Probably too late as its trailing off but continuing the gaming thread talk here...
Quote from: Barrister on February 15, 2023, 12:56:24 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 15, 2023, 04:10:17 AMI'm comfortable in my position-pretty simply, chill out and leave trans people alone.
Suggesting there is a problem and a debate to be had where all facts show there is no problem, is the entire position of the reactionaries. I won't cede them the ground they're desperate to secure.
Also worth noting you haven't given any actual points here. What you're saying is basically that theres a valid debate to be had - to which no there isn't is the natural response.
"Chill out and leave trans people alone" is out course good advise. No one should be going out to bother trans people just for being trans people.
The problem though that can potentially arise is if/when the rights of trans people intersect with other rights. "The right to swing your fist ends where the other person's face begins".
I'm going to deliberately pick up some low-hanging fruit here just to show you there are debates to be had.
There are small scale questions to be sorted out certainly. There are in everything. But this is quite a different thing to the overall "Trans debate" that gets presented.
The way Rowling and co have it its not about any minor cases of dotting the is and clarifying weird edge cases in the law, its not even about trying to block the push for expanded trans rights, its a battle to roll back the fundamental rights of trans people.
QuoteThere's the story of Jessica Yaniv, a Vancouver-based trans activist. She filed numerous human rights complaints against various businesses for discriminating against her. In at least one (and I think several) instances she filed human rights complaints against female estheticians for refusing to give her a Brazilian wax on her genitals. Her genitals, in this case, was a penis. Her human rights complaints were ultimately thrown out as the estheticians described that not only did they not want to be working with a penis, but doing a Brazilian wax on a penis and testicles requires different training than for a vagina. It was found by a court that it was allowable for a female esthetician to discriminate against trans women because of their penis.
As noted this isn't really relevant to the topic. But since we're just discussing and not playing debate club I'll reply on it.
I'd say this sounds fine.
The issue here isn't about this person being trans, its about having a dick in a specific genitals oriented case. Their genitals are clearly relevant here and were they a trans man or a post-op transexual there would be no discrimination so there should be no issue.
Needs noting that this goes both ways too- see the infamous "People who menstruate" medical guidance that was key to kicking off Rowling's descent.
QuoteA story that comes out from time to time is lesbians feeling pressured to accept trans women as romantic partners. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-57853385 Impossible to say how widespread this is, but you can definitely see the sentiment on Twitter if you look for it. So the conflict here is between the right for transwomen to be women, and for the right of lesbians to select their romantic partners based on their genitals. But I think most people fall on the side of "people are attracted to who they are attracted to, and it's nobody else's business if someone is not interested romantically in you".
Yeah, I saw that. Its silly paranoia.
Its interesting to see this popping up lately as traditionally this kind of nonsense came from straight guys; paranoid about being tricked by trans women (the IT Crowd, written by my favourite transphobe, had an episode with this as a key plot point).
Really smells of the LGB alliance and the favourite tactic of the modern far right in hiding behind being from a traditionally marginalised group in order to hate on other minorities.
Its a load of nonsense and if any trans person tries to pull this then they're the shit bag. If someone isn't into somebody it could be for a myriad of reasons. I find obese women really unattractive- that doesn't mean I can't still be friends with them and treat them with full respect.
This one is even more divorced from the issue being discussed.
QuoteAnd on an actual case I worked on - a trans woman was filing an application in court claiming her rights were being discriminated against in prison. I was assigned the case, and worked with prison officials. They were cognizant of calling this trans woman by her name, and using the right pronouns. One issue where I agreed with her complaint was that they would not issue her women's prison clothes or underwear, and I believe they promised to do so (this is perhaps not that great a deal as women are basically issued yellow sweat pants and top, while men are issued an orange jumpsuit, but it was important to her). But where the prison would not settle on was that they would not house her in the women's section. This was not their first trans woman prisoner, and they always felt that placing a trans woman in the woman's section would be disruptive. "who gets placed with who" is a huge issue for prisons, having to worry about sex, but also gang affiliations, level of risk, no-contact provisions, and others. So what they do is place trans women in the medical unit. In the end we did not get a final judicial decision on the Charter rights challenge, but in the end even the trans woman herself seemed satisfied with being in the medical unit (she also had unrelated mental health issues).
I've no idea how things are in Canada, but in the UK this has been in the news lately and really highlighted the ignorance of TERFs.
There's so little awareness amongst them that already things are handled on a case by case basis, trans prisoners are assaulted far more often than they assault somebody (interestingly the data of iirc 7 cases in the past 10 years doesn't distinguish between trans men and trans women), and that gay and lesbian rapists are a thing that exists and the prison service has a lot of practice in dealing with.
And honestly for me this system seems fine. There's so few trans prisoners that it isn't a massive burden to treat each case as you find it rather than having a one size fits all rule that will inevitably screw over some people.
QuoteBut you can't just say "trans women are women" and say that ends any possible debate.
Trans women are women.
I'd say discriminating against people purely on the basis of being trans is never OK.
The recent culture warrior push for banning trans women in sports for instance is such a load of nonsense.
Any 'discrimination' should be based on science that is relevant to the issue at hand. For instance high testosterone levels or having a certain muscle structure via male puberty, and this clearly giving an advantage in that particular sport.
In practice this will disqualify most trans women from high level sport (things should be a lot slacker at grass roots where winning isn't the important factor and few people are pushing physical limits) but this should be based on the actual science rather than a cultural hang-up of trans = automatically banned.
And this choosing of who is a women or not for the purpose of competition should be left to the sports governing bodies. They've been grappling with it for decades. People with a political axe to grind shouldn't wade into it with their ignorance.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMAny 'discrimination' should be based on science that is relevant to the issue at hand. For instance high testosterone levels or having a certain muscle structure via male puberty, and this clearly giving an advantage in that particular sport.
Science can never answer the question what's a fair or unfair advantage. Unless you think that any person who has an advantage of a great enough magnitude or rarity shouldn't be allowed to compete?
It would help your argument Jos is you actually presented some evidence/links for your assertions.
For example:
"The way Rowling and co have it its not about any minor cases of dotting the is and clarifying weird edge cases in the law, its not even about trying to block the push for expanded trans rights, its a battle to roll back the fundamental rights of trans people."
What are the "fundamental rights" you are referring to and in what way is Rowling seeking to "roll" them back.
Quote from: The Brain on February 16, 2023, 05:53:12 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMAny 'discrimination' should be based on science that is relevant to the issue at hand. For instance high testosterone levels or having a certain muscle structure via male puberty, and this clearly giving an advantage in that particular sport.
Science can never answer the question what's a fair or unfair advantage. Unless you think that any person who has an advantage of a great enough magnitude or rarity shouldn't be allowed to compete?
Sure. There'll always be a judgement call in there. Athletics have changed how they define this loads of times over the decades as the science develops.
But just because you can't get to a stage of something being absolute 100% proven fact doesn't mean you should ignore it and just go with complete hand waving.
Quote from: Gups on February 16, 2023, 06:11:29 AMIt would help your argument Jos is you actually presented some evidence/links for your assertions.
For example:
"The way Rowling and co have it its not about any minor cases of dotting the is and clarifying weird edge cases in the law, its not even about trying to block the push for expanded trans rights, its a battle to roll back the fundamental rights of trans people."
What are the "fundamental rights" you are referring to and in what way is Rowling seeking to "roll" them back.
Rowling isnt the worst of the bunch. Her role is more in being a rich and famous supporter of the biggest scum.
She does seem to be degrading and getting worse year by year however.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/10/what-has-jk-rowling-said-about-transgender-people/
Not sure what this is a hijack from, but has this article been mentioned?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/opinion/jk-rowling-transphobia.html
All I see with JK Rowling is a bunch of people sending her death and rape threats for voicing her opinion. Which is mostly based on science. Biology still matters. The rest is her flawed perception that any biological men represent a threat to any women. But it's far from uncommon. And you can't deny that there have been agression by transpeople on women in some shelters or prisons, basically, places already prone to violence.
Quote from: viper37 on February 16, 2023, 01:47:11 PMAnd you can't deny that there have been agression by transpeople on women in some shelters or prisons, basically, places already prone to violence.
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.
QuoteAll 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.
I haven't delved deep enough into this to have strong opinions, but the NYT article I linked mentioned there was a journalist who was assigned the job of compiling a list of every transphobic thing Rowling has said that attacks trans people--and basically worked on it for weeks and could not find a single thing she said that was directly transphobic or an attack on people specifically. Instead it seems like a lot of quotes about Rowling asserting biological females deserve certain spaces or certain situations in which their biological sex should be given regard. I'm a little hesitant to weigh in too much on trans issues because I'm so deeply uninformed on them most of the time, but it seems like she is being lumped in with the "worst kinds" of anti-trans people when that isn't a fair representation of her stance.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on February 16, 2023, 01:22:25 PMNot sure what this is a hijack from, but has this article been mentioned?
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/16/opinion/jk-rowling-transphobia.html
I'm busy at work and can't spend a lot of time replying to Jos (don't worry I will).
But I did also want to note that A: there was an open letter to the NYT critical of the NYT's treatment of trans issues.
https://nytletter.com/
The NYT wrote a polite but firm "we stand behind our reporting" response.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
(And vice versa for women).
What you have, however, is a very loud and obnoxious minority of what basically amounts of alphabet-fascists screaming at the top of their longs in an attempt to bully the entirety of society to conform to their faulty views, thus ruining it for the rest that just want to live their lives in peace and quiet.
People don't like bullies, not even when they claim to be 'progressive'.
In general, in western societies, lgbt have acceptance and tolerance. They don't require society to cheer them on, as that is not part of tolerance (just like you couldn't demand the catholics cheered on the protestants when the original Edict of Tolerance was proclaimed).
There are, however, a great many countries and societies where coming out means at the very least ostracisation and at worst a death penalty. Maybe the energies of those ideologues would be better focused there, where there's real difference to make. But that's much harder of course, requires putting some real skin into the game.
(same for the virtue-signalling companies with their rainbow-flags... but only in western countries! Hypocrites.)
another obvious conclusion is that social media (tiktok and twitter especially) are tools of the devil. Not a place for anyone under 30, basically.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
Trans women are not women.
Neither are transwomen "biologically male".
Trans women are trans women - their own beautiful and unique category.
Quote from: Barrister on February 16, 2023, 02:55:56 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
Trans women are not women.
Neither are transwomen "biologically male".
Trans women are trans women - their own beautiful and unique category.
Not according to the trans dogma that Rowling blasphemed against.
Quote from: chipwich on February 16, 2023, 02:58:20 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 16, 2023, 02:55:56 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
Trans women are not women.
Neither are transwomen "biologically male".
Trans women are trans women - their own beautiful and unique category.
Not according to the trans dogma that Rowling blasphemed against.
I am proposing my own solution to this particular conundrum.
Well don't do where anyone can see you. You'll get your video game review bombed.
Quote from: Barrister on February 16, 2023, 02:55:56 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
Trans women are not women.
Neither are transwomen "biologically male".
Trans women are trans women - their own beautiful and unique category.
That's society being courteous, which I can certainly accept.
In reality however, there's only XX and XY (and then some combinations due to construction that confirm the rule). Biology, remember.
But sure, as their own category, I've got no beef. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder however.)
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 03:02:38 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 16, 2023, 02:55:56 PMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
Trans women are not women.
Neither are transwomen "biologically male".
Trans women are trans women - their own beautiful and unique category.
That would society being courteous, which I can certainly accept.
In reality however, there's only XX and XY (and then some combinations due to construction that confirm the rule). Biology, remember.
But sure, as their own category, I've got no beef. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder however.)
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 01:10:49 PMRowling isnt the worst of the bunch. Her role is more in being a rich and famous supporter of the biggest scum.
She does seem to be degrading and getting worse year by year however.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/10/what-has-jk-rowling-said-about-transgender-people/
After reading your link I still don't see what fundamental trans rights Rowlings wants to roll back.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 03:02:38 PMThat's society being courteous, which I can certainly accept.
In reality however, there's only XX and XY (and then some combinations due to construction that confirm the rule). Biology, remember.
But sure, as their own category, I've got no beef. (Beauty is in the eye of the beholder however.)
Well sure. It is semantics after all.
Just we have always had trans people and maybe we should acknowledge we have, and continue, to treat them horribly for no rational reason at all. So we should do better and treat them like human beings. However specifically what that looks like doesn't really concern me.
Quote from: chipwich on February 16, 2023, 02:58:20 PMNot according to the trans dogma that Rowling blasphemed against.
Frankly, like most issues, I don't really understand what her views are. She talks like all men, or XY people or whatever, are inherently dangerous and sexually predatory and therefore need to be kept away from women's bathrooms or shelters lest we rape and attack. But...come on. That seems to be a very specific kind of person who is law abiding enough to stay out of designated areas but law breaking enough to commit violent crimes. Especially these sorts of public places. Besides if you look enough like a woman I am pretty sure you could always pass enough to get into a woman's shelter or bathroom. It's not like they are out there with DNA tests or something or asking you for your gender identity. It has always been an honor system. Just specifically excluding trans people isn't going to stop this very specific and unlikely scenario from playing out.
But then she also says she is fine with and has no fear of trans people. I don't know man. It seems like she has a very specific phobia or some kind of identity thing playing out.
At least the people who were against trans athletes kind of had a point, but I have to say I haven't really seen things play out where elite women's athletics are being dominated by trans-women. Little surprised frankly as I thought insanely competitive athletes would do anything to get an edge but I guess there are some lines even they won't cross.
But as far as going against the "dogma" and all, that's not a "trans" dogma that is twitter shit. That is just how that platform operates. You don't want to put up with puritanical bores, then don't spend all your time where they thrive and multiply. I am pretty sure actual real life trans people have a great deal of differing opinions on matters despite your smear of there being a "dogma".
You're the one smearing. The JK Rowling hate is well past Twitter, it has been across the media for years.
Sure, but while it's true not all men are inherently dangerous or predatory - but it's also true that as a group the vast majority of very dangerous people or sexual predators are men. There's a reason women often cross the road if there's some unknown guy walking behind them.
I have to admit I find this very confusing.
Isn't her point merely that it should still be OK to call a woman a woman.
Yeah Valmy, that 100% of men are rapists thing is a total straw man. And it applies even less in shelters where the occupants are by definition traumatized and have had a negative experience with a man.
FYI Squeeze, high school sports in the US doesn't have a governing body. So somebody else has to make the call: school adminstrators, school boards, or "the anti-woke mob" politicians.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2023, 05:38:46 PMFYI Squeeze, high school sports in the US doesn't have a governing body. So somebody else has to make the call: school adminstrators, school boards, or "the anti-woke mob" politicians.
What about the sports themselves?
For example here the FA governs football from grassroots and schools to the Premier League, same with other governing bodies. Is there not a body that sets the rules for, say, baseball?
Quote from: chipwich on February 16, 2023, 05:11:38 PMYou're the one smearing. The JK Rowling hate is well past Twitter, it has been across the media for years.
Nonsense. People still love her and buy her stuff and the Harry Potter stuff and this game is selling fine. If the media hated her this game would never have been made.
And yeah sure it's not just twitter. Plenty of media just looks at twitter and comments on it. But it's all part of the ecosystem.
Anyway that's my opinion. Rowling shouldn't be on twitter...but granted that's my advice to everyone. And I don't see how holding that opinion is a smear of anything but twitter. But maybe you can enlighten me as to who I am smearing.
But enough of your whataboutism. You just turning it around and saying "no you" and not addressing my point is pretty lame.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 16, 2023, 05:44:03 PMWhat about the sports themselves?
For example here the FA governs football from grassroots and schools to the Premier League, same with other governing bodies. Is there not a body that sets the rules for, say, baseball?
Extrapolating a bit, I think no. For example college football and basketball have longer play clocks than pro. College baseball allows aluminum bats.
I remember for one season back in the glory days of Big East basketball the conference experimented with six fouls per player (as opposed to the standard five). This was to allow the gangsters at Georgetown to beat up other teams to increase fan engagement.
The one exception I can think of is golf, where the USGA and their buddies at Royal and Ancient set the rules for golf everywhere.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2023, 05:54:23 PMThe one exception I can think of is golf, where the USGA and their buddies at Royal and Ancient set the rules for golf everywhere.
Takes backs. The Saudis allow short pants.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2023, 05:50:06 PMIf the media hated her this game would never have been made.
Prove it. The media hates the game and it still sells well.
The media or some of the media hate this?
Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 16, 2023, 03:58:22 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 01:10:49 PMRowling isnt the worst of the bunch. Her role is more in being a rich and famous supporter of the biggest scum.
She does seem to be degrading and getting worse year by year however.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/10/what-has-jk-rowling-said-about-transgender-people/
After reading your link I still don't see what fundamental trans rights Rowlings wants to roll back.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2023, 04:51:07 PMQuote from: chipwich on February 16, 2023, 02:58:20 PMNot according to the trans dogma that Rowling blasphemed against.
Frankly, like most issues, I don't really understand what her views are. She talks like all men, or XY people or whatever, are inherently dangerous and sexually predatory and therefore need to be kept away from women's bathrooms or shelters lest we rape and attack. But...come on. That seems to be a very specific kind of person who is law abiding enough to stay out of designated areas but law breaking enough to commit violent crimes. Especially these sorts of public places. Besides if you look enough like a woman I am pretty sure you could always pass enough to get into a woman's shelter or bathroom. It's not like they are out there with DNA tests or something or asking you for your gender identity. It has always been an honor system. Just specifically excluding trans people isn't going to stop this very specific and unlikely scenario from playing out.
She is very specifically aiming at Scotland's proposed self-identity legislation. I personally can't understand why it is not blindingly obvious that abusive men will be given the opportunity to easily "game" their way into women only spaces by simply declaring that they are a woman and waiting three months.
Quote from: GupsShe is very specifically aiming at Scotland's proposed self-identity legislation. I personally can't understand why it is not blindingly obvious that abusive men will be given the opportunity to easily "game" their way into women only spaces by simply declaring that they are a woman and waiting three months.
You'd think it seems like such an obvious trick that someone is bound to do it....
Yet it has never happened in those places which do have simplified gender switching laws.
Think about it logically, there's nothing really stopping an absolute shitbag from storming into the women's changing rooms as things stand. That he has a bit of paper that declares he's a female isn't really going to change much about that.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
So all gay men aren't men? All Swedish women aren't women? All Indian elephants aren't elephants?
Adjectives usually don't eliminate the core thing they're modifying.
QuoteAt most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
(And vice versa for women).
Define men. What makes someone a man?
Modern science accepts that the idea of sex as a strict binary is a gross over-simplification.
QuoteWhat you have, however, is a very loud and obnoxious minority of what basically amounts of alphabet-fascists screaming at the top of their longs in an attempt to bully the entirety of society to conform to their faulty views, thus ruining it for the rest that just want to live their lives in peace and quiet.
People don't like bullies, not even when they claim to be 'progressive'.
Its always funny when folk point the finger of blame at loud mouths with views they don't like (so irony of irony call them fascists, playing right into one of their typical lines) and ignoring that a key reason these activists are on such a hair trigger is that opposing them you've a broad and prone to violence group that involves actual fascists.
QuoteIn general, in western societies, lgbt have acceptance and tolerance. They don't require society to cheer them on, as that is not part of tolerance (just like you couldn't demand the catholics cheered on the protestants when the original Edict of Tolerance was proclaimed).
There are, however, a great many countries and societies where coming out means at the very least ostracisation and at worst a death penalty. Maybe the energies of those ideologues would be better focused there, where there's real difference to make. But that's much harder of course, requires putting some real skin into the game.
(same for the virtue-signalling companies with their rainbow-flags... but only in western countries! Hypocrites.)
The reason why people will focus on issues closer to home than screaming at Saudi Arabia to be nice are myriad and mostly pretty common sense.
By the same token we might ask why the transphobes are so concerned about minor changes in the law at home and not the far more pro-trans laws in other countries... but then this "What about X-land" is a typical distraction tactic of the far right rather than a good faith suggestion.
Quoteanother obvious conclusion is that social media (tiktok and twitter especially) are tools of the devil. Not a place for anyone under 30, basically.
On this bit I agree.
QuoteYou'd think it seems like such an obvious trick that someone is bound to do it....
Yet it has never happened in those places which do have simplified gender switching laws.
I mean... it didn't take long in Scotland for one particularly nasty bastard to have a go at it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon
He raped two women, got arrested, figured actually he was a woman, and was about to be sent to women's prison before -as I understand- Sturgeon intervened personally to make a mockery of the fresh law she was just pushing.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 05:33:26 AMQuoteYou'd think it seems like such an obvious trick that someone is bound to do it....
Yet it has never happened in those places which do have simplified gender switching laws.
I mean... it didn't take long in Scotland for one particularly nasty bastard to have a go at it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon
He raped two women, got arrested, figured actually he was a woman, and was about to be sent to women's prison before -as I understand- Sturgeon intervened personally to make a mockery of the fresh law she was just pushing.
Thats not what happened there.
As said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).
If this whole thing was a grand scam to abuse more women then more fool her. As a dangerous character with a history of raping women its unlikely they'd have put her in general population if she was placed in a womans prison for her term (IIRC during his temporary holding she was kept separated).
Also worth noting they've clearly gone a whole bunch of steps further than just ticking a box to say they're a woman.
QuoteAs said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).
So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 06:04:48 AMQuoteAs said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).
So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?
More, its ridiculous to enforce a one size fits all rule for a varied group because of the worst of those who claim to belong to it.
Quote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 06:11:02 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 06:04:48 AMQuoteAs said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).
So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?
