J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

suicide_circus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One thing I don't fully understand is how, since gender is an artificial construction in the first place, we can argue in the same breath that someone was misassigned a gender at birth, or that their gender is inherently woman, or man. Surely the latter argument would insist that gender is inherent to one's identity, and must be physiological.

Looking for logical consistency here will leave you wanting.

Tired Gardener

suicide_circus wrote: »

No, sorry, I dont believe any of that i'm afraid. 99.9% of people with xy chromosomes are men. The rest, due to dysphoria or whatever, think that they are not men.

Yes, XY does usually mean male (the SYR gene is found on the Y chromosome). No argument there with sex. Gender isn't sex, it is our actions. Sex is the physical, Gender is the thought and how that is expressed.

I am against gender stereotypes, as I believe in equality for both sexes. If a man decided to be a stay at home dad it doesn't mean he is less of a man. If a woman wanted to do something that our society says is typically a man's thing it doesn't make her less of a woman.

volchitsa

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One thing I don't fully understand is how, since gender is an artificial construction in the first place, we can argue in the same breath that someone was misassigned a gender at birth, or that their gender is inherently woman, or man. Surely the latter argument would insist that gender is inherent to one's identity, and must be physiological.

I don't really understand that, but that's perhaps because I haven't looked into it in much detail. I'd have absolutely no difficulty in using whatever pronouns a person wants, it's such a tiny, insignificant act of courtesy ffs.

I honestly don't think that's the problem, it's about being unable to query the idea that someone can actually be a different sex than the one that corresponds to their genitalia.

This for instance:

'NHS should have challenged me more on my transition'
She's challenging the idea that the correct response to a teenager saying that they are the opposite sex (may be different for an adult) should be the current approach of positive affirmation, ie, calling them by the pronoun they want etc. She says that makes it more likely that someone will end up wrongly going down the road of taking hormones and eventually getting surgery, as she did. Something she now bitterly regrets.

So while I agree with you that it's more polite (and in most cases appropriate) to call someone by the pronoun they want, making it a legal obligation, or even a rule on an internet site, is going down a dangerous road of making it harder to question that even when it needs to be.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Not really, women can in some areas be very 'typical of their gender stereotypes', and in other areas more typical of their opposite gender stereotypes.

Gender is just a measure of how we express our sexuality. Which is as broad as it is long, so given that people are not easy to fit in a pigeon hole will exhibit a wide range of differences. Hence Gender being fluid.

What you’re talking about there is gender expression, nothing to do with sexuality. And it’s this kind of language of gender stereotypes that JK relies on to make her arguments about “women’s ownership of language”, as if anyone can actually own language!

What she really means is she wants to exclude people from using language that she feels “doesn’t belong to them”, based upon her conception of womanhood and what being a woman means to her.

That could only work if JK were recognised as an authority on people’s freedom of speech or freedom of expression, and she had the authority to determine for everyone else how they should think and how they should express themselves. She takes offence to other people trying to impose those standards on her, but refuses to see any issue in her imposing her standards on other people who do not conform to her stereotypes.

Champions freedom of speech, but only as it applies to her and people who share her opinions, then complains in the national media and on social media platforms about “cancel culture” and somehow she is being silenced? :rolleyes:

Invidious

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

One thing I don't fully understand is how, since gender is an artificial construction in the first place, we can argue in the same breath that someone was misassigned a gender at birth, or that their gender is inherently woman, or man.

People have criticized toy shops for overly gendering children by directing girls towards Barbies and toy kitchens, and boys towards cars, trucks, and footballs.

Now, a girl who ignores the Barbies and heads for the cars and trucks aisle might have her parents whispering about her gender identity and wondering if they need to start transitioning her.

sydthebeat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What you’re talking about there is gender expression, nothing to do with sexuality. And it’s this kind of language of gender stereotypes that JK relies on to make her arguments about “women’s ownership of language”, as if anyone can actually own language!

What she really means is she wants to exclude people from using language that she feels “doesn’t belong to them”, based upon her conception of womanhood and what being a woman means to her.

That could only work if JK were recognised as an authority on people’s freedom of speech or freedom of expression, and she had the authority to determine for everyone else how they should think and how they should express themselves. She takes offence to other people trying to impose those standards on her, but refuses to see any issue in her imposing her standards on other people who do not conform to her stereotypes.

