Transgender rights discussion

[NotThatSoph]

I wanted to clarify your view on it because I thought you seemed to be saying it was ok for Rowling and others to receive death threats online, but I didn't want to assume that without checking your general views first. You chose to provide a more general example unrelated to anything that had been discussed in the thread, and where people are less likely to disagree that the threats are unacceptable.

You've clarified above that you don't care if she gets death threats. Personally I think you're underestimating the impact receiving threats has on an individual and the psychological issues that can cause. You also have no guarantee that someone faces 'no danger'. Many public figures, particularly women, have had issues with stalkers or other members of the public finding out where they live and posing a risk to them. In several cases that has led to murders, so personally I don't think it's something to be so cavalier about.

Of course I don't have any guarantees, if there is a real danger to Rowling then I'm wrong. I think the probability of human trash like Rowling driving people to suicide is magnitudes higher than someone killing Rowling, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

 

[NotThatSoph]

The eligibility of a threat depends on the aggressor, it's effectiveness as a deterrence – on a person getting threatened. There's no logical link there.


And which opinions are bad enough to justify a death threat? If you're talking about specifics. I assume that you approve threats to Rowling? As you can guess, I don't. I also don't approve threats to, say, Marine Le Pen (I'm desperately trying to find a bad enough public persona that voices horrible opinions but isn't yet in a position to cause actual deaths by their direct actions like Putin, Trump, Xi Jingping etc.; not sure if she's a good example, I probably simply don't know enough about her).

Work on your assumptions, then maybe we can talk.

 

[Gehrman]

I think this was posted before but I couldn't find it looking through the thread.

 

[DOTA]

What constitutes transphobia. I'm asking.

There's lots of things that do, of course, just as there are lots of things that constitute any form of bigotry, but I'd say the most common is the belief that people's assigned gender at birth should be immutable. That people who were born assigned male cannot/should not be later recognised as female and people assigned as female cannot/should not be recognised as male.

 

[Agent Red]

Of course I don't have any guarantees, if there is a real danger to Rowling then I'm wrong. I think the probability of human trash like Rowling driving people to suicide is magnitudes higher than someone killing Rowling, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

@harms has made the other points I was going to make and very eloquently, so I won't expand on those.

I think online threats and aggression do have a real cost to us as a society, as well as to individuals on the receiving end, so aren't something to be shrugged away or encouraged. Even if acting on behalf of a noble cause or responding to someone who you feel themselves is behaving in a threatening or dangerous way, I agree with @harms that debate or some kind of due process is the better/only way forward.

 

[DOTA]

Soph's rightfully dismissive, you're being ridiculous in pretending that the death threats are worthy of comment. Every prominent public figure who weighs in on a controversial topic gets death threats on twitter. All of them. Some issues more than others and particularly black women get more when speaking about racial injustice, but all of them get them. It's really not okay but nothing to do with the trans debate and it's disingenuous to pretend it is in any way specific to it.

 

[Agent Red]

Soph's rightfully dismissive, you're being ridiculous in pretending that the death threats are worthy of comment. Every prominent public figure who weighs in on a controversial topic gets death threats on twitter. All of them. Some issues more than others and particularly black women get more when speaking about racial injustice, but all of them get them. It's really not okay but nothing to do with the trans debate and it's disingenuous to pretend it is in any way specific to it.

I'm not saying it's specific to the trans debate at all, and don't think I've said anything to imply that in any of my posts. I think they're unacceptable in all of the situations you've outlined, and my comment was a general one in that sense. I appreciate this isn't a general topic on that thread though so wasn't going to say more on it. As you say, it's really not okay, and we're in agreement on that.

Edit: Just to clarify, literally all I'm saying is that I find the bolded bits of your post really depressing (because they're true) and I don't think it's something we should just accept 'happens'. We should challenge it where it happens and not just say oh it's fair game because it happens regularly or you don't like the recipient.

 

[dumbo]

OK, firstly define sex and define gender.

Then let's define the difference between transphobic statements and broader questions around gender dysphoria and gender transition.

A debate cannot start if everyone has a different definition of several different components, phrases, words.

After that quagmire is breached, you can then look at whether J.K Rowlings statements or phrases are indeed transphobic or perhaps we deem transphobia as something else entirely.

