|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 7:31:01 GMT
There is no evidence to suggest any woman has been attacked by a trans women in a toilet in the last 10 years that they have been able to use them. None.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 7:32:56 GMT
And for all the concerns about radical shifts.......black lives matter?? U supported that shift didn’t u?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 7:33:44 GMT
And the argument that some trans people are standing with Rowling? Some black people are standing with trump
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 7:34:33 GMT
I don’t think there’s many women who haven’t wished they were a man at some point - but especially when going through puberty
Men just seem to have it so much easier! But it does seem that women with autism spectrum disorders are over-represented among those seeking to transition after puberty. It’s a new enough phenomenon - and the follow-up procedures are lax enough - that no-one is quite sure how high the de-transition rate really is. ‘Lost to follow-up’ isn’t the same as discontinuing transition.
Unfortunately trying to ask the question about the number of de-transitioners and what that might mean about the validity of initial diagnosis gets people called transphobic.
And there's lots of evidence that gender non-conforming children often grow up to be same-sex attracted adults rather than trans adults. That has been well established over a number of studies. The rush to declare that such children are trans and should socially transition - rather than following the ‘watchful waiting’ method - is quite concerning.
Anyway, I just poked my head in this morning because his popped up in my Twitter timeline.
I seem to have ended up following a lot of theatre folks whose views on the trans issue are diametrically opposed to my own. I don’t quite know how to get the good theatre chat on my timeline without the frankly insulting accusations of white supremacy.
It’s a relief to see from this thread that I’m not as alone as Twitter makes me feel!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 7:37:28 GMT
And to those of u that say that people could be turned by the radicals?? Honey, I been hearing that my whole life about me trying to turn straight men gay. It’s not real guys!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 7:40:26 GMT
.
And there's lots of evidence that gender non-conforming children often grow up to be same-sex attracted adults rather than trans adults. That has been well established over a number of studies. The rush to declare that such children are trans and should socially transition - rather than following the ‘watchful waiting’ method - is quite concerning.
!
[/quote][br
Did you read that open letter I posted to u?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 7:59:58 GMT
Anyway this thread isn’t about fear towards trans women it’s about lgbqti+ and JK Rowling so let’s stick to that eh?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 8:15:42 GMT
I honestly don’t understand what JK Rowling has supposedly done, other than call out someone for not calling women, women. Maybe the journalist was being ironic, looking for a catchy turn of phrase or genuinely wanting to make a distinction between different types of women - but it doesn’t matter what the reason was: reducing women to ‘people who menstruate’ is reductive.
Now I may not be a woman, but I know of the struggles women have in this world. Men and women are sadly not equal and the road towards true equality are still being navigated. For a woman to ask for women to be referred to as women is not only okay, but outrageous in 2020.
Because the truth is that historically, women have been made to feel like the inferior sex and have had to navigate for millennia through a world ruled by straight white men. Growing up with sisters I learned long ago (to my outrage) that women have to conduct themselves based on knowledge that they might not always be safe.
So as far as I can tell, JKRowling is simply highlighting this and reminding people that at its core, the relationship women have with the world around them is based on the very fact they are born biologically as a woman, and does not want this to be dismissed. I think that’s a fair request, unless I’m missing something?
