Same in Germany. I think we can confidently say that it’s basically an issue around the whole globe. Which is a really sad statement.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
Crimes linked to transphobia is more prevalent in South America I believe.
You came in calling everyone a misogynist in an attempt to shut them down! If MEN having an opinion on this subject is off limits then what makes your opinion any less misogynistic? You didn't read the thread before commenting, it has been pointed out to people time and time again the reasons behind Rowling being called transphobic, you're still ignoring them when people are repeating it now!
You think trans Women don't face misogyny or sexism? I receive dick picks, messages such as these and more on a DAILY basis.
You don't think we face discrimination just because trans murder rates are lower in this country? 1 in 3 employers won't hire a trans person...
https://seechangehappen.co.uk/trans...ers-as-1-in-3-wont-hire-a-transgender-person/
You don't think I could walk into the Women's toilets or changing rooms? Well I already do, the ONLY reason people know I'm trans is because I've told them, I'm under no obligation to do this. I'm completely stealth. You can't stop me unless you're proposing to perform tests at every door.
You think my boyfriend is gay or any less of a Man because he dates me? He's severed more than 10 years in the Royal Engineers, a Sapper, who joined up to protect, he's been on UN Peace Keeping mission doing just that in places deeply divided by civil war and genocide. After that he then joined the Police where he's been serving for more than a decade. He doesn't give a shite if people think he's gay because ya know what? There's nothing wrong with being gay.
You don't think we suffer male violence? I've just spent more than 8K fixing a facial disfigurement from when I was attacked when I was younger, where I had my teeth knocked out, my jaw and nose broken. I had my smile stolen for more than decade, you want to know the cnut who did it? This fecker and his mates, died a year later and described glowingly in the news:
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/6959497.disco-boy-found-dead-snow/
I've answered questions on my transition previously, I've stated where I stand on trans participation in sport etc. Some people may or may not agree with me on things, I've ostracised myself from many trans people who disagree but if you actually try READING you may stop regurgitating the same tired old crap.
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/transgender.452657/
https://www.redcafe.net/threads/transgender-athletes-in-sports.431350/post-25788160
I'm still waiting for you to explain your views because at the moment they seem to be so far up your own ass that nobody can see them! Bring something new to the floor or kindly get out. I'm surprised people have been as patient as they have been with you to be honest, if @Grinner hadn't removed my expletive laden rant at you then you'd truly know how I feel and rightly so.
I'm glad so many are speaking out against you because it offers us hope. The messages I've received privately offers us hope.
I never said they don't face misogyny or sexism or transphobia. I'm sorry you receive those messages. They're never acceptible.
I didn't say that, again, you are reaching for something that isn't there. I believe trans people face lots of discrimination in this country and indeed, all over the world. Also by your link 66% of employers will employ a transgender person?
I understand your point and it is of course valid, this should be 100%. That being said, if you look at hiring trends to this day, companies hire "whiter" sounding candidates at appx 2.5 times the rate of "ethnic" sounding candidates. Discrimination of minorities exists within the hiring process because companies are, well, shite and usually focused on profit and managed by people with biases. It is not necessarily a barometer of a challenge that only trans people face. That being said again, it is of course wrong and there is no justification for it.
I never said this, in fact, I said I believe that you should be able to use a female restroom, otherwise how else can you actually live as the gender you desire (in this case, female) without integrating with society.
I might be wrong but when a family member of mine transitioned, they had to "live" as a woman for two years before surgery could be an option. How can one do this if they cannot use a public female convenience? But I do still believe there is still a safeguarding issue but that is based on my rather low opinion of natal men and the sexual violence they continue to perpetrate, not that Trans Women per se are a threat by solely the very notion that they are Trans Women.
I never said anything about your boyfriend, being gay, or that he is less of a man. I didn't know you had a boyfriend. In fact, I know nothing about you and assume to know nothing about your personal life or lived experiences. I'd appreciate it if you extended the same courtesy. But you are right, there is nothing wrong with being gay and I hope you and your boyfriend are safe, happy, and content.
Again, I never said transgender people don't face male violence. My point is that cis-males and cis-men are disproportionately violent when compared to other groups. My contention is that this violence, be it learned behavior, psychological or socialization does not just disappear if that cis-person develops gender dysphoria and identifies as a woman. Now we start to steer inadvertently into a "not all men" type of argument because of course, not all men are violent, sexual predators but some are and they pose a risk to everyone. Does this mean that TW are a dangerous category? No, it does not.
Now does this make Trans Women a category more at risk of committing violence against others? I don't believe so. But I believe that men, the devious creatures they are, will push boundaries. I also think of every story you hear of a man doing something so wicked and devious (think Fritzl and how much planning, evil, and patience that took so he could rape his own children) that people could then truly believe that men, would not attempt to access places for vulnerable people, under the guise that they were women? This is naivety and I would suggest people read more on the crimes of men and look into the lengths they can go to.
Again, AGAIN FFS this is not a stick to beat Trans Women with, this is a pointed critique at men, which if you have an issue with - have at it.