More, its ridiculous to enforce a one size fits all rule for a varied group because of the worst of those who claim to belong to it.
I agree with that, but I am not sure having a set of "you are a woman in X case but a man in Y case" rules is helping transgenders either.
I know I have been an insensitive dick about this whole thing, but things like this is why I don't understand why the preferred outcome isn't to do away with gender as a regulating thing, have sex instead where applicable (prison choices, professional sports etc) ALL THE WHILE leaving people alone to express themselves as they see fit, request to use whatever pronouns they wish, or change their bodies as they see fit.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 06:17:08 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 06:11:02 AMQuote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 06:04:48 AMQuoteAs said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).
So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?
More, its ridiculous to enforce a one size fits all rule for a varied group because of the worst of those who claim to belong to it.
I agree with that, but I am not sure having a set of "you are a woman in X case but a man in Y case" rules is helping transgenders either.
I know I have been an insensitive dick about this whole thing, but things like this is why I don't understand why the preferred outcome isn't to do away with gender as a regulating thing, have sex instead where applicable (prison choices, professional sports etc) ALL THE WHILE leaving people alone to express themselves as they see fit, request to use whatever pronouns they wish, or change their bodies as they see fit.
Theres a lot of problems with just seeing sex and gender as immutably different concepts and drawing up lines on that basis.
Firstly, in most situations they aren't. Traditionally and still in the modern day the two are used pretty interchangeably. The word gender was introduced to the English language largely because people a century back were uptight about saying sex (it had seen some earlier use in the centuries before by pretentious sorts wanting to sound intelligent and scientific when talking about sex).
I can't understate how weird the irony is that gender in its current form began to be used in the mid 20th century as the field of gender studies developed. Basically it was exactly the opposite people of those who currently strongly insist on gender politics who originally invented it.
Secondly- what is a man? What is a woman? The transphobes think they have easy answers to these questions and apparently its a primary tactic of theirs in debates to ask this question and go "Ha, gotcha! You can't even define something so simple as a woman!". But logically, these are not easy things to define. They're abstract concepts. This goes whether you're talking in terms of 'sex' or 'gender'. For every answer we might think we've found, there'll be an exception. This is where sports bodies have been struggling for so long.
Thirdly- when my son was born and the midwife said "Its a boy", what was she talking about? Was it sex? Was it gender? There was no genetic sequencing involved, she had just seen his willy. He was outwardly presenting as male.... So then doesn't it follow if somebody looks completely male then they're a male no matter what they're born as?
An interesting point here I find from the transphobes is that they don't distinguish between post and pre op transexuals with their arguments which if you're following that logic I'd say you should.... but there again thats over simplifying a broad category. And are dicks really that important?
Last... The big problem with the gender/sex are different push that I see, is that the transphobes want to use this to enforce a sort of apartheid against trans people. A system of "You're perfectly free to call yourself a woman if you want, that's your gender, hurray for you! .... but every single rule governing what women can do should be based on sex."
I'd say on the prisoner issue rather than drawing up rules based on sex and gender everything should be solely based on gender, but then there's a note on that to say that though the default is that all people be treated according to their gender, it should be possible for a special case to be raised to make exceptions where appropriate.
Afterall, there are far more assaults on trans prisoners than they assault other people. Its mad to tar with the same brush weirdos like this Ilsa character and somebody who fully transitioned when they were young and has lived most their life as a different gender and there's zero question of whether they're faking it for softer treatment in prison.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 05:33:26 AMI mean... it didn't take long in Scotland for one particularly nasty bastard to have a go at it.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon
He raped two women, got arrested, figured actually he was a woman, and was about to be sent to women's prison before -as I understand- Sturgeon intervened personally to make a mockery of the fresh law she was just pushing.
Sturgeon intervened personally in a way that made a mockery of the existing process which is that the Scottish Prison Service would do a risk assessment and decide based on that which estate that prisoner was sent to. After a couple of days of saying the SPS should be allowed to follow their standard process, Sturgeon shifted to saying that "the individual is a rapist" and rapists should not be placed in the women's estate. I think that undercuts the idea of the SPS being able to do a risk assessment independently and without political direction.
Since 2004 the approach in prisons in England and Scotland was that the prison service would perform some form of risk assessment on an individualised basis which was used to decide where trans prisoners were held (including, for example, non-binary or genderfluid individuals). It was based on the risk presented by that prisoner as well as the risk to that prisoner.
Following the Isla Bryson case both England and Scotland have adopted slightly more blanket approaches. So in England now a person with male genitalia or who has committed a sexual offence cannot be placed in a women's prison. In Scotland trans prisoners will initially be placed in the prison of their birth sex (although, as now, in a secure isolated cell for a day or two) while the SPS conducts a risk assessment, but trans prisoners convicted of violence against women or girls will not be placed in women's prisons.
Sturgeon's law wouldn't really have much of an impact on this. It would be easier for Isla Bryson to obtain a GRC. But there's no right for someone possessing a characteristic to access a single characteristic service (like the prison service). My understanding is that it would mean that if Bryson claimed discrimination under the Equality Act, it would shift from being one of indirect discrimination to direct discrimination which might have an impact. It would also shift legally from the prison excluding Bryson on the basis of sex to excluding them on the basis of "gender reassignment" - if Bryson had a GRC then it's arguable that the courts would decide that actually excluding them is disproportionate compared to other alternative decisions such as increasing security in the prison.
I think the challenge for Sturgeon's law (and possibly for self-ID more broadly) is that I'm not convinced Bryson's trans status is genuine. I don't think Sturgeon thinks it is either and I'm not sure how you can challenge that.
But again a GRC is absolutely not necessary - it allows you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate. But in terms of changing or accessing healthcare, changing your ID documents, changing your bank details, changing your passport, how your employers and colleagues should (and, legally, have to) refer to you etc or (until the Bryson case) which prison someone is placed in - you do not need a GRC.
What I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"
As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.
Bathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 07:04:43 AMWhat I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"
As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.
Bathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".
:wacko:
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 07:04:43 AMWhat I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"
As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.
That is weird. Especially as they insist on keeping the broom. If quidditch wants to be treat seriously as a sport they need to be rid of that. From what I understand it serves no practical purpose in game. Though maybe I'm wrong, its not something I've opened more than half an eye for.
QuoteBathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".
Then you'll get people who are obviously women/men being forced into the wrong toilet with all the hilarity that comes from that. And what of dudes who have been in horrible accidents?
I don't know about the US, but here there are lots of places with unisex toilets and zero problems.
Yeah the whole toilet thing is just ridiculous.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 07:27:39 AMYeah the whole toilet thing is just ridiculous.
Yeah - although I don't really see that come up very much in the UK articles I've read (Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman). The focus from what I've read seems to be rape crisis centres, domestic violence shelters, prisons and, to a lesser extent, single sex schools.
Edit: Also a bit on single sex wards in hospitals.
In the UK there are no rules about toilets despite the efforts of some to make it so, importing American shit.
Quote from: Josephus on February 17, 2023, 07:04:43 AMWhat I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"
As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.
Bathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".
Absolutely massive
(https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/grandpa_simpson_yelling_at_cloud10.jpg)
energy on display here
:D
Quote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 05:21:56 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
So all gay men aren't men? All Swedish women aren't women? All Indian elephants aren't elephants?
Adjectives usually don't eliminate the core thing they're modifying.
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)
Maybe you should try to stop seeing everyone that disagrees with you as fascists or transphobes. It is after all the 'progressives' that are trying to redefine reality to suit their delusions and are willing to browbeat everyone not tagging along in a most authoritarian fashion.
Where I see the logic fail (and me failing to put a logical system on this is where my reservations are coming from) is how even Josq thinks where a trans person is sent to prison to should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Meaning he even does not think that gender equals sex absolutely.
But then why demand absolute commitment to the belief of gender=sex?
It's not like there's no presedent for treating certain prisoners different to the norm. Accommodations are often made for disability, illness, the liklihood of being murdered in prison, etc...
A trans woman is a woman.
Anyone who claims to be a trans woman isn't necessarily automatically so. When they had this epiphany at a very convenient time it smells awfully sus.
Its not a simple matter where you can pass one side fits all laws.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 17, 2023, 12:55:16 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 05:21:56 AMQuote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 16, 2023, 02:50:28 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans women are women.
If they were women they wouldn't be trans.
So all gay men aren't men? All Swedish women aren't women? All Indian elephants aren't elephants?
Adjectives usually don't eliminate the core thing they're modifying.
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)
Maybe you should try to stop seeing everyone that disagrees with you as fascists or transphobes. It is after all the 'progressives' that are trying to redefine reality to suit their delusions and are willing to browbeat everyone not tagging along in a most authoritarian fashion.
XX men and XY women(from birth, obviously trans people too), XXX, XYX, etc... All exist.
Ever hear of Caster semenya for a famous example?
This is a prime example of what I was talking about with the bad science of those pushing against trans people.
LOL you're the one who decided to call those who disagree with you fascists here. And you still try to pull out that usual line. As said, the actual fascists are absolutely not to be found on the side of LGBT rights.
Also, just FYI nope, the core of this shit is reactionaries trying to strip trans rights rather than any effort to gain more rights for trans people. It's the far right and their fellow travellers trying to redefine reality to fit their fairy tale image of how things were in the good old days.
But if it is not a simple matter, why is it ok to so quickly brand people on the other side of arguments into the details of it "hate groups" and such?
Quote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 01:58:25 PMAlso, just FYI nope, the core of this shit is reactionaries trying to strip trans rights rather than any effort to gain more rights for trans people. It's the far right and their fellow travellers trying to redefine reality to fit their fairy tale image of how things were in the good old days.
News organisations with massive rows about this are the Guardian and the NYT. Here it has caused huge internal fights in the Greens, SNP and Labour Party.
If this is because of the far right and their fellow travellers, they've played a very long con. I think the fact that there are these rows and splits in left/liberal group suggests that perhaps there needs to be a different approach to building support, because it's not uniting people who are instinctively broadly sympathetic.
QuoteLOL you're the one who decided to call those who disagree with you fascists here. And you still try to pull out that usual line. As said, the actual fascists are absolutely not to be found on the side of LGBT rights.
Ish. There's historic strands of, for want of a better word, homofascism - but also I think it's a pretty strong trend in Europe in the politics of parts of the far-right in the last 20-25 years, starting with Pim Fortuyn.
With the masculinist trends on the far-right in the US I wouldn't be surprised to see some form of old school homofascism there either.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 02:06:44 PMBut if it is not a simple matter, why is it ok to so quickly brand people on the other side of arguments into the details of it "hate groups" and such?
Exactly. You can't have a reasonable discussion with people like Jos. You disagree and you are transphobic, part of the hard right, a member of a hate group.
The arrogance of a man telling abused women how they are supposed to feel about safe spaces is beyond me.
Quote from: Gups on February 17, 2023, 02:59:38 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 02:06:44 PMBut if it is not a simple matter, why is it ok to so quickly brand people on the other side of arguments into the details of it "hate groups" and such?
Exactly. You can't have a reasonable discussion with people like Jos. You disagree and you are transphobic, part of the hard right, a member of a hate group.
The arrogance of a man telling abused women how they are supposed to feel about safe spaces is beyond me.
It is also probably hard to have a discussion when you come in so hot.
He's had 4 pages of calling people transphobic, far right etc before I said anything.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2023, 02:13:45 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 01:58:25 PMAlso, just FYI nope, the core of this shit is reactionaries trying to strip trans rights rather than any effort to gain more rights for trans people. It's the far right and their fellow travellers trying to redefine reality to fit their fairy tale image of how things were in the good old days.
News organisations with massive rows about this are the Guardian and the NYT. Here it has caused huge internal fights in the Greens, SNP and Labour Party.
If this is because of the far right and their fellow travellers, they've played a very long con. I think the fact that there are these rows and splits in left/liberal group suggests that perhaps there needs to be a different approach to building support, because it's not uniting people who are instinctively broadly sympathetic.
Because the right are pretty aligned on a view of trans bad.
You don't get debates about trans rights in the daily mail, you instead just get a rant about how all they're all a bunch of creepy perverts plotting to kidnap your children.
QuoteIsh. There's historic strands of, for want of a better word, homofascism - but also I think it's a pretty strong trend in Europe in the politics of parts of the far-right in the last 20-25 years, starting with Pim Fortuyn.
With the masculinist trends on the far-right in the US I wouldn't be surprised to see some form of old school homofascism there eithe
It's certainly true that as gay people have become accepted the line of who to hate has moved on, a key factor in why trans hate has shot up so much of late, and a number of awful gay folk have decided it's beat to be part of the torch wielding mob that would have been at their door just a few decades ago.
I don't for a second believe the true black died in the wool fascists genuinely are pro gay however, they merely see them as tomorrow's issue and pretending to support them being an occasionally useful tool to defend other bigotry.
Quote from: Gups on February 17, 2023, 02:59:38 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 02:06:44 PMBut if it is not a simple matter, why is it ok to so quickly brand people on the other side of arguments into the details of it "hate groups" and such?
Exactly. You can't have a reasonable discussion with people like Jos. You disagree and you are transphobic, part of the hard right, a member of a hate group.
The arrogance of a man telling abused women how they are supposed to feel about safe spaces is beyond me.
I've no idea what your views on trans people are but that's two squares on the transphobe bingo card there - whinging about using proper terms via accusing those who are pro lgbt rights of labelling anyone who disagrees in the slightest a transphobe /bigot/nazi/whatever and the whole "you're a man telling women what to think. You're the bigot!" nonsense.
As mentioned before - polls consistently show a majority of women are in favour of trans rights. More than of men even.
Quote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 02:06:44 PMBut if it is not a simple matter, why is it ok to so quickly brand people on the other side of arguments into the details of it "hate groups" and such?
Because the other side of treat trans people like human beings is the side of being a hate filled shit bag.
This isn't about raise taxes 10% or cut taxes 10%. Its about whether a group of innocent people deserve the right to exist.
There's room for discussion within the details. You know, like I thought we were doing. But not to take a completely anti trans position.
Quote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 03:38:49 PMAs mentioned before - polls consistently show a majority of women are in favour of trans rights. More than of men even.
But again - if you poll the question as should we do things that make the lives of trans people easier there is huge, majority support.
If you poll the specifics of current plans: removing the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, shortening the amount of time living in a gender, and lowering the age at which people can obtain a GRC - then a similar majority oppose each one. So people want to make life easier for trans people but actually broadly support the substance of the current legal framework.
Also I've said it before but I have a strong suspicion that the public understanding of a trans person is someone who has had gender reassignment surgery - which is not the case at all but I don't think that's fully clear in the public mind.
Maybe I've missed it--but the New York Times has published an article basically claiming that despite extensive (weeks long) work, a journalist could not find a single transphobic quote to attribute to Rowling. I haven't seen anything in this thread that meaningfully pushes back against that. The broader debate on trans issues in unresolvable, but it should be fairly easy, if Rowling is on record as being a bigoted transphobe, to find such quotes, no?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 17, 2023, 03:47:26 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 03:38:49 PMAs mentioned before - polls consistently show a majority of women are in favour of trans rights. More than of men even.
But again - if you poll the question as should we do things that make the lives of trans people easier there is huge, majority support.
If you poll the specifics of current plans: removing the need for a gender dysphoria diagnosis, shortening the amount of time living in a gender, and lowering the age at which people can obtain a GRC - then a similar majority oppose each one. So people want to make life easier for trans people but actually broadly support the substance of the current legal framework.
Also I've said it before but I have a strong suspicion that the public understanding of a trans person is someone who has had gender reassignment surgery - which is not the case at all but I don't think that's fully clear in the public mind.
I wonder how this would hold up comparing to other issues. % who agree with a simple "should we do a nice thing" vs % who agree with a "complex proposal you probably don't understand much about towards the nice thing".
I do suspect when it becomes clear something is outside of a person's expertise they err on the side of best say no.
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.
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 from: Josquius on February 17, 2023, 04:03:03 PMCurious 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]
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2023, 02:36:41 PMI 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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2023, 02:36:41 PMQuoteAll 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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 17, 2023, 04:18:24 PMQuote from: Valmy on February 16, 2023, 02:36:41 PMQuoteAll 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.
That goes more ways than one, BB.
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2023, 04:43:26 PMSo 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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 17, 2023, 04:43:26 PMThe 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 17, 2023, 12:55:16 PMReally? 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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 17, 2023, 10:43:52 PMJust 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans 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.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 18, 2023, 12:20:37 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2023, 08:04:59 PMIn 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.
Quote from: Valmy on February 16, 2023, 04:40:24 PMSo 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 18, 2023, 08:31:07 AMQuote from: Legbiter on February 18, 2023, 12:20:37 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 16, 2023, 04:42:29 AMTrans 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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 17, 2023, 08:04:59 PMIn 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?
Quote from: Gups on February 18, 2023, 12:30:53 PMYet 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.
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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 18, 2023, 02:08:40 PMQuote from: Gups on February 18, 2023, 12:30:53 PMYet 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.
Gotcha. So if a (any) trans woman thinks Rowling is transphobic, it's case closed. No need for any ally to justify it with reference to what Rowling actually says.
Quote from: HVC on February 18, 2023, 02:13:51 PMSo 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.
Squeeze did link some site called Pinksheet or somesuch pages back which I assume lays out the indictment. I thought it was pretty small beer. The crux seems to be Rowlings said something like as a woman I don't think trans women are women.
Quote from: Josquius on February 18, 2023, 02:08:40 PMThe 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.
No one can tell anyone else how to feel about a given person. However we all have a right to criticize someone's use of a word, such as transphobe, because it is a universal concept, which exists independently of the person who hates Rowlings. No one person has a monopoly on who we can call a liar, or an adulterer, or a thief. Same with transphobe or any of the other identity politics accusations.
The irony is that Rowlings is implying that as a woman she gets veto on who we call a woman. :D
Which reminds me: is there something like an established ideology around why gender is ok to be self-declared but race isn't?
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2023, 03:29:51 PMWhich reminds me: is there something like an established ideology around why gender is ok to be self-declared but race isn't?
Here's one take. Note a bit of a long read.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/
It does make me wonder about the opposite though. Would it cause as much a stir if a person who appears black says that they are white?
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 03:52:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 18, 2023, 03:29:51 PMWhich reminds me: is there something like an established ideology around why gender is ok to be self-declared but race isn't?
Here's one take. Note a bit of a long read.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/
It does make me wonder about the opposite though. Would it cause as much a stir if a person who appears black says that they are white?
We still remember when that black guy claimed to be an Indian.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 03:52:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 18, 2023, 03:29:51 PMWhich reminds me: is there something like an established ideology around why gender is ok to be self-declared but race isn't?
Here's one take. Note a bit of a long read.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/
It does make me wonder about the opposite though. Would it cause as much a stir if a person who appears black says that they are white?
Thanks. I think it would. We have mini-scandals over non-white actors appearing in movies together with dragons and orcs.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 03:52:50 PMWould it cause as much a stir if a person who appears black says that they are white?
We have plenty of examples of black people passing. I've not read anything about them that is other than sympathetic. From blacks or whites.
Quote from: Razgovory on February 18, 2023, 04:36:57 PMQuote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 03:52:50 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 18, 2023, 03:29:51 PMWhich reminds me: is there something like an established ideology around why gender is ok to be self-declared but race isn't?
Here's one take. Note a bit of a long read.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/
It does make me wonder about the opposite though. Would it cause as much a stir if a person who appears black says that they are white?
We still remember when that black guy claimed to be an Indian.
:pinch:
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 03:52:50 PMHere's one take. Note a bit of a long read.
https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/robin-dembroff-dee-payton-breaking-analogy-between-race-and-gender/
It does make me wonder about the opposite though. Would it cause as much a stir if a person who appears black says that they are white?
It's an interesting piece and I get the point about generational inequality not being something that is experienced by women. But my thought is that generational inequality seems to be a product or a consequence of structural racism - and while there may not be a direct analogue for that, I think there is a patriarchy which is trans-generational like structural racism.
It seems to me wrong to imply that there isn't, to borrow its language, yet a collective reckoning for misogyny and the patriarchy in society. While the impacts may not accumulate across the generations, it is still the case that each generation faces the effects and consequences of that. We have not yet got to the point where there's a generation of women who are not facing a gender pay gap, often inadequate medical treatment/pathologisation (for example huge HRT inequality, period poverty and in the Bulley case the way the menopause was discussed) - and, certainly looking at it from a British perspective, both risk from gendered violence and, I'd argue, a form of structural misogyny in the criminal justice system that fails to catch, charge or convict the perpetrators.
And obviously racial inequality, as well as having that accumulative aspect, is felt afresh by each generation - similar health inequality, a similarly structurally racist criminal justice system (but with different results).
I agree with the conclusion of the piece - I do think there's a difference. But I'm not sure what it is or that they've identified it (not least because surely it implies that if there are reparations/that collective reckoning happens there would be no difference with trans-racialism which I don't think I agree with).
Quote from: Josquius on February 18, 2023, 02:08:40 PMQuote from: Gups on February 18, 2023, 12:30:53 PMYet 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.
Jos - are you not in fact a cis straight man?
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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2023, 05:57:09 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 18, 2023, 02:08:40 PMQuote from: Gups on February 18, 2023, 12:30:53 PMYet 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.
Jos - are you not in fact a cis straight man?
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.
:huh:
Also why are you bringing in race?
Quote from: Tamas on February 18, 2023, 03:29:51 PMWhich reminds me: is there something like an established ideology around why gender is ok to be self-declared but race isn't?
I am not sure why we still use the word "race" but in any event it is not ok to self identify as Indigenous when you are not.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:02:22 PM:huh:
Also why are you bringing in race?
