The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[Jacob]

None of those tweets are transphobic.

I believe that is not universally agreed upon as being the case.

[chipwich]

None of those tweets are transphobic.

I believe that is not universally agreed upon as being the case.

It does not need to be universally agreed to be the truth.

[Jacob]

It does not need to be universally agreed to be the truth.

Indeed. Universal agreement != truth.

[Admiral Yi]

The way I approach the question of transphobia is through the lens of my personal evolution on race and gays.  I grew up hearing (and occasionally telling) black and gay jokes.  Calling people fag as a throwaway insult was very common.  Then in college I started meeting more gays and blacks.  My high school had one black guy and maybe two closet gays, one of was a close friend and one who was just a jerk.  Then my conscience said maybe this is not the right way to think and talk about people.

I don't recall if there were any intermediate steps, but over time I came to believe that racism has two components: overgeneralization and ill will.  An example of overgeneralization is thinking every black is a crook because some are.  Ill will I guess is rooted in tribalism: my tribe is the white tribe and your tribe is the black tribe and we're in a kind of war so you are my enemy.  And as long as I don't commit either of those errors I judge myself as not racist.

Slightly different with gays.  I connected with Freud's original diagnosis of homophobia: animosity towards gays is rooted in the subconscious fear that you yourself are gay, which of course is a challenge to your self identity as a masculine, manly man.  And of course there is the Christian angle of God not wanting us to put our dicks anywhere but a vagina.  Whether that's a rationalization for Freudian homophobia or a base cause doesn't really matter.  I personally was totally cured of any residual homophobia during the two years I worked out at a gay gym in DC and watched guys promenading their boners in the shower stalls.  If you're comfortable in your straightness there's no reason I can see to be hostile to gays.  Which is not at all the same as saying individual gays can't be douchebags.

So in evaluating Rowling for transphobia the essential question for me is does she bear trans women ill will.  Does she hope trans women have bad lives and suffer.  Unless we impute bad faith, I don't see proof for that assertion.  She is saying the word woman is important to her, just as trans women say it is important to them.

Which is not the same thing as saying Rowling is right.  I don't really know who gets to own the word woman and decide who it applies to.  To me it's one of those comp lit critical queer theory studies issues that sounds like Klingon.

[Gups]

None of those tweets are transphobic.

I believe that is not universally agreed upon as being the case.

It's pretty simple really. If someone is accusing a person of transphobia they must be able to cite at least one specific example of transphobic speech by that person.

[Jacob]

It's pretty simple really. If someone is accusing a person of transphobia they must be able to cite at least one specific example of transphobic speech by that person.

For sure. Seems that the point in contention is whether those tweets are examples of transphobia or not.

[crazy canuck]

It's pretty simple really. If someone is accusing a person of transphobia they must be able to cite at least one specific example of transphobic speech by that person.

For sure. Seems that the point in contention is whether those tweets are examples of transphobia or not.

And I think that is the reason why it is important, for whoever is taking the position that she is being trans phobic to identify the tweets in which he says that occurred. I know what other people say about her tweets but I have yet to see a tweet, which is actually trans phobic. Granted, I probably have not seen all of her tweets and so there may be things out there that are trans phobic but it would assist the discussion if the person making the accusation against her posted what she said so that we can all see what he's talking about .

[Jacob]

I expect that the tweets listed in those articles - along with the additional context the articles provide - form the substance of the accusations of transphobia.

Seems to me that Josq is saying "trans people are saying those tweets - given the additional context provided in the articles - are transphobic, and I accept that."

Chipwich, meanwhile, has judged those tweets to be not transphobic. Several others in this thread have implicitly judged those tweets to not be transphobic as well by essentially saying "I haven't seen any evidence of transphobia, please show me the real evidence."

I don't think (but could be wrong) that there's a secret cache of additional evidence that'll change people's minds. I mean, there's probably some details available here and there and a bit of additional nuance and whatnot - but I expect those journalists have done a semi-reasonable job of summarizing the situation.

[Admiral Yi]

I cross referenced my Independent link with Squeeze's Pink link on page 1.  They refer to the same three tweets, and both include verbatim quotes by Rowling.  The Pink quotes have been trimmed down to one liners.

So two points to make.

Not a good sign when the trans advocacy site is trimming quotes.

Squeeze caught a bum rap for not linking quotes.  I think some of y'all didn't bother clicking the link.

and a bonus third:

Looks like those three tweets are the sum total.

[Josquius]

Usch, started replying yesterday but got dragged away.