Most of this has been covered extensively in this thread: clarifications on sex and gender, transphobic statements (tropes, stereotypes insults, endorsements of other people's insults on your own Twitter profile, etc) distinguished from broader questions around gender, detailed analysis of J.K Rowling's comments about gender and her transphobia.

And there are links dotted throughout the thread that go into greater detail, with more thorough analysis.

You might have innocently missed all this, but the frustration with the thread is that J.K. Rowling's comments and general behaviour around these issues are highlighted and analysed regularly and she is then criticised for her inaccuracies and transphobia, with given examples. Then when the thread is bumped we return to the same place of ignorance where people claim not to see what the fuss is with her comments regarding: [insert some of the most innocuous lines of her statements without context] before it has to be explained again that other things she has said and promoted and people she has supported are problematic, harmful and transphobic.

A good example of a link that dissects what J.K Rowling said, give it a try:

I found this (long) reply to be helpful on several key questions. Maybe it's of interest to you too.
https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie...gs-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f

 

[DOTA]

I'm not saying it's specific to the trans debate at all. I think they're unacceptable in all of the situations you've outlined, and my comments was a general one in that sense. I appreciate this isn't a general topic on that thread though so wasn't going to say more on it. As you say, it's really not okay, and we're in agreement on that.

It's bad. They shouldn't do it. I believe it's largely kids (14-18), not based on research just the accounts I've seen post this stuff, so I hope they grow to realise that they're just upsetting people and not achieving anything and they cut it out and put their energy in to meaningful forms.

 

[NotThatSoph]

@harms has made the other points I was going to make and very eloquently, so I won't expand on those.

I think online threats and aggression do have a real cost to us as a society, as well as to individuals on the receiving end, so aren't something to be shrugged away or encouraged. Even if acting on behalf of a noble cause or responding to someone who you feel themselves is behaving in a threatening or dangerous way, I agree with @harms that debate or some kind of due process is the better/only way forward.

You seem to have misunderstood harms's question. He asked how death threats would help trans people, not how they would help society. You have a weird way of determining eloquence, but we can work on that after you understand questions.

 

[Agent Red]

You seem to have misunderstood harms's question. He asked how death threats would help trans people, not how they would help society. You have a weird way of determining eloquence, but we can work on that after you understand questions.

Harm's question was a relevant one though - it isn't necessarily helpful to trans people for an angry mob to come to their defence and threaten the individual making transphobic remarks. Anyone who is unsure of whether they support trans rights or not is unlikely to be convinced to do so because of that behaviour, and more likely to come to a conclusion it's some kind of extremist movement not to be supported. They're a lot more likely to be won over by finding some kind of common ground with trans people or their allies and having constructive discussion about it. That's the case with basically all rights movements and social change.

 

[NotThatSoph]

Harm's question was a relevant one though - it isn't necessarily helpful to trans people for an angry mob to come to their defence and threaten the individual making transphobic remarks. Anyone who is unsure of whether they support trans rights or not is unlikely to be convinced to do so because of that behaviour, and more likely to come to a conclusion it's some kind of extremist movement not to be supported. They're a lot more likely to be won over by finding some kind of common ground with trans people or their allies and having constructive discussion about it. That's the case with basically all rights movements and social change.

Of course it's not necessarily helpful, that's why I very clearly said that it was helpful if it leads to less harassment and hate towards trans people.

Your last sentence is hilarious, though.

 

[Agent Red]

It's bad. They shouldn't do it. I believe it's largely kids (14-18), not based on research just the accounts I've seen post this stuff, so I hope they grow to realise that they're just upsetting people and not achieving anything and they cut it out and put their energy in to meaningful forms.

Maybe - I hope you're right. I'm personally not so convinced it's just kids though. I read Twitter a lot and follow quite a bit of political Twitter and the comments underneath will pretty much always contain some kind of abuse/threat/other kind of unacceptable post and it seems to come from a massive range of accounts which are seemingly of very different ages and backgrounds. I think there's a general problem that when people are communicating online they find it much easier to detach from their words and say and do things they would never do in reality, but it still has a big impact on the person on the receiving end and leads to a general desensitising when you view a lot of it happening. I commented on it here as I thought there was a seeming suggestion it was ok/justified in some cases (like the Rowling one being discussed).

As agreed though this isn't specific to the trans debate and I don't want to derail the thread for a more general discussion on online discourse any more than I have.