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 8:51:56 GMT
I don’t think there’s many women who haven’t wished they were a man at some point - but especially when going through puberty Men just seem to have it so much easier! But it does seem that women with autism spectrum disorders are over-represented among those seeking to transition after puberty. It’s a new enough phenomenon - and the follow-up procedures are lax enough - that no-one is quite sure how high the de-transition rate really is. ‘Lost to follow-up’ isn’t the same as discontinuing transition. Yes, I realised what I envied was the freedom - from catcalls and threats on the way home from school, body policing, having to perch on chairs with your knees together rather than lolling in the grass or sitting with a sketchbook on your lap, "are you courting?" etc. - even being told by a family friend that my exam results were wasted on a girl! Luckily I went to an all-girls school where we were free from the 'male gaze' (apart from the perverts lurking in the park by the playing fields) and from the notion that certain interests were 'for boys' - if anything, the school was stronger on sciences than arts, we did woodwork as well as cookery and dressmaking, had a photography club, school play casting was obviously sex-blind etc.. We also had strong pop cultural tribes - punk, goth, ska, rockabilly etc. which allowed teenagers of both sexes to experiment with clothing and behaviours, and find a sort of community outside the home (btw, I recently saw goth being labelled "transphobic" because men wear make up and frills without acting femme, which of course breaks all the rules of the deeply conservative binary mindset of some trans activists!) When I was at university I knew an extremely distressed young woman who had had a partial surgical sex change, including a double mastectomy, and then realised entering her 20s she had made a mistake. This was in the 1990s, when such cases were very rare, but now we see young people, especially girls, being in effect culturally groomed into thinking non-conformity in a set of rigid, conservative stereotypes and the stresses of puberty that almost all young people experience means you're in the wrong body, and fast-tracked into the sex change process. One has to wonder about the role of the plastic surgery and pharma industries here - sex changes are big business in a way the old school manifestations of teenage body image discomfort - anorexia, self harm etc., were not. I can't help feeling, now the lawsuits and resignations are beginning, this is a period that may be looked back on as one of the big child safeguarding scandals of our era, and J K Rowling is an absolute hero to have braved the appalling flak she has been receiving to speak up about her concerns. I seem to have ended up following a lot of theatre folks whose views on the trans issue are diametrically opposed to my own. I don’t quite know how to get the good theatre chat on my timeline without the frankly insulting accusations of white supremacy Yes, I have muted or unfollowed so many 'arts' people this week who I thought would have known better, and at least bothered to read what JKR said, knowing she is a decent and humane person with a social conscience - on the other hand, I understand why so many others are keeping silent: a gay writer got death threats for writing a sympathetic children's book about a child with a trans sibling (how dare he write it when he's not trans!)., Fra Fee got abuse hurled at him by his own fans for Breakfast on Pluto, Amanda Abbingdon hounded off Twitter for supporting JKR's Tweet last Christmas - I think many in the arts aware of how precarious their jobs are anyway, how swayed by fashion the whole industry is, are keeping their heads down hoping it'll blow over. |
|
873 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 9:12:06 GMT
I honestly don’t understand what JK Rowling has supposedly done, other than call out someone for not calling women, women. Maybe the journalist was being ironic, looking for a catchy turn of phrase or genuinely wanting to make a distinction between different types of women - but it doesn’t matter what the reason was: reducing women to ‘people who menstruate’ is reductive. Now I may not be a woman, but I know of the struggles women have in this world. Men and women are sadly not equal and the road towards true equality are still being navigated. For a woman to ask for women to be referred to as women is not only okay, but outrageous in 2020. Because the truth is that historically, women have been made to feel like the inferior sex and have had to navigate for millennia through a world ruled by straight white men. Growing up with sisters I learned long ago (to my outrage) that women have to conduct themselves based on knowledge that they might not always be safe. So as far as I can tell, JKRowling is simply highlighting this and reminding people that at its core, the relationship women have with the world around them is based on the very fact they are born biologically as a woman, and does not want this to be dismissed. I think that’s a fair request, unless I’m missing something? Not all women menstruate and trans men can menstruate so not all people who menstruate are women. And surely deciding that the only thing that makes you a women is your biological ability to menstruate is more reductive than calling people who menstruate just that? Besides the