Responding to a LT-er; trans rights

DiscussãoOff-topic

Entre no LibraryThing para poder publicar.

Responding to a LT-er; trans rights

1LolaWalser
Mar 5, 2023, 10:30 pm

Responding to a post by terebinth

https://www.librarything.com/topic/348849#8086468

But the tedious and nonsensical storm over "what is a woman?" will only inflame such bigots as may be listening to it, while fuelling the hero-worship of such figures as Andrew Tate.

On one side, probably, but please note that it's not the transgender and their allies who wanted or engineered this "storm".

Saying "Trans women are women in the same way and for the same reason you are whatever gender you say you are--you are the only authority on that question" surely compels such pesky questions as >135 booksaplenty1949: keeps raising.

The problem is that this has been answered many times and the answers are very easy to find, those are the basics of debate about transgenderism. And I just answered again, at length (in the FSD thread). They are pesky questions, but not because they are difficult or unanswerable; simply because they've come to indicate someone who isn't even trying to understand.

Among whom do you incarcerate the rapist who now declares himself a woman?

"Now" presupposes that the individual is acting in bad faith and misrepresenting their true gender. Presumably there would be an expert panel deciding whether they are lying or not, and, in case they are genuine, whether they are likely to be a danger to other prisoners or not. This is no different to a case of a cis-woman who is a rapist. They don't get imprisoned with male prisoners either.

Must penis-owners be welcomed into women's changing rooms?

If they are women, then yes.

I rarely see my wife bridle as she did this afternoon when I mentioned meeting the term "vagina owner" in connection with the menopause - that it usually affects vagina owners somewhere between the ages of 45 and 55 - "I don't own a vagina, it's a part of me", like liver and heart and brain.

I'm sorry we don't have yet better language, or language we could all get used to. But that's the reality we need to be able to describe--some people with vaginas are actually men, not women. Is "people with vaginas" better? (To me it does sound better, although longish.) The thing to ask, IMO, is does someone's dislike of a linguistic term outweigh all the troubles trans people have because they aren't accepted/counted/taken seriously etc., as the case may be? Because I don't think it's a question of some wanton caprice, but real need. How do you teach medical students that they may be assisting in birth a male-presenting individual if they haven't been taught that some men might have female reproductive organs?

My brain... well, my mind... fizzes and sputters and stalls at the notion that I'm the only authority on the question of my gender: I've just gone along with what was most likely first declared by a midwife and has been observed by others since. I've always detested gender stereotyping, not least because I'm often on the wrong side of it, but take that away and what of gender is left? Very little, as I see it, other than the details of one's body, which the small proportion of transgender people, who have always existed, feel was wrong at their birth in a way I wish to acknowledge but probably can't hope to understand.

I hadn't read this when I was answering booksaplenty but you may note I say some very similar things! I.e., we who are "cis"--who feel 5X5 with our assigned gender--are not well poised to understand the transgender on that "internal" feeling of gender. But it's clear that this inability of ours doesn't dispose in any way of what they are saying. It's a bit (but only a bit, there's no perfect analogy), like trying to explain toothache to a being without teeth.

Regarding authority, this shouldn't be too difficult to understand. You are the only authority on your own experience, that is all there is to it. Although the question of your personal feeling of gender may not bedevil you at all, you'd surely feel surprised/upset/miffed/? if someone else insisted on mis-gendering you. Whether done out of pure hostility, ignorance, or good intention, surely you wouldn't go "well, I guess they know better, I'm a woman then". I mean, even if you were placating them and agreeing, you wouldn't seriously start believing you're a woman.

I do think there's immense scope for human misery and torment to be increased by popularising transgenderism, even if the popularity endures, and more so if it wanes: not least from the -ism part, the movement aspect, the tendency to treat as apostates or enemies those who go some way toward gender reassignment and find themselves regretting it. With no statistics to hand, I both fear and expect that suicide over gender issues is far more prevalent than in, say, Jan Morris' prime, when in general the only people to whom their gender was a live issue were those into whose lives it forced its way as entirely their own response to life, from within.