 

[DOTA]

We all hope and pray the zoomers don't choose to turn us all in to cheap protein.

 

[fergieisold]

You think transphobic people don’t exist?

I meant in relation to Rowling. I’m sure you can dig up all sorts of fecking freaks who actually hate trans people but I really don’t get that vibe from her.

 

[DOTA]

I meant in relation to Rowling. I’m sure you can dig up all sorts of fecking freaks who actually hate trans people but I really don’t get that vibe from her.

What's your personal view on trans identity?

 

[DOTA]

Question open to all. It's been a long day. I've fecking tried but apparently it's near impossible for anyone to give their view.

 

[entropy]

Equivalency between death threats is not a false equivalency, a threat is a threat. If you're saying that Rowling deserves those threats and that she can stop them anytime by changing your rhetorics, you're using the victim-blamers logic. She wouldn't be getting death threats if she weren't talking transphobic nonsense, right?

The inequality between Rowling and the general trans-population is obvious, yet the morality of a death threat isn't justified by it. The fact that RAF supported ideas of anti-fascism, feminism etc. doesn't make their killings any more justifiable than those of ISIS, for example.

It actually kinda is. As uncomfortable as that may sound. Because last time I checked, there wasn't this huge of an uproar when a trans person was killed. It barely makes the news. It is only now that a boring cis woman feels threatened that everyone is all of a sudden feigning outrage.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

There’s definitely radicalisation going on. Especially around YouTube anti-feminist discourse. And of course all that stuff is worrying. But I don’t think it’s cut through enough just yet. Because eventually they get older and do actually want to have girls like them (plus realising the economic reality for young people is awful in a conservative landscape) Something to keep an eye on for sure, but at the moment the far more pressing issue is old people being radicalised online. Primarily by Facebook.

Yeah, old people being driven insane by Facebook kind of came out of leftfield. The online culture war felt like a young person’s game when it started, so I had assumed that they would be the main casualties. And it certainly looks like too much time online can be massively detrimental to the mental health of young people. Especially for girls. But who’d have thought, twenty years ago, that the generation whose minds would end up the most obviously twisted by the internet would be the elderly and late middle aged?

And it’s not all QAnon and conspiracy theories. Getting back on topic, Graham Linehan has been a great case study of Twitter fuelled mental breakdown. And I do think his descent into madness was initially well intentioned. That’s certainly how it must feel to him anyway. And that’s the sort of thing I’m talking about. We’re seeing essentially progressive and well meaning individuals becoming terrible people, who think and say terrible things. And I think that’s a novel phenomenon, which we can’t really compare with civil rights movements in the past, where any progress was good progress and the battle lines were much more clearly drawn.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It actually kinda is. As uncomfortable as that may sound. Because last time I checked, there wasn't this huge of an uproar when a trans person was killed. It barely makes the news. It is only now that a boring cis woman feels threatened that everyone is all of a sudden feigning outrage.

If a trans woman as famous as Rowling was killed (or even threatened) it would obviously make the news and generate outrage. You’ve come up with a false equivalency all of your own there.

 

[dumbo]

This is another bad look from the guardian given their history of promoting transphobia:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/b...oubled-blood-thriller-robert-galbraith-review

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of the article (that you can't trust one review, or the Torygraph ever), the fact that their only reporting of this fresh controversy is a contextless knee jerk defense of the book against one critic. Again, what the article says is fair enough but to have this as the only reporting of the issue is very much the "All Lives Matter" equivocation that the guardian have taken all along on trans rights.

So feck them.

 

[Synco]

Anyway, the question for me is her intent – she clearly misses out on a lot of things, but the original idea of this book and the original conflict is “racist” dark wizards and the progressive muggle-friendly wizards. So I’d expect, perhaps, ignorant opinions from her, but not a well-informed and aggressive discrimination – and it’s clearly the latter at this point.

The issue is too complex for a short post, but I have the impression there's some kind of traditional-feminist identitarian conservatism playing into this. From that perspective, a distinct and secure female identity is the achievement of past struggles against patriarchal oppression and misogynistic violence. Which isn't a problem in itself (it's obvious from Rowling's accounts how overcoming years of domestic violence shaped her feminism).