Champions freedom of speech, but only as it applies to her and people who share her opinions, then complains in the national media and on social media platforms about “cancel culture” and somehow she is being silenced? :rolleyes:

I dunno

Menstruation is not a "concept" of womanhood..... It's one of the very few quantifiable differences between men and women. So to claim the ownership of menstruation should be in the gift of womanhood is not at all an extreme or personal opinion, but a fact.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Yes, XY does usually mean male (the SYR gene is found on the Y chromosome). No argument there with sex. Gender isn't sex, it is our actions. Sex is the physical, Gender is the thought and how that is expressed.

I am against gender stereotypes, as I believe in equality for both sexes. If a man decided to be a stay at home dad it doesn't mean he is less of a man. If a woman wanted to do something that our society says is typically a man's thing it doesn't make her less of a woman.

That’s a matter of opinion, in this case your own.

I don’t imagine you’ll find too many people who agree with you on the basis of the actions of the majority of people who conform to gender stereotypes, it doesn’t appear as though anyone cares a whole lot about your idea of equality.

Tired Gardener

Invidious wrote: »

People have criticized toy shops for overly gendering children by directing girls towards Barbies and toy kitchens, and boys towards cars, trucks, and footballs.

Now, a girl who ignores the Barbies and heads for the cars and trucks aisle might have her parents whispering about her gender identity and wondering if they need to start transitioning her.

The damage of having very rigid social norms of gender.

When I was a child I played with toys that were gendered for the opposite to me. Luckily my parents were not so rigid in their thinking.

Segregated toys based upon children's sex is odd. No toy for children should be bothered about what is or isn't in a child's trousers. If a toy does... safe to say it is an adult sex toy and most certainly not for children!

Invidious

Invidious wrote: »

People have criticized toy shops for overly gendering children by directing girls towards Barbies and toy kitchens, and boys towards cars, trucks, and footballs.

Now, a girl who ignores the Barbies and heads for the cars and trucks aisle might have her parents whispering about her gender identity and wondering if they need to start transitioning her.

Does anyone know the trans version of 'stranger danger'? Some people are literally going around, inventing all sorts of fanciful situations, trying to spread panic and fear. Fcuk knows why.

One eyed Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

I dunno

Menstruation is not a "concept" of womanhood..... It's one of the very few quantifiable differences between men and women. So to claim the ownership of menstruation should be in the gift of womanhood is not at all an extreme or personal opinion, but a fact.

I don’t disagree with you, but it was JK who maintains it is a concept of womanhood, not me, and certainly not the people whom she was criticising for their use of the term “non-binary” to refer to people who menstruate, as opposed to and distinct those who don’t.

The target of her ire were a global charity educating people in underdeveloped societies about the importance of menstrual healthcare. JK took offence to their use of the terms they used instead of the terms she prefers to use.

suicide_circus

Tired Gardener wrote: »

Yes, XY does usually mean male (the SYR gene is found on the Y chromosome). No argument there with sex. Gender isn't sex, it is our actions. Sex is the physical, Gender is the thought and how that is expressed.

I am against gender stereotypes, as I believe in equality for both sexes. If a man decided to be a stay at home dad it doesn't mean he is less of a man. If a woman wanted to do something that our society says is typically a man's thing it doesn't make her less of a woman.

ok so lets accept your premise for a moment. do you think that the need of some people to "transition" is purely a function of rigid gender stereotypes? ie: if a man could wear a skirt and heels without anyone taking the least notice, there would be no need for then to legally alter their "gender" or go through surgery etc?

sydthebeat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t disagree with you, but it was JK who maintains it is a concept of womanhood, not me, and certainly not the people whom she was criticising for their use of the term “non-binary” to refer to people who menstruate, as opposed to and distinct those who don’t.

The target of her ire were a global charity educating people in underdeveloped societies about the importance of menstrual healthcare. JK took offence to their use of the terms they used instead of the terms she prefers to use.

She took offence to that Company using the phrase "people who menstruate" rather than "women who menstruate"

Is that an unreasonable term to use??

Or is it more unreasonable for others to take offence to the phrase "women who menstruate"?

My own opinion is that it's not unreasonable and those who take offense from such a factual phrase are the ones who are unreasonable.

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

The damage of having very rigid social norms of gender.

When I was a child I played with toys that were gendered for the opposite to me. Luckily my parents were not so rigid in their thinking.

Segregated toys based upon children's sex is odd. No toy for children should be bothered about what is or isn't in a child's trousers. If a toy does... safe to say it is an adult sex toy and most certainly not for children!

Toy manufacturers aren’t bothered by what is or isn’t in a child’s trousers, jesus :pac:


Their primary concern is producing toys which will have as broad market appeal as possible to their target market, and that means making toys which appeal either to boys or to girls. The least of their concerns is social justice and what you characterise as “odd” even though it is practiced by the vast majority of people in any given society, and therefore these gender stereotypes are considered normal.

