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

Sittingpretty

Gruffalox wrote: »

It is perfectly simple to use the words women and transmen. That way everyone is respectfully included. Nobody at any event for girls, women and transmen is going to question the presence of girls, women and transmen. People who menstruate have female biology.
There does not need to be any erasure of woman as adult human female or of transgender people. The question you should ask is why would there ever be the need to be so disrespectful to girls and women that they must accept erasure of their meaningful language, or their ontological category in order to facilitate anyone?
I have always argued for both to be respected, the safe enclosed third space facilitating biological needs for example. The word woman or girl or man etc means something. A transwoman is a transwoman. That is fine. They are not a woman. A transman is a transman. They are not a man.There is room for all.

If I could thank this a thousand times I would.

Gruffalux

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Do we now have to provide “Women, girls and trans men” in order to appease those women that have eschewed their sex at birth in order to live as men?

Really?

Why not? It is truth. It is reality. There are girls, women and transmen. All deserve respect, and in this case information about menstruation.

Sittingpretty

Gruffalox wrote: »

Why not? It is truth. It is reality. There are girls, women and transmen. All deserve respect, and in this case information about menstruation.

I wouldn’t argue that anyone doesn’t deserve respect.

For me it is an added extra for appeasement of an agenda.

JK Rowling was right “people who menstruate” like “pregnant people” are, in my opinion, insufferably stupid terms.

One eyed Jack

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Do we now have to provide “Women, girls and trans men” in order to appease those women that have eschewed their sex at birth in order to live as men?

Really?

Nobody is saying you’re compelled to do anything, certainly not in law at least which is where anything actually matters.

However if you’re a global NGO headed up by three women looking to educate people about menstrual healthcare in societies where menstruation huts are a thing, then the idea of trying to appeal to as broad an audience as possible who have vastly different cultural norms, beliefs, characteristics, politics, languages, etc, is far more important than JK’s imagining that the concept of women is being “erased”, as if it was ever a universal concept in the first place.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

Funny thing about all of this is the people most in need of education on menstrual issues are probably girls as opposed to grown women. So the word "women" wouldn't actually cover all the bases unless you expand the definition to include female children as well as adults. But we can't do that, because words are sacrosanct immutable things gifted to us by biology and Mother Nature.

Why do you think there isn’t information about menstruation aimed directly at preteens and teenagers? There is and that information will also become obfuscated if terms such as ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with periods’ gain purchase.

It’s so abundantly clear that so many people who see no problem with those terms have no experience of what it is to grow up female. Because anyone who grows up female knows that there is information about menstruation aimed specifically at teenagers and that’s how we’d like it to stay.

Gruffalux

Sittingpretty wrote: »

I wouldn’t argue that anyone doesn’t deserve respect.

For me it is an added extra for appeasement of an agenda.

JK Rowling was right “people who menstruate” like “pregnant people” are, in my opinion, insufferably stupid terms.

I agree that examples like pregnant people or people who menstruate are stupid terms. They are being used at the moment to pursue an ideology. A kind of entrainment or propaganda to deconstruct meaning.
But transmen (and transwomen) exist and need words and spaces and protection and information and recognition and rights, just like anyone else. Not at the expense of eroding reality, though.

Sittingpretty

Gruffalox wrote: »

I agree that examples like pregnant people or people who menstruate are stupid terms. They are being used at the moment to pursue an ideology. A kind of entrainment or propaganda to deconstruct meaning.
But transmen (and transwomen) exist and need words and spaces and protection and information and recognition and rights, just like anyone else. Not at the expense of eroding reality, though.

Absolutely. We are in the same page here. I dont disagree with any of that

One eyed Jack

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

It’s so abundantly clear that so many people who see no problem with those terms have no experience of what it is to grow up female. Because anyone who grows up female knows that there is information about menstruation aimed specifically at teenagers and that’s how we’d like it to stay.

Well that’s clearly nonsense. So much of this stuff has been driven by feminist ideology for the last number of decades, so the idea that they have no idea what it is to grow up as female? Far more accurate to point out that nobody else has any idea what it was like for you to growing up as female given your rather limited view of the world.