So should we lower access for Trans Women in order to stop predatory men? Again, no I don't think we should. Should we raise a concern and see if we can have both a world where genuine TW and CW and Gender non-Conforming people can use the same bathrooms safely? That would be great.
https://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/6959497.disco-boy-found-dead-snow/ [/QUOTE]
I am very sorry you were attacked, this is awful and I do sympathize. I presume this happened when you were younger? The link you sent is from 2005, explaining the death of a fifteen-year-old child. I imagine it was hard for you to see someone who had hurt you, spoken about in a positive light, but the person was someone's child and I wouldn't imagine an article on his death would be full of condemnation of a child's character.
It is horrible that children can be this awful and cause such lasting damage. Did the child get expelled from school or arrested for assault?
Again, I've never asked you anything about your transition nor have I looked up your previous posts on this subject. Thank you for sharing but this is the first time you have shared your previous threads/thoughts, I will read through them. I also wouldn't call my opinions or my lived experiences crap but I understand you're upset.
I believe I have, in this post, explained my views, and if you have any questions, more than happy to answer them directly. I didn't ask Grinner to remove your post, by the way, I had no issues with it and all in a spirited debate, that is fine and I am thick-skinned. But if you give it out, it is best to be prepared to take it back. I do hope you are receiving messages of support and I do hope that people in your life are nothing but kind, helpful, supportive, and loving.
Amazon to stop selling books that frame LGBTQ+ identities as mental illness
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/12/amazon-stop-selling-books-lgbtq-mental-illness
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/12/amazon-stop-selling-books-lgbtq-mental-illness
I didn't claim everyone criticising J.K Rowling was a misogynist. I said that when women speak out, they are usually shouted down by men. If you take that to mean something else, so be it.
Victim act? What a reach. I am certainly no victim, I have an opinion, I just think people argue in bad faith, retreat to their echo chambers and become toxic to anyone not in alignment with their exact views. Sorry you feel I am trolling.
Yes, it's a victim act when you portray yourself as being made "the enemy" and that you're disregarded simply because people disagree with you. You're doing it again here, you can't help yourself: " Become toxic to anyone not in alignment with their exact views". Plenty of people in this thread have defended Rowling, only you and one other person have been called trolls. It's not simple disagreements, it's you.
Unlike your statement suggesting that those criticising Rowling are doing so out of misogyny. That was done in very good faith.
People have tried their best reasoning with you. I guess it’s time to accept that some people can’t be reasoned with. At least that what I’m doing now.
My responses in bold, thank you.
OK, it's me. I am being told I am trolling because of one post where I observed that women speaking up usually results in gatekeeping and aggression. It wasn't absolving J.K Rowling or anything. It wasn't calling anyone a misogynist.
If you are a misogynist then I would expect people to react this way, that it was a little too close to home.
I don't think I am the enemy, people are speaking to me as if I am. Therein lies the difference. I am on the side of transgender people. Yet, if you look at the responses, you'd think I wasn't.
It's typical TERF tactics to say that they're pro trans people when they very obviously aren't.
Again, the big factor here is likelihood. No one is disputing that it could happen. Anything can happen but if someone is going to speak about risk it absolutely 100% has to include a measure of likelihood for it to be relevant.
Every person who makes this argument fails to provide evidence of likelihood. I can speculate as to why but the most probable reason is that they don't have sufficient evidence to support their belief that it is high risk, such as documented cases of it occurring. I've no doubt that it has or will happen but the truth is that some predatory man dressing up as a woman to access female only spaces and cause havoc is so unlikely that society doesn't even need to mitigate against it.
It's typical individuals on the internet tactics, to gatekeep who can support a certain group. I get it, you're trying to look good.
What are you talking about, are you denying that some terfs pretend that they're pro trans people when they're actually not? All strains of bigotry have this. Racists will say they're not racists, for example.
As a man, it is not my place to tell women in a society that a risk facing them is something we don't need to mitigate against because I, as a man, say that it is low. I'll let women who use those spaces debate that one.
You're levying that charge at me when you know zero about me.
No I didn't. I made a general observation and you couldn't cope. Unless you're a terf pretending to be pro trans people then it doesn't apply to you, but your reaction is very telling.
It's a fair and true observation to make, but it's not an accurate observation of this thread. Which is why, to most it appears to be an attempt at shitstirring rather than an invitation to any kind of serious discussion. When I actually engaged, you came back with "I can see you're the little guard dog of this thread, which is cute", which again doesn't really suggest you had any intention of debating anything.
It's not about gender, it's about risk management principles. To effectively assess the risk we need historical data so that the likelihood of it occurring can be properly assessed. As it stands we have not been provided with this evidence or we have a very small number of occurrences. This means that any faithful application of risk management principles would say that it's low risk.
Furthermore, your argument that it's not your place to comment of the level of risk because you're a man is deflection and is, indeed, trolling.
I wasn’t talking about Rowling or this thread specifically, more trans related stuff in general. It’s not something I’ve ever googled tbh, most of my education on the subject comes from the caf.
Oh sorry my post wasn't a reply to you.