I'm only in my fifties, but I remember the time when it was commonly assumed (or people pretended it was commonly assumed, which results in the same) that homosexuality was non-existent in my country (or countries, scattered across the Med). And when fledgling movements for gay rights started appearing even there, they were typically first excoriated as degenerate foreign imports etc.

The reality is simply that increasing tolerance and acceptance allows more people to come out "as they really are". Popularity doesn't enter into it--or no more than usual, with some people "experimenting", as already Kinsey found out. But ask yourself, is there any force on earth that could tempt you into changing sexual orientation, or undergoing a sex change? If not, then why assume other people are more easily tempted?

I doubt that changing sex (which is what still usually happens when one is trans) will ever become as simple as flipping a switch. If it does, though, then gender won't matter at all--and neither will flipping the switch.

Where you see "immense scope for human misery and torment", I actually see an immense hope that our most fundamental division will stop being used to oppress people. As a biological scientist I know too well how much the public sets by the interpreted negatives, and not the positives, of biology. Mention natural selection and people think of grisly competition and "nature red in tooth and claw" way before they think of altruism and mutual aid--despite the latter phenomena being shown to predominate across species.

Homosexuality was once thought of as a species-ending danger. Not only did we proliferate since then to the current seven billion (almost eight), the gays are having babies too.

I can't even imagine what catastrophe the minuscule proportion of trans people is supposed to usher, but between ecological disasters and looming wars I wonder if we'd even notice.

I ramble, deplorably.

Not at all--or if yes, I just out-rambled your ramble even more deplorably. :)

2Cecrow
Mar 6, 2023, 12:47 am

Nothing deplorable in well reasoned, non attacking responses like this that seek to build bridges rather than divide.

3reconditereader
Mar 6, 2023, 1:10 am

>1 LolaWalser: Well said!

4Cat_of_Ulthar
Mar 6, 2023, 1:22 am

Ramble on, Lola (and terebinth). I've appreciated your eloquent and insightful posts on this (off-)topic.

5terebinth
Mar 6, 2023, 7:52 am

>1 LolaWalser:

Thank you for your time, and thought, and patience. It does seem that our experiences of being human may doom us to remaining on different territories, but I relish the opportunity to try to understand the things I'm not, wherever any real understanding seems at all possible.

it's not the transgender and their allies who wanted or engineered this "storm"...

A matter of perspective: the usage had been set for a very long time, a call for its revision filtered down from... somewhere. To parts of the academic/trans community the "storm" is the responsibility of those who resist their enlightenment, to most common folk such "enlightenment" is a wilful flying in the face of reality, and its attempted imposition an aggression from on high.

The thing to ask, IMO, is does someone's dislike of a linguistic term outweigh all the troubles trans people have because they aren't accepted/counted/taken seriously etc., as the case may be? Because I don't think it's a question of some wanton caprice, but real need.

Hereabouts, possibly, is the nub: how much will it ever be possible to do toward erasing from society the view that men and women are simply born as such? What are the real needs of trans men and women? To be free to pursue any modifications to their bodies that enable them to own and comfortably inhabit their bodies: to be welcomed as participants in society, presenting themselves in accordance with their inclinations, free to form such friendships and relationships as are mutually agreeable; to be subject to no more than the ordinary portion of oppressive attentions or assaults, surely comprise the most pressing matters. "Man" and "woman" are themselves linguistic terms, and any craving for absolute and unconditional acceptance as one or the other, by the whole of society, in the face of all prior human history - well, it looks to me like a want or pipedream that had better not be converted into a need, because nothing short of a scarcely imaginable authoritarianism could deliver it.

You are the only authority on your own experience, that is all there is to it. Although the question of your personal feeling of gender may not bedevil you at all, you'd surely feel surprised/upset/miffed/? if someone else insisted on mis-gendering you. Whether done out of pure hostility, ignorance, or good intention, surely you wouldn't go "well, I guess they know better, I'm a woman then".

I'd be nonplussed, but, no, I'd not agree with them, if largely because I've a clear memory of almost everyone else throughout my days regarding me as male.