I didn’t have to grow up female to know what information is out there about menstruation, nor did I have to grow up as female to have an idea of how many women even in this country don’t have access to adequate and appropriate menstrual healthcare, because unlike JK, they live in poverty. Their experiences growing up as women couldn’t be more different than JK, and in spite of how you imagine that’s how women want it to stay, in reality there are far more women who are of the opposite view who want people to be educated about this ****e.

KiKi III

Gruffalox wrote: »

I agree that examples like pregnant people or people who menstruate are stupid terms. They are being used at the moment to pursue an ideology. A kind of entrainment or propaganda to deconstruct meaning.
But transmen (and transwomen) exist and need words and spaces and protection and information and recognition and rights, just like anyone else. Not at the expense of eroding reality, though.

I’ve been reading threads on this, blog posts and tweets and your last couple of posts really struck a chord. You’ve articulated the need to protect and extend the rights of both women and trans people really well, and how to strike that balance.

I didn’t know stuff like this could still happen on the internet.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that’s clearly nonsense. So much of this stuff has been driven by feminist ideology for the last number of decades, so the idea that they have no idea what it is to grow up as female? Far more accurate to point out that nobody else has any idea what it was like for you to growing up as female given your rather limited view of the world.

I didn’t have to grow up female to know what information is out there about menstruation, nor did I have to grow up as female to have an idea of how many women even in this country don’t have access to adequate and appropriate menstrual healthcare, because unlike JK, they live in poverty. Their experiences growing up as women couldn’t be more different than JK, and in spite of how you imagine that’s how women want it to stay, in reality there are far more women who are of the opposite view who want people to be educated about this ****e.

You know that JK lived in poverty before achieving fame through her writing, right? Single mother in a council flat.

Gruffalux

KiKi III wrote: »

I’ve been reading threads on this, blog posts and tweets and your last couple of posts really struck a chord. You’ve articulated the need to protect and extend the rights of both women and trans people really well, and how to strike that balance.

I didn’t know stuff like this could still happen on the internet.

Thanks. Glad to have helped. Now I am taking a break from this exhausting stuff.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

I’ve been reading threads on this, blog posts and tweets and your last couple of posts really struck a chord. You’ve articulated the need to protect and extend the rights of both women and trans people really well, and how to strike that balance.

I didn’t know stuff like this could still happen on the internet.

Balance is all I’m looking for myself personally. A transgender woman I follow on Twitter rightfully pointed out that women and transgender women (and I presume she extends this to men and transgender men) both have challenges but those challenges are not the same and that should be acknowledged instead of pretending that transgender women are literally women. From what I can see, this is what JK Rowling thinks too. Some transgender rights conflict with sex-based rights and that has to be figured out and people need to be allowed to discuss it without being called bigots.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

You know that JK lived in poverty before achieving fame through her writing, right? Single mother in a council flat.

I wouldn’t have said she was living in poverty having had access to education which placed her in a much more comfortable position than the vast majority of people who are actually living in poverty in the UK. Makes for a romanticised back story of overcoming adversity and all that though.

JK loses sleep over the erasure of the concept of womanhood, women lose sleep over how they’re going to afford hygiene products. I dunno, different priorities and all that.

KiKi III

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t have said she was living in poverty having had access to education which placed her in a much more comfortable position than the vast majority of people who are actually living in poverty in the UK. Makes for a romanticised back story of overcoming adversity and all that though.

JK loses sleep over the erasure of the concept of womanhood, women lose sleep over how they’re going to afford hygiene products. I dunno, different priorities and all that.

That’s quite the false dichotomy you’re creating there. I can be concerned about how I’m going to pay rent this month and the erasure of womanhood all in the one day. I’m capable of holding two different thoughts on two different issues in my head all at once.

Multi-tasking you see, us women are great at it.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I wouldn’t have said she was living in poverty having had access to education which placed her in a much more comfortable position than the vast majority of people who are actually living in poverty in the UK. Makes for a romanticised back story of overcoming adversity and all that though.