Your parents allowing you to play with toys that were not marketed towards your gender is neither here nor there in terms of toy manufacturers objectives.

Tired Gardener

volchitsa wrote: »

This for instance:

'NHS should have challenged me more on my transition'
She's challenging the idea that the correct response to a teenager saying that they are the opposite sex (may be different for an adult) should be the current approach of positive affirmation, ie, calling them by the pronoun they want etc. She says that makes it more likely that someone will end up wrongly going down the road of taking hormones and eventually getting surgery, as she did. Something she now bitterly regrets.

So while I agree with you that it's more polite (and in most cases appropriate) to call someone by the pronoun they want, making it a legal obligation, or even a rule on an internet site, is going down a dangerous road of making it harder to question that even when it needs to be.

That is a sad read, it just highlights how we need to remove the rigid ideas of gender like boys wear blue and are physical, girls wear pink and are emotional. That and we need to stop treating a mental health condition in young children as if it were a physical health condition. Again, allow someone to live their life as the opposite sex if that helps their state of mind, chemical treatment and surgery should be the very last step in trying to help, not the first step.

I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that we will see a lot more cases like this in the future.

One eyed Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

She took offence to that Company using the phrase "people who menstruate" rather than "women who menstruate"

Is that an unreasonable term to use??

Or is it more unreasonable for others to take offence to the phrase "women who menstruate"?

My own opinion is that it's not unreasonable and those who take offense from such a factual phrase are the ones who are unreasonable.

It certainly was unreasonable on JK’s part to take offence where none was intended by an organisations use of the term “people who menstruate” in reference to people who menstruate, and had she removed her head from her rear orifice she would have understood the context in which it was being used -


An estimated 1.8 billion girls, women, and gender non-binary persons menstruate, and this has not stopped because of the pandemic. They still require menstrual materials, safe access to toilets, soap, water, and private spaces in the face of lockdown living conditions that have eliminated privacy for many populations.


Opinion: Creating a more equal post-COVID-19 world for people who menstruate


Nothing about people who don’t menstruate in there, or any reference to males, boys or men. It was JK who took offence where none was intended, and her actions were unreasonable having taken offence at the use of a factual phrase, as you put it. It was far more accurate to refer to people who menstruate than simply to refer to women who menstruate, because of course it’s not only women who menstruate.

sydthebeat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

.... because of course it’s not only women who menstruate.

Well... we'll leave it there so.

One eyed Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

Well... we'll leave it there so.

People who identify themselves as non-binary, still need access to menstrual healthcare, because no matter how they identify themselves, they still menstruate, which is the point JK appeared to miss, by a country mile.

I find it difficult to believe she’s that stupid, but maybe she is.

sydthebeat

One eyed Jack wrote: »

People who identify themselves as non-binary, still need access to menstrual healthcare, because no matter how they identify themselves, they still menstruate, which is the point JK appeared to miss, by a country mile.

I find it difficult to believe she’s that stupid, but maybe she is.

People who identify as non binary should not have the driving control over the language used. That's my point. They may identify as non binary, but they are essentially women, who have wombs and are of childbearing age.

I have no problem at all with how they want to identify themselves, but I think putting the control of the language around these females issues into their remit is a dangerous route to go down.

I can walk into a supermarket and purchase female sanitary towels for my wife or daughter without discrimination or rebuke, so why does a transman feel discrimination for doing the same thing? Surely to specialise them is actually "un-equalling" them and that in essence would be discrimination and segregation from "cis" males

Should their 'taken offense' direct the language around these female issues?

When will we see sanitary towel bins in male toilets?

One eyed Jack

Tired Gardener wrote: »

That is a sad read, it just highlights how we need to remove the rigid ideas of gender like boys wear blue and are physical, girls wear pink and are emotional.

...

I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that we will see a lot more cases like this in the future.

One case, and you want to up-end social norms?

Isn’t that what you’re arguing against? The up-ending of social norms on the basis of a minority who do not conform to those norms.

Why do you think then that people should adjust their whole way of living because you imagine it’s damaging to individuals or to men, women or children or society?

Of course we’re going to see more cases like this in the future as more and more cases present themselves, it’s as obvious as saying that we’re likely to see more people availing of the gender recognition act now that it exists where it didn’t before. That’s not exactly a great prediction, and of course you’re not wrong.

That one case is going to be determined on its own merits by the Courts and won’t have any effect on how anyone else is assessed or treated. Each case which presents itself will be determined on its own merits as to what the best course of treatment may be in order to achieve a positive outcome for the patient, same as the way medicine has always been practiced.