But ask yourself, is there any force on earth that could tempt you into changing sexual orientation, or undergoing a sex change? If not, then why assume other people are more easily tempted?

In truth, yes, my guess is I could have been so tempted. By any standards I was an oddity in my little village school of two dozen or so pupils aged four to eleven, so I learned there to take a measure of frequent verbal abuse as a matter of course. Probably on balance girl activities appealed to me more than boy activities - I'm 63, the division there was pretty concrete in my childhood. In the next two years I hung out rather more with girls than boys, then at 13 we moved house and I passed the most miserable five years of my life at at all-male school. So, yes, if gender fluidity had been in the air at the time I'm sure I would have been sorely confused at least, and I could well be sitting here a 63 year old trans lesbian. On the whole I'm glad to have been spared that confusion, with the inevitable proviso regarding all paths not taken, that we never get to know just where they might have led.

The reality is simply that increasing tolerance and acceptance allows more people to come out "as they really are".

It's certainly a part of the reality, and utterly to be celebrated by decent humans everywhere (if their religious beliefs etc. allow). So far I'm persuaded that there's a great deal of collateral damage being done, by way of gender change being promoted as one more route by which individuals lacking meaning or fulfilment in their lives can endeavour to put things right: and through those pesky questions, given the frequent inability even of panels of experts to assess the depths of the human psyche under examination. It's probably not worth raising more of them: for sure, they have been answered, but for the most part the answers don't strike me as satisfactory.

6TheEconomist
Mar 8, 2023, 5:50 am

>1 LolaWalser: ""Now" presupposes that the individual is acting in bad faith and misrepresenting their true gender. Presumably there would be an expert panel deciding whether they are lying or not, and, in case they are genuine, whether they are likely to be a danger to other prisoners or not. This is no different to a case of a cis-woman who is a rapist. They don't get imprisoned with male prisoners either."

There is a non sequitur in your logic here. If a person is the sole authority on what what gender they are, then how can any expert panel be capable of over-ruling what gender a person claims to be?

I don't personally have an opinion on whether "trans women are women" is a true statement or not. I would observe, however, that accepting it as true leads to a whole host of serious issues, none of which can be easily resolved. The question of convicted sex offenders has already been raised - the correct decision was eventually reached in the Isla Bryson case, but only because it was overturned on appeal - if the Scottish Parliament had passed the proposed legislation on gender self-recognition then it is unlikely that the right outcome would have been possible. If you ask inmates of women's prisons whether they want convicted rapists with male bodies to be sent to their prison, you will struggle to find a single person who thinks this is acceptable. So, when it comes to self-id legislation, the only realistic solution is to make an exception of some sort for women's prisons.

The second issue is women's sport. In almost all sports (some endurance sports are exceptions), a person who has been through male puberty will have a significant advantage over someone who has not been through male puberty. If it is accepted than anyone who declares themselves to be a woman is eligible to compete in women's events, it is only a matter of time before cis women become edged out in almost all competitions. Cis men already have a huge social advantage when it comes to sport - I would suggest that gender equality will be sent several steps backwards if it becomes difficult for cis women to compete at the top level in almost all sports. So, when it comes to self-id legislation, the only realistic solution is to make an exception of some sort for women's sport.

The third issue is women's safety. There may well be a workable solution when it comes to women's toilets / restrooms - we are already seeing a move towards thorough provision of unisex toilets in the UK, and I imagine that it is similar in many other countries. Changing rooms are harder, though - there are many women who do not want themselves (or their children) to be confronted with the sight of a male body in these circumstances, and their voice is getting lost in this debate. But the most serious impact is on women's refuges. It simply has to be possible for a women's refuge to deny entry to someone they think is a man, or the purpose of a refuge is meaningless. So when it comes to self-id legislation, the only realistic solution is to make an exception of some sort for women's refuges.

I could go on, but I think the above argument is strong enough as it stands. If you accept the statement "trans women are women" as true, and take an ideological stance that there must be no exceptions made to this, they you will create a world in which women's safety and equality are both compromised. And once you start making exceptions, you are tacitly accepting that it wasn't an absolute truth in the first place.