JK loses sleep over the erasure of the concept of womanhood, women lose sleep over how they’re going to afford hygiene products. I dunno, different priorities and all that.

So this level of disconnect from women's reality shows why there are far more important principles at stake here than just being all inclusive and saying "ah sure we're all women" : Rowling found herself living in poverty because she fled a violent partner taking her daughter with her. Something that can happen women of all social classes. And the poverty is just as real.

For a man to then dismiss that as "a romanticised back story" is, frankly, disgusting. But finally not that surprising from you. I'm definitely getting a whiff of misogyny here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

KiKi III wrote: »

That’s quite the false dichotomy you’re creating there. I can be concerned about how I’m going to pay rent this month and the erasure of womanhood all in the one day. I’m capable of holding two different thoughts on two different issues in my head all at once.

Multi-tasking you see, us women are great at it.

Rowling got a bit of that too: “With all that’s going on in the world, how can you focus on this?” type comments. But, like you say, people can care about more than one thing at a time. And I think Rowling was pissed off because someone on Twitter accused her of not being safe to have around kids. So it was relevant for her to talk about the topic.

One eyed Jack

KiKi III wrote: »

That’s quite the false dichotomy you’re creating there. I can be concerned about how I’m going to pay rent this month and the erasure of womanhood all in the one day. I’m capable of holding two different thoughts on two different issues in my head all at once.

Multi-tasking you see, us women are great at it.

It wasn’t a false dichotomy, it was simply to show you that the differences between those two realities are more than just biology. You’ve taken what I said and used yourself as an example of how you can be concerned about both, when that was never the comparison I made in the first place.

I’ve met very few women who spent time navel gazing about ‘the erasure of women’, not to suggest they don’t exist, but I’ve met far more women who have practical, real world concerns, as opposed to academic fanny fluffing.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So this level of disconnect from women's reality shows why there are far more important principles at stake here than just being all inclusive and saying "ah sure we're all women" : Rowling found herself living in poverty because she fled a violent partner taking her daughter with her. Something that can happen women of all social classes. And the poverty is just as real.

I’ve worked with plenty of women who would laugh at that notion and suggest you’re talking out your arse :pac:


I wouldn’t though, I’d just feel embarrassed for you.

volchitsa wrote: »

For a man to then dismiss that as "a romanticised back story" is, frankly, disgusting. But finally not that surprising from you. I'm definitely getting a whiff of misogyny here.

Nothing to do with me being a man, and like I said earlier in the thread - it’s pure stupidity calling disagreement with your opinions misogyny, in the same way as others calling your disagreement with their opinions is transphobic. Can you really be surprised when you fire that nonsense about so freely yourself?

Stark

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Do we now have to provide “Women, girls and trans men” in order to appease those women that have eschewed their sex at birth in order to live as men?

Really?

No we don't have to. Most people/organizations don't provide those things, they just say "women" and no-one says boo to them about it. The organization in question for whatever reason, wanted to specifically include transmen and let transmen know they were included as is their perogative in a free democratic society only to have the transphobes get all up in their face about it.

It's like "I have no intention whatsoever of attending this particular event, it doesn't affect me in any way, but I'd like people who don't fit the norm excluded from it".

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

No we don't have to. Most people/organizations don't provide those things, they just say "women" and no-one says boo to them about it. The organization in question for whatever reason, wanted to specifically include transmen and let transmen know they were included as is their perogative in a free democratic society only to have the transphobes get all up in their face about it.

It's like "I have no intention whatsoever of attending this particular event, it doesn't affect me in any way, but I'd like people who don't fit the norm excluded from it".

I’m sorry, are transgender men not aware that they are female?

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m sorry, are transgender men not aware that they are female?

I know right? How could they ever feel they might be unwelcome somewhere when everyone in the world is as lovely as you are towards transpeople.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

I know right? How could they ever feel they might be unwelcome somewhere when everyone in the world is as lovely as you are towards transpeople.