But it becomes irrational when this female identity - closely associated with biological sex - is fetishized, and transsexuality and transgender identities are perceived as a fundamental threat to it. (Rowling: "If sex isn't real, the lived reality of women globally is erased.") This also seems to be processed as a form of misogynist, ergo "male" aggression. This focus on a sealed-off, but threatened identity then creates a weird overlapping potential with right wing identitarianism in defense of clear-cut gender roles - both in terms of specific anxieties and obsessions, and even explicit political projects, like banning trans women from using women's toilets by law.

 

[Halftrack]

I'm failing to see how angry teens posting death threats on twitter somehow invalidates the legitimate criticism she's receiving for being a bigot.

I know I keep repeating myself but Twitter sucks. Nobody seems to be there to actually ask her what she thinks. They seem to project their own insecurities at her and then throw their toys out the pram.

She's made her own thoughts on the subject pretty clear, she's written extensively about it. No amount of claiming to have nothing but love for the trans community will change the fact that she's deliberately spreading misinformation and lies about trans people, contributing to the continued persecution of one of the most vulnerable groups in Western society.

No, that's not what he was saying. He was using it as an example of how a lot of todays youth, particularly the ones on twitter it seems, are a bunch of pansies.

What pansies, taking issue with hateful language directed at a vulnerable minority. As a soldier: feck him and his dumbass views.

 

[Snow]

I'm failing to see how angry teens posting death threats on twitter somehow invalidates the legitimate criticism she's receiving for being a bigot

Typical political deflection. Try and get people to argue about some other thing that sort of is related to the topic but isn't really.

Anyone pointed out that her pen name for these detective stories is based on the guy that's famous for starting gay conversion therapy?

 

[fishfingers15]

Of course I don't have any guarantees, if there is a real danger to Rowling then I'm wrong. I think the probability of human trash like Rowling driving people to suicide is magnitudes higher than someone killing Rowling, but if I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

You are wrong about the death threats but Rowling should be criticized for her stance

 

[NotThatSoph]

You are wrong about the death threats but Rowling should be criticized for her stance

You think there is a bigger chance of Rowling getting assassinated than her vile rhetoric causing a suicide among a population with a high risk of suicide?

I place the risk of a Rowling assassination near zero, so either you think I'm extremely wrong about that or you know nothing about what trans people deal with.

 

[harms]

Typical political deflection. Try and get people to argue about some other thing that sort of is related to the topic but isn't really.

The weird thing is that (at least on here) the only one forcing the discussion on this topic were those who were openly critical of even mentioning that point.

Although the situation is a bit different out there and it is sometimes used as a point of deflection. Which is, by the way, yet another argument against posting those threats, that don’t achieve anything constructive but give ammunition to those who defend Rowling and her views.

 

[B20]

You think there is a bigger chance of Rowling getting assassinated than her vile rhetoric causing a suicide among a population with a high risk of suicide?

I place the risk of a Rowling assassination near zero, so either you think I'm extremely wrong about that or you know nothing about what trans people deal with.

This is a false equivalence. It is morally abhorrent to argue for "I support a tactic of fear and terror as it will (possibly, maybe, no evidence presented) result in a reduction in suicide" when there are many other wholly ethical strategies that may accomplish this just as well or better. It is not an "either you are for reducing suicides and support death threats or you care more about death threats than suicides" issue.

 

[B20]

I found this (long) reply to be helpful on several key questions. Maybe it's of interest to you too.
https://medium.com/@KatyMontgomerie...gs-justification-for-transphobia-7b6f761e8f8f

This is the first time I've bothered to look into all this with more than a cursory glance, so thanks for the link.

It does seem that her comments extend beyond wading ham-fistedly into a nuanced debate and making inappropriate comments, but reflect a sincere commitment to a bias against them.

Part of me wonders if its partly intellectual pride that has seen her dig a whole for herself she now can't/won't extricate herself from, but some of her arguments are so disingenuous they seem more designed to hint at, yet disguise to cursory view, a deeper running aversion.

 

[AkaAkuma]

This is the first time I've bothered to look into all this with more than a cursory glance, so thanks for the link.

It does seem that her comments extend beyond wading ham-fistedly into a nuanced debate and making inappropriate comments, but reflect a sincere commitment to a bias against them.