CroatoanCat

Apologies if this has already been highlighted, but here is a link to an absolutely heartbreaking piece in The Sunday Times today on female detransitioners:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/25f95e06-bf8f-11ea-9ea2-5a548b3aebca?shareToken=0db1eb05b264c2938550c78050d3106d

(That link will allow you to read the article without signing up to anything.)

These young women are being utterly failed. We must speak up for them and others like them. Please, I urge everybody, to read this with an open mind.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It certainly was unreasonable on JK’s part to take offence where none was intended by an organisations use of the term “people who menstruate” in reference to people who menstruate, and had she removed her head from her rear orifice she would have understood the context in which it was being used -

The vast, vast majority of people who menstruate are women and girls. Why should womanhood be erased from the language of menstruation to facilitate a very small minority?

If "transwomen are women", why does the word woman offend them so much?

One eyed Jack

sydthebeat wrote: »

People who identify as non binary should not have the driving control over the language used. That's my point. They may identify as non binary, but they are essentially women, who have wombs and are of childbearing age.

I have no problem at all with how they want to identify themselves, but I think putting the control of the language around these females issues into their remit is a dangerous route to go down.

I completely get your point, but that’s not what happened in this instance. The global organisation in question chose to use those terms in order to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. It was JK who tried to point out that they should restrict themselves to the use of the word “women”, even though it would have been completely inappropriate in the context of the organisations aims. As far as I’m concerned the organisation can use whatever language they feel is appropriate, as opposed to restricting themselves to the language that JK considers appropriate.

sydthebeat wrote: »

I can walk into a supermarket and purchase female sanitary towels for my wife or daughter without discrimination or rebuke, so why does a transman feel discrimination for doing the same thing? Surely to specialise them is actually "un-equalling" them and that in essence would be discrimination and segregation from "cis" males.

Should their 'taken offense' direct the language around these female issues?

When will we see sanitary towel bins in male toilets?

I’ve heard of it in a few cases, particularly in third level institutions in Ireland (but that could just have been that person blowing smoke up my tailpipe, I don’t frequent the male bathrooms in third level institutions to verify the persons claims! :pac: ), but if the ACLU have their way it’s just a matter of time before we’ll see sanitary towel bins in male toilets. They were speaking in relation to what is often termed “the tampon tax” on feminine hygiene products -


Our discussion of the tampon tax must include every person who menstruates.

In forging these claims, a question emerges: How can we recognize that barriers to menstrual access are a form of sex discrimination without erasing the lived experiences of trans men and non-binary people who menstruate, as well as women who don’t? Some arguments that challenge discriminatory laws based on sex-linked characteristics have made the point that “only women” menstruate, get pregnant, or breastfeed. But that is not a full or accurate portrayal — and menstrual stigma and period poverty can hit trans and non-binary people particularly hard.

...

We don’t need to erase trans or non-binary people to show that barriers to menstrual equity, such as the tax on menstrual products, are unconstitutional sex discrimination. This tax targets a bodily function associated with women for less favorable treatment. It relies on sexist ideas that women’s needs are frivolous and unnecessary. It is irrational, and it directly affects cis and trans women, trans men, and non-binary people. It’s unfair, unconstitutional, and illegal.



Menstruation-Related Discrimination is Sex Discrimination — We Don’t Need to Erase Trans or Non-Binary People to Make That Point

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

The vast, vast majority of people who menstruate are women and girls. Why should womanhood be erased from the language of menstruation to facilitate a very small minority?

If "transwomen are women", why does the word woman offend them so much?

Womanhood isn’t being erased from “the language of menstruation” as you put it. Last time I checked, anyone who wanted to can and does still use it. Those people don’t have ownership of language in order to tell other people what language those people can or can not use, nor does anyone require permission from anyone else to use whatever language they wish to use.

I’ve never said “transwomen are women” btw but I can understand why anyone would be offended being referred to by a term which they find offensive on the basis that they feel it doesn’t apply to them, particularly if they identify themselves as non-binary, as opposed to identifying themselves as women because JK says so.

Invidious

Would anyone care to define the term "woman"? What makes someone a woman?

Tired Gardener

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Apologies if this has already been highlighted, but here is a link to an absolutely heartbreaking piece in The Sunday Times today on female detransitioners:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/25f95e06-bf8f-11ea-9ea2-5a548b3aebca?shareToken=0db1eb05b264c2938550c78050d3106d

(That link will allow you to read the article without signing up to anything.)

These young women are being utterly failed. We must speak up for them and others like them. Please, I urge everybody, to read this with an open mind.