article barely gave a passing word to people who were not biologically female so their main concern didn't even seem to be inclusivity and was in fact just accuracy of language. I don't have all the answers. I've tried multiple times to write a paragraph explaining my position but I think the issue has too much nuance and conflicting rights or at least the perception of conflict that to come up with a solution to every issue without compromise is impossible. That being said I think a large part of why people are so quick to call transphobia is that a lot of the time arguments made imply that trans gender men and women are not 'real' men and women and that causes real world damage. I believe 2 transgender women in the last week were killed in America (and in horrific, violent ways) and I believe that if society was in a place which accepted those women as 'real' women those deaths would not have happened. Obviously I can't say for sure but knowing that people like Venus Xtravaganza (from the Paris is Burning documentary) almost certainly died because someone discovered she wasn't a 'real' woman and killed her in a rage in response leads me to believe that something similar must have happened in these cases, especially considering the manner of their deaths. So ultimately I think that if everyone came at the issue acknowledging trans people as the gender they identify as a base, then people would be a lot more open to discussion. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 10:17:41 GMT
I believe that if society was in a place which accepted those women as 'real' women those deaths would not have happened. Because women never get killed by men? There are deeply ingrained, dangerous phobias in societies, especially in those that are very patriarchal, but blaming feminism or JKR (as I've seen a couple of people in my twitter feed do this week) is bizarre. |
|
873 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 10:52:45 GMT
I believe that if society was in a place which accepted those women as 'real' women those deaths would not have happened. Because women never get killed by men? There are deeply ingrained, dangerous phobias in societies, especially in those that are very patriarchal, but blaming feminism or JKR (as I've seen a couple of people in my twitter feed do this week) is bizarre. Of course women get killed by men but transgender women get killed at a much higher rate. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 11:06:44 GMT
They do. Unfortunately that appears to be linked to the overrepresentation of trans women among sex workers - sex work being an incredible high risk profession. Your example from Paris is Burning is one such case.
This is of course linked to being marginalised.
There is absolutely no question that trans women are among the most vulnerable to male violence due to the effects of marginalisation.
|
|
873 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 11:12:11 GMT
They do. Unfortunately that appears to be linked to the overrepresentation of trans women among sex workers - sex work being an incredible high risk profession. Your example from Paris is Burning is one such case. This is of course linked to being marginalised. There is absolutely no question that trans women are among the most vulnerable to male violence. One of the recent articles listing black trans murder victims also listed the perpetrators where they were known. None of them were radical feminists. They were almost all victims of male violence. Yes but in the Paris is Burning example she had been previously attacked once the person realised she was transgender. That to me suggests that the attacker feels like they were tricked into having sex with a man and so comments like JKR's which perpetuate the idea that trans men and women are not actually the gender they identify as (not that sex is real but suggestions that trans men are included in TERF because they're women or her support for Maya Forstater who refused to stop misgendering her co-worker) surely contribute to the continuance of this mentality? |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 11:44:10 GMT
Statistically trans sex workers are no more likely to be murdered than non-trans sex workers. Murder rates for all sex workers are extremely high. I just checked, and Statistically there’s no evidence that trans people have a higher murder rate than non-trans people in the U.K. (and I’ve seen similar breakdowns for the US). www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-ukIt does seem that trans people experience a higher rate of domestic violence than non-trans. I really thought the rates were higher than that! It’s impossible to know what motivates any particular crime. But blaming a crime that happened in the 80s on JKR’s attitude is a bit much, isn’t it? I mean, there were all sorts of different factors at play in that time and place than there are now. |
|
318 posts
|
Post by MrBraithwaite on Jun 15, 2020 12:04:14 GMT
Came back to the forum after a few days away and will not read this entire topic. Just amused by some things I read online about fans removing their HP tattoos and burning their books etc etc. (please feel free to do that!) and all the HP film kiddie cast chiming in on social media. The world has truly gone insane lately. Very amused...if JKR is the worst person ever (quote) and is the new enemy of the LGBT-community, then they don't seem to have any other problems.
