The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[Sheilbh]

Curious you think people believe trans means only post op. As when I see transphobic stuff it more often comes from the opposite place. Specifying rape and penisses and pregnancy as the big risk. Little regard for post op trans people or the fact that hormones can tend to chemically castrate.

Well I'm talking about the general public not people who are if nothing else, very engaged on the subject.

As I say I could be wrong - I've no evidence to back it up and I'm not aware of any polling on it. But my suspicion is that in general they think of, for example, the Jan Morris example. The best I have was the polling YouGov did which was detailed and I think quite nuanced (the only things everyone opposed is what the Scottish legislation does) - and they asked some variants where they specified someone had not had surgery and got different results which arguably indicates the default assumption in the public mind?
Thinking of media portrayals too, I think the whole "chick with a dick" image tends to dominate, though there is a general awareness surgery does exist.... Maybe towards your side a bit of a belief in that getting rid of the penis is always the end state?
[/quote]

[viper37]

I am sure in the vast history of humanity everything has happened once. I guess my question is if transwomen are more dangerous than ciswomen, that seems to be the claim. That if a transwoman is there this person represents some kind of serious threat that a ciswoman would not. Pointing out that not every transwoman in history has been a perfect pacifist angel is kind of bullshit since nobody else is held to that standard.

That's not really the issue.  They could be less dangerous on average than ciswomen.  But they can represent a threat due to their physical superiority in some situations.

And in some specific circumstances, it is totally legitimate to protect women.

All I see with JK Rowling is a bunch of people sending her death and rape threats for voicing her opinion.

Well she posts on twitter, a platform basically designed to create that result. I don't know why anybody chooses to stay in that environment when it has been the norm for over a decade. It was rampant in 2014, I cannot imagine it is better now.

Well, there's that.  But it spills over other medias and she is being actively cancelled.

[Barrister]

All I see with JK Rowling is a bunch of people sending her death and rape threats for voicing her opinion.

Well she posts on twitter, a platform basically designed to create that result. I don't know why anybody chooses to stay in that environment when it has been the norm for over a decade. It was rampant in 2014, I cannot imagine it is better now.

Well, there's that.  But it spills over other medias and she is being actively cancelled.

So about Rowling - she's exceedingly rich, has a loud platform, as is most definitely Not Cancelled.

The argument here though is that many people who are not rich, and do not have a loud platform, have seen the hate and abuse Rowling gets for speaking on trans issues and then choose not to speak on the topic.  It's cancelling by proxy.

[Jacob]

That goes more ways than one, BB.

[viper37]

So about Rowling - she's exceedingly rich, has a loud platform, as is most definitely Not Cancelled.

She is persona non grate in all Hollywood now.  She wasn't invited to the Harry Potter reunion thing a year or two ago.  She publishes book with an alias and she will never get any more movie deal for a book.

She was insanely rich before speaking on trans issues.  She didn't get rich by speaking on trans or women issues.

The argument here though is that many people who are not rich, and do not have a loud platform, have seen the hate and abuse Rowling gets for speaking on trans issues and then choose not to speak on the topic.  It's cancelling by proxy.

Yes.  Just like Republicans in Hollywood tend to be silent or keep a very low profile to avoid hurting their career.

[Admiral Yi]

In defense of poor old Squeeze, I think he's very careful not to directly call a poster a transphobe.  Instead he pivots to discussion of far right transphobes, those people over there.  Which is not you personally.

[Sheilbh]

She chose to use a pen name and it was nothing to do with her views on this. She started publishing under a pen name about 10 years ago (it leaked via her lawyer's husband, from memory).

This game has been made. The Fantastic Beasts series are, I think, paused but they continued to be made until literally this year (to no great excitement - and I don't think any of them have really been hits). The detective fiction is still being adapted by the BBC (5 series now - all pretty good, but I'm a huge Tom Burke fan).

There have been reports that Warner Bros were in talks with HBO over a series. The exploitation of Harry Potter IP is with Warner Bros (and they have the Harry Potter World physical sites).

I would be astonished if there's never another Rowling film.

[Jacob]

Really? And we're supposed to take this serious?

XX = female/woman. XY = male/man.
A trans woman is XY.
A gay man is XY

A trans man is XX
A swedish woman is XX.

it's not that hard. And identifying these two at birth can be done easily without genetic sequencing because nature made it really obvious.

(and as an aside: an Indian elephant, wether XX or XY, is still an Elephantidae)

Just read an AMA from an XX man.