Thanks for sharing, powerful stuff. All those accounts are heartbreaking.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Womanhood isn’t being erased from “the language of menstruation” as you put it. Last time I checked, anyone who wanted to can and does still use it. Those people don’t have ownership of language in order to tell other people what language those people can or can not use, nor does anyone require permission from anyone else to use whatever language they wish to use.

I’ve never said “transwomen are women” btw but I can understand why anyone would be offended being referred to by a term which they find offensive on the basis that they feel it doesn’t apply to them, particularly if they identify themselves as non-binary, as opposed to identifying themselves as women because JK says so.

Terms like "people who menstruate" and "people who are pregnant" do erase womanhood from those scenarios, which I find offensive.

Why do trans people have more of a right to be offended than I do?

Tired Gardener

suicide_circus wrote: »

ok so lets accept your premise for a moment. do you think that the need of some people to "transition" is purely a function of rigid gender stereotypes? ie: if a man could wear a skirt and heels without anyone taking the least notice, there would be no need for then to legally alter their "gender" or go through surgery etc?

A skirt and heels are just articles of clothing and footwear. They aren't exclusive to women.

Heels were originally worn by men first. Skirts are worn by men in many none western cultures.

Our rigid gender stereotypes are false. If a man wanted to live as a woman, in the Western world wearing a skirt and heels would be a way to play along with our rigid social ideas. So in your example, it would help them pass without the need to legally alter their gender. However their sex would remain male/man/him/his. Sex is in humans immutable.

If a woman choose not to shave her legs or under arm hair, it doesn't mean she is no longer a woman.

GreeBo

Why are people mixing gender with gender stereotypes?
You can be a man but not match male stereotypes... But you are still a man. Equally, acting like another gender doesn't change your gender, I'm not a man on Monday because I cut the grass with my top off and a woman on Tuesday because I baked a cake and put a bra on.
This wasn't the case in the 60s and still isn't the case today, however the idea of gender stereotypes has changed in that time frame.
The stereotypes have changed, but your gender hasn't and indeed cannot. If I dye my hair blonde I'm still not a blonde.

Gender is a noun, not an adjective.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

Terms like "people who menstruate" and "people who are pregnant" do erase womanhood from those scenarios, which I find offensive.

Why do trans people have more of a right to be offended than I do?

They don’t erase womanhood from those scenarios, aren’t you still using it with reference to those scenarios? Do people still understand what you mean by womanhood? If you want to restrict talking about menstruation to frame it as something unique to womanhood you’re perfectly entitled to do so. Other people are also entitled to talk about menstruation as it applies outside the limitations of your “womanhood” narrative which quite frankly I have no interest in asking you to define. I understand what you mean, I also understand what someone else means even if they never use the term “womanhood”.

People who are transgender or non-binary or even people who are neither transgender nor non-binary have an equal right to be offended as you are by people who don’t use your words, or people who don’t use the same language as you do, or that you don’t use the same language they do. There’s still no erasure of language going on there as people can still use whatever language suits them. People who don’t use the same language you do aren’t erasing language any more than you could be accused of erasing language when you use the term womanhood in the context of a discussion about menstrual healthcare and who needs access to it.

Getting uppity because someone isn’t using their words is quite frankly missing the broader context.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They don’t erase womanhood from those scenarios, aren’t you still using it with reference to those scenarios? Do people still understand what you mean by womanhood? If you want to restrict talking about menstruation to frame it as something unique to womanhood you’re perfectly entitled to do so. Other people are also entitled to talk about menstruation as it applies outside the limitations of your “womanhood” narrative which quite frankly I have no interest in asking you to define. I understand what you mean, I also understand what someone else means even if they never use the term “womanhood”.

People who are transgender or non-binary or even people who are neither transgender nor non-binary have an equal right to be offended as you are by people who don’t use your words, or people who don’t use the same language as you do, or that you don’t use the same language they do. There’s still no erasure of language going on there as people can still use whatever language suits them. People who don’t use the same language you do aren’t erasing language any more than you could be accused of erasing language when you use the term womanhood in the context of a discussion about menstrual healthcare and who needs access to it.

Getting uppity because someone isn’t using their words is quite frankly missing the broader context.

I'm talking about the erasure of womanhood from public policy, by way of government documents, NGOs and advocacy groups refusing to use the word woman where it is appropriate.

I have no problem with them saying "Women, girls and other pregnant/ mentruating people", but I don't think the word woman, which applies most often to these cases, should be erased.

Are trans people unaware of how hard women had to fight for our rights? I'm willing to make reasonable accommodations such as that above to make trans people feel included but I'm not okay with women's identity being hidden or erased. We matter just as much as trans people.