|
|
873 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by juicy_but_terribly_drab on Jun 15, 2020 12:07:59 GMT
Statistically trans sex workers are no more likely to be murdered than non-trans sex workers. Murder rates for all sex workers are extremely high. I just checked, and Statistically there’s no evidence that trans people have a higher murder rate than non-trans people in the U.K. (and I’ve seen similar breakdowns for the US). www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-ukIt does seem that trans people experience a higher rate of domestic violence than non-trans. I really thought the rates were higher than that! It’s impossible to know what motivates any particular crime. But blaming a crime that happened in the 80s on JKR’s attitude is a bit much, isn’t it? I mean, there were all sorts of different factors at play in that time and place than there are now. Maybe I'm wrong, it's just my perception that transgender people seem to often be killed because they're transgender and that's the only reason I could come up with that would motivate someone to do that. I still think though that JKR's views are transphobic. I don't think there's anything wrong with acknowledging that sex is real or that cis women face different struggles than trans women, especially prior to a trans person outwardly presenting as their gender or prior to transition, but to say that sex is the end all be all is wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 12:26:57 GMT
Came back to the forum after a few days away and will not read this entire topic. Just amused by some things I read online about fans removing their HP tattoos and burning their books etc etc. (please feel free to do that!) and all the HP film kiddie cast chiming in on social media. The world has truly gone insane lately. Very amused...if JKR is the worst person ever (quote) and is the new enemy of the LGBT-community, then they don't seem to have any other problems. Cancel culture at its finest. Though admittedly I dislike the fact she omitted Dumbledore’s sexuality in Harry Potter - particularly when Albus’ blind love ultimately resulted in the death of Ariana and facilitated Grindelwald’s rise to power (which is particularly poignant now that it transpires Grindewald deliberately killed Ariana for her Obscurus). |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 13:03:32 GMT
Though admittedly I dislike the fact she omitted Dumbledore’s sexuality in Harry Potter - particularly when Albus’ blind love ultimately resulted in the death of Ariana and facilitated Grindelwald’s rise to power (which is particularly poignant now that it transpires Grindewald deliberately killed Ariana for her Obscurus). I'm old enough to remember when the books first came out and she was called Joanne in interviews but JK on book covers because many boys wouldn't read books by obviously female writers, and American Christians had book burnings and banned her books from libraries because they featured witchcraft. I doubt, in the 1990s, you could have launched a MG children's book with a major mentor character who was openly gay. Even today, TV series, books and films aimed at a global market, including many countries where homosexuality is illegal and in some punishable by death, the number of openly gay characters in fantasy and MG stories is vanishingly small: they are usually only coded, as in Star Wars Rogue One, which is very diverse in all other ways, and even then they're sidekicks or end up dead. I felt David Thewlis' character's storyline was code for 'gay teacher hounded out of job when discovered'. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 13:41:38 GMT
Though admittedly I dislike the fact she omitted Dumbledore’s sexuality in Harry Potter - particularly when Albus’ blind love ultimately resulted in the death of Ariana and facilitated Grindelwald’s rise to power (which is particularly poignant now that it transpires Grindewald deliberately killed Ariana for her Obscurus). I'm old enough to remember when the books first came out and she was called Joanne in interviews but JK on book covers because many boys wouldn't read books by obviously female writers, and American Christians had book burnings and banned her books from libraries because they featured witchcraft. I doubt, in the 1990s, you could have launched a MG children's book with a major mentor character who was openly gay. Even today, TV series, books and films aimed at a global market, including many countries where homosexuality is illegal and in some punishable by death, the number of openly gay characters in fantasy and MG stories is vanishingly small: they are usually only coded, as in Star Wars Rogue One, which is very diverse in all other ways, and even then they're sidekicks or end up dead. I felt David Thewlis' character's storyline was code for 'gay teacher hounded out of job when discovered'. The last book was released in 2007. Knowing Dumbledore’s history was only important to the storyline in the last book, and considering JKR announced Dumbledore’s sexuality almost immediately after release, I still see no reason why it should have been omitted. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not asking for Dumbledore to have been changed in the books - I don’t believe Harry needed to know the sexuality of any of his teachers (and from what I can remember, all his teachers were single anyway). But Aberforth talking about how Dumbledore was blinded by his love for Grindelwald would have made perfect sense in terms of the story (specifically during the scene in book seven where Harry gains access to Hogwarts via The Hogs Head). |
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Jun 15, 2020 14:20:20 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’.