Because a half Indian dude gets more PC legitimacy points than a totally white dude.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2023, 06:13:28 PMQuote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:02:22 PM:huh:
Also why are you bringing in race?
Because a half Indian dude gets more PC legitimacy points than a totally white dude.
Seems unrelated to Jos's point.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:02:22 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 18, 2023, 05:57:09 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 18, 2023, 02:08:40 PMQuote from: Gups on February 18, 2023, 12:30:53 PMYet 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.
Jos - are you not in fact a cis straight man?
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.
:huh:
Also why are you bringing in race?
Because Jos brought identity into it.
To be clear - I think one's argument should stand by itself, without any reference to the ID of the person making it. But Jos is the one who suddenly brought ID into the equation.
For the record - I am a white, cis, het, male, and acknowledge all the privilege that comes with that status.
Although weirdly and for whatever little it is worth - I am also an ethnic Ukrainian. Which for my entire life I never thought of as being an oppressed identity until the last 12 months.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:21:09 PMSeems unrelated to Jos's point.
Only if you think race and gender identity are totally unrelated, which is not correct.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2023, 06:22:59 PMBecause Jos brought identity into it.
To be clear - I think one's argument should stand by itself, without any reference to the ID of the person making it. But Jos is the one who suddenly brought ID into the equation.
For the record - I am a white, cis, het, male, and acknowledge all the privilege that comes with that status.
Although weirdly and for whatever little it is worth - I am also an ethnic Ukrainian. Which for my entire life I never thought of as being an oppressed identity until the last 12 months.
Au contraire, Jos just copied the format that Gups introduced.
Quote from: Gups on February 17, 2023, 02:59:38 PMQuote from: Tamas on February 17, 2023, 02:06:44 PMBut if it is not a simple matter, why is it ok to so quickly brand people on the other side of arguments into the details of it "hate groups" and such?
Exactly. You can't have a reasonable discussion with people like Jos. You disagree and you are transphobic, part of the hard right, a member of a hate group.
The arrogance of a man telling abused women how they are supposed to feel about safe spaces is beyond me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2023, 06:29:29 PMQuote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:21:09 PMSeems unrelated to Jos's point.
Only if you think race and gender identity are totally unrelated, which is not correct.
I'm not sure being non-white introduces a more 'privileged' lens into the matter.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:34:56 PMI'm not sure being non-white introduces a more 'privileged' lens into the matter.
Being a member of an oppressed group gives one standing in the PC world.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 18, 2023, 06:41:17 PMQuote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:34:56 PMI'm not sure being non-white introduces a more 'privileged' lens into the matter.
Being a member of an oppressed group gives one standing in the PC world.
What is the PC world? This?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/10/21/business/media/22adcowindows/popup.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 06:44:52 PMWhat is the PC world? This?
(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2009/10/21/business/media/22adcowindows/popup.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
People who buy into the central tenets of political correctness.
Nothing promotes inclusion more than "you're a cis male, you need to STFU".
Really wish y'all would realize it's just "Rowling". I give a pass to the eggplant, but come on.
Quote from: DGuller on February 18, 2023, 07:07:21 PMNothing 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"?
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2023, 06:22:59 PM....
Because Jos brought identity into it.
To be clear - I think one's argument should stand by itself, without any reference to the ID of the person making it. But Jos is the one who suddenly brought ID into the equation.
For the record - I am a white, cis, het, male, and acknowledge all the privilege that comes with that status.
Although weirdly and for whatever little it is worth - I am also an ethnic Ukrainian. Which for my entire life I never thought of as being an oppressed identity until the last 12 months.
That explains why the Russian invasion of Ukraine as been so piss poor, if they've been staging it via having invaded Canada.
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 07:13:44 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 18, 2023, 07:07:21 PMNothing 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"?
I didn't ignore it, I just didn't see it.
Quote from: mongers on February 18, 2023, 07:48:00 PMQuote from: Barrister on February 18, 2023, 06:22:59 PM....
Because Jos brought identity into it.
To be clear - I think one's argument should stand by itself, without any reference to the ID of the person making it. But Jos is the one who suddenly brought ID into the equation.
For the record - I am a white, cis, het, male, and acknowledge all the privilege that comes with that status.
Although weirdly and for whatever little it is worth - I am also an ethnic Ukrainian. Which for my entire life I never thought of as being an oppressed identity until the last 12 months.
That explains why the Russian invasion of Ukraine as been so piss poor, if they've been staging it via having invaded Canada.
:huh:
Quote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 07:13:44 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 18, 2023, 07:07:21 PMNothing 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.
Quote from: mongers on February 18, 2023, 07:48:00 PMThat 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.
Quote from: Gups on February 19, 2023, 01:09:32 AMQuote from: garbon on February 18, 2023, 07:13:44 PMQuote from: DGuller on February 18, 2023, 07:07:21 PMNothing 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.
Quote from: Barrister on February 18, 2023, 05:57:09 PMJos - 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.
QuoteThis 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 03:50:21 AMMuch 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.
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2023, 04:11:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 03:50:21 AMMuch 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.
QuoteIt'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.
QuoteWomen 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.
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.
Quote from: Tamas on February 20, 2023, 04:24:25 AMFair 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...
QuoteWe'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.
QuoteWe 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
On this bit:
QuoteWhy 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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 03:50:21 AMThats 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.
Quote from: DGuller on February 20, 2023, 10:01:42 AMI 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.
Quote from: viper37 on February 20, 2023, 10:57:20 AMA) 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?
Quote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 04:17:08 AMAgain 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
Quote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 11:01:54 AMNobody 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"
QuoteSo 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 11:01:54 AMQuote from: viper37 on February 20, 2023, 10:57:20 AMA) 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.
Quote from: Gups on February 20, 2023, 11:18:02 AMIf 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.
QuoteYou 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 11:01:54 AMNobody 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.
Buy the game or not is not the choice we are faced with. Rather we can say Rowling is not a transphobe and be bad people, or we can agree with something we don't believe is true and be good people.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/P2aij3nURcA
Kicked out of women only gym.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 20, 2023, 04:17:25 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 11:01:54 AMNobody 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.
Buy the game or not is not the choice we are faced with. Rather we can say Rowling is not a transphobe and be bad people, or we can agree with something we don't believe is true and be good people.
Or option 3. No comment. This doesn't interest me.
Quote from: viper37 on February 20, 2023, 12:49:44 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 20, 2023, 11:01:54 AMQuote from: viper37 on February 20, 2023, 10:57:20 AMA) 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.
Except actual data in the UK shows- no it doesn't. There have been precisely 0 incidents since 2004.
I won't comment on Canadian politics as I've no idea there,
Quote from: Gups on February 20, 2023, 11:18:02 AMThis 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.
It emphatically is the case and if you do a bit of research you'd see that.
Why is the law changing the law in Scotland?
1: Primarily politics. Look at how wonderful and progressive Scotland could be/lets draw Labour into a culture war trap they've been trying to avoid.
2: Book keeping. In many ways its just a common sense tidying up of existing laws and legal rulings.
3: The NHS is collapsing and the previous law asks for OTT bureaucracy. There's been several cases of people killing themselves after being stuck on waiting lists for gender dysphoria treatments. I actually probably wouldn't agree with totally removing the medical side but that the previous law is too onerous I don't think anyone could in good faith disagree with.
Key point however- this Scottish law change isn't the issue here. This came long after Rowling endeared herself to the trans community.
When the TERFs talk about how this law allows trans people access to womens spaces they are either.
1: Knowingly lying and trying to decieve.
2: Betraying that they haven't a clue what they're talking about.
QuoteYou 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.
You would agree that cis-women are women yes?
Is it somehow inconsistent with this 'mantra' that there are protections in place to prevent abusive women from gaming the system?
QuoteIf (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?
None.
These safe guards are applied universally.
Abusive lesbians are a thing that exists.
If a man is claiming to be a woman to gain access... well then that's not a trans woman is it?
QuoteFinally, you have have said on several occasions that a majority of women are supportive of self-ID.
No I haven't.
QuoteWhich hate groups does she fund?
The LGB alliance is one I recall.
QuoteI note that you have downgraded your accusation of her views from "transphobic" to "saying hurtful things"
Not really.
"You're such a chodder you have moons"- fatphobic is just the flavour of hurtful.
QuoteYet 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.
Nope. As said this goes back much further .
QuoteThe efficacy of the existing safeguards is not a strong argument for removing them as you seem to think.
Interesting.
You're seeing the current medical safeguards against a person making the wrong decision for themselves as being safeguards of others.
Quote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 05:30:32 AMOr option 3. No comment. This doesn't interest me.
That's a variant of #2.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2023, 10:17:12 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 05:30:32 AMOr option 3. No comment. This doesn't interest me.
That's a variant of #2.
So you accept that this isn't an issue that interests Josq? Despite the vast mountains of evidence to the contrary?
Quote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 05:30:32 AMExcept actual data in the UK shows- no it doesn't. There have been precisely 0 incidents since 2004.
I won't comment on Canadian politics as I've no idea there,
In women's prisons in the UK in the last three years there have be 7 sexual assaults by trans prisoners - 6 as the instigator and 1 as a perpetrator but not the instigator.
However across male and female prisons on average there are around 10 assaults (sexual or otherwise) per year where trans prisoners are the victims.
Quote3: The NHS is collapsing and the previous law asks for OTT bureaucracy. There's been several cases of people killing themselves after being stuck on waiting lists for gender dysphoria treatments. I actually probably wouldn't agree with totally removing the medical side but that the previous law is too onerous I don't think anyone could in good faith disagree with.
This is not relevant to the Scottish law.
There is no requirement whatsoever in UK law for an individual to receive any treatment in relation to their gender.
The current requirements are:
You're over 18;
You've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK (but this is the extent of medical requirements) - as the Gov site makes clear "you can apply even if you have not had any gender affirming surgery or treatments, or you do not plan to have any.")
You've been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years; and
You intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life.
This is subect to approval by a Gender Recognition Panel (technically a judicial tribunal) with civil service support in helping people make applications, and decisions can be appealed. Typically it takes about 3 months to issue a decision and over 90% of applications get approved in the first instance.
Under the Scottish gender recognition reform, the requirements are:
You're over 16;
You've been living in your affirmed gender for three months;
You intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life; and
You have a mandatory three month reflection period after which you must confirm that you want to make the application.
The removal of the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis relates to the intent of de-medicalising trans people, rather than NHS shortage - as it is not requirement for any form of treatment. The other objective is to move from a quasi-judicial process involving an application and a decision, to an administrative process.
There is an entirely separate (and I think quite different) process for people with intersex characteristics. In addition it is not necessary to get a GRC in order to change your name, your identity documents (passport, driving licence), bank details, healthcare details, how you're addressed at work etc - in fact changing those things are probably necessary to acquire evidence that you've lived in your affirmed gender for the last two years. The GRC allows you to change your gender on your birth, death and marriage certificates.
It is also worth saying that in the UK as a whole (stats on this are not devolved - they would be following the Scottish law) relatively few people apply for GRCs. Advocates of reform argue that that is because it is medicalised and quasi-judicial - it is too high a burden. However it has also been argued that it's because it doesn't change much - you do not need a GRC to change your gender in most of your life or to be protected by anti-discrimination or equalities law under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" (an out of date phrase) which is explicitly not related to GRC-status and has been interpreted by the courts very broadly to basically include non-binary as well as trans identities.
Separately there is a wider issue around lack of resourcing and access to specialist care on the NHS - and significant regional variations in approaches and standards of care. But that is entirely separate from the Scottish law or existing law. There is no link whatsoever you are not required to be having any sort of treatment whatsoever and the diagnosis can come from any doctor or clinical psychologist provided they have some experience in working in the field of gender dysphoria.
QuoteKey point however- this Scottish law change isn't the issue here. This came long after Rowling endeared herself to the trans community.
The Scottish law is an adaptation of the gender recognition reform legislation proposed by Theresa May.
The Women and Equalities Select Committee heard a lot of evidence in 2016. Theresa May announced that she would be proposing gender recognition reform in 2017. I think the draft legislation was around 2018-19. The Maya Forstater case was in 2019. The Scottish bill is the latest of an argument around the same issue for the last 6 years.
I think Rowling first commented in 2018/9 according to that Pink News piece. So yes she wasn't directly prompted by the Scottish law but there was a context of proposed changes to UK law and the firing of a woman for gender critical comments on social media (subsequently ruled as unlawful discrimination by the Employment Tribunal).
QuoteIf a man is claiming to be a woman to gain access... well then that's not a trans woman is it?
Right - but how do you identify that, especially if the requirement for a diagnosis is removed from a process that changes your legal sex?
QuoteInteresting.
You're seeing the current medical safeguards against a person making the wrong decision for themselves as being safeguards of others.
I don't think the existing requirement to have evidence of a diagnosis was ever about stopping a person from making the wrong decision.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 21, 2023, 12:19:55 PMIn women's prisons in the UK in the last three years there have be 7 sexual assaults by trans prisoners - 6 as the instigator and 1 as a perpetrator but not the instigator.
This was about women's shelters.
Sounds like the last year has been quite exceptional there as previous prison stats were 5 incidents in 10 years.
QuoteThere is no requirement whatsoever in UK law for an individual to receive any treatment in relation to their gender.
The current requirements are:
You're over 18;
You've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK (but this is the extent of medical requirements)
Right. This is precisely it though. Even just getting that initial diagnosis is apparently quite a nightmare - which given the state of the nhs in general and mental health treatment in particular is no surprise.
QuoteRight - but how do you identify that, especially if the requirement for a diagnosis is removed from a process that changes your legal sex?
This is where sweeping one size fits all laws to just unthinkingly bar trans people show their fundamental flaw.
With something so fluffy and hard to define as who is a woman you're going to need a lot of case by case judgement - hopefully with border cases they'd go for benefit of the doubt but when it's clearly just a guy with a bit of paper....
QuoteI don't think the existing requirement to have evidence of a diagnosis was ever about stopping a person from making the wrong decision.
Under what reasoning?
This is the logic under which any other medical condition is treat. You can't just tell the doctor you're bipolar. You need a diagnosis.
Until you actually provide linked quotes to what Rowling has actually said that makes her transphobic and/or which of her arguments you dispute, I'm out. Further, I simply don't understand what your position is on self-ID which is the main issue that Rowling has been campaigning against. Some of your comments indicate support, while in others you don't think a piece of paper is sufficient and it will be for others to decide whether someone is trans on a case by case basis.
Quote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 01:43:39 PMThis was about women's shelters.
Sounds like the last year has been quite exceptional there as previous prison stats were 5 incidents in 10 years.
That was 2016-19 out of around 100 sexual assaults recorded - I think out of a FOI request.
QuoteRight. This is precisely it though. Even just getting that initial diagnosis is apparently quite a nightmare - which given the state of the nhs in general and mental health treatment in particular is no surprise.
You do not need to get a diagnosis from the specific gender clinics though.
As I say there's a huge problem here and there's two sides to it. One is for adults where there are very long waiting lists but it varies hugely between different NHS trusts from as low as four months to four years. Worth noting the courts have found the waiting lists and failure to meet the government target (18 weeks to first appointment) have been found unlawful so NHS trusts may reorganise on this.
With young people I think the model the NHS adopted was, in retrospect, a mistake - they went for a centralised, centre of excellence model which has been shut down following the Cass Review (which also found some safeguarding issues) - that review is recommending far more of a regionalised approach with multiple clinicians from different expertise working together more. The centre of excellence model led to a a bit silo-ing and may have worked when they were dealing with a few hundred referrals a year but now they get over 2,000 and it's not suitable.
Funding is also key and particularly for mental health.
QuoteThis is where sweeping one size fits all laws to just unthinkingly bar trans people show their fundamental flaw.
With something so fluffy and hard to define as who is a woman you're going to need a lot of case by case judgement - hopefully with border cases they'd go for benefit of the doubt but when it's clearly just a guy with a bit of paper....
Right - but under the proposed Scottish system there is no determination. There is no panel or anyone else to decide on border cases.
It is an administrative process - same person who does birth certificates, death certificates etc. The purpose of the law is to remove the element of any judgement - in part, supporters of the law would argue, because it is demeaning for trans people.
So far you think there needs to be a way of making a judgement and possibly a diagnosis - which is the current system.
QuoteUnder what reasoning?
This is the logic under which any other medical condition is treat. You can't just tell the doctor you're bipolar. You need a diagnosis.
It's not a medical process. You're providing evidence to a judge that you have gender dysphoria to support an application to change your legal sex.
I don't think it's anything to do with stopping someone from making the wrong decision. I think the theory is that it was about providing an objective, evidential basis for an application to change legal sex.
Quote from: Gups on February 21, 2023, 02:02:16 PMUntil you actually provide linked quotes to what Rowling has actually said that makes her transphobic and/or which of her arguments you dispute, I'm out. Further, I simply don't understand what your position is on self-ID which is the main issue that Rowling has been campaigning against. Some of your comments indicate support, while in others you don't think a piece of paper is sufficient and it will be for others to decide whether someone is trans on a case by case basis.
I've posted a summary of the Rowling situation and why she is reviled earlier in the thread. Maybe more than once?
If it were up to me, which it really shouldn't be, I wouldn't have totally gotten rid of the medical diagnosis side of things. I do think speaking to a professional is pretty important and this is a big decision to go into.
That those who know better than me have decided different however doesn't upset me. I can get where if you are trans it is kind of horrible to have to go through a psychologist gate keeper as if you're mentally ill.
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.
I don't think having a piece of paper by itself is enough to do anything. But then it isn't meant to. It's just one small part of helping trans people be who they are and on its own it won't let an obvious man do whatever he wants as if he were a woman.
Quote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 02:27:39 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 02:27:39 PMI've posted a summary of the Rowling situation and why she is reviled earlier in the thread.
Post the fucking tweets. Not a "Summary" you've had 3 pages.
Quote from: chipwich on February 22, 2023, 12:40:46 PMPost the fucking tweets. Not a "Summary" you've had 3 pages.
Use the fucking internet yourself. I googled it and the top hits were all articles with every Rowling tweet and a detailed explanation of why they matter.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-rights-controversy-timeline-b2285947.html
This article is pretty good on verbatim quotes and contexts.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2023, 01:12:19 PMQuote from: chipwich on February 22, 2023, 12:40:46 PMPost the fucking tweets. Not a "Summary" you've had 3 pages.
Use the fucking internet yourself. I googled it and the top hits were all articles with every Rowling tweet and a detailed explanation of why they matter.
None of those tweets are transphobic.
Quote from: chipwich on February 22, 2023, 01:23:55 PMNone of those tweets are transphobic.
I believe that is not universally agreed upon as being the case.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2023, 01:26:41 PMQuote from: chipwich on February 22, 2023, 01:23:55 PMNone 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.
Quote from: chipwich on February 22, 2023, 01:29:27 PMIt does not need to be universally agreed to be the truth.
Indeed. Universal agreement != truth.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2023, 01:26:41 PMQuote from: chipwich on February 22, 2023, 01:23:55 PMNone 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.
Quote from: Gups on February 22, 2023, 04:37:51 PMIt'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.
Quote from: Jacob on February 22, 2023, 05:12:01 PMQuote from: Gups on February 22, 2023, 04:37:51 PMIt'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 .
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 21, 2023, 02:42:15 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 21, 2023, 02:27:39 PMThe 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMUsch, 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?
Quote from: Gups on February 23, 2023, 07:05:05 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMUsch, 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.
QuoteDo 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,.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 07:18:54 AMNo, 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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 23, 2023, 07:35:13 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 07:18:54 AMNo, 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.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 07:18:54 AMQuote from: Gups on February 23, 2023, 07:05:05 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMUsch, 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.
QuoteDo 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?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 23, 2023, 07:35:13 AMI've said before but I still think 99% of complaints in the US about "cancel culture" could be solved by employment rights.
Don't be silly. Americans don't solve problems with worker rights. That's Communism. We solve problems the way God and Jesus intended, with guns.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMGiven 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.
Can you give me an example of this? I generally thought people were just disagreeing with the assessment of Rowling as a transphobe.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2023, 11:11:42 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMGiven 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.
Can you give me an example of this? I generally thought people were just disagreeing with the assessment of Rowling as a transphobe.
Ivan on page 1
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 10:41:59 AMI don't follow your logic. How is that tweet transphobic?
Individually she's accusing stonewall's CEO of saying something they didn't; something which very neatly slots nicely into the mythology terfs have built. Its like if she shouted about being an attack helicopter.
Plus out of all the employment tribunals in the country its one that terfs have made a cause celebre she decides to donate to. Suspect.
More pertinently its just a random part of the overall pattern of behaviour. If it was the only thing she ever said on the topic it wouldn't have been such a huge deal on its own.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 11:38:36 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2023, 11:11:42 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMGiven 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.
Can you give me an example of this? I generally thought people were just disagreeing with the assessment of Rowling as a transphobe.
Ivan on page 1
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 10:41:59 AMI don't follow your logic. How is that tweet transphobic?
Individually she's accusing stonewall's CEO of saying something they didn't; something which very neatly slots nicely into the mythology terfs have built. Its like if she shouted about being an attack helicopter.
Plus out of all the employment tribunals in the country its one that terfs have made a cause celebre she decides to donate to. Suspect.
More pertinently its just a random part of the overall pattern of behaviour. If it was the only thing she ever said on the topic it wouldn't have been such a huge deal on its own.
She is not donating to a tribunal. And it appears what the CEO did or did not say is a matter for the tribunal to decide.
