy because part of the profits go to a woman who has a history of saying hurtful things about trans people and funding hate groups.

Which hate groups does she fund? I note that you have downgraded your accusation of her views from "transphobic" to "saying hurtful things"

So might as well strip trans people of their rights on the very remote chance (0 incidents in the last 2 decades) a dishonest guy posting as a trans woman could manage to evade all safeguards and talk their way into a women's shelter where all they do is try to cause trouble?

Yet again, Rowling is campaigning against a change in the law not campaigning for the law to be changed. The grant of a new means of accessing rights, not the stripping of existing ones. The removal of exiting safeguards not the provision of new ones.

The efficacy of the existing safeguards is not a strong argument for removing them as you seem to think.   

[viper37]

A) You don't want that to happen in the first place, if possible.
B) When it does happen, as a shelter, that last thing you want is to have a bunch of activist protest against you and call you transphobic for refusing to shelter trans people who create problem.  It's supposed to be a shelter where damaged women will find peace and quiet from a turbulent life.  It's not the same as an hotel were vacationers will have experienced some minor discomfort due to a traffic accident.

So might as well strip trans people of their rights on the very remote chance (0 incidents in the last 2 decades) a dishonest guy posting as a trans woman could manage to evade all safeguards and talk their way into a women's shelter where all they do is try to cause trouble?

It's not 0 incidents.  It has happened, it happens and will happen again.  Better to segregate them in this case.

There was just this case recently, in Quebec, where a repeated offender now identifies as female so he can better pursue his victims.  It's one more down the list. Shelter also have to deal with violent trans that attack other females in their care.  You can be both victim and aggressor.

If we listen to activists, we protect these criminals before protecting the victims because many trans persons are victims too.

[Sheilbh]

If the rights had already been in existence "for a long time" then why would there be any need to change the law?

The changes that Rowling and co. are campaigning against are self-identification being sufficient as a matter of law to allow the claimant access to women's only spaces. That is regarded by them as a significant step change in access to women's only spaces.

Maybe because I think it is more complicated than that. The reforms would make it easier to get a GRC. Following For Scotland a GRC changes an individual's legal sex for the purposes of equalities law. However equalities law still allows discrimination (as a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim") on the basis of "gender reassignment".

I think there is an argument that an individual with a GRC has a far stronger claim against discrimination - and in particular that it is disproportionate - and that it will be easier to get a GRC under the GRR Bill. But basically the contents of equalities law haven't really changed, it's just easier to get a key.

Which is where I agree with Jos - there are people talking about single sex spaces and explicitly trans-exclusionary spaces which is winding back the clock on practice to pre-2004 (regardless of GRC status). We have seen that following the Isla Bryson case that Scottish and English prison policy on trans prisoners has become far more blanket.

You keep saying "trans women are women" but do you really believe that? As others have pointed out there is an inconsistency between that mantra and the existence of protections you allege to be in place to prevent abusive men gaming the system.

If (a) self-identification is sufficient to to secure gender change recognition so that if a person declares themselves to be a trans woman then they are a trans women with no third party certification 
and (b) trans women are women
then (c) on what basis can any safe guards be applied to a subset of women requesting use of women's only spaces?

Yeah this is the crux and the Isla Bryson case is an extreme example. Because my instinct is that they are not genuinely trans. A double rapist who no-one in their past ever knew of having any issues around their gender transitions two weeks after they're charged strikes me as suspect.

So I think trans-women are women. But as the Scottish legislation makes clear with it criminalising people fraudulently obtaining a GRC - it isn't beyond the ken of man to imagine other scenarios.

In particular I also think there are abusive men in the world who take advantage of any loophole/institution/rule that they believe will allow them to access victims - like, in my view, I suspect, Isla Bryson.