More just a general rant about how it's easy to find out about Rowling transphobia
Ah I see, no worries
Yep, but going by the numbers in that Twitter post, it seems trans people are targeted to some extent.
The murder stats are showing spikes within certain demographics (in the US).
Last edited:
That's fair enough in general terms, and fair enough also for your long reply to @Rudie a bit above. (Without wanting to speak for @Rudie; I am in no position for that.) What I don't get, though, is why you brought this up in the first place. I don't see how it is relevant to this specific discussion. As others have pointed out, Rowling isn't being attacked by men without arguments; people are explaining in a lot of detail why she's wrong and what she's saying is hurtful, and a lot of those people are women.
That's why you coming out of nowhere with a statement on men shouting down women is taken very badly. Since you did not provide any context or further points, your comment had to be interpreted on its own in the context of this particular thread. And then I see only one possible interpretation: you're saying that Rowling isn't wrong here, but just being dismissed by men in their stereotypical male condescending way. You say you didn't mean that, but again, without context, that's what it appeared to say. Obviously, that's very hurtful to the people targeted by Rowling, which is why...
...you get the ensuing hostility. It's only natural that, once you have been identified as acting in bad faith, people approach you negatively. But maybe that will diminish now with your longer clarifications.
To get out of the meta-discussion a bit again, what I was wondering about:
That sounds great, but about your follow-up comments (I'm picking them from across your post here):
In my view, the issue is that you can't have both. You can't both let trans people use the restroom of their gender identity, and have safeguards in place regarding concerns that certain men might exploit the situation. Except if I'm missing something, you can do the latter only if you make people somehow prove their gender identity at restrooms, which of course is absurd, and would be very distressing and hurtful for many people.
Maybe there is some less invasive option, but then you get to @Dwazza Gunnar Solskjær's point about risk assessment. Yes, Fritzl was a horrible human being, but he is not typical of people. How common is this really? Or how devious are men going to be to be able to commit acts of violence in a public place? (Which a restroom is; anyone can enter at any time.) As long as no-one is showing evidence that what you're concerned about is relatively likely to occur, I'd suggest that any solution to the issue would do a lot more harm than it would prevent.
In general, I think this might be a case of being biased by the news. News media focus on things that are newsworthy, and stories like 'certain types of violence are relatively rare and reducing in society' don't get headlines. But instances of violence do, and so they seem more prevalent than they really are. That's not a good basis for policy though. (By which I don't mean to say that all is well across society. It's about the question of proportionality in this particular instance.)
It's difficult to compare for many reasons, not least because the US can seem like 50 odd countries, but their central government policy appears more accepting of trans rights than the UK. I think there is also much more media support in the States for these issues. There might also be more pushback but our main liberal paper the Guardian UK is a persistent purveyor of transphobia.
Certainly the trans exclusionary feminist agenda is not as politically mainstream as it is in the UK.
It might be a different story in terms of the threat of physical, sexual violence but I haven't seen any comparative data.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I think I'm getting old because I have no idea who that is. Apparently she wrote a series of books about some wizard.
She was misrepresenting changes to the law around gender recognition certs in Scotland earlier in the week too. At that point I made the wise decision to mute her name on twitter to avoid what I'm sure was a whole load of horseshit.
I never really cared much about her, just know she is famous, but read this thread with curiosity last year. Never had been to her twitter though. It's insane. It's an obsession for her, and given how long this has gone, it seems she is clearly willing to go down with the ship.
As these matters evolve, her opinion will likely become more entrenched, we've seen this movie with other celebrities.
I don't care for Harry Potter, but it's the thing that she supposedly does well and the thing that makes her mark in history. I think she risks that legacy. Unlike famous artists of the past, her indiscretions might not be brushed under the carpet. Might end up being cancelled in life by younger generations.
I already see today's young adults mocking millenials for their love of Harry Potter online. And Rowling has previously been criticised for various aspects of the actual books like the heavy use of stereotypes or her approach to revealing details about her characters (i.e. talking about characters being gay in interviews while avoiding representing it in the actual material). Add in the ever-increasing criticism of their author's transphobia and I suspect the Harry Potter books are going to be perceived as aging very badly as time goes on.
Last edited:
Personally always thought Harry Potter was trash.
Yep.
It's for kids, most stuff for kids is bad when you're an adult.
I wonder what the underlying thing is for her. I mean it's ok to have an opinion on something and to not be agreed with but she seems to really be pushing this like it really means a lot to her. It's one of those "the lady does protest too much" kind of things now.
I imagine she's strongly identifies as a feminist and sees this as a way for men to decide for women yet again.
She is already a billionaire, I doubt she even cares if Harry Potter books completely bomb out which is very unlikely for next 20 years at a minimum which you would know if you had any idea of the depth of its fandom amongst young adults.
She is such a weirdo.
Oh absolutely. Me and my wife both grew up reading them and enjoyed them, but won't engage with it now Rowling has shown her colours. She was given a Harry Potter studio tour ticket as a gift, she had it for a while then decided to just bin it as she didn't want to give any more money to Rowling.
I didn’t enjoy the Harry Potter books tbf when I read them the other summer. The last one however was a sack of bollocks.