I am not at all sure what raising funds for a fired employee to take on their former employer over allegations of discrimination has to do with transphobia. It would often be viewed as laudable but for the narrative that is being constructed.
The narrative might have some basis in fact, but so far I have not yet seen support for it.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 11:58:19 AMShe is not donating to a tribunal. And it appears what the CEO did or did not say is a matter for the tribunal to decide.
I am not at all sure what raising funds for a fired employee to take on their former employer over allegations of discrimination has to do with transphobia. It would often be viewed as laudable but for the narrative that is being constructed.
The narrative might have some basis in fact, but so far I have not yet seen support for it.
OK, she's not donating to a tribunal. She's donating to someone who has won a tribunal against their employer and decided that isn't enough and they want to sue the country's leading LGBT rights organisation because they're supposedly part of it
(they weren't https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-outcome-allison-bailey-case)
What she is referring to the CEO saying is a few tweets down.
You're getting way too focussed on this one random tweet.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 12:05:03 PMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 11:58:19 AMShe is not donating to a tribunal. And it appears what the CEO did or did not say is a matter for the tribunal to decide.
I am not at all sure what raising funds for a fired employee to take on their former employer over allegations of discrimination has to do with transphobia. It would often be viewed as laudable but for the narrative that is being constructed.
The narrative might have some basis in fact, but so far I have not yet seen support for it.
OK, she's not donating to a tribunal. She's donating to someone who has won a tribunal against their employer and decided that isn't enough and they want to sue the country's leading LGBT rights organisation because they're supposedly part of it
(they weren't https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-outcome-allison-bailey-case)
What she is referring to the CEO saying is a few tweets down.
You're getting way too focussed on this one random tweet.
I am focusing on it because that is the one you presented. If you know of something she has said which earns the term terf you are using, please show us what it is.
No, the tweet you linked to was before the Tribunal hearing had taken place (the Tribunal action was in relation to both her Chambers and Stonewell).
And the CEO did indeed liken the expression of gender critical views to anti-semitism
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57281448
Ms Kelley said while Stonewall believed in freedom of speech, it was "not without limit".
Quote"With all beliefs including controversial beliefs there is a right to express those beliefs publicly and where they're harmful or damaging - whether it's anti-Semitic beliefs, gender critical beliefs, beliefs about disability - we have legal systems that are put in place for people who are harmed by that."
Challenged as to whether it might be considered offensive to compare anti-Semitic beliefs to gender-critical views, she insisted it was appropriate.
"We're talking about protected groups. We're talking about people that are protected on the basis of their sexuality, people that are protected on the basis of gender identity, people who are protected on the basis of race and that's why I think the analogy is apt."
FWIW the Kelley statement does not appear to discussed by the Tribunal, presumably because it was irrelevant to their task. It appears the claim against Stonewall was dismissed because of lack of evidence of inducement by Stonewall. I.e the Chambers may have been motivated to act by its desire to maintain Stonewall's "Diversity Champion" imprimatur, but there wasn't anything specific that Stonewall said or did to cause that result.
Yeah I think the Stonewall claim always seemed a bit speculative to me whenever I read about that case (haven't read the decision).
QuoteNo, the tweet you linked to was before the Tribunal hearing had taken place (the Tribunal action was in relation to both her Chambers and Stonewell).
And the CEO did indeed liken the expression of gender critical views to anti-semitism
I don't see the issue here.
And again. Shows the bad faith of these groups that they're both "gender critical" yet really keen on pushing strict distinctions between gender and sex.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 12:38:40 PMI am focusing on it because that is the one you presented. If you know of something she has said which earns the term terf you are using, please show us what it is.
That's neither possible (it's not any one tweet which did it) nor of interest to me.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 02:45:46 PMI don't see the issue here.
And again. Shows the bad faith of these groups that they're both "gender critical" yet really keen on pushing strict distinctions between gender and sex.
Isn't that the core of the "gender critical" view?
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 23, 2023, 02:48:39 PMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 02:45:46 PMI don't see the issue here.
And again. Shows the bad faith of these groups that they're both "gender critical" yet really keen on pushing strict distinctions between gender and sex.
Isn't that the core of the "gender critical" view?
They claim to not be bigots and that its fine for people to be trans, except of course every single law should be based entirely on sex.... Then at the same time as being really anal when it comes to distinguishing sex and gender they claim gender doesn't exist.
To me it betrays they're not just about women's safety or whatever rational concerns they claim to have. They want trans people erased. They just pretend to be clever about it.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 02:45:46 PMQuoteNo, the tweet you linked to was before the Tribunal hearing had taken place (the Tribunal action was in relation to both her Chambers and Stonewell).
And the CEO did indeed liken the expression of gender critical views to anti-semitism
I don't see the issue here.
And again. Shows the bad faith of these groups that they're both "gender critical" yet really keen on pushing strict distinctions between gender and sex.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 12:38:40 PMI am focusing on it because that is the one you presented. If you know of something she has said which earns the term terf you are using, please show us what it is.
That's neither possible (it's not any one tweet which did it) nor of interest to me.
So basically, you have spent pages on a diatribe, but you can't actually show us any factual basis for your diatribe. Wonderful just wonderful.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 23, 2023, 11:45:41 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 11:38:36 AMIvan on page 1
Gotcha
hardly. I'm identifying that there are raging loons "defending" trans rights for their own nefarious reasons.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on February 24, 2023, 02:26:34 AMhardly. I'm identifying that there are raging loons "defending" trans rights for their own nefarious reasons.
So presumably there are people defending trans rights who you consider to not be loons.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 24, 2023, 12:24:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 02:45:46 PMQuoteNo, the tweet you linked to was before the Tribunal hearing had taken place (the Tribunal action was in relation to both her Chambers and Stonewell).
And the CEO did indeed liken the expression of gender critical views to anti-semitism
I don't see the issue here.
And again. Shows the bad faith of these groups that they're both "gender critical" yet really keen on pushing strict distinctions between gender and sex.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 12:38:40 PMI am focusing on it because that is the one you presented. If you know of something she has said which earns the term terf you are using, please show us what it is.
That's neither possible (it's not any one tweet which did it) nor of interest to me.
So basically, you have spent pages on a diatribe, but you can't actually show us any factual basis for your diatribe. Wonderful just wonderful.
What diatribe?
And I've posted a facts based summary which seems reasonable to me.
Quote from: Josquius on February 24, 2023, 07:24:36 AMQuote from: crazy canuck on February 24, 2023, 12:24:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 02:45:46 PMQuoteNo, the tweet you linked to was before the Tribunal hearing had taken place (the Tribunal action was in relation to both her Chambers and Stonewell).
And the CEO did indeed liken the expression of gender critical views to anti-semitism
I don't see the issue here.
And again. Shows the bad faith of these groups that they're both "gender critical" yet really keen on pushing strict distinctions between gender and sex.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 23, 2023, 12:38:40 PMI am focusing on it because that is the one you presented. If you know of something she has said which earns the term terf you are using, please show us what it is.
That's neither possible (it's not any one tweet which did it) nor of interest to me.
So basically, you have spent pages on a diatribe, but you can't actually show us any factual basis for your diatribe. Wonderful just wonderful.
What diatribe?
And I've posted a facts based summary which seems reasonable to me.
Posting facts is different from posting about a characterization. You have been doing the latter not the former.
To be blunt, you have simply been repeating the accusations that have been made against her, but you seem to have no idea why those allegations might be accurate.
You have been asked many times for examples which demonstrate her transphobia. But all there appears to be is a narrative that she is a transphobe which is endlessly repeated.
I'd add that it is difficult in the UK to claim that Rowling is transphobic, because she is very liberal in her use of libel lawyers.
Pink News is a campaigning media company - but if you look at the article they are very cautious in how they frame and describe Rowling's comments. Unsure if that's unhelpful/impacting accuracy or the care that you should take before accusing anyone of being a bigot.
So one of the reasons you may struggle to find people explaining why Rowling is transphobic - is that in the UK she will sue. American media might have better because they are freer with the term and unfettered by our libel laws.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 24, 2023, 11:31:06 AMI'd add that it is difficult in the UK to claim that Rowling is transphobic, because she is very liberal in her use of libel lawyers.
Pink News is a campaigning media company - but if you look at the article they are very cautious in how they frame and describe Rowling's comments. Unsure if that's unhelpful/impacting accuracy or the care that you should take before accusing anyone of being a bigot.
So one of the reasons you may struggle to find people explaining why Rowling is transphobic - is that in the UK she will sue. American media might have better because they are freer with the term and unfettered by our libel laws.
I am not asking for evidence that others have accused her of being transphobic - that happens every day on the internet. I am asking for the opposite, evidence of something she has actually said from which one could reasonably conclude she is transphobic.
OK, so I skirted around it, but in general I think JK Rowlings views on trans and gender are largely ones I agree with. I think she's chosen her words poorly a couple of times, I don't my views line up with hers 100%, and there's certainly room for legitimate debate on a lot of these issues.
What gets me about the issue is how it's mostly "guilt by association" kind of stuff.
On the wokest left, one must shun Rowling not so much for what she's actually said, but because her words might give comfort and support to actual transphobes. And one must not just personally denounce Rowling, but must boycott anything related to Harry Potter even where the only connection to Rowling is the original IP itself.
And of course yes this dynamic exists on the right also - say anything positive about gay people or trans people and suddenly you're a groomer and a paedophile.
QuoteOK, so I skirted around it, but in general I think JK Rowlings views on trans and gender are largely ones I agree with. I think she's chosen her words poorly a couple of times, I don't my views line up with hers 100%, and there's certainly room for legitimate debate on a lot of these issues.
What gets me about the issue is how it's mostly "guilt by association" kind of stuff.
Guilt by association isn't a totally invalid concept.
Bill Gates met Weinstein that one time- meaningless.
Ted Cruz likes a pornstar on twitter- LOL. But fingers do slip.
Rowling repeatedly actively promotes and donates to transphobic causes- eh......yeah.....there's a bit more to that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 24, 2023, 09:56:45 AMPosting facts is different from posting about a characterization. You have been doing the latter not the former.
To be blunt, you have simply been repeating the accusations that have been made against her, but you seem to have no idea why those allegations might be accurate.
You have been asked many times for examples which demonstrate her transphobia. But all there appears to be is a narrative that she is a transphobe which is endlessly repeated.
And I've posted links to why. Which it seems some people aren't keen to read as they'd rather have a pointless shouting match over individual tweets.
Quote from: Josquius on February 25, 2023, 01:37:14 AMGuilt by association isn't a totally invalid concept.
There is no difference between your thinking and witchcraft accusations in some flyblown African village. It's the exact same mental process.
Quote from: Josquius on February 25, 2023, 01:37:14 AMRowling repeatedly actively promotes and donates to transphobic causes- eh......yeah.....there's a bit more to that.
When did she start doing that, exactly?
Was it before or after she started receiving death threats for insisting a women is a women and not "a person who menstruate" ?
It seems to me her views on bathrooms as some kind of sanctuary for women are somewhat extreme. But, when she gets accused of transphobia for saying gender is a biological construct, she's not the one going too far.
Quote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 07:18:54 AMQuote from: Gups on February 23, 2023, 07:05:05 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 23, 2023, 03:58:13 AMUsch, 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.
QuoteDo 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,.
This is the defense lawyer's page:
https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/06/27/i-am-suing-stonewall-stop-policing-free-speech/
This is the page she referenced where she learnt what was a TERF:
https://terfisaslur.com/
And apparently, questioning this made her a TERF herself.
As Gupta said, she won her case, the tribunal judge her speech not transphobic and she was unlawfully sacked.
JKR helped her get funds to defend her cause. Like many celebrities do with many causes. You call it culture war. Your tribunals call it free speech.
That is still not transphobia from JKR.
Is terf an acronym? Google is failing me.
Trans Exclusive Radical Feminist
obrigado
Quelle prison pour les détenues trans ? (https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2023-02-26/crimes-violents-et-sexuels/quelle-prison-pour-les-detenues-trans.php)
What prison for trans prisoners? (https://www-lapresse-ca.translate.goog/actualites/justice-et-faits-divers/2023-02-26/crimes-violents-et-sexuels/quelle-prison-pour-les-detenues-trans.php?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=fr&_x_tr_hl=fr&_x_tr_pto=wapp)
It's about Canada, and a famous Nova Scotia case where a sexual abuser became trans after his condemnation.
Apparently the UK has a special wing in prison for trans prisoners. It seems like a reasonable compromise.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhldmplWgC4
Trans woman being processed in Las Vegas jail. Segment starts at 10:22.
Quote from: Legbiter on February 25, 2023, 11:53:54 AMQuote from: Josquius on February 25, 2023, 01:37:14 AMGuilt by association isn't a totally invalid concept.
There is no difference between your thinking and witchcraft accusations in some flyblown African village. It's the exact same mental process.
Not in the slightest.
Bigots are real things that exist and its entirely your choice to be or not be one. You don't even have to get out of your chair.
Witches are make believe.
Quote from: viper37 on February 25, 2023, 01:50:06 PMThis is the defense lawyer's page:
https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/06/27/i-am-suing-stonewall-stop-policing-free-speech/
Wow. This is far worse than I thought.
QuoteThis is the page she referenced where she learnt what was a TERF:
https://terfisaslur.com/
And apparently, questioning this made her a TERF herself.
As Gupta said, she won her case, the tribunal judge her speech not transphobic and she was unlawfully sacked.
She didn't.
QuoteJKR helped her get funds to defend her cause. Like many celebrities do with many causes. You call it culture war. Your tribunals call it free speech.
That is still not transphobia from JKR.
Its hard to get more transphobic than trying to sue Stonewall for their position that trans rights need protecting .
QuoteWhen did she start doing that, exactly?
Was it before or after she started receiving death threats for insisting a women is a women and not "a person who menstruate" ?
It seems to me her views on bathrooms as some kind of sanctuary for women are somewhat extreme. But, when she gets accused of transphobia for saying gender is a biological construct, she's not the one going too far.
So, random nutter on twitter says a mean thing to you= its OK to support hate groups that target groups said nutter claims to belong to?
I can think of much, much, much more transphobic things than suing an organization.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 04:44:51 AMI can think of much, much, much more transphobic things than suing an organization.
Figure of speech. Obviously directly killing a trans person whilst screaming anti trans nonsense would come a fair bit higher.
Chasing after Stonewall because you object to the T part of LGBT rights is pretty damn transphobic however.
I don't get the whole "hate group" thing with that organisation. On the surface of it, the argument between them and some seemingly at least as vehement trans organisations seems to be that they are saying "sex and the fact that we are attracted to our own sex is a key part of our identity, and we don't want you to alter our own self-identification to conform to your gender-based identification". Which is apparently unacceptable.
I am going to sound very non-progressive I guess, but one thing that keeps up my skepticism regarding such radical trans-phobic claims by trans organisations/people is that it reminds me of the zero tolerance yelling from radical religious people. And when I encounter it from religious people I always think it is because of their own insecurity/uncertainty in the position they represent. I know it is different with trans people because they have had to suffer a lot over the last, well, two thousand years? But if I see someone aggressively trying to yell somebody into silence, I am instinctively pushed toward the view being aggressively yelled at.
Quote from: Josquius on February 27, 2023, 04:28:51 AMNot in the slightest.
Bigots are real things that exist and its entirely your choice to be or not be one. You don't even have to get out of your chair.
Witches are make believe.
Quote from: viper37 on February 25, 2023, 01:50:06 PMThis is the defense lawyer's page:
https://womansplaceuk.org/2020/06/27/i-am-suing-stonewall-stop-policing-free-speech/
Wow. This is far worse than I thought.
You know what, I actually agree that there are several uncalled-for generalisations there that are seriously off-putting, and she does seem to be using hearsay and isolated examples to describe all trans people.
But the generic point of many trans activist coming off as aggressive seems valid, as I guess my previous point shows.
Quote from: Tamas on February 27, 2023, 05:46:16 AMI don't get the whole "hate group" thing with that organisation. On the surface of it, the argument between them and some seemingly at least as vehement trans organisations seems to be that they are saying "sex and the fact that we are attracted to our own sex is a key part of our identity, and we don't want you to alter our own self-identification to conform to your gender-based identification". Which is apparently unacceptable.
I am going to sound very non-progressive I guess, but one thing that keeps up my skepticism regarding such radical trans-phobic claims by trans organisations/people is that it reminds me of the zero tolerance yelling from radical religious people. And when I encounter it from religious people I always think it is because of their own insecurity/uncertainty in the position they represent. I know it is different with trans people because they have had to suffer a lot over the last, well, two thousand years? But if I see someone aggressively trying to yell somebody into silence, I am instinctively pushed toward the view being aggressively yelled at.
The entire reason for their existence isn't to protect LGB people, its specifically to push to exclude T people.
If protecting LGB people was the primary aim, there's plenty of organisations covering this. Stonewall for instance, who they're throwing vast sums at attacking.
Nobody wants to force non trans people to be trans.
I have the same logic and its why I support trans people.
Quote from: Josquius on February 27, 2023, 04:28:51 AMShe didn't.
She won.
The decision follows the Maya Forstater case. The point is that under UK law you cannot be fired for a philosophical belief. There are tests around that - whether the belief is genuinely held, does it relate to a substantial aspect of human life, is it cogent and serious and is that belief worthy of respect in a democratic society and does not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.
Forstater had already said that the core gender critical belief was covered under the Equality Act as a belief. That is that sex is real and an observable, biological fact, while gender is a subjective identity: "immeasurable, unobservable and with no objective basis". Bailey's case expanded that quite broadly to a whole other set of other beliefs.
At a high level, the courts have a relatively low bar for what constitutes a belief or philosophy which can be protected from discrimination by the Equality Act. That protection is restricted if it results in unwanted conduct towards another person - for example, you could be fired for misgendering or discriminating against a trans person. So I think US-style language that someone's beliefs or speech outside of work made them feel "unsafe" gestures towards that, but it seems that UK courts would require some act within an employment context to consider that clash of rights and freedoms. Merely holding the opinion or expressing the opinion in another setting is not enough to conflict with the rights of a trans person (obviously expressing it to them - especially repeatedly - would likely constitute harassment).
UK courts have also decided that those very broad gender critical views (unlike hate speech) are "worthy of respect in a democratic society" - and they're otherwise cogent, substantial etc.
She didn't win on every specific claim against her chambers - and she failed in claiming that Stonewall had "induced, instructed or caused" that discrimination. I don't know that area but that always felt a little speculative. But I think the core of the case was discrimination by her chambers which she won and also expanded what is protected speech/belief under the Equality Act.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 07:01:22 AMShe won.
She didn't win on every specific claim against her chambers - and she failed in claiming that Stonewall had "induced, instructed or caused" that discrimination. I don't know that area but that always felt a little speculative. But I think the core of the case was discrimination by her chambers which she won and also expanded what is protected speech/belief under the Equality Act.
Which is what we're talking about here. She didn't win.
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-outcome-allison-bailey-case
Quote from: Josquius on February 27, 2023, 07:04:03 AMWhich is what we're talking about here. She didn't win.
https://www.stonewall.org.uk/about-us/news/stonewall-statement-outcome-allison-bailey-case
Stonewall have every right to be happy. Their schemes and their advice do not constitute "inducing" or "instructing" employers on how to behave so they are not liable for what employers do.
However a very broad definition of gender critical beliefs are protected under the Equality Act, particularly in these cases from employers.
My point is that the Stonewall bit of case is secondary and peripheral. On the core issue, Bailey won - she was unlawfully discriminated against on the basis of her beliefs. Those (very broad) gender critical beliefs are legally protected in the UK.
Quote from: Josquius on February 27, 2023, 04:28:51 AMSo, random nutter on twitter says a mean thing to you= its OK to support hate groups that target groups said nutter claims to belong to?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allison_Bailey
Quoten December 2021, it was reported that a judge ruled against Stonewall and Garden Court to allow an amendment of the discrimination claim to include arguments based on the ground of philosophical belief, as allowed in the case of Maya Forstater v Centre for Global Development.[16]
The hearing of Bailey's tribunal case began on 25 April 2022, considering a number of claims against Garden Court Chambers and against Stonewall.[17] The tribunal's decision was published in July 2022. In terms of the claims against Garden Court Chambers, the tribunal ruled in favour of her claim that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her by tweeting that complaints against her tweets would be investigated. It also ruled in favour of her claims that Garden Court Chambers had discriminated against her and victimised her by concluding in that investigation that two of her tweets had potentially breached the core duties of barristers. One of the tweets was about the concept of a "cotton ceiling" and the other regarded her belief that Stonewall has a dangerous agenda regarding gender self-identification.[15] She was consequentially awarded £22,000 in damages for injury to feelings.[18] The tribunal ruled against her other claims against Garden Court Chambers, ruling that she had not lost income or work opportunities due to the complaints, nor that that Garden Court Chambers had a systemic policy of treating gender-critical beliefs as bigoted. The tribunal ruled against all her claims against Stonewall, ruling that Stonewall did not influence the complaints procedure or the policies of Garden Court Chambers.[19][20] Bailey is appealing the ruling on the claims against Stonewall. [21]
Seems to me like she won a large part of her case.
Whether she won depends on the objectives. She was awarded 22K for "injury to feelings" but did not get any lost income or work opportunity damages - which I assume would be the bigger part of the damages claim. If I were representing Chambers, I would feel pretty good about that result, other than the bad publicity, which was locked in anyways.
The relevant part we're talking about isn't the tribunal vs her employer. Its the attempt to sue Stonewall. Which failed.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on February 27, 2023, 09:59:38 AMWhether she won depends on the objectives. She was awarded 22K for "injury to feelings" but did not get any lost income or work opportunity damages - which I assume would be the bigger part of the damages claim. If I were representing Chambers, I would feel pretty good about that result, other than the bad publicity, which was locked in anyways.