I would submit that it is far better to take a compromise position, in which it is accepted that there are people who wish to live their lives in a gender different to the one they were assigned at birth, but to accept that they there will be occasional circumstances in which the law (and society) does not give them exactly the same rights that cisgendered people have. I would also suggest that this is the position that J K Rowling has taken, and that is is simplistic and unreasonable to describe this as transphobic.

Incidentally, there is one statement you have made (over on the FS thread) that I think needs to be challenged:

"Rowling's disagreement with the statement that trans women are women isn't just embittering but endangering lives of trans people around the globe because she is a celebrity with a platform reaching millions of people. Moreover, her statements are now tied in with a general conservative attack on civil rights, where the focus on the trans people serves to mobilize forces which are then turned against a whole array of other issues."

Rowling has been absolutely explicit that she accepts that there are people who believe themselves to have been born into the wrong gender, and that society needs to make adjustments to meet the needs of these people. There is no evidence that her statements have endangered the lives of trans people. Suggesting that her statements are tied in with the conservative attack on civil rights is similar to suggesting that left-wing opposition to zionism is tied in with far-right anti-semitism - both arguments are simplistic and self-serving.

7Pellias
Mar 8, 2023, 8:21 am

If it were up to me, we could for all I care shower together like you can in say, Austria. She, hen or he or whatever. But I bet most women would feel uneased of the increased members resembling Buffalo Bill of late. This strange new member standing in front of the mirror, squeezing his tights saying words like ".... me .. hard". Would most women welcome a phallos into their locker room, some even getting hard, because that`s how things work .. sometimes.

: Buffalo Bill was not a transexual pr.se, and I am not using (him) as a example like he was, but (he) was confused, very confused, and a lot of confused, would be joining the not so confused, and the "man with a plan" in the gym. If I was 18, and could get free entrance to a womans locker room claiming something no one could contradict, well, who wouldn`t, many will.

And that female, formerly called upon as a woman someday finding herself alone in the locker room, might not feel very comfortable suddenly feeling very alien, that late closing hours, and that darn soap she lost on the floor too, suddenly she somehow feels very exposed.

-

This is about strangers, not about kind, goodlike transexuals (1), but those also falling in between, problem would be solved on the gym somehow, because many females would stop joining, meaning a shared policy would likely not be accepted, (maybe someplace in Los Angeles or whatever). .. That would be twisted to someone saying regular mary and Kate`s are no longer welcome at gym. We want our gym back they scream on facebook collecting likes.

Not very nice too send your 10 year old girl share a shower with whomever either, just because something should unquestionably be accepted as the new norm.

(1) And few if any can claim to know what another person is thinking, knowing if someone could have an agenda - or not.

Meaning, the line must be drawn somewhere, that or we should welcome a camera in the shower, not knowing who is watching.

8LolaWalser
Mar 12, 2023, 7:40 pm

>2 Cecrow:, >3 reconditereader:, >4 Cat_of_Ulthar:

thank you

>5 terebinth:

Apologies for the late reply, something unforeseen happened last week scattering my LT-time even more and I wasn't in the right frame of my mind to go back to this topic.

A matter of perspective: the usage had been set for a very long time, a call for its revision filtered down from... somewhere. To parts of the academic/trans community the "storm" is the responsibility of those who resist their enlightenment, to most common folk such "enlightenment" is a wilful flying in the face of reality, and its attempted imposition an aggression from on high.

Most trans people aren't in the academia, they are as ordinary as anyone else. I don't see where academia enters into it at all, nor that there is some imposition from "on high". People develop language they need--academia (if I may take it to signify here "dictionary definitions" and suchlike) is actually typically way behind social change.

I'd also point out that what may appear sudden to someone who isn't personally dealing with the issue is usually a question of long standing history to someone who is dealing with it. Trans people, like, say, gay people, have always been around. What was lacking--and actively suppressed--was positive public discourse about them that would enable them to "stand up and be counted".

how much will it ever be possible to do toward erasing from society the view that men and women are simply born as such?