Part of me wonders if its partly intellectual pride that has seen her dig a whole for herself she now can't/won't extricate herself from, but some of her arguments are so disingenuous they seem more designed to hint at, yet disguise to cursory view, a deeper running aversion.

Ive dipped into this topic today, found Rowlings views initially as just misinformed. But just scratching the surface of the trans communities debunk shows that if she had really researched the topic as closely as she says she has, she wouldnt be saying what she is.

Unfortunately the twitter pile on taints the well and is the takeaway for the generally uninformed viewer.

 

[Gehrman]

Why do I keep hearing that Rowlings view that transwomen aren't women apparrently drives transpeople to suicide? Surely we're still in an age where you''d expect some writers to hold the fairly conservative view that sex is bioloigcally determined in the womb? I wouldn't hold J.K Rowling accountable for suicides for having that conservative if unprogressive/transphobic view.

 

[AkaAkuma]

Why do I keep hearing that Rowlings view that transwomen aren't women apparrently drives transpeople to suicide? Surely we're still in an age where you''d expect some writers to hold the fairly conservative view that sex is bioloigcally determined in the womb? I wouldn't hold J.K Rowling accountable for suicides for having that conservative if unprogressive/transphobic view.

it could be a tipping point for those already on the brink.

 

[horsechoker]

it could be a tipping point for those already on the brink.

It's hard to attribute that solely to Rowling, she forms part of a hateful mentality which drives trans people to self-harm and perhaps suicide.

 

[fergieisold]

What's your personal view on trans identity?

Biological sex is fixed, and in almost all cases gender is aligned with biological sex. Trans people can identify as a gender but it doesn't change the fact they're biologically not the gender they feel they should be. There's really nothing that controversial in these thoughts, it's not hateful, it's not disgusting or demonising as some seem to think.

One thing Rowling (as far as I've seen) doesn't seem to think is gender being different to biological sex?

I'm failing to see how angry teens posting death threats on twitter somehow invalidates the legitimate criticism she's receiving for being a bigot.

She's made her own thoughts on the subject pretty clear, she's written extensively about it. No amount of claiming to have nothing but love for the trans community will change the fact that she's deliberately spreading misinformation and lies about trans people, contributing to the continued persecution of one of the most vulnerable groups in Western society.

What pansies, taking issue with hateful language directed at a vulnerable minority. As a soldier: feck him and his dumbass views.

Hateful? Where has she said hateful things? I'm failing to see it.

Also saw this...the guardian with some sort of sense for once! https://www.theguardian.com/books/b...oubled-blood-thriller-robert-galbraith-review

 

[Gehrman]

it could be a tipping point for those already on the brink.

It could, but I'm not a fan this era of complete vulnerablity where expressing your views = people will die. I'm very aware that being trans is very hard, but surely it comes with the terrority that you can't expect everyone to conform to the transview.

 

[Mike Smalling]

Anyone pointed out that her pen name for these detective stories is based on the guy that's famous for starting gay conversion therapy?

Jeez. Didn't know about that. The descriptions of the original Robert Galbraith's gay conversion experiments are quite extreme.

At best this is an unfortunate name selection, but then you would think she would change it once she realized her mistake.

 

[Synco]

On the threats of violence and murder (I assume the collection posted is genuine), twitter is just a cesspit. No civil rights movement can control what individuals like that do in its name, but since it happens, there's no choice but to disassociate the cause from them when the question arises. Apart from the importance of civilized minimum standards as such, the focus shifts to a battle where one can only lose.

 

[BobbyManc]

Rowling is a high-profile celebrity, if she expressed any opinion on transgenderism, she’d be getting abuse and threats. The same way celebs who express support of trans rights also get inundated with abuse. That’s a completely separate debate about social media, it’s not the issue at hand here.

 

[Gehrman]

This was the video that I was looking for that was posted in the thread earlier. Don't know if it was deleted since I couldn't find it.

 

[NotThatSoph]

This is a false equivalence. It is morally abhorrent to argue for "I support a tactic of fear and terror as it will (possibly, maybe, no evidence presented) result in a reduction in suicide" when there are many other wholly ethical strategies that may accomplish this just as well or better. It is not an "either you are for reducing suicides and support death threats or you care more about death threats than suicides" issue.

It can't possibly be a false equivalence when I haven't equivalenced, haven't supported and haven't said that it will lead to a reduction in suicides.