This is fair.
I should say the reason I think she "won" is because I think her primary objective was not a standard employment/discrimination case, but as an activist who set up LGB Alliance and was running sites like that one about suing Stonewall. I think she wanted the declaration on the Equality Act and the precedent that a very broad definition gender critical beliefs are protected by UK law, which is far more expansive than the Forstater case.
It's why I also suspect - and I could be wrong - that the main reason she was also suing Stonewall was partly attention but also disclosure. I think it was more of a strategic/activist litigation than a standard employment claim.
If it was a normal claim and she was "genuinely" suing for discrimination then I'd agree.
Stonewall also did suffer a huge reputational hit since then.
There's a curious podcast on this: The Witch Trials of JK Rowling.
It came out last week, and first two episodes have dropped. It features extensive interviews with Rowling herself.
First episode is Rowling's history - that she was a single mom fleeing an abusive relationship while she wrote the first HP book. I knew a little about this, but certainly gives a lot more detail than I had ever known about Rowling.
Second episode is all about the attempts to "cancel" the HP books... in the 1990s by religious conservatives.
The host is someone who grew up in the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. So you can sort of see where they're going with this.
But only 2 episodes released so far, and they haven't gotten into the "trans stuff" yet in any substance. It'll be good to get Rowling's perspective on the controversy, but I do hope they give a good faith hearing to the anti-Rowling argument.
The whole podcast is done by Bari Weiss's organization Free Press - which again is enough to utterly dismiss it by some, but I've never found Weiss to be a polemicist.
Quote from: Josquius on February 27, 2023, 05:40:01 AMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 04:44:51 AMI can think of much, much, much more transphobic things than suing an organization.
Figure of speech. Obviously directly killing a trans person whilst screaming anti trans nonsense would come a fair bit higher.
Chasing after Stonewall because you object to the T part of LGBT rights is pretty damn transphobic however.
Which isn't what she did. She sued Stonewell for writing directly to her employer asking her to be sacked because of her position on gender. She lost because the communication didn't reach the person(s) who made the decision but others in the organisation.
Is Rowling a lesbian?
No.
Quote from: garbon on February 27, 2023, 10:29:42 AMStonewall also did suffer a huge reputational hit since then.
Partky because of that and particularly the refusal of Stonewall's Head of Trans Inclusion refused to give evidence unless he was accompanied by a support worker, his mother and his dog.
Partly because of the Nolan Investigates series which led to a lot of organisation ending their participation in Stonewall's Workplace Equality Index (which is a major source of their revenue).
Yeah I'd add on the WEI that I was in a company that was part of that (and on the LGBT+ committee that ran our submission). We scored very well for many years and ended up pausing working with Stonewall.
It was before that and it wasn't really to do with the substance of trans issues either - this was maybe 6-7 years ago before there was much controversy.
But there was just from one year to the next a huge shift in what Stonewall said was "good practice" and how they were assessing employers. We paused working with them mainly because we felt we could spend that money on building up an internal DEI function. But part of what you pay for if you are joining Stonewall as a company is a Stonewall rep who is supposed to help keep you informed/aware of good practice etc - in practice in our experience they changed every year, you'd chase a lot and you'd basically only hear from them to collect your dues and give feedback on your submission. It was not a helpful body to engage with. My understanding is about 10-15 years ago they were really responsive and helpful.
And it came to a head because we were refreshing loads of policies for tras and non-binary inclusion and asked if they had any advice/guidance/good practice and they just didn't get back to us. It was really, really frustrating. My impression is there's a lot of churn at a junior to mid level and from someone who used to work there, the pay is dreadful except for the people at the top. It did leave me a little dubious of a lot of the more "corporate" charity/campaign sector (especially ones that make money from companies).
Edit: And, of course, from their perspective I imagine many of the people who join are young, idealistic and probably on the left and then end up managing the Lockheed Martin DEI account :lol: :bleeding:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 01:12:05 PMIs Rowling a lesbian?
No. After leaving her abusive husband with her young daughter back in the 90s, she is now seemingly happily married and with more children.
And while the "trans exclusionary" part is debated, and "radical" is kind of a pejorative, she very definitely considers herself a feminist.
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2023, 01:27:26 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 01:12:05 PMIs Rowling a lesbian?
No. After leaving her abusive husband with her young daughter back in the 90s, she is now seemingly happily married and with more children.
And while the "trans exclusionary" part is debated, and "radical" is kind of a pejorative, she very definitely considers herself a feminist.
I think it can be fairly said that not only does she consider herself a feminist, she is a feminist.
I've said it before but I think it is a real difference between the US and UK on this. The loudest voices on this in the UK are actual feminists (radical or not) and not either just conservative religious folks or the Phyllis Schlafly style activist. And I don't just think they're astro-turfed by the far-right - many have long years doing activism in feminist and lesbian groups.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:04:35 PMAnd I don't just think they're astro-turfed by the far-right
wut?
It's a common accusation.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 02:06:56 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:04:35 PMAnd I don't just think they're astro-turfed by the far-right
wut?
"astro-turfed" refers to organizations trying to look like a grassroots organization, but are actually just a PR firm or activist group.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:04:35 PMI've said it before but I think it is a real difference between the US and UK on this. The loudest voices on this in the UK are actual feminists (radical or not) and not either just conservative religious folks or the Phyllis Schlafly style activist. And I don't just think they're astro-turfed by the far-right - many have long years doing activism in feminist and lesbian groups.
I am not sure the difference is so significant, a lot of feminists I know hold very similar views (on both sides of the border). But they do not get the press or social media blowback of a celebrity feminist like Rowling.
As one data point, BB has already mentioned a human rights case that was adjudicated in BC, in which a trans women complained that she was discriminated against because a beauty salon refused to accept her as a client because they did not have staff who had the training to wax her male genitalia - the beauty salon won the case. The reaction from my feminist friends was that they were relieved the law was not an ass in this instance.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:04:35 PMI've said it before but I think it is a real difference between the US and UK on this. The loudest voices on this in the UK are actual feminists (radical or not) and not either just conservative religious folks or the Phyllis Schlafly style activist. And I don't just think they're astro-turfed by the far-right - many have long years doing activism in feminist and lesbian groups.
Yeah they are true misandrists that are afraid of trans-women as threatening forces of violence and sexual abuse. It is transphobia in the most literal sense.
Do they also have an issue with transmen or gender fluid types? It always seems like the fury is almost entirely on the evil transwomen trying to do dastardly deeds. In the US there is also the idea that people are grooming the girls to reject their gender as well, in more of a "protect the children!" thing more than a fear of rampaging transmen doing evil things.
Quote from: crazy canuck on February 27, 2023, 02:12:29 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:04:35 PMI've said it before but I think it is a real difference between the US and UK on this. The loudest voices on this in the UK are actual feminists (radical or not) and not either just conservative religious folks or the Phyllis Schlafly style activist. And I don't just think they're astro-turfed by the far-right - many have long years doing activism in feminist and lesbian groups.
I am not sure the difference is so significant, a lot of feminists I know hold very similar views (on both sides of the border). But they do not get the press or social media blowback of a celebrity feminist like Rowling.
Rowling was a hero to the younger generation, for one. The generation that is most supportive of trans people. The olds were not as big Harry Potter fans, and that is the group who most align with her way of thinking. Most young people have never heard of most big feminists from back in the day. Secondly Rowling gets into it on twitter all the time. She is making an effort to position herself as a figurehead leader of this movement, either unintentionally or not. I am sure other celebrity feminists out there agree with her, they just don't put themselves out there as much.
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2023, 02:11:06 PM"astro-turfed" refers to organizations trying to look like a grassroots organization, but are actually just a PR firm or activist group.
10-4
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2023, 02:15:26 PMDo they also have an issue with transmen or gender fluid types? It always seems like the fury is almost entirely on the evil transwomen trying to do dastardly deeds. In the US there is also the idea that people are grooming the girls to reject their gender as well, in more of a "protect the children!" thing more than a fear of rampaging transmen doing evil things.
As I say here it is focused on single sex spaces like rape crisis centres, prisons, domestic violence shelters. It's true not all men, but 99% of the reason women need those spaces is because of men.
Their position is that single sex spaces exist and are protected in law because the overwhelming risk to women is from men. Following that they think that self-ID (without the sort of safeguards in current gender recognition laws) would allow abusive men to tak advantage of those laws in order to gain access to other victims. The big story that has shaped how people are talking about this in the last few months has been a double rapist announcing that they were transitioning after they were charged and the prospect that they might be placed in a female prison.
There is also a specific complaint you see with, for example Bailey or other lesbian campaigners that in effect same-sex desire/their interpretation of their lesbian identity is being erased in replacing biological sex with gender identity.
I think transmen face less opprobrium (except in the context of trans kids where there is a different issue) - in part I think that's ultimately because biological women are less of a threat to men in general or statistically.
QuoteI am not sure the difference is so significant, a lot of feminists I know hold very similar views (on both sides of the border). But they do not get the press or social media blowback of a celebrity feminist like Rowling.
True I just don't see much of the Matt Walsh crisis of masculinity/men need to be men and women need to get back in the kitchen stuff here.
It's interesting to me that there is so little controversy around non-binaries, which is the gender identity I least understand.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:35:19 PMAs I say here it is focused on single sex spaces like rape crisis centres, prisons, domestic violence shelters. It's true not all men, but 99% of the reason women need those spaces is because of men.
Their position is that single sex spaces exist and are protected in law because the overwhelming risk to women is from men. Following that they think that self-ID (without the sort of safeguards in current gender recognition laws) would allow abusive men to tak advantage of those laws in order to gain access to other victims. The big story that has shaped how people are talking about this in the last few months has been a double rapist announcing that they were transitioning after they were charged and the prospect that they might be placed in a female prison.
There is also a specific complaint you see with, for example Bailey or other lesbian campaigners that in effect same-sex desire/their interpretation of their lesbian identity is being erased in replacing biological sex with gender identity.
I think transmen face less opprobrium (except in the context of trans kids where there is a different issue) - in part I think that's ultimately because biological women are less of a threat to men in general or statistically.
Or even if they were a threat to biological men the feminists would not be the ones to be upset about it. I was wondering if the feminists specifically had a problem with it.
The Lesbian thing is interesting. I mean there is no requirement as a Lesbian to be attracted to ALL women. Is she concerned that Lesbians whose partner becomes a transman could then be straight? Or their partner becomes gender-fluid so now she must either become pansexual? I don't get the problem. It is not like the existence of transwomen means all heterosexual men must therefore want to bang them.
As far as the sex protected safe space thing the only one I see as relevant is prisons. Since you are literally a captive audience. However there are already really violent and abusive women in prison. And from what I understand there are less than 10 transwomen in the entire UK prison system. If we are talking about a single digit number of people we can probably handle each one on a case by base basis. A dangerous rapist transwoman can be handled similarly to a dangerous rapist any other type of prisoner. A double rapist suddenly declaring she is a woman seems like it can be handled on an individual common sense basis.
Besides who suffers more violence and sexual abuse on a per capita basis? cis woman or trans people? We are just going to send a transwoman into a male prison?
And what about big masculine transmen? They should go to a female prison?
Again we are talking about a tiny population. It is not like hundreds of these people are going to be let loose on the prison population. If somebody is considered a danger to the other prisoners, surely there should already be steps in place.
As far as things like shelters and bathrooms I don't know. If you are the kind of man who would enter one of those spaces just to rape somebody (and frankly that seems like the worst possible places to do that) why would the fact that they are protected by law do anything to stop you? You already have no issue breaking the law.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 02:41:49 PMIt's interesting to me that there is so little controversy around non-binaries, which is the gender identity I least understand.
There's nothing to understand. It's just gibberish.
Quote from: chipwich on February 27, 2023, 03:43:22 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 02:41:49 PMIt's interesting to me that there is so little controversy around non-binaries, which is the gender identity I least understand.
There's nothing to understand. It's just gibberish.
Why do you lead with such language?
NBs reject (or don't personally accept) the idea of gender. To the extent they want to dress ambiguously, use non-gendered pronouns, etc. then why is it anyone's concern? If someone wants to call themselves "non-binary" then let them.
To the extent that want to use services for the gender different than their birth gender, whether it be bathrooms, salons, shelters, or whatever, then it's the same issues you have with trans people.
(There's been a couple of really fringe cases where an NB child wants to go on puberty blockers essentially forever, and whether medically that is a good idea as those drugs has quite serious side effects, but again the medical system has long dealt with people whose medical choices seem objectively stupid)
Quote from: Barrister on February 27, 2023, 01:27:26 PMAnd while the "trans exclusionary" part is debated, and "radical" is kind of a pejorative, she very definitely considers herself a feminist.
IIRC, when TERF was first coined - or at least when I frist came across it - the "radical" part was very much not a perjorative. It was self-proclaimed radical feminists - and who used that radical label to position themselves as "the real feminists" rejecting patriarchal institutions and ideas.
While "radical feminist" is typically wielded as a perjorative right of centre, it's not necessarily so among feminists. I've known plenty of self-proclaimed radical feminists (though to be fair, prior to trans issues being current).
So I think in the context of the coining of the term TERF, radical was not a perjorative but an accurate description... though that doesn't preclude drift in usage since then.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:35:19 PMAs I say here it is focused on single sex spaces like rape crisis centres, prisons, domestic violence shelters. It's true not all men, but 99% of the reason women need those spaces is because of men.
What are their thoughts on where trans women rape and domestic violence victims should go for help, if they can't access services intended for women?
Quote from: Jacob on February 27, 2023, 05:16:50 PMQuote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 02:35:19 PMAs I say here it is focused on single sex spaces like rape crisis centres, prisons, domestic violence shelters. It's true not all men, but 99% of the reason women need those spaces is because of men.
What are their thoughts on where trans women rape and domestic violence victims should go for help, if they can't access services intended for women?
From my understanding they don't mind if centres make those decisions and my understanding is the majority of those centres do accept trans victims.
But they believe centres should be legally allowed to be single (biological) sex.
I was writing something really long and complicated - because our equality laws are incredibly complex and interlocking.
But it basically boils down to the meaning of sex and whether you are able to discriminate on the basis of sex. In the UK you can discriminate on the basis of sex in certain circumstances (you need good reasons that you can objectively justify) to provide certain single sex services or spaces. Courts have recently confirmed that a gender recognition certificate can change your legal sex.
If you believe, as "gender critical" feminists/"TERFs" do that sex is a biological fact with social implications (structured by a patriarchal and misogynist society) then as well as someone with a GRC not being able to be exluded on the basis of sex, but also the entire idea that you have objectively good reasons in the basis of the needs and rights of men and women to allow for single-sex services/spaces fall away. I'd note that on a purely technical drafting issue it also makes the protected characteristic of sexual orientation a bit weird because that means sexual orientation towards "persons of the same sex, persons of the opposite sex or persons of either sex" - if sex means legal sex, then they are in terms of biological sex, all the same. Which I don't think quite works.
It all kicked off in the UK because of changes to gender recognition to make it easier to get a GRC so easier to change your legal sex.
In a cards on the table style as with BBoy - I don't agree with the "gender critical" view on GRCs or gender recognition reform.
But I think the way gender recognition (especially following recent court cases) and gender recognition certificates interact with equalities law is really complex and it needs a broader review. I don't think gender recognition reform can happen without that review of equalities law in parallel.
I think the position of trans rights activists that it doesn't have any impact on equalities law is factually wrong (and the Scottish government inserting a clause in their bill that basically says their changes to law doesn't impact equalities law is legally nonsense).
Quote from: chipwich on February 27, 2023, 03:43:22 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 02:41:49 PMIt's interesting to me that there is so little controversy around non-binaries, which is the gender identity I least understand.
There's nothing to understand. It's just gibberish.
Well most things are gibberish. I don't really need to understand it beyond whatever they want from me. Which generally seems to be referring to them by their new name and using "they" when referring to them. I have two such people in my life now.
Which, I have to say, is harder than one would think. I mean we already use "they" as a singular in some cases already but it is weird as hell using it as a singular in all cases.
But hey no big deal.
Quote from: Sheilbh on February 27, 2023, 06:07:30 PMFrom my understanding they don't mind if centres make those decisions and my understanding is the majority of those centres do accept trans victims.
But they believe centres should be legally allowed to be single (biological) sex.
Are they not allowed to do that? Incredible. We have state governments saying it is illegal to NOT do that.
Quote from: Valmy on February 27, 2023, 06:36:54 PMAre they not allowed to do that? Incredible. We have state governments saying it is illegal to NOT do that.
They are legally allowed to do that now.
It is not clear what that means following recent rulings that GRC certificate = changes your legal sex - and it's in the context of proposals to make it easier to get a GRC.
Quote from: Jacob on February 27, 2023, 05:16:50 PMWhat are their thoughts on where trans women rape and domestic violence victims should go for help, if they can't access services intended for women?
What are the thoughts of trans advocates on where cis rape and domestic violence victims should go if they feel threatened by the presence of biological men?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on February 27, 2023, 11:20:01 PMQuote from: Jacob on February 27, 2023, 05:16:50 PMWhat are their thoughts on where trans women rape and domestic violence victims should go for help, if they can't access services intended for women?
What are the thoughts of trans advocates on where cis rape and domestic violence victims should go if they feel threatened by the presence of biological men?
Ok well I am going to go back to my experience as a child care worker here.
Well what are the thoughts of you when young children are abused their mothers? They feel threatened by women and act out, sure. Of course they do. But dealing with that is part of their recovery from their abuse. At no point are they isolated from all women, which you have to admit would be pretty challenging since the overwhelming majority of social workers are women. We work to get the child to understand that yes this person abused them but that doesn't mean all people who resemble that person are their abuser.
It seems weird to me that grown adults should receive this when literal children are expected to differentiate between their abuser and others who resemble them. Shouldn't the adults be capable of things children are expected to do?
Back to JK Rowling: here's an article summing up her transphobia:
https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy
I note a lot of it is based on things she's liked on Twitter. Some of it are comments that have already been mentioned here.
But I was amused atthe final paragraph:
QuoteJanuary 2023: Rowling tweets that she is "Deeply amused by those telling me I've lost their admiration due to the disrespect I show violent, duplicitous rapists." The most immediate context for this comment is presumably both the backlash to Hogwarts Legacy and the ongoing backlash over Rowling's views writ large regarding trans women being dangerous predators. So a reasonable implication of Rowling's words seems to be that she considers trans women, by default, to be "violent, duplicitous rapists."
I'm going to suggest that is not in fact a reasonable implication of Rowling's words.
I think the whole backlash over the PC game thing is revealing of opinion bubbles because I am not seeing it anywhere.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2022/06/03/helen-joyce-transgender-lgbtq/
This was one of the earlier embedded links in Beeb's linked article.
"And in the meantime, while we're trying to get through to the decision-makers, we have to try to limit the harm and that means reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition," Joyce said.
"That's for two reasons – one of them is that every one of those people is a person who's been damaged. But the second one is every one of those people is basically, you know, a huge problem to a sane world."
Joyce continued: "If you've got people – whether they're transitioned, whether they're happily transitioned, whether they're unhappily transitioned, whether they're detransitioned – if you've got people who've dissociated from their sex in some way, every one of those people is someone who needs special accommodation in a sane world where we re-acknowledge the truth of sex."
This is troubling to me as a defender of Rowling against the charge of transphobia.
But what's the connection with Rowling?
The article says they are "friends". It doesn't source that claim.
Best I can find on google is that Rowling once hosted a lunch for a bunch of "gender critical" women, and Helen Joyce was one of the attendees.
I don't think you can then attribute any/all of Joyce's views to Rowling.
But a lot of that article was similar kinds of "guilty by association", or "guilty by social media like".
Well that diminishes the troubling part for me.
I was too lazy to tab back and forth to get the quote and then check the relationship/connection in the main article.
I think liking a tweet that demonstrates ill will does mean a certain amount of guilt.
FWIW....I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday and it was full capacity and has been since its start, and just got extended into the summer. So any Rowling boycott backlash is clearly unfounded.
Ironically, two millennial types, behind me. Guy to girl: Rowling will never make another penny in her life.
Said, without irony as they probably paid over two hundred bucks for tickets.
That's 200 Canadian, right?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 05:58:16 PMThat's 200 Canadian, right?
Quote from: Josephus on March 03, 2023, 05:47:19 PMFWIW....I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday and it was full capacity and has been since its start, and just got extended into the summer. So any Rowling boycott backlash is clearly unfounded.
Ironically, two millennial types, behind me. Guy to girl: Rowling will never make another penny in her life.
Said, without irony as they probably paid over two hundred bucks for tickets.
That reminds me of the time I went to see The Wolf of Wall Street at the cinema. It was a great film with an obvious unlikable protagonist. Unfortunately I saw in the credits that it was basically a film adaptation of his story that he wrote so definitely felt
that I had contributed to increasing his fortune in some small way which made me feel a bit used / guilty about it afterwards.
Quote from: PJL on March 03, 2023, 06:06:58 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 03, 2023, 05:58:16 PMThat's 200 Canadian, right?
Quote from: Josephus on March 03, 2023, 05:47:19 PMFWIW....I went to see Harry Potter and the Cursed Child yesterday and it was full capacity and has been since its start, and just got extended into the summer. So any Rowling boycott backlash is clearly unfounded.
Ironically, two millennial types, behind me. Guy to girl: Rowling will never make another penny in her life.
Said, without irony as they probably paid over two hundred bucks for tickets.