There is more to it than the 3 tweets (one is a pretty lengthy piece rather than just a tweet iirc?) in the article. For instance this.
https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1518647598063706114

Rowling has been engaged in quite a lengthy continued back and forth around this stuff rather than just dropping a few post and forget tweets. I believe those mentioned in the article aren't meant to be a complete summary and rather showing the core.

The key difference is I see the goal being in how do we maximise the welfare of the people involved as much as possible.
The rabid opposition have goals that are quite the opposite.

You keep bringing the rabid opposition and the woke brigade into the conversation.  What purpose does this serve other than guilt by association?  I don't see how they are relevant to anything we have been discussing.

Given some in this thread are keen to paint anyone who defends trans rights with the same brush as the unreasonable raging loons they're a thing worth mentioning as a separate group in their own right.

If it wasn't for Rowlings associations then I don't think this whole thing would have blown up half as much as it did.  The extreme anti-trans crowd are highly relevant to the conversation as they're the core of it all.
They serve to push trans people onto the defensive which amplifies what independently might be quite mild criticisms of the particulars of trans issues. They put trans people on the defensive which helps turn the whole mess into a wedge issue and really pushes the extreme nuts on the pro-trans side into existence; not totally without merit, extremists will often try to paint themselves as the sensible moderates open to compromise, fully intending to whittle away the rights of the groups they hate piece by piece.

Relevant to my post here. I do think its worth noting what your core goals in wanting something are and that what I want stands completely opposite to the core of the anti-trans side. In fact I'd say outside of this discussion even that its good to be clear about what you actually want as an end goal rather than just what you think will get there.

[Gups]

Usch, started replying yesterday but got dragged away.

There is more to it than the 3 tweets (one is a pretty lengthy piece rather than just a tweet iirc?) in the article. For instance this.
https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1518647598063706114

So supporting a black lesbian barrister in her claim for unlawful dismissal for being sacked for transphobia is in itself transphobic. (The barrister won, by the way, with the Tribunal finding that she wasn't transphobic).

Do we apply this elsewhere? If X is accused or racism, and you day that X is not racist does that mean you must also be a racist? 

[Josquius]

Usch, started replying yesterday but got dragged away.

There is more to it than the 3 tweets (one is a pretty lengthy piece rather than just a tweet iirc?) in the article. For instance this.
https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1518647598063706114

So supporting a black lesbian barrister in her claim for unlawful dismissal for being sacked for transphobia is in itself transphobic. (The barrister won, by the way, with the Tribunal finding that she wasn't transphobic).

No, believing 'sexual racism' is a thing and claiming somebody claimed it when they didnt and donating money into turning an employment tribunal into a culture war battle, as part of a pattern of behaviour, is  what gets her marked as transphobic.

Do we apply this elsewhere? If X is accused or racism, and you day that X is not racist does that mean you must also be a racist? 

Thats odd logic,.

[Sheilbh]

No, believing 'sexual racism' is a thing and claiming somebody claimed it when they didnt and donating money into turning an employment tribunal into a culture war battle, as part of a pattern of behaviour, is  what gets her marked as transphobic.

Their claim - which the courts upheld - was that they were unlawfully dismissed because of their political opinions. I'm not sure we can say the people who were fired are making something a culture war battle for claiming unlawful dismissal, especially if they won.

I've said before but I still think 99% of complaints in the US about "cancel culture" could be solved by employment rights.

[Josquius]

No, believing 'sexual racism' is a thing and claiming somebody claimed it when they didnt and donating money into turning an employment tribunal into a culture war battle, as part of a pattern of behaviour, is  what gets her marked as transphobic.

Their claim - which the courts upheld - was that they were unlawfully dismissed because of their political opinions. I'm not sure we can say the people who were fired are making something a culture war battle for claiming unlawful dismissal, especially if they won.

I've said before but I still think 99% of complaints in the US about "cancel culture" could be solved by employment rights.

I was talking about Rowling.

[crazy canuck]

Usch, started replying yesterday but got dragged away.

There is more to it than the 3 tweets (one is a pretty lengthy piece rather than just a tweet iirc?) in the article. For instance this.
https://twitter.com/setoacnna/status/1518647598063706114

So supporting a black lesbian barrister in her claim for unlawful dismissal for being sacked for transphobia is in itself transphobic. (The barrister won, by the way, with the Tribunal finding that she wasn't transphobic).

No, believing 'sexual racism' is a thing and claiming somebody claimed it when they didnt and donating money into turning an employment tribunal into a culture war battle, as part of a pattern of behaviour, is  what gets her marked as transphobic.

Do we apply this elsewhere? If X is accused or racism, and you day that X is not racist does that mean you must also be a racist? 

Thats odd logic,.

I don't follow your logic.  How is that tweet transphobic?