You are saying here much more than you seem to think. Yes, men and women are simply born as such: as babies who will develop into grown ups of all sorts of colour, shape, preferences, opinions, abilities etc. That's my whole point: we are already being born into such a diversity of make-ups, genetic and phenotypic diversity, that we merely need to recognise "trans-ness" as something else we previously didn't understand, or, maybe even more significant, didn't talk about. If I may invoke the comparison to homosexuality again--tradition has it that men and women are born heterosexual and everybody will want opposite-sex mates. But we know the reality is far more complex than that, don't we--and even far beyond just "hetero" vs. "homo". Why would gender be any simpler? Indeed, it's not.

What are the real needs of trans men and women? To be free to pursue any modifications to their bodies that enable them to own and comfortably inhabit their bodies: to be welcomed as participants in society, presenting themselves in accordance with their inclinations, free to form such friendships and relationships as are mutually agreeable; to be subject to no more than the ordinary portion of oppressive attentions or assaults, surely comprise the most pressing matters. "Man" and "woman" are themselves linguistic terms, and any craving for absolute and unconditional acceptance as one or the other, by the whole of society, in the face of all prior human history - well, it looks to me like a want or pipedream that had better not be converted into a need, because nothing short of a scarcely imaginable authoritarianism could deliver it.

First, regarding history, the evidence is that trans people existed ever since people existed, and cultural practices reflecting this are too numerous to mention. They haven't been invented on the internet in the 21st century, that's for sure. :)

"Man" and "woman" are terms covering a wild array of possible individuals falling into one or the other category, including many individuals whose sex and gender status do not conform to the traditional expectations--i.e. men with female chromosomes and women with male chromosomes, intersex individuals who were brought up into one or the other gender on the say-so of a doctor or the parents' decision etc. If those individuals are allowed to spend their lives as simply "men" or "women", why refuse that to the trans who identify with either of the binary choice (as opposed to the non-binary)? You must be aware that if you go to any larger place, i.e. mingle with a randomly assembled human crowd of a certain size, you're already crossing paths with all kinds of people, belonging to all kinds of groups, including trans. Chances are you'd never single them out, just like nobody was pointing fingers at Rock Hudson and going, "look! a homosexual!"

And as for those who aren't "passing" or are even preferring to acknowledge at all time their history of transition, they are no less men or women than cis-men or cis-women who refuse to conform, to gender roles or any other of society's conventions.

So, yes, if gender fluidity had been in the air at the time I'm sure I would have been sorely confused at least, and I could well be sitting here a 63 year old trans lesbian.

You may have been confused as a child, but it's highly doubtful you'd have remained confused your whole life. I know quite a few people who came out as gay or bi late in life and not one of them was "confused" at their late age about their orientation, they just, for various reasons, didn't find coming out was feasible before. From the trans testimonies I've read and heard, it's similar--there is a life-long involvement with the problem of gender presentation. Having a problem in this sense is not the same as "being confused".

So far I'm persuaded that there's a great deal of collateral damage being done, by way of gender change being promoted as one more route by which individuals lacking meaning or fulfilment in their lives can endeavour to put things right

This is not my experience, this sort of promotion I mean. For one thing, as the acceptance of the transgender grows, more young people are encouraged to step out as trans, and they hardly can be judged at their stage of life as lacking meaning or fulfillment. And as for the older groups, insofar they are actually reporting lack of meaning and fulfillment prior to coming out and/or undertaking a sex change, surely they have legitimate reasons for feeling that way!

In any case, nobody else but those people can judge what it is they need to feel better about themselves.

9LolaWalser
Mar 12, 2023, 8:12 pm

>6 TheEconomist:

There is a non sequitur in your logic here. If a person is the sole authority on what what gender they are, then how can any expert panel be capable of over-ruling what gender a person claims to be?

No, it's not a non sequitur; you didn't read what I wrote: I said the panel would establish if they are lying or not, not what gender they "are". Nobody establishes for anyone else what gender one is; other people only have opinions about it (unfortunately).

The question of convicted sex offenders has already been raised -

Yes, it's being raised endlessly by the transphobes who don't lift a finger to help women otherwise. We are supposed to tremble at this horrible menace of "transgender rapists" when the bulk of sexual violence women suffer, up to and including murder, is committed by cis-men--and not just any cis-men, but our partners, family and friends.