That reminds me of the time I went to see The Wolf of Wall Street at the cinema. It was a great film with an obvious unlikable protagonist. Unfortunately I saw in the credits that it was basically a film adaptation of his story that he wrote so definitely felt
that I had contributed to increasing his fortune in some small way which made me feel a bit used / guilty about it afterwards.
I think you should feel guiltier about the financier of the movie stealing the money from Malaysian pension funds :P
Quote from: Barrister on March 03, 2023, 03:38:37 PMBut I was amused atthe final paragraph:
QuoteJanuary 2023: Rowling tweets that she is "Deeply amused by those telling me I've lost their admiration due to the disrespect I show violent, duplicitous rapists." The most immediate context for this comment is presumably both the backlash to Hogwarts Legacy and the ongoing backlash over Rowling's views writ large regarding trans women being dangerous predators. So a reasonable implication of Rowling's words seems to be that she considers trans women, by default, to be "violent, duplicitous rapists."
I'm going to suggest that is not in fact a reasonable implication of Rowling's words.
Also I've mentioned the story before, but in January 2023 the Isla Bryson story was happening - which was absolutely massive here (particularly in Scotland where Rowling lives because it very quickly followed the SNP government gender recognition reform).
That was - as I've mentioned before - the story of a double rapist. Before they were charged they began living as a trans woman. They tried to access a woman only self-defence course offered to survivors of domestic or sexual violence. They were subsequently convicted of both rapes and, initially, placed in a solitary unit but in a women's prison.
There was a complaint that some of the media were misgendering and deadnaming Isla Bryson over it. I'm using gender neutral because I don't want to misgender but at the same time I'm not convinced Isla Bryson is a legit transwoman. This was when Sturgeon was pushed on this following Scottish reform and she responded that "she regards herself as a woman. I regard the individual as a rapist."
It seems obvious to me that in January 2023 - that story is what Rowling is referring to. Similarly the first direct link (liking someone's tweet) was in the exact same month that Theresa May announced her proposed reform to gender recognition procedures. It seems to be missing the context of what was actually happening where JK Rowling lives. Social media flattens things so you don't ever know the context but with at least a couple of those examples it seems like there's either deliberate incuriousity about it or just an assumption that the entire world's use of social media is actually best understood through the prism of what's happening in America :lol:
Edit: And the suggestion that the "most immediate context for this comment is presumably both the backlash to Hogwarts Legacy and the ongoing backlash over Rowling's views writ large regarding trans women being dangerous predators" is incredible.
Ep 4 of "Witch Trials of JK Rowling" dropped.
They finally got to the "trans stuff".
I had hoped they would interview some trans activists to give that perspective, but no. Now it's quite possible that no trans activist would go on a show to discuss JK Rowling - that she's simply beyond the pale - but it is to the detriment of the podcast as a whole. The host and some of the guests did try to give a good-faith attempt to summarize the trans right activist position, but yes this series is primarily a defence of Rowling.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2023, 04:59:45 PMEp 4 of "Witch Trials of JK Rowling" dropped.
They finally got to the "trans stuff".
I had hoped they would interview some trans activists to give that perspective, but no. Now it's quite possible that no trans activist would go on a show to discuss JK Rowling - that she's simply beyond the pale - but it is to the detriment of the podcast as a whole. The host and some of the guests did try to give a good-faith attempt to summarize the trans right activist position, but yes this series is primarily a defence of Rowling.
Huh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2023, 05:07:11 PMHuh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.
This is one that's interviewing her extensively and called "The Trials of JK Rowling".
I think I read an activist on Twitter who said they did speak to this, weren't aware what type of project it would be and hugely regret it etc (although that was before it came out).
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 07, 2023, 05:08:55 PMQuote from: Valmy on March 07, 2023, 05:07:11 PMHuh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.
This is one that's interviewing her extensively and called "The Trials of JK Rowling".
I think I read an activist on Twitter who said they did speak to this, weren't aware what type of project it would be and hugely regret it etc (although that was before it came out).
I think there was a brief bit with an activist in an early episode - perhaps that interview will be played in more length later on.
So far the only trans person that's been interviewed is Dr. Erica Anderson, who is a psychologist and does gender clinic work, but is a controversial figure in trans activist circles as she has doubts about the current state of youth transitions.
Quote from: Valmy on March 07, 2023, 05:07:11 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 07, 2023, 04:59:45 PMEp 4 of "Witch Trials of JK Rowling" dropped.
They finally got to the "trans stuff".
I had hoped they would interview some trans activists to give that perspective, but no. Now it's quite possible that no trans activist would go on a show to discuss JK Rowling - that she's simply beyond the pale - but it is to the detriment of the podcast as a whole. The host and some of the guests did try to give a good-faith attempt to summarize the trans right activist position, but yes this series is primarily a defence of Rowling.
Huh? I haven't noticed this inability of people who criticize JK Rowling from talking about her on shows before.
OK, so this is from Rowling herself in the podcast. Supposedly one of the slogans often used (I don't think I've heard it myself) is "no debate" - that rights for trans people are not up for debate, period. Which she disagrees with as you might expect.
Podcast host does point out that there are some issues that we, as a society, have decided are not up for debate. You're not going to get very far trying to debate whether the holocaust happened, or trying to argue the genetic inferiority of non-white races. But I don't think we have that kind of societal near-consensus on all trans issues.
And you can see this attitude from one of our posters (I think it was in TBR so I won't name names) that trans women are women, and that's all that needs to be said.
The trouble I see there is just what are you wanting to debate.
Trans women are women and there is no room for debate on this fact is absolutely the case.
But do you think this means anyone who claims to be trans must be taken totally at face value?
Is the debate you want to have about fringe cases like how trans criminals are dealt with?
Is it about the eternal struggle of sports governing bodies to determine who is a woman?
That trans rights are not up for debate I would say in the view of most progressive people means their fundamental rights. They have the right to exist and live their lives as women.
When you get people speaking about trans rights as a debate it has huge connotations of stuff like "the Jewish question".
This is not to say however there's not room for discussion around more specific fringe issues and how exactly to reach a conclusion that is better for all.
Again however even here there is a huge tendency for people to stomp into these questions presenting them as the trans debate whit large and very often with goals that absolutely do not consider the wellbeing of trans people.
Quote from: Josquius on March 07, 2023, 05:51:12 PMThe trouble I see there is just what are you wanting to debate.
Trans women are women and there is no room for debate on this fact is absolutely the case.
But do you think this means anyone who claims to be trans must be taken totally at face value?
Is the debate you want to have about fringe cases like how trans criminals are dealt with?
Is it about the eternal struggle of sports governing bodies to determine who is a woman?
That trans rights are not up for debate I would say in the view of most progressive people means their fundamental rights. They have the right to exist and live their lives as women.
When you get people speaking about trans rights as a debate it has huge connotations of stuff like "the Jewish question".
This is not to say however there's not room for discussion around more specific fringe issues and how exactly to reach a conclusion that is better for all.
Again however even here there is a huge tendency for people to stomp into these questions presenting them as the trans debate whit large and very often with goals that absolutely do not consider the wellbeing of trans people.
So what you're describing is pretty much what Rowling believes. She repeats numerous times that trans people should live their lives as they want to live and their existence is not up for debate.
But yes you've hit the hotpoint issues: self-ID, sports, prisons, women's shelters. It's a question of when do the rights of transwomen get their right to live as women, run into conflict with the right of cis women get to live their lives as women.
Oh - the other hot button issue is youth transition. Not whether it should happen at all, but when and in what circumstances.
If you're curious - take a listen to the Podcast. It is well done. Like I said it takes until Episode 4 to get to the "trans stuff", but if you have the time and are interested in the topic you might find it interesting, even if you don't agree in the end.
Everything is up for debate.
The oddest part of your line Squeeze (and I've heard it elsewhere) is that this somehow threatens their right to exist.
I personally think a person who has started hormone treatments, or started dressing like a woman, or gotten a boob job is a man transitioning to a woman. And once they get the operation they're a woman.
Have any trans women ceased to exist because I posted that? If I think this way will I inevitably go out and start killing trans women?
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2023, 05:59:30 PMSo what you're describing is pretty much what Rowling believes. She repeats numerous times that trans people should live their lives as they want to live and their existence is not up for debate.
But yes you've hit the hotpoint issues: self-ID, sports, prisons, women's shelters. It's a question of when do the rights of transwomen get their right to live as women, run into conflict with the right of cis women get to live their lives as women.
Yeah I've thought this too that on the actual issues what Jos says is basically the same as a "gender critical" feminist.
QuoteOh - the other hot button issue is youth transition. Not whether it should happen at all, but when and in what circumstances.
Yes and also crucially what treatment options should be available. I don't think that issue is going away - the healthcare systems in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, France, Sweden and England have all done some form of systematic review (or said there is very limited evidence) and restricted treatments like puberty blockers.
In that context I think it's quite difficult to frame it as "the science is settled" and if that's the case there will be differing views and a desperate need for research.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 07, 2023, 06:07:34 PMIf I think this way will I inevitably go out and start killing trans women?
You are one step closer... :ph34r:
I do no like how activists try to reinvent biology like it's just another theory. It seems eerily similar on the debates about creationism two decades ago: "evolution is just another theory".
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2023, 05:59:30 PMSo what you're describing is pretty much what Rowling believes. She repeats numerous times that trans people should live their lives as they want to live and their existence is not up for debate.
Thats not the way the evidence points as much as she has said this once or twice.
I love trans women and totally supper their right to exist... But they're not women and by the way I support this group who very definitely don't want trans people to exist....
As said totally get why trans people aren't big on jk.
QuoteBut yes you've hit the hotpoint issues: self-ID, sports, prisons, women's shelters. It's a question of when do the rights of transwomen get their right to live as women, run into conflict with the right of cis women get to live their lives as women.
Never
Self ID... Well if I declare myself a woman and burst into the women's changing room then that's not a trans woman coming into conflict with cis women. It's a nutty probably predatory guy looking to exploit what he perceives as a loop hole. Trans women are women. Determining who is a trans woman is a more complex question.
The sports issue long predates transsexuals being a hot topic and has its most interesting cases completely unrelated to trans people. Its a challenge that needs to be solved even if trans people didn't exist.
As said before it's sad that politicians have waded in to play culture wars and take cheap shots at trans people.
Quote from: Josquius on March 07, 2023, 06:22:25 PMSelf ID... Well if I declare myself a woman and burst into the women's changing room then that's not a trans woman coming into conflict with cis women. It's a nutty probably predatory guy looking to exploit what he perceives as a loop hole. Trans women are women. Determining who is a trans woman is a more complex question.
The sports issue long predates transsexuals being a hot topic and has its most interesting cases completely unrelated to trans people. Its a challenge that needs to be solved even if trans people didn't exist.
As said before it's sad that politicians have waded in to play culture wars and take cheap shots at trans people.
Be careful - the term "transsexual" is not the preferred term, and might even be considered transphobic. :ph34r:
As for self-id (and for Yi's comment that you're only a true trans woman if you get bottom surgery) - that's not the trans activist position. Number one what your genitals are doesn't matter. And to be fair a lot of trans women who have lived for years as women still have their penises.
But more than that - they're against "gatekeeping". Which is sort of understandable. The idea that someone feels like they've suffered from gender dysphoria for years, but then need some doctor to sign off on the feelings they've had for years before it can be acknowledged must feel quite demeaning. But the flip-side (and what trans activists support) is self-ID. You are what you say you are, and you don't need anyone's approval to transition.
Which makes a certain amount of sense - but you do then leave the door open for the admittedly very small, but non-zero, number of predators and perverts to take advantage of.
Quote from: Josquius on March 07, 2023, 06:22:25 PMSelf ID... Well if I declare myself a woman and burst into the women's changing room then that's not a trans woman coming into conflict with cis women. It's a nutty probably predatory guy looking to exploit what he perceives as a loop hole.
I don't see how this is a loophole. IDing as a woman doesn't make it any less illegal to predate on people. And if you are going to do that, doing it in a very public place like a bathroom or changing room seems like a stupid idea.
Children change in the men's dressing room sometimes and how often do you hear about some pedophile grabbing a kid they don't know in a changing room? It never happens. A pedophile grooms the kid first, builds up trust, and then gets them alone. Likewise I don't think some guy is going to pretend to be trans, sneak into a woman's changing room, and just grab some random woman. And if he did, well, he is almost certainly going to be caught and him claiming falsely that he IDs as a woman is not some loophole to get him out of anything.
Now prison I can kind of see. Since you are literally a captive audience. But even there I don't know man. It kind of seems like the trans women would be the ones more likely to be brutalized. Though it does seem like a thing where men sure to be facing long prison time suddenly decide to ID as women probably thinking woman's prison would be an easier place to do time. So yeah probably separating the trans from the cis women might make sense in prison. Or maybe just separating the violent ones from the general population in general.
The whole notion that trans people are the ones committing violence and assault on the straight people seems so out of wack with reality. It seems like people are inventing fantasy scenarios about things that might happen and then wanting policy to be based around that.
I know I did this myself with the sports thing. I know athletes are crazy people willing to do whatever in order to win and I dreamed up these hypothetically hypercompetitive male athletes IDing as women so they could win. But it never really happened. Apparently there are some lines even a demographic known to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and take dangerous drugs to win won't cross. So I guess that has made me a little skeptical about the reality of other hypothetical scenarios that haven't really happened.
But hey if it is demonstrated this is, in fact, a problem I can be persuaded.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2023, 11:20:53 PMWhich makes a certain amount of sense - but you do then leave the door open for the admittedly very small, but non-zero, number of predators and perverts to take advantage of.
I guess my question is: in what way could they theoretically take advantage of it? I presume it is illegal to stare at women and masturbate in a woman's changing room even if you are a cis woman.
QuoteYeah I've thought this too that on the actual issues what Jos says is basically the same as a "gender critical" feminist.
I do have a lot of sympathy with the core of 'gender critical' ideas- that gender shouldn't be a thing that exists, you should be free to wear whatever you want, identify however you want, wear makeup if you want, etc.... and nobody should give a shit what you've got in your pants.
Where I draw the line is with their thoughts that its somehow the fault of trans people that the world is some way off this stage of enlightenment and they choose the gender that they're more comfortable with.
QuoteEverything is up for debate.
The oddest part of your line Squeeze (and I've heard it elsewhere) is that this somehow threatens their right to exist.
I personally think a person who has started hormone treatments, or started dressing like a woman, or gotten a boob job is a man transitioning to a woman. And once they get the operation they're a woman.
Have any trans women ceased to exist because I posted that? If I think this way will I inevitably go out and start killing trans women?
I've thought about this in the past.
The trouble is its just putting too much focus on the penis.
Far from my area of interest but as I understand it there's a wide variety of personal views of that area in the trans community, it seen as very much up to individuals to make the decision.
They range from those who though they firmly identify as women see their dick as a natural part of themselves and have no issue using it as a man would, through to those who see it as a horrible growth that they can't bare to even look at, some even going into self-mutilation over it, and everything in between.
This penis focus is something transphobes tend to be really keen on though. A weird frequently raised concern of theirs is about trans people impregnating a woman- because its not like rape is a horrible enough thing, this super minor and easily fixable physical problem in the grand scope of things has to be added on top.
As I've heard it though even amongst those trans women who have no interest in bottom surgery they often end up effectively chemically castrated via hormones.
Anyway. As to whether this stuff threatens trans peoples right to exist... well look to ethnic cleansing for an analogy. Kurds aren't a real thing they're just mountain kurds- trans women aren't a real thing they're just men in dresses. Its not like the Kurds being treat this way popped out of existence. But the Turkish government did attempt to erase a fundamental part of their identity. Helps not to think so litereally.
QuoteBe careful - the term "transsexual" is not the preferred term, and might even be considered transphobic. :ph34r:
The change from transexual to transgender is a curious one. I do wonder where that push came from.
QuoteAs for self-id (and for Yi's comment that you're only a true trans woman if you get bottom surgery) - that's not the trans activist position. Number one what your genitals are doesn't matter. And to be fair a lot of trans women who have lived for years as women still have their penises.
But more than that - they're against "gatekeeping". Which is sort of understandable. The idea that someone feels like they've suffered from gender dysphoria for years, but then need some doctor to sign off on the feelings they've had for years before it can be acknowledged must feel quite demeaning. But the flip-side (and what trans activists support) is self-ID. You are what you say you are, and you don't need anyone's approval to transition.
Its not a binary however. That a lot of trans rights supporters push for peoples right to self identify doesn't mean, as the transphobes believe, that they support any random guy just waking up and going "Today I feel like I'm a woman, I'm off to exploit this".
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2023, 12:05:15 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 07, 2023, 06:22:25 PMSelf ID... Well if I declare myself a woman and burst into the women's changing room then that's not a trans woman coming into conflict with cis women. It's a nutty probably predatory guy looking to exploit what he perceives as a loop hole.
I don't see how this is a loophole. IDing as a woman doesn't make it any less illegal to predate on people. And if you are going to do that, doing it in a very public place like a bathroom or changing room seems like a stupid idea.
Children change in the men's dressing room sometimes and how often do you hear about some pedophile grabbing a kid they don't know in a changing room? It never happens. A pedophile grooms the kid first, builds up trust, and then gets them alone. Likewise I don't think some guy is going to pretend to be trans, sneak into a woman's changing room, and just grab some random woman. And if he did, well, he is almost certainly going to be caught and him claiming falsely that he IDs as a woman is not some loophole to get him out of anything.
The whole notion that trans people are the ones committing violence and assault on the straight people seems so out of wack with reality. It seems like people are inventing fantasy scenarios about things that might happen and then wanting policy to be based around that.
I know I did this myself with the sports thing. I know athletes are crazy people willing to do whatever in order to win and I dreamed up these hypothetically hypercompetitive male athletes IDing as women so they could win. But it never really happened. Apparently there are some lines even a demographic known to lie, cheat, steal, bribe, and take dangerous drugs to win won't cross. So I guess that has made me a little skeptical about the reality of other hypothetical scenarios that haven't really happened.
But hey if it is demonstrated this is, in fact, a problem I can be persuaded.
[/quote]
Hence 'perceived'.
My point is that its a fake problem.
Its really bizarre as with the way things are its not like the female sign is a magic sigil keeping men out. Just look at this recent story:
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/face-derby-man-banned-every-8181650
If this guy started shouting that he's actually a woman...well thats not going to change anything at all.
QuoteNow prison I can kind of see. Since you are literally a captive audience. But even there I don't know man. It kind of seems like the trans women would be the ones more likely to be brutalized. Though it does seem like a thing where men sure to be facing long prison time suddenly decide to ID as women probably thinking woman's prison would be an easier place to do time. So yeah probably separating the trans from the cis women might make sense in prison. Or maybe just separating the violent ones from the general population in general.
Prison is a place where a lot of rights are already suspended and things are pretty weird so it is quite fair here that a lot of the power to self identify is taken out of the persons hands (though absolutely not entirely.)
Data does indeed show trans people are far more likely to be victims there.
The current system for trans people in prisons works fine that I can see. Deal with it on a case by case basis. Incidents are at a rate of 1 in 2 years.
Its interesting how transphobes seem to be completely fail to grasp that regular cis gay and lesbian sex criminals are a thing. The prison service knows this and has procedures.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 04:48:29 AMI do have a lot of sympathy with the core of 'gender critical' ideas- that gender shouldn't be a thing that exists, you should be free to wear whatever you want, identify however you want, wear makeup if you want, etc.... and nobody should give a shit what you've got in your pants.
Where I draw the line is with their thoughts that its somehow the fault of trans people that the world is some way off this stage of enlightenment and they choose the gender that they're more comfortable with.
I think that's what lies at the core of my confusion/reservations as well.
It's a tricky situation. Transgender people's right to be just whoever they want to be (within the limits of not hurting others, as is the case with everyone) and express themselves the way they want must be protected.
But I do think what we are (or supposed to be) protecting does go against eliminating the social constraints of gender (and because of that, sex).
If we say that somebody "presents" as X gender, then necessarily we are saying that there are specific conditions and attributes which define that given gender. Clothing, hair style, mannerism, whatever. If gender is not defined by sex, then it is defined by one of those other things.
Which of course clearly means that you cannot/not supposed to wear certain things or behave in a certain way if you want to present as a certain gender.
I appreciate that my brain not being able to resolve the logical collision between that and gender equality really shouldn't prevent transgenders from being left alone to be transgenders.
Quote from: Barrister on March 07, 2023, 11:20:53 PMAs for self-id (and for Yi's comment that you're only a true trans woman if you get bottom surgery) - that's not the trans activist position.
That's not exactly what I said. I said the operation is the point when they move from trans woman to woman woman.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 04:48:29 AMAnyway. As to whether this stuff threatens trans peoples right to exist... well look to ethnic cleansing for an analogy. Kurds aren't a real thing they're just mountain kurds- trans women aren't a real thing they're just men in dresses. Its not like the Kurds being treat this way popped out of existence. But the Turkish government did attempt to erase a fundamental part of their identity. Helps not to think so litereally.
But Kurds did not cease to exist. There are still people who self identify as Kurds.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 07:32:11 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 04:48:29 AMAnyway. As to whether this stuff threatens trans peoples right to exist... well look to ethnic cleansing for an analogy. Kurds aren't a real thing they're just mountain kurds- trans women aren't a real thing they're just men in dresses. Its not like the Kurds being treat this way popped out of existence. But the Turkish government did attempt to erase a fundamental part of their identity. Helps not to think so litereally.
But Kurds did not cease to exist. There are still people who self identify as Kurds.