That didn’t answer my question: are transgender men unaware that they are female? You’re not crediting them with much intelligence here.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

That didn’t answer my question: are transgender men unaware that they are female? You’re not crediting them with much intelligence here.

You're not crediting me with much intelligence either if you think I don't see through what you're getting at. Have you really led such a sheltered life as to not realise that minorites often feel uncomfortable in a lot of spaces/situations or why "X is welcome" might be a beneficial message for them?

You sound like the people dog whistling "All lives matter", "why don't we have straight pride", "when's international men's day?". Nothing special or unique about your particular brand.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

You're not crediting me with much intelligence either if you think I don't see through what you're getting at. Have you really led such a sheltered life as to not realise that minorites often feel uncomfortable in a lot of spaces/situations or why "X is welcome" might be a beneficial message for them?

You sound like the people dog whistling "All lives matter", "why don't we have straight pride", "when's international men's day?". Nothing special or unique about your particular brand.

A sheltered life. Well, let’s see. I’m from a very low income background, where the threat of losing our home was ever-present, sometimes my parents barely had enough money to afford our school uniforms and I dealt with a violent, misogynist older brother. I would have been classed as a very vulnerable female during that time. The wider family politics were fraught and turbulent too. Later on, I spent 2.5 years having my rapidly declining health not taken remotely seriously by a string of doctors until it was too late.

I am keenly aware of why sex-based rights are important based on the finer details of all that I describe above (though I won’t be going into further details).

Fuck RIGHT off with your “sheltered life” bullshit, Stark, and I will gladly take any infraction or ban going to say that.

Stark

None of that explains why you have a problem comprehending why minorities feeling uncomfortable in certain situations/spaces has nothing to do with their intelligence. Or why it's bad for a an organization to call out in its messaging that they shouldn't feel uncomfortable in their space.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

None of that explains why you have a problem comprehending why minorities feeling uncomfortable in certain situations/spaces has nothing to do with their intelligence. Or why it's bad for a an organization to call out in its messaging that they shouldn't feel uncomfortable in their space.

I asked you if transgender men were aware they were female. We were talking about menstruation public awareness campaigns. What does at have to do with certain spaces?

On sheltered spaces, I'll all for them for transgender people. However, you cannot then dismiss women wanting sex-segregated spaces away from male-bodied people. That’s blatant hypocrisy. Transgender women are vulnerable but women aren’t?

Transgender people need their own space. If self-contained separate units are possible, that’s another alternative. I can’t see why any transgender person would object to the third space idea unless it’s about validation rather than safety.

Stark

We're talking about a conference here, don't think having "self contained units" is going to work.

Given the general tone of your posts, and your protectiveness of spaces for women you can't comprehend whatsoever why someone might not feel comfortable showing up to a conference for women sporting an outwardly male appearance? Do they think "that's okay, their biological truth scanners will detect my XX chromosomes and they'll see my vagina through my trousers and everything will be all hunky Dory"?

You can't comprehend whatsoever why being told "it's okay for you to present as a male, we understand" might make that person feel more comfortable?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

We're talking about a conference here, don't think having "self contained units" is going to work.

Given the general tone of your posts, and your protectiveness of spaces for women you can't comprehend whatsoever why someone might not feel comfortable showing up to a conference for women sporting an outwardly male appearance? Do they think "that's okay, their biological truth scanners will detect my XX chromosomes and they'll see my vagina through my trousers and everything will be all hunky Dory"?

You can't comprehend whatsoever why being told "it's okay for you to present as a male, we understand" might make that person feel more comfortable?

What’s the “general tone” of my posts, Stark? Enlighten me.

Stark

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What’s the “general tone” of my posts, Stark? Enlighten me.

General aggression towards transpeople.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Stark wrote: »

General aggression towards transpeople.

Oh, the dramatics. A very common theme amongst the most vocal trans rights activists - which does a disservice to transgender people who are much more measured and sensible (and those transgender people tend to get called self-haters and other such charming epithets. It’s all very dignified).