The second issue is women's sport.

Honestly, I couldn't care less (and I speak as someone who competed at international levels in my youth). Find a new way to categorize contestants within some range, like they do in boxing and junior/senior leagues, whatever.

The third issue is women's safety.

No, this was your first issue already. The whole toilet and women's shelters outrage is just another pathetic attempt to whip up support for dehumanising a group of people who simply wants to be treated as anyone else. Women are being endangered by conservatives who are demolishing their rights, by the far right and religious fundamentalists who are actually killing us, and by the millions of "ordinary" men and boys sucking at the teats of incel gurus. You want to do something positive for women--fight THEM.

There is no evidence that her statements have endangered the lives of trans people.

Except for what the trans themselves say, and the statistics of violence against them. Can we dispense with sophistry? If JK Rowling replaced her anti-trans activities with anti-you activities, and this in world where there was an entire anti-you movement, would you feel there was no evidence she was endangering your life?

Rhetorical question--I think it's more important to acknowledge the truth of the matter to yourself.

10Marissa_Doyle
Mar 12, 2023, 8:28 pm

Thank you, Lola, for this thread.

11SandraArdnas
Mar 12, 2023, 8:39 pm

>9 LolaWalser: The whole toilet and women's shelters outrage is just another pathetic attempt to whip up support for dehumanising a group of people who simply wants to be treated as anyone else

How so? The entire point as I understood that post was that anyone can claim being trans if it suits their particular agenda. So a regular male rapist sees an opportunity to end up in women's prison and claims he's suddenly a woman, It does not reflect on trans people at all, it reflects on the inherent problem with the idea that it is entirely a matter self-identification. And how exactly would a panel decide if the said person is lying if everyone is the sole arbiter of how they identify? On what grounds could they proclaim 'you're not a woman'?

As for Rowling, the backlash she received is so beyond anything she said that I'd side with her in a blink. You don't need to be a part of any minority to be a human being and generating a public lynching because something she said does not sit well with you is waaaay beyond basic human decency and does not fall under 'but we're fighting discrimination here'. But it's part of the wider culture where public lynching has become a standard way of fighting battles. Apparently, everyone must be in line and not deviate in opinion or risk being lynched. I know this will not register anywhere with you because you're on a crusade and do not contemplate anything beyond it, but there it is anyway.

12LolaWalser
Mar 12, 2023, 8:51 pm

>11 SandraArdnas:

So a regular male rapist sees an opportunity to end up in women's prison and claims he's suddenly a woman, It does not reflect on trans people at all, it reflects on the inherent problem with the idea that it is entirely a matter self-identification. And how exactly would a panel decide if the said person is lying if everyone is the sole arbiter of how they identify? On what grounds could they proclaim 'you're not a woman'?

No, you too are misreading what I wrote, although I already pointed it out. If a person claims A, the question isn't whether they are or aren't A, but whether they are claiming so sincerely. This is not new--lie detectors exist.

As for Rowling, the backlash she received is so beyond anything she said that I'd side with her in a blink.

This is beyond ridiculous.

public lynching

Shame on you for using such hyperbole about criticism of a person who is comfortably amassing wealth while the people she's targeting are suffering the highest incidence of violence of any group.

13LolaWalser
Mar 12, 2023, 8:59 pm

>10 Marissa_Doyle:

One means well, but then so much ugliness gets on display...

14SandraArdnas
Mar 12, 2023, 9:27 pm

>12 LolaWalser: Lie detectors are not conclusive evidence in court proceedings. People submit to them to bolster their claim they are speaking the truth, but it is not proof one way or the other. Don't see why they would suddenly become conclusive proof in this case. You simply refuse to see the underlying problem in the basic premise 'I am the sole arbiter'.

As for public lynching, it is no hyperbole sadly. Criticism is when you offer a differing opinion while dissecting what you take issue with. When you label someone transphobe, invite boycotting anything and everything with their name attached, as well as organize a social media crusade against her, that's public lynching. It isn't acceptable behavior in any case whatsoever. A serial murder shouldn't be publicly lynched. And it's not as if she is the sole victim of it. Surely, someone who pays attention to societal changes has noticed the trend?