Not for want of the turkish governments efforts. Likewise no matter how harsh anti trans laws get trans people will hang on in some capacity.
There's plenty of examples of historic ethnic cleansing that were far more succesful.
You're missing the point here.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 07:44:28 AMNot for want of the turkish governments efforts. Likewise no matter how harsh anti trans laws get trans people will hang on in some capacity.
There's plenty of examples of historic ethnic cleansing that were far more succesful.
You're missing the point here.
Sure there are more successfull examples. Large swathes of Europe were made virtually Jew free because they were gassed. Little odd ethnicities like the Wends disappeared because their self identification got submerged into the greater whole.
If I'm missing your point please tell me what your point is.
Hopefully it will be a point that connects the word "woman" and trans women ceasing to exist in some sort of causal relationship.
But again in the UK, as far as I'm aware, there aren't actually any proposed anti-trans laws.
The proposed new laws and debate are about moving from getting a gender recognition certificate following a panel hearing and with evidence of having lived in your affirmed gender for two years and a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, to a purely administrative/paperwork system that can be made after six months of living in your affirmed gender.
As I say I'm very sympathetic to moving gender recognition to a more administrative, less medicalised system - but I think it's gaslighting to pretend it doesn't have an impact on the Equality Act when it is the way of changing your legal sex for the purpose of equalities law. The two, in my view, need to go hand in hand - gender recognition reform and wider Equality Act review and reform.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2023, 12:05:15 AMSo yeah probably separating the trans from the cis women might make sense in prison. Or maybe just separating the violent ones from the general population in general.
That's the sensible solution activists will screen bloody murder about.
Quote from: Valmy on March 08, 2023, 12:05:15 AMThe whole notion that trans people are the ones committing violence and assault on the straight people seems so out of wack with reality. It seems like people are inventing fantasy scenarios about things that might happen and then wanting policy to be based around that.
Some trans people can be violent. Like
some humans.
It's not a reason to discriminate against all trans in all avenues of life.
It's a reason to discriminate in some particular places where there are vulnerable people. And I'm not talking about some stupid bathroom, that's an irrational fear here.
But if a women shelter says they have problems, the last thing they should have, is more problems in the form of trans activists protesting in front of their place.
QuoteI know I did this myself with the sports thing. I know athletes are crazy people willing to do whatever in order to win and I dreamed up these hypothetically hypercompetitive male athletes IDing as women so they could win. But it never really happened.
https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swimmer-became-the-focus-of-a-debate-about-trans-athletes
That they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.
I've never considered the bathroom thing to be about security from sexual assault but rather about awkwardness and tension. I would feel kind of weird if a woman walked in while I was taking a dump.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 08:58:19 AMI've never considered the bathroom thing to be about security from sexual assault but rather about awkwardness and tension. I would feel kind of weird if a woman walked in while I was taking a dump.
If I am in a cabinet, I couldn't care less whose on the other side.
If it's a single space toilet, I would assume there are locks on the the doors... If there are not, man or woman, I would be extremely uncomfortable with any one walking in while I was taking in a dump...
The reducing of the female safe space argument to using public toilets is a retarded thing that should be dropped. It's not like currently there are security guards or genetic sensors or whatever guarding women's toilets from predatory men.
AFAIK unisex bathrooms work reasonably well. Sure, Lavrov thinks they're inhuman, but his opinions have generally been found wanting.
QuoteSure there are more successfull examples. Large swathes of Europe were made virtually Jew free because they were gassed. Little odd ethnicities like the Wends disappeared because their self identification got submerged into the greater whole.
If I'm missing your point please tell me what your point is.
Hopefully it will be a point that connects the word "woman" and trans women ceasing to exist in some sort of causal relationship.
You can attack trans peoples existence without literally trying to kill people.
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:45:06 AMQuote from: Valmy on March 08, 2023, 12:05:15 AMSo yeah probably separating the trans from the cis women might make sense in prison. Or maybe just separating the violent ones from the general population in general.
That's the sensible solution activists will screen bloody murder about.
Not really. Those who favour trans rights are the ones supporting science and rational solutions.
Its the TERFs screaming bloody murder if trans people are given an inch.
QuoteBut if a women shelter says they have problems, the last thing they should have, is more problems in the form of trans activists protesting in front of their place.
Thats literally the complete opposite of what happens. Its the anti-trans activists protesting and hassling people.
QuoteI know I did this myself with the sports thing. I know athletes are crazy people willing to do whatever in order to win and I dreamed up these hypothetically hypercompetitive male athletes IDing as women so they could win. But it never really happened.
https://www.newyorker.com/sports/sporting-scene/how-one-swimmer-became-the-focus-of-a-debate-about-trans-athletes
This is an actual trans person who is into swimming. Not a male swimmer who signed up for the female events.
QuoteThat they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.
So let sports governing bodies do the job they've always been doing and define who is a woman based on biology. Don't just push a blanket no trans people allowed ban.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:23:11 AMYou can attack trans peoples existence without literally trying to kill people.
I still don't get your point. And we started this subconversation when you said their existence was *threatened.* If that means something other than ceasing to exist, please lay it out for me.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 11:27:55 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:23:11 AMYou can attack trans peoples existence without literally trying to kill people.
I still don't get your point. And we started this subconversation when you said their existence was *threatened.* If that means something other than ceasing to exist, please lay it out for me.
You were the first person to mention threatening trans peoples right to exist. I just replied to you. Explain what you meant by this use of language if its nothing that I've said.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:31:35 AMYou were the first person to mention threatening trans peoples right to exist. I just replied to you. Explain what you meant by this use of language if its nothing that I've said.
You're right. Here's what I was responding to.
"That trans rights are not up for debate I would say in the view of most progressive people means their fundamental rights. They have the right to exist and live their lives as women."
So the agreeable modification of my position is obviously, trans women's right to exist is not up for debate.
The less accomodating modification is do you think anyone is denying their right to exist?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 11:43:33 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:31:35 AMYou were the first person to mention threatening trans peoples right to exist. I just replied to you. Explain what you meant by this use of language if its nothing that I've said.
You're right. Here's what I was responding to.
"That trans rights are not up for debate I would say in the view of most progressive people means their fundamental rights. They have the right to exist and live their lives as women."
So the agreeable modification of my position is obviously, trans women's right to exist is not up for debate.
The less accomodating modification is do you think anyone is denying their right to exist?
.
This is where the analogy comes in. Stuff like the kurds in Turkey in the mid 20th century. They weren't being actively killed. But they were being told a fundamental part of their identity was invalid and they were really something else.
Deny trans women are women and its the same sort of thing. Sure they can keep living their life as men in dresses... But that's not who they are.
This is effectively what the terfs and their push for second tier female status for trans people are doing. Seeking to strip trans women (trans guys exist too let's remember. Oddly they don't receive such hate) of womenhood.
I've mentioned before the apartheid analogy also fits in places.
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:45:06 AMThat they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.
This is not an argument that has ever held weigh with me. Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes. Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 01:50:10 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:45:06 AMThat they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.
This is not an argument that has ever held weigh with me. Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes. Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes.
I mean that is certainly one way to look at things.
But that would seem to be contrary to the very idea of having separate women's sports. Take, for example, the 100m dash. The men's world record is 9.58 seconds. The women's record is 10.49 seconds, almost a full second slower. And you can find in almost every sport that at the elite end men are bigger, faster and stronger.
So if your approach is just "biology just gives some people an unfair advantage" it seems to me that in wide swaths of sports you're telling women they won't be able to compete. Because 10.49 seconds in the 100m dash, the fastest a woman has ever gone, isn't fast enough to even qualify under the men's standards.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 01:40:45 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 11:43:33 AMQuote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:31:35 AMYou were the first person to mention threatening trans peoples right to exist. I just replied to you. Explain what you meant by this use of language if its nothing that I've said.
You're right. Here's what I was responding to.
"That trans rights are not up for debate I would say in the view of most progressive people means their fundamental rights. They have the right to exist and live their lives as women."
So the agreeable modification of my position is obviously, trans women's right to exist is not up for debate.
The less accomodating modification is do you think anyone is denying their right to exist?
.
This is where the analogy comes in. Stuff like the kurds in Turkey in the mid 20th century. They weren't being actively killed. But they were being told a fundamental part of their identity was invalid and they were really something else.
Deny trans women are women and its the same sort of thing. Sure they can keep living their life as men in dresses... But that's not who they are.
This is effectively what the terfs and their push for second tier female status for trans people are doing. Seeking to strip trans women (trans guys exist too let's remember. Oddly they don't receive such hate) of womenhood.
I've mentioned before the apartheid analogy also fits in places.
If I tell you that you are not a Northerner you do not cease to exist. Same with the Turks and Kurds. If the Turkish government tells Kurds they are really Mountain Turks they can still continue to eat Kurdish food, dress in Kurdish dress, speak Kurdish etc. Simply telling them that a part of their identity is invalid won't change their identity, unless they happen to agree.
My mom grew up in Korea under Japanese colonialism. The Japanese had a program to assimilate Koreans into Japanese. Schools were only taught in Japanese, everyone was required to adopt a Japanese style name. I daresay if they had had another couple decades for the job they would have succeeded and Korean identity would have ceased to exist. But the analogy for this part in the transexual debate doesn't exist. Well, there are probably some bible thumping kooks in West Virginia who think all transexuals should be "deprogrammed" but within the framework of the debate we're having here on Languish they are irrelevant. JK Rowling hasn't spoken in favor of forced deprogramming.
Long story short, existence is straw man.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 02:47:49 PMMy mom grew up in Korea under Japanese colonialism. The Japanese had a program to assimilate Koreans into Japanese. Schools were only taught in Japanese, everyone was required to adopt a Japanese style name. I daresay if they had had another couple decades for the job they would have succeeded and Korean identity would have ceased to exist. But the analogy for this part in the transexual debate doesn't exist. Well, there are probably some bible thumping kooks in West Virginia who think all transexuals should be "deprogrammed" but within the framework of the debate we're having here on Languish they are irrelevant. JK Rowling hasn't spoken in favor of forced deprogramming.
At CPAC just recently there was an explicit call for Trans people to be eradicated from public life. Laws in Florida are being advanced that would allow Trans teens to be taken away from their parents, plus things like Don't Say Gay are explicit attempts to suppress or eliminate these individuals. It isn't just the kooks in the hills, it's the kooks that are making policy in the Republican Party.
Quote from: frunk on March 08, 2023, 03:34:41 PMQuote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2023, 02:47:49 PMMy mom grew up in Korea under Japanese colonialism. The Japanese had a program to assimilate Koreans into Japanese. Schools were only taught in Japanese, everyone was required to adopt a Japanese style name. I daresay if they had had another couple decades for the job they would have succeeded and Korean identity would have ceased to exist. But the analogy for this part in the transexual debate doesn't exist. Well, there are probably some bible thumping kooks in West Virginia who think all transexuals should be "deprogrammed" but within the framework of the debate we're having here on Languish they are irrelevant. JK Rowling hasn't spoken in favor of forced deprogramming.
At CPAC just recently there was an explicit call for Trans people to be eradicated from public life. Laws in Florida are being advanced that would allow Trans teens to be taken away from their parents, plus things like Don't Say Gay are explicit attempts to suppress or eliminate these individuals. It isn't just the kooks in the hills, it's the kooks that are making policy in the Republican Party.
CPAC dude clarified that he wanted "trans ideology" eradicated from public life - not that he was calling for trans people to be killed. He didn't back down from "eradicated" though.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 01:50:10 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:45:06 AMThat they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.
This is not an argument that has ever held weigh with me. Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes. Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes.
Then do away with any distinction of women's sports. No more women's hockey team with seperate rules, no more women's sprint, no more women skiing or boxing or MMA competition. Women will have to learn to adapt.
By the same token, any work related physical test will have the exact same criteria for males and females. No double standards. No more special rules for women police officers, firefighters, astronauts, military, etc. They all learn to adapt and to compete to equal the men or they are disqualified.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2023, 03:39:30 PMCPAC dude clarified that he wanted "trans ideology" eradicated from public life - not that he was calling for trans people to be killed. He didn't back down from "eradicated" though.
He said "transgenderism" so I'm not convinced on that clarification.
But I think this is part of the social media flattening the world. That's happening in the US. The context in the UK are proposals to simplify the process for trans people to get a gender recognition certificate and change their legal sex.
Everything from America washes up here too but I think there is an important different context - and I think it is striking that in the case of both governments who've tried to pass legislation on this (Sturgeon's and May's) it was perhaps mainly seen as a quick, easy, socially liberal win (for slightly different ends) that then became very controversial/difficult.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:23:11 AMNot really. Those who favour trans rights are the ones supporting science and rational solutions.
Its the TERFs screaming bloody murder if trans people are given an inch.
Both sides of the debate tend to ignore science and harass scientists.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:23:11 AMQuoteThats literally the complete opposite of what happens. Its the anti-trans activists protesting and hassling people.
Again, the harassment comes from both sides. There isn't a side of "good" anymore.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:23:11 AMThis is an actual trans person who is into swimming. Not a male swimmer who signed up for the female events.
He was a male swimmer. He was average in his sport. He became trans, he started to compete again and got beat every women in his sport.
I do not know if his transition was legitimate or not. But it is irrelevant.
Biologically speaking, he his male. And he is competing in women's sport. It gives him an unfair advantage, as if he was using illegal performance enhancing drugs. It means the competition is worthless.
Quote from: Josquius on March 08, 2023, 11:23:11 AMSo let sports governing bodies do the job they've always been doing and define who is a woman based on biology. Don't just push a blanket no trans people allowed ban.
If we do define a woman based on biology, it will be a blanke no trans people allowed ban, you know...
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 08, 2023, 03:53:37 PMEverything from America washes up here too but I think there is an important different context - and I think it is striking that in the case of both governments who've tried to pass legislation on this (Sturgeon's and May's) it was perhaps mainly seen as a quick, easy, socially liberal win (for slightly different ends) that then became very controversial/difficult.
I was listening to a podcast the other day, and the guest who was Jewish paraphrased his grandfather: "I don't want anti-Semites to shut up. I want to know what I'm dealing with so that I'm prepared." I think the West has been very successful in establishing social norms that drive hate speech underground (and some would argue a whole lot of non-hate speech along with it), but that leaves you blind to the political realities sometimes.
Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2023, 04:07:39 PMI was listening to a podcast the other day, and the guest who was Jewish paraphrased his grandfather: "I don't want anti-Semites to shut up. I want to know what I'm dealing with so that I'm prepared." I think the West has been very successful in establishing social norms that drive hate speech underground (and some would argue a whole lot of non-hate speech along with it), but that leaves you blind to the political realities sometimes.
I don't mind those norms - but I think they are norms because there is a broad popular consensus behind them and you can't just manufacture that. Or pretend it exists when it demonstrably doesn't.
I also think possibly linked to that we're in a period that is fond of radicalism. I think there is a lot that either re-writes gradualists as far more radical than they're remembered, or does down their accomplishments/approach as too political and compromised - both of those may be true. Similarly I think radical figures who, in hindsight sometimes look prophetic are getting a lot of attention, even if they may have been quite marginal at the time - indeed to some extent that perhaps adds to their credibility as a marginalised voice. I suspect that might reflect, at least on gay rights, a period of incredible triumph - but a triumph that I don't think was necessarily inevitable or predictable.
But I think it possibly misjudges the politics, the need to persuade and bring people with you. As I say, May still supports this but I think she thought gender recognition reform would be like gay marriage - a nice, non-controversial socially liberal move from a Tory government that further helps detoxify the "nasty party". I think Sturgeon thought it would set up a nice contrast with a nasty Tory English government. In both cases it caused them a lot of trouble (and I think may be linked to Sturgeon stepping down); it's dividing news rooms like the NYT and the Guardian; in the UK it's causing big rows within Labour, the Greens and the SNP. If that's the reaction within the liberal left the idea that there is an enforceable norm strikes me as very optimistic and probably counterproductive.
In relation specifically to anti-semitism Hadley Freeman who was a columnist and feature writer at the Guardian for 22 years moved to the Sunday Times largely over this (following Suzanne Moore from the Guardian to the Telegraph) and published a scathing valedictory letter which made a link on anti-semitism and the experience of talking about that as a Jew on the left in Britain during the Corbyn years:
QuoteThe Guardian used to embrace complicated issues, nuance, controversy, debates between writers, alternative views. When I started at the Guardian in 2000, the most fraught subject was Israel, with Jonathan Freedland and Seumas Milne representing the two sides of that polarised debate. No one, as far as I know, ever said to them that they couldn't write about it because they felt so strongly about the subject, or they had personal connections to it, or they spoke about it before, as has been said to me and other women writers about the gender argument. [...]
The paper has become internally dysfunctional, with writers and editors alike all terrified of saying The Wrong Take. I saw this coming in the Corbyn era when I was repeatedly warned off writing about Labour from my perspective as a Jew. Then I was told not to write about gender from my perspective as a woman. When I asked what part of my identity was acceptable to turn into copy, it was suggested that I write about my children.
Edit: And to be clear - she's also someone who has no issue with the current position on how to get a GRC, laws against discriminating against trans people, and the Equality Act more generally.
Quote from: Barrister on March 08, 2023, 02:25:30 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 01:50:10 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:45:06 AMThat they IDed as a woman specifically to win or not is irrelevant. Biology gives them an unfair advantage over other woman and it isn't fair, no more than using specific performance enhancing drugs.
This is not an argument that has ever held weigh with me. Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes. Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes.
I mean that is certainly one way to look at things.
But that would seem to be contrary to the very idea of having separate women's sports. Take, for example, the 100m dash. The men's world record is 9.58 seconds. The women's record is 10.49 seconds, almost a full second slower. And you can find in almost every sport that at the elite end men are bigger, faster and stronger.
So if your approach is just "biology just gives some people an unfair advantage" it seems to me that in wide swaths of sports you're telling women they won't be able to compete. Because 10.49 seconds in the 100m dash, the fastest a woman has ever gone, isn't fast enough to even qualify under the men's standards.
And what is it that gives men an advantage in the 100 metre dash?
Is there any evidence this remains a factor after transition? - theres evidence that in some areas performance between trans and cis women is pretty similar a few years after the start of hormone therapy.
And what of intersex people? How do you decide if they're allowed in women's events?
This is where the big problem lies with trying to ban trans people from sport. It's a thoroughly unscientific bit of politically motivated idiocy.
It does nothing to address the actual issues in favour of just going nuclear from the off.
QuoteHe was a male swimmer. He was average in his sport. He became trans, he started to compete again and got beat every women in his sport.
Winning a university swimming competition isn't beating every woman in her sport.
(seriously? His??
QuoteI do not know if his transition was legitimate or not. But it is irrelevant.
Biologically speaking, he his male. And he is competing in women's sport. It gives him an unfair advantage, as if he was using illegal performance enhancing drugs. It means the competition is worthless.
1: you were disagreeing with the idea men won't transition just to win at sport. That's not what happened here.
2: any proof of this unfair advantage she has?
3: sport is worthless unless you win? That's a pretty shit attitude for an adult.
QuoteIf we do define a woman based on biology, it will be a blanke no trans people allowed ban, you know...
Not at all. That's pure political silliness with zero basis in science.
I have no doubt that the far right would not stop at removing "transgenderism" (whatever that is) from public life - if they achieved that and managed to intimidate transgender people into silence, they'd continue to push them into effective hiding, then if still no proper push back from larger society, get going at homosexuals.
It's just the essence of their nature to find vulnerable groups to feed to the frustration and aggression of their followers.
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 03:43:11 PMThen do away with any distinction of women's sports. No more women's hockey team with seperate rules, no more women's sprint, no more women skiing or boxing or MMA competition. Women will have to learn to adapt.
By the same token, any work related physical test will have the exact same criteria for males and females. No double standards. No more special rules for women police officers, firefighters, astronauts, military, etc. They all learn to adapt and to compete to equal the men or they are disqualified.
If you want to eliminate the distinction of women's sports, I'll think you a fool but won't try to talk you out of it. It certainly isn't a necessary step to accepting that women should be able to participate in women's sports, even if come are "unfairly" taller, faster, quicker, stronger, etc.
The "no double standards" rule is in effect in the US for men and women in police forces, firefighters, astronauts, the military, etc. They all learn to meet the physical standards of the job (which standards have to be relative to justifiably required job performance, not to sex) or they (man or woman) are disqualified.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 08:27:13 PMIf you want to eliminate the distinction of women's sports, I'll think you a fool but won't try to talk you out of it. It certainly isn't a necessary step to accepting that women should be able to participate in women's sports, even if come are "unfairly" taller, faster, quicker, stronger, etc.
You literally said: " Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes. Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes. "
So biology is not important, athletes must figure out a way to overcome it.
Hence, we shall do away with the distinction of women's sports. Those who can't compete will be washed away. That's their job as athletes to learn to overcome biology, that's what you said. :)
While we're at it, we could have 6-7 years old compete with 13-14 years old too. It's just biology, they will learn to adapt.
QuoteThe "no double standards" rule is in effect in the US for men and women in police forces, firefighters, astronauts, the military, etc. They all learn to meet the physical standards of the job (which standards have to be relative to justifiably required job performance, not to sex) or they (man or woman) are disqualified.
Endurance tests aren't the same for men and women for many of these professions. Could be different for astronauts and jet fighter pilots, but firefighters and police have separate categories for their physical aptitude tests.