Born with a penis, grew up as a boy. No female reproductive organs (externally or internally). Puberty was a bit slow, resulting in dysphoria. Later, for unrelated reasons they got tested and it turned out they had two X chromosomes (it's a syndrome with a name and everything). They got put on testosterone, went through a "second puberty", lost some fat distributed in womanish places, grew more body hair.

Still has a penis, thinks of himself as a man, 100% thought of as a man by the people he meets (including sexual partners).

While it's not common, it's something that happens. Nature doesn't always make it easy like that.

[grumbler]

Just read an AMA from an XX man.

Born with a penis, grew up as a boy. No female reproductive organs (externally or internally). Puberty was a bit slow, resulting in dysphoria. Later, for unrelated reasons they got tested and it turned out they had two X chromosomes (it's a syndrome with a name and everything). They got put on testosterone, went through a "second puberty", lost some fat distributed in womanish places, grew more body hair.

Still has a penis, thinks of himself as a man, 100% thought of as a man by the people he meets (including sexual partners).

While it's not common, it's something that happens. Mature doesn't always make it easy like that.

And then there are the critters that change sex.  It's not all binary.

[Legbiter]

Trans women are women.

Christ rose on the third day...

Some of us will never accept the new religiones, we will hold Neoplatonist pagan discourses amongst ourselves, where the blue-haired Tumbleresque mental health issues of Anglo-American modern corporate HR and academic humanities discourse will be roundly blasphemed...

The normies will react in fury, pitchforks at the ready (academia will be violently defunded), once enough True Belivers get in among them.

[Josquius]

Trans women are women.

Christ rose on the third day...

Some of us will never accept the new religiones, we will hold Neoplatonist pagan discourses amongst ourselves, where the blue-haired Tumbleresque mental health issues of Anglo-American modern corporate HR and academic humanities discourse will be roundly blasphemed...

The normies will react in fury, pitchforks at the ready (academia will be violently defunded), once enough True Belivers get in among them.

A odd post. The terfs are the ones whose views are basically a religion that can brook no heresy. I'm on the side of science and actually having a nuanced opinion.

In defense of poor old Squeeze, I think he's very careful not to directly call a poster a transphobe.  Instead he pivots to discussion of far right transphobes, those people over there.  Which is not you personally.

There's no being careful about it, it's just plain a case of that's the original topic being discussed.
We aren't talking about our views of trans people, it's the views and actions of someone else and how the trans community feels about that which is the OT.

Which does make the attempts to play the trite "nerr you just call everyone you don't like a transphobe" card all the stupider.

[viper37]

So we should do better and treat them like human beings.

Of course.  And even JK Rowling would not disagree with that.

But when the first thing you do is start slanting people, shouting at them, threatening them, you rarely get results.

[Gups]

Trans women are women.

Christ rose on the third day...

Some of us will never accept the new religiones, we will hold Neoplatonist pagan discourses amongst ourselves, where the blue-haired Tumbleresque mental health issues of Anglo-American modern corporate HR and academic humanities discourse will be roundly blasphemed...

The normies will react in fury, pitchforks at the ready (academia will be violently defunded), once enough True Belivers get in among them.

A odd post. The terfs are the ones whose views are basically a religion that can brook no heresy. I'm on the side of science and actually having a nuanced opinion.

In defense of poor old Squeeze, I think he's very careful not to directly call a poster a transphobe.  Instead he pivots to discussion of far right transphobes, those people over there.  Which is not you personally.

There's no being careful about it, it's just plain a case of that's the original topic being discussed.
We aren't talking about our views of trans people, it's the views and actions of someone else and how the trans community feels about that which is the OT.

Which does make the attempts to play the trite "nerr you just call everyone you don't like a transphobe" card all the stupider.

Yet despite having been asked to twice, you have failed to specify the basis on which you accuse Rowling of being transphobic. Since her primary opposition is against self-ID and the protection of women's only spaces you presumably must think  that is a transphobic, far right position.

I'll ask again. What is it that Rowling has actually said that you consider makers her transphobic and far right?

[Josquius]

Yet despite having been asked to twice, you have failed to specify the basis on which you accuse Rowling of being transphobic. Since her primary opposition is against self-ID and the protection of women's only spaces you presumably must think  that is a transphobic, far right position.

I'll ask again. What is it that Rowling has actually said that you consider makers her transphobic and far right?

The arrogance of a cis straight man telling trans women how they are supposed to feel about someone who has said stuff that offends them is beyond me.

[HVC]

So still no example? I have no idea what rawlings said, she might be a raging transphobe, but making that claim a d continuing to do so without backing it up after being confronted seems pretty low.