Invoking incidence of violence as if Rowling and her comment have any relevancy to it is pure demagoguery BTW.

15LolaWalser
Mar 13, 2023, 12:11 am

>14 SandraArdnas:

My answer addressed the offered hypothetical (see the relevant quotation in >1 LolaWalser:) where someone deliberately misrepresents their gender--i.e. LIES--in order to gain access to women's prison.

I made no statements about conclusive proof for anything; presumably lie detectors may be used in regard to the above question as they are to any other. Other evidence could/would certainly be used to bolster or demolish the statement.

But all of this is so much straw.

The real question is how concerned we should be about such hypothetical events AT ALL, and the answer is clearly not very much, if at all. Women in prisons or anywhere else aren't greatly endangered by trans people (male or female or non-binary); on the contrary, women are routinely endangered by cis-men, directly, and indirectly through the myriad systemic oppressions imposed by the patriarchy.

For any single event of a trans person assaulting a woman (or anyone), we count THOUSANDS of instances of assault by a non-trans person, usually a man.

And, finally: Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime

Why don't we worry about that for a change?

As for public lynching, it is no hyperbole sadly.

It's hyperbole, and of the most insulting kind when lynchings of Black people are within living people's memory. No one lynched bloody Rowling; no one got close enough to fart in her face, whereas she's been trumpeting her rank garbage for years, publishing veritable treatises of transphobia, funding anti-trans bills, and selling millions of transphobic books. So please stop it.

Invoking incidence of violence as if Rowling and her comment have any relevancy to it is pure demagoguery BTW.

I'm supposed to take seriously insults about demagoguery from someone who INSISTS that Rowling was "lynched"?

I gave above one reference about physical violence against the trans; kindly avail yourself of the search function for more. As for how the trans issue is being used in current politics, here's just a few links:

Anti-trans rhetoric took center stage at CPAC amid hostile Republican efforts (The Guardian, March 2023)

Why is the GOP escalating attacks on trans rights? Experts say the goal is to make sure evangelicals vote (PBS, 2022)

Transgender Americans Feel Under Siege as Political Vitriol Rises (The New York Times, 2022)

Rowling, a celebrity with a gigantic platform and all the means her wealth puts at her disposal, has chosen to be publicly hateful toward a group that is marginalized, routinely physically assaulted, and politically in a crisis cynically manipulated by the right. Criticism is fair, losing fans is fair, losing support is fair. Nothing worse happened to her, and nothing more than what she richly deserved.

She should be ashamed above all. She could have learned something from the young stars of the films that made her so much money and gave her free entrance to so many people's hearts. She could have listened, reconsidered, apologized and made amends.

I sincerely wish she still would, and I'm not nor ever was a fan (there are posts of mine from decades ago about her misogyny and antifeminism, as shown in the Potter books).

I wish it for the people who grew up loving the world she created. And well, for all of us, because there is too much grief and pain as it is. And this was, is, at the core so... I don't know what to call it, what word would express best something one should absolutely not quarrel about.

I mean--some women were murdered because they wanted to wear trousers. Men were murdered or sentenced to years of hard labour because they were gay. It's impossible to hear that today and not feel, among everything else, such pity about it all because it's so senseless, so ludicrous, so wasteful.

Transphobia is just as senseless.

16LolaWalser
Mar 13, 2023, 12:20 am

This seems to be a great channel for those who are trying to understand transgender issues (I'm linking to one of the relevant videos):

Transphobia in the UK (@ 35 minutes)

Please, if you wish to learn something, as opposed to merely debate me, who am neither expert nor reliably present, please listen to this video and see where it takes you.

17SandraArdnas
Mar 13, 2023, 3:03 am

>15 LolaWalser: My answer addressed the offered hypothetical (see the relevant quotation in >1 LolaWalser: LolaWalser:) where someone deliberately misrepresents their gender--i.e. LIES--in order to gain access to women's prison.