From what I am reading it is not all US police dept that have the same physical tests for men and women, and Canada have different tests:
https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/Careers/resources/Documents/PIN_Test_and_Results_Oct7_13.pdf
The ACLU calls using the same tests discrimination:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights/womens-rights-workplace/women-and-physical-ability-tests
Quote from: Tamas on March 08, 2023, 05:18:30 PMI have no doubt that the far right would not stop at removing "transgenderism" (whatever that is) from public life - if they achieved that and managed to intimidate transgender people into silence, they'd continue to push them into effective hiding, then if still no proper push back from larger society, get going at homosexuals.
It's just the essence of their nature to find vulnerable groups to feed to the frustration and aggression of their followers.
Well, that's true. But that's no reason to let the far left intimidate scientists either just "because".
I wouldn't trust the average Republican-like politician to legislate on any issue concerning transgender rights and there's a lot of transgender panic akin to gay panic, but that doesn't mean that there aren't bloody activists making life miserable for a lot of people.
There has to be a reasonable middle ground to be reached here, one that will protect freedom of speech as well as transgender rights and scientific research.
Quote from: viper37 on March 08, 2023, 08:45:03 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 08:27:13 PMIf you want to eliminate the distinction of women's sports, I'll think you a fool but won't try to talk you out of it. It certainly isn't a necessary step to accepting that women should be able to participate in women's sports, even if come are "unfairly" taller, faster, quicker, stronger, etc.
You literally said: " Biology gives any given athlete an unfair advantage over some other athletes. Athletes learn to live with that very early in their careers, or they stop being athletes. "
So biology is not important, athletes must figure out a way to overcome it.
Hence, we shall do away with the distinction of women's sports. Those who can't compete will be washed away. That's their job as athletes to learn to overcome biology, that's what you said. :)
While we're at it, we could have 6-7 years old compete with 13-14 years old too. It's just biology, they will learn to adapt.
Nowhere did I say that "biology is not important." I said the exact opposite. Athletes have to go against others who have biologically-based "unfair advantages" all of the time. They learn to reconcile themselves to that.
Why you want to "do away with the distinction of women's sports" escapes me, as does your rational for wanting to "have 6-7 years old compete with 13-14 years old." What would be the point?
QuoteQuoteThe "no double standards" rule is in effect in the US for men and women in police forces, firefighters, astronauts, the military, etc. They all learn to meet the physical standards of the job (which standards have to be relative to justifiably required job performance, not to sex) or they (man or woman) are disqualified.
Endurance tests aren't the same for men and women for many of these professions. Could be different for astronauts and jet fighter pilots, but firefighters and police have separate categories for their physical aptitude tests.
From what I am reading it is not all US police dept that have the same physical tests for men and women, and Canada have different tests:
https://www.londonpolice.ca/en/Careers/resources/Documents/PIN_Test_and_Results_Oct7_13.pdf
The ACLU calls using the same tests discrimination:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/womens-rights/womens-rights-workplace/women-and-physical-ability-tests
The Ontario physical testing regime uses the same tests for both men and women. The ACLU paper just restates what I wrote above: that physical tests must be justifiable in terms of job performance requirements. It does not at all say that "using the same tests [is] discrimination." The
purpose of the tests is to discriminate between those who can do the job and those who cannot.
Quote from: Tamas on March 08, 2023, 05:18:30 PMI have no doubt that the far right would not stop at removing "transgenderism" (whatever that is) from public life - if they achieved that and managed to intimidate transgender people into silence, they'd continue to push them into effective hiding, then if still no proper push back from larger society, get going at homosexuals.
It's just the essence of their nature to find vulnerable groups to feed to the frustration and aggression of their followers.
I concur with my esteemed colleague on this.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 09:13:09 PMNowhere did I say that "biology is not important." I said the exact opposite. Athletes have to go against others who have biologically-based "unfair advantages" all of the time. They learn to reconcile themselves to that.
No, you do not say the exact opposite. When you say they learn to reconcile themselves with that, you trivialize the biological differences between men and women and the reasons why there are separate sports categories because most women athletes can't compete equally with male athletes.
If it was so easy to overcome biological differences, there would be no weight categories in combat sports, athletes would simply learn to adapt to the biological differences.
I'm looking at the women's mogul's skiing vs men's, and it's nowhere the same speed, therefore, not the same technical aspects for all jumps. If they were to compete all in the same categories, there'd be no women getting a gold medal in this sport.
Hockey is another sport where women simply can't compete past junior ranks, the biological differences are way too much for them to follow. And there's no rule to prevent any women from playing in the NHL, it's been done before for a goalie, on a preseason game. She just couldn't compete.
By removing the distinction, you just remove the meaningfulness of women's sports. As much as I respect trans rights, it is a valid reason to discriminate against trans-women competing in women's sports, for the same reason we won't allow a man to compete in such sports, even if it's supposedly the athletes' job to compensate for biological factors.
Quote from: grumbler on March 08, 2023, 09:13:09 PMThe Ontario physical testing regime uses the same tests for both men and women. The ACLU paper just restates what I wrote above: that physical tests must be justifiable in terms of job performance requirements. It does not at all say that "using the same tests [is] discrimination." The purpose of the tests is to discriminate between those who can do the job and those who cannot.
5.10, page 9.
I think Radley Balko's latest article on what Knowles "actually meant" is a great read, and especially good at dissecting what's so wrong with Knowles and the rest of the filth on his side:
https://open.substack.com/pub/radleybalko/p/shrugging-in-the-shadow-of-a-monster?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Quote from: frunk on March 08, 2023, 03:34:41 PMAt CPAC just recently there was an explicit call for Trans people to be eradicated from public life. Laws in Florida are being advanced that would allow Trans teens to be taken away from their parents, plus things like Don't Say Gay are explicit attempts to suppress or eliminate these individuals. It isn't just the kooks in the hills, it's the kooks that are making policy in the Republican Party.
One guy I'd never heard of before speaking at the dying rump Trumpist PAC meeting is closer to kooks in the hills than it is to policy makers in the Republican Party.
But regardless of the extent of that kind of thinking in the Republican Party that position doesn't have any relevance to the debate we're having here on Languish, so bringing it into the debate is either an attempt at guilt by association or a straw man.
Viper, I'm not going to debate what I said with you. If you want to understand my position, you need to read what I wrote and not what you think or wish I wrote.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2023, 07:44:40 AMViper, I'm not going to debate what I said with you. If you want to understand my position, you need to read what I wrote and not what you think or wish I wrote.
How about what I wrote grumbles?
The only implication I could draw from what you said is that there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports - it's all just a matter of biology after all.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2023, 10:44:42 AMHow about what I wrote grumbles?
The only implication I could draw from what you said is that there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports - it's all just a matter of biology after all.
I'd advise you to seriously reconsider your claim that "it's all just a matter of biology after all." Especially if that is what drives your belief that "there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports." Biology is highly significant in sports, but not everything. Differentiating between male and female sports is a matter of creating interesting competitions, not a response to some biological imperative.
Still no mention of the actual biology behind barring trans people....
Quote from: Josquius on March 09, 2023, 01:09:44 PMStill no mention of the actual biology behind barring trans people....
Being trans does not alter the fundamental biology. Hormones and surgery do not change that.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2023, 01:30:26 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 09, 2023, 01:09:44 PMStill no mention of the actual biology behind barring trans people....
Being trans does not alter the fundamental biology. Hormones and surgery do not change that.
And what is this fundamental biology you claim can never be altered? How does it give an advantage?
Quote from: Josquius on March 09, 2023, 01:34:43 PMAnd what is this fundamental biology you claim can never be altered? How does it give an advantage?
I believe bone density never changes. Muscle mass I don't know.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2023, 01:30:26 PMBeing trans does not alter the fundamental biology. Hormones and surgery do not change that.
Wilt Chamberlain was 7'1" tall and had six of the twelve highest-scoring individual games in NBA history. Wasn't that an "unfair advantage?" Should there be a separate NBA for tall players? After all, hormones and surgery do not change a person's height.
Although feels worth saying that hormones and surgery have nothing to do with being trans.
People are trans before they take hormones or have surgery and whether they choose to or not. It's an option that they can have.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2023, 02:13:01 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 09, 2023, 01:34:43 PMAnd what is this fundamental biology you claim can never be altered? How does it give an advantage?
I believe bone density never changes. Muscle mass I don't know.
And these are the critical facts that make a performance difference in every sport?
If so then why not just set rules based on these things rather than a blanket no trans allowed?
The core of my thinking is imagine 50 years down the line, genetic manipulation has reached high sophistication so a trans woman can become indistinguishable from a cis woman.
Should she be allowed in women's events?
If anyone says no to that then they're clearly just motivated by bigotry. The obvious answer in this theoretical is yes.
But then a question becomes OK, so where is the line?
Rather than a blanket ban on trans people - which does fuck all to solve the actual difficult cases in defining who is a woman in sport - sports governing bodies should be creating actual quantifiable rules about under which conditions someone is enough of a woman.
Maybe in some sports this will be impossibly high a bar that no trans woman could ever cross?
But if its a good faith rule actually based in biology and logic than just "trans bad."then it's far more palettable and should really lessen what is obvious with so many of the current rules :it's nothing at all to do with the sanctity of sports and just a way to score cheap points playing culture wars.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2023, 02:16:57 PMWilt Chamberlain was 7'1" tall and had six of the twelve highest-scoring individual games in NBA history. Wasn't that an "unfair advantage?" Should there be a separate NBA for tall players? After all, hormones and surgery do not change a person's height.
Lots of NBA players are tall. I do not know of any 5'-4 NBA players.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2023, 12:59:24 PMQuote from: Barrister on March 09, 2023, 10:44:42 AMHow about what I wrote grumbles?
The only implication I could draw from what you said is that there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports - it's all just a matter of biology after all.
I'd advise you to seriously reconsider your claim that "it's all just a matter of biology after all." Especially if that is what drives your belief that "there's no point to differentiating between male and female sports." Biology is highly significant in sports, but not everything. Differentiating between male and female sports is a matter of creating interesting competitions, not a response to some biological imperative.
This is true. We separate male and female sports to create interesting and competitive competitions. Depending on the sport, at high/elite levels, females simply can not compete against males.
(I should note that's only at the high end. There are plenty of women who could kick my ass in all kinds of sports)
But then that brings us back to trans women. Is it an "interesting competition" to see a natal male who may or may not be taking female hormones compete against natal females?
Squeeze, I think we as a group have reached a middle ground. I have zero problem with trans women competing once their biological advantages have diminished to the point where their performance is indistinguishable from cis women.
So now we have two common antagonists: people who believe trans women should *never* be able to compete, and people who believe trans women should *always* be able to compete.
Another victory for the Sensible Confident Center. :showoff:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2023, 03:22:13 PMSqueeze, I think we as a group have reached a middle ground. I have zero problem with trans women competing once their biological advantages have diminished to the point where their performance is indistinguishable from cis women.
So now we have two common antagonists: people who believe trans women should *never* be able to compete, and people who believe trans women should *always* be able to compete.
Another victory for the Sensible Confident Center. :showoff:
That's not quite what I said. That was an extreme example of something that obviously should be OK.
There's still the question of tracking back where the line is.
Like for another extreme if trans woman are indistinguishable but lack a womb would that matter? - irrelevant for sport but clearly marks them as different.
It should be left up to science to determine what the important factors are and clearly define the line of exactly what level of testosterone or muscle mass or whatever it is, is too much.
Quote from: Josquius on March 09, 2023, 03:35:46 PMThat's not quite what I said. That was an extreme example of something that obviously should be OK.
There's still the question of tracking back where the line is.
Like for another extreme if trans woman are indistinguishable but lack a womb would that matter? - irrelevant for sport but clearly marks them as different.
It should be left up to science to determine what the important factors are and clearly define the line of exactly what level of testosterone or muscle mass or whatever it is, is too much.
You say you're disagreeing but I'm scratching my head where the disagreement is.
Lacking a womb is already baked into being trans.
Science can tell us when trans women no longer have an advantage. What else can they tell us that is useful?
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2023, 03:00:44 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 09, 2023, 02:16:57 PMWilt Chamberlain was 7'1" tall and had six of the twelve highest-scoring individual games in NBA history. Wasn't that an "unfair advantage?" Should there be a separate NBA for tall players? After all, hormones and surgery do not change a person's height.
Lots of NBA players are tall. I do not know of any 5'-4 NBA players.
Captain Obvious states the obvious (other than the fact that Muggsy Bogues was in the NBA for 14 years at 5'3" which fact you correctly stated that you did not know). No part of your post responds to the topic, though.
Quote from: grumbler on March 09, 2023, 04:35:23 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 09, 2023, 03:00:44 PMQuote from: grumbler on March 09, 2023, 02:16:57 PMWilt Chamberlain was 7'1" tall and had six of the twelve highest-scoring individual games in NBA history. Wasn't that an "unfair advantage?" Should there be a separate NBA for tall players? After all, hormones and surgery do not change a person's height.
Lots of NBA players are tall. I do not know of any 5'-4 NBA players.
Captain Obvious states the obvious (other than the fact that Muggsy Bogues was in the NBA for 14 years at 5'3" which fact you correctly stated that you did not know). No part of your post responds to the topic, though.
Sure. And I'm convinced the NBA has no rules preventing women from acceding to their ranks either, just like the NHL.
Ever wonder why there aren't any regular women in the NBA, NFL and NHL? As athletes, they should be able to adapt, as you said.
Quote from: Barrister on March 09, 2023, 03:05:25 PMThis is true. We separate male and female sports to create interesting and competitive competitions. Depending on the sport, at high/elite levels, females simply can not compete against males.
(I should note that's only at the high end. There are plenty of women who could kick my ass in all kinds of sports)
But then that brings us back to trans women. Is it an "interesting competition" to see a natal male who may or may not be taking female hormones compete against natal females?
Dunno. Is it an interesting competition when Wilt Chamberlain scores 100 points in a game? Is it an interesting competition when the University of Alabama with the "unfair advantage" of outweighing their opponents by an average of 32 pounds plays Western Carolina?
If we are to measure the "unfair advantage" of trans women over cis women, is the comparison between the most average trans woman and the most average cis woman? Or is it fair in your mind when the average trans woman is not as capable as the best cis woman?
The renowned Lia Thomas won an NCAA championship in swimming in 2022 but still ended up rated behind 35 cis women swimmers. Was her ability an "unfair advantage" or just the result of the typical improvement a college swimmer makes between matriculation and graduation (noting that she was a vey strong swimmer, 6th in the country in the 1000m, before starting the transition)?
There are going to be superior athletes in any sport because of biology. When is that superiority "unfair" and when is it earned? When is being a tall basketball player, or a very strong wrestler, or whatever advantage genes give an athlete unfair and when is it fair?
I don't know the answers to any of these questions so my response is to say let women play women's sports and if some have an advantage, that's part of sports.
Quote from: viper37 on March 09, 2023, 01:30:26 PMBeing trans does not alter the fundamental biology. Hormones and surgery do not change that.
But it does alter secondary biology. While the chromosomes may not be impacted (I am not a scientist who studies the effects of hormones on the body) the expression of those "fundamental biology" factors impact the body if the person is taking hormones and blockers.
Many/most M to F trans athletes have significantly lower testosterone levels, they tend to lose upper body muscle tissue somewhat rapidly as well. All of this has been talked about here before (and apparently glossed over by some).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 09, 2023, 03:59:39 PMQuote from: Josquius on March 09, 2023, 03:35:46 PMThat's not quite what I said. That was an extreme example of something that obviously should be OK.
There's still the question of tracking back where the line is.
Like for another extreme if trans woman are indistinguishable but lack a womb would that matter? - irrelevant for sport but clearly marks them as different.
It should be left up to science to determine what the important factors are and clearly define the line of exactly what level of testosterone or muscle mass or whatever it is, is too much.
You say you're disagreeing but I'm scratching my head where the disagreement is.
Lacking a womb is already baked into being trans.
Science can tell us when trans women no longer have an advantage. What else can they tell us that is useful?
Its not so much a total disagreement as a statement that we're agreed on the two extremes but the question of where exactly to draw the line remains.
Given neither of us are scientists leaving up to the sports governing bodies to determine it using actual science, fuck the politicians, and lets not even begin to make idiotic guesses at where it is, seems sensible.
Thinking about things there's also another line to worry about where its a lot harder to just leave it to science- at what level to the barriers come in place.
This is another problem with those who favour a nuclear option of completely ban trans people from sport. The highest levels of the sport have this strict testing regime, including for these 'are they a woman?' factors, already.
The potential rewards for success at the top of sport are large. Even if there has been zero example of someone transitioning just for the prize money and I don't see this as too likely, that its a possibility is fair enough.
But at the lowest levels of sport is this such a concern? In a little Sunday league football game which is more about socialisation and having a few beers afterwards than it is winning? - that there's a push to trans people here screams hate to me.
Quote from: PDH on March 09, 2023, 06:35:39 PMMany/most M to F trans athletes have significantly lower testosterone levels, they tend to lose upper body muscle tissue somewhat rapidly as well. All of this has been talked about here before (and apparently glossed over by some).
Testosterone levels drop, and maybe after 20 years or hormone therapy there is no discernible difference, but we are talking about athletes in their prime, in their 20s. Since they would compete in their sports from their teenage years on to the adult life, timing is relevant.
Jos studies pointed to very long term effects, and I will admit I have not read any meta studies about this subject that is way beyond my field of expertise. But other scientists from sports federation did, and remain unconvinced that it provide sufficient difference to allow trans M to F trans athletes to participate is competitions like World Cups and Olympics.
Yet, activists are screaming it's still discrimination and pressuring the scientists to reverse their positions. Then we have people here claiming sports federation should make their decision... But if they do and it's not the decision they want, they're still not ok with it...
So, in the end, it's pointless, isn't it?
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2023, 01:21:53 PMQuote from: PDH on March 09, 2023, 06:35:39 PMMany/most M to F trans athletes have significantly lower testosterone levels, they tend to lose upper body muscle tissue somewhat rapidly as well. All of this has been talked about here before (and apparently glossed over by some).
Testosterone levels drop, and maybe after 20 years or hormone therapy there is no discernible difference, but we are talking about athletes in their prime, in their 20s. Since they would compete in their sports from their teenage years on to the adult life, timing is relevant.
You are talking out of your ass.
Testosterone levels start dropping immediately. Elite level runners, for instance, lose minutes off their best times in less than a year. Muscle mass can start dropping within a couple of weeks, and quite quickly. The testosterone levels (due to blockers) drop below that of XX athletes.
It has been studied.
Quote from: PDH on March 10, 2023, 02:37:18 PMQuote from: viper37 on March 10, 2023, 01:21:53 PMQuote from: PDH on March 09, 2023, 06:35:39 PMMany/most M to F trans athletes have significantly lower testosterone levels, they tend to lose upper body muscle tissue somewhat rapidly as well. All of this has been talked about here before (and apparently glossed over by some).
Testosterone levels drop, and maybe after 20 years or hormone therapy there is no discernible difference, but we are talking about athletes in their prime, in their 20s. Since they would compete in their sports from their teenage years on to the adult life, timing is relevant.
You are talking out of your ass.
Testosterone levels start dropping immediately. Elite level runners, for instance, lose minutes off their best times in less than a year. Muscle mass can start dropping within a couple of weeks, and quite quickly. The testosterone levels (due to blockers) drop below that of XX athletes.
It has been studied.
Viper has obviously not missed a couple of weeks of benching and felt the pain of trying to lift the same weight. :D
Quote from: PDH on March 10, 2023, 02:37:18 PMTestosterone levels start dropping immediately. Elite level runners, for instance, lose minutes off their best times in less than a year. Muscle mass can start dropping within a couple of weeks, and quite quickly. The testosterone levels (due to blockers) drop below that of XX athletes.
It has been studied.
The drop begins immediatly, but before it makes a measurable difference in sports performance it takes a while.
Look, if you want to dig up the study and repost it, I'll look at it again.
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2023, 05:22:38 PMQuote from: PDH on March 10, 2023, 02:37:18 PMTestosterone levels start dropping immediately. Elite level runners, for instance, lose minutes off their best times in less than a year. Muscle mass can start dropping within a couple of weeks, and quite quickly. The testosterone levels (due to blockers) drop below that of XX athletes.
It has been studied.
The drop begins immediatly, but before it makes a measurable difference in sports performance it takes a while.
Look, if you want to dig up the study and repost it, I'll look at it again.
Do you have some academic literature which supports your contention that it takes years for a measurable difference in sports performance to manifest itself? That is highly counter intuitive.
Quote from: viper37 on March 10, 2023, 05:22:38 PMQuote from: PDH on March 10, 2023, 02:37:18 PMTestosterone levels start dropping immediately. Elite level runners, for instance, lose minutes off their best times in less than a year. Muscle mass can start dropping within a couple of weeks, and quite quickly. The testosterone levels (due to blockers) drop below that of XX athletes.
It has been studied.
The drop begins immediatly, but before it makes a measurable difference in sports performance it takes a while.
Look, if you want to dig up the study and repost it, I'll look at it again.
Now about the US Air Force Study (https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/55/11/577)
QuoteResults Participants were 26.2 years old (SD 5.5). Prior to gender affirming hormones, transwomen performed 31% more push-ups and 15% more sit-ups in 1 min and ran 1.5 miles 21% faster than their female counterparts. After 2 years of taking feminising hormones, the push-up and sit-up differences disappeared but transwomen were still 12% faster. Prior to gender affirming hormones, transmen performed 43% fewer push-ups and ran 1.5 miles 15% slower than their male counterparts. After 1 year of taking masculinising hormones, there was no longer a difference in push-ups or run times, and the number of sit-ups performed in 1 min by transmen exceeded the average performance of their male counterparts.
They didn't have sufficient data to examine a sufficient number if these cases beyond 2 years.