Also we need to bear in mind that there has been a huge sea-change in attitudes since even 2007 (13 years ago - where did the time go?!). Gay marriage really does seem to have been a tipping point. Publishing can be a bit behind the curve just because it takes so long to write and produce a book, and children’s publishing tends towards the conservative because of who is actually buying the books. (Middle-aged adults! Harry Potter did so well in part because it hit the nostalgia nerve of everyone who grew up with Enid Blyton and Chalet School books. It’s just a mash-up of those boarding school shenanigans/kids solve mysteries books with a bit of basic good vs evil fantasy template grafted on. JK Rowling is a better mystery writer than fantasy world-builder, which is why you shouldn’t think to hard about her mythology - it starts to fall apart when you poke at the joins.)
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on Jun 15, 2020 15:00:29 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’. Would right-wing parents have let their children read the books if she had made Dumbledore openly gay? Her books have a very strong social message wrapped up in a fantasy, boarding school larks setting. In that form, the message was able to reach those who (assuming you're on the liberal-left) most need to hear it, rather than just Guardianistas. |
|
5,840 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by oxfordsimon on Jun 15, 2020 15:08:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 15:25:35 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’. Also we need to bear in mind that there has been a huge sea-change in attitudes since even 2007 (13 years ago - where did the time go?!). Gay marriage really does seem to have been a tipping point. Publishing can be a bit behind the curve just because it takes so long to write and produce a book, and children’s publishing tends towards the conservative because of who is actually buying the books. (Middle-aged adults! Harry Potter did so well in part because it hit the nostalgia nerve of everyone who grew up with Enid Blyton and Chalet School books. It’s just a mash-up of those boarding school shenanigans/kids solve mysteries books with a bit of basic good vs evil fantasy template grafted on. JK Rowling is a better mystery writer than fantasy world-builder, which is why you shouldn’t think to hard about her mythology - it starts to fall apart when you poke at the joins.) I grew up loving Enid Blyton - I literally went from primary school being obsessed with The Famous Five and The Secret Seven to Harry Potter in secondary school. In fact I remember our primary school librarian (who coincidentally was a family friend) calling me out every single week for picking up yet another Enid Blyton book... “There’s other books by other people in this library you know!”. I wonder what Enid Blyton would make of all this. Obviously it wasn’t even possible when her books were written, but any modern audience must surely interpret ‘Master George’ as possibly trans. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2020 15:35:00 GMT
Hmm. It could have been openly stated in book 7 - as I recall we were just starting to see openly gay characters in YA fiction at that point - but I am not sure that would have made much difference to the reaction. Still would have criticised as being a bit belated and as a distraction from the main story/ ‘PC pandering’. Would right-wing parents have let their children read the books if she had made Dumbledore openly gay? Her books have a very strong social message wrapped up in a fantasy, boarding school larks setting. In that form, the message was able to reach those who (assuming you're on the liberal-left) most need to hear it, rather than just Guardianistas. I don’t think Dumbledore should have been openly gay to students, but I see no reason why the information couldn’t have been provided in book seven - the books were no longer children’s books, her audience had grown up, the movies were already being made and Dumbledore’s sexuality only becomes relevant to the story in book seven anyway once the character is dead. As JKR always points out, the entire series opens with a double murder in chapter one, with book one ending with a teacher trying to murder a student. So if you’re okay with letting your kids read this I can’t imagine eventually knowing a character is gay is going to negatively impact the experience of the book or series as a whole. The whole mudblood storyline was about LGBTQ+ rights anyway, so there is allegories in the books anyway. |
|