I made no statements about conclusive proof for anything; presumably lie detectors may be used in regard to the above question as they are to any other. Other evidence could/would certainly be used to bolster or demolish the statement.


So, in other words, you refuse to give this serious thought. Someone will come up with some solution whatever it is when faced with the problem. You then revert back to how women in prison are not endangered by trans people, even though several of us repeatedly emphasized the issue is not trans people, but those misrepresenting themselves and how to deal with it.

I think this discussion is senseless. You merely want a soap box. You're welcome to it.

18Pellias
Mar 14, 2023, 5:54 pm

In a world, there is a We, and an Us, and happily we lived together for eternity. At least one could wish.

I`m sure there are some evil transexuals in the world too (but mostly nice of course .. of course) .., that and in 10-20 years, maybe even before. The new speak could even be that you should feel shite being a white man, anything wrong in the world - blame it on the newly born white child as he grow up. Bully him for being white and see him go. I can`t take the temperature in the world, but it`s probably already happening. Depending on where you live of course, in these days of the internet that is everywhere.

Why is this relevant, because it is. There is this thing called a community. There are many great white`s (not just the shark), blacks, transexuals, gay, and even middle aged white men.

Being a white young and or older male, is more than joining up as an Andrew Tate follower (I hardly knew who he was two months ago, living under a rock, now definitely climbing back - do not join, this rock is mine). If it`s not him, it`s some other humanoid.

Every time these discussions come up in some shape and or form, and between the lines, there is this smell I don`t like.

-

We should all accept eachother, regardless of sex and or race. We never ever will, ever never ever, but we should, sadly we could not - ever. But sometimes we will, and most of the time we will try, and we will never give up, ever never. Some will, but others will always hold the candle and hold the light lit. There will be bumps in the road, and oceans to swim. We will drown and we will stumble, but we will rise .. sadly just to again fall, and rise again, to walk, and run, and crash in a tree. This world, it`s huge .. yet, it`s also very small, and on and on.

-

A rose to all females, if that still is okay, what do I know about world orders, also a rose and a compliment to the transexual today feeling very funky (or just regular, hey even a nose pinch might be in order, and a hug .. it`s a start isn`t it?). And you dude of any age, etnicity, shape or form, and all that jazz, you are totally worth it, even in the future. Up the male man, you too are not forgotten !

My energy is balanced, not trampling any toes. I just had to say it. And yes, it is relevant, and no, it`s not crap. Living is also emotions, not just data (yet).

No, I`m not drunk, why should I?

19mm_reads
Abr 7, 2023, 1:40 pm

>15 LolaWalser: THANK YOU for posting this. The incidents of transgendered people being attacked, almost always by cis men, is massive compared to transgender people attacking someone else. Not saying it never happens, because People. But primarily proportionally, it is transgendered people being attacked and murdered.

If people need to be able to treat other people differently because of the way they dress, then they're obviously hung up on sex. It's weird and perverted for people to obsess so much on this.

Transgendered people really feel like aliens in their birth bodies. Unless a cis person has been attacked by their own bodies (cancer, autoimmune disorders, etc), cis people probably don't have any clue what that's like. So fricking get some empathy and stop being sociopaths.

Thanks.

20mm_reads
Abr 7, 2023, 1:50 pm

>17 SandraArdnas: You had said anyone can claim to be transgendered. So why would you pressure kids and teens to not express their gender identity? /sarcasm/That way everyone knows about it before they go berserk and attack everyone.//

People who are transgendered show signs in childhood, and sometimes their whole lives. There are a number of people who live trying to suppress that part of themselves, starting in childhood, going through adolescent peer and adult pressure, and on into adulthood. That kind of oppression is a recipe for harm to either that person (suicide or attempts at suicide) or harm to others due to anger and inner turmoil.

Please note, I do not apply this to every individual out there. There are few absolutes when it comes to humans except for death.

21Cecrow
Nov 30, 2023, 1:16 pm

Sad article in our Canada news today; fellow moved here from the US to get away from bigotry, but there's no escaping it.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/trans-rights-canada-1.7044149