Yup, and JK gets tons of hate, too, but I don’t think she cares as much as AA.
She's a billionaire. AA is not.
I can't understand these "feminist" women. Why do they feel threatened by trans women?
Why do they have to make a point on insisting that there are only two sexes? And then , like AA, say they support trans people? How?
It's a very complex theme and there is and will be a lot of problems if it's not openly and fairly discussed. For example in women sports or health related issues. It's a minefield theme right now, tho.
I recommend a polemic book called Galileo's Middle Finger. It's about the tense relationship between activism and science and how facts are important to achieve healthy social justice. It was nominated to a prestigious LGBTQ award but later the nomination was rescinded when some trans activists very vocally protested it. So...
I recently got called transphobic for saying that I totally have no problem with anybody identifying as whatever sex they want. However on a biological and scientific basis you are, unless you have a sex change, still genetically the sex you were born. To me that’s just a fact. It doesn’t mean I don’t support and accept people who want to identify and live as another sex. I’m just old fashioned about facts. To me you can’t make something a fact just because you want it to be.
However in the JK Rowling case it would seem that the full story on the women she was defending is rather more problematic than her tweet would suggest. Apparently the woman has a history of negative behaviour towards trans people. It is likely JK Rowling was unaware of the broader story.
The woman apparently was called "a danger for democracy" by a judge after she sued her old work (a charity) for not renewing her contract and let her go because some activists contacted them after a row on Twitter. She is accused of misgendering one or two persons on Twitter who it seems aren't actually transwomen (or at least not in the clasical way, nowadays it's an umbrella term that include a lot of types of identities) but agender and someone who constanly change gender. The first person wears a beard and the second one dress as woman some days and other days as a man. At least that's what people on her side are saying. They are sharing the judge's resolution as proof but TBH I haven't read it.
It seems to be some lies out there, tho. People are saying the woman harassed co-workers, for example, and that she refuses to refers trans people with the preferred pronouns. Apparently that's not true, it was a Twitter thing with she declaring that people can't really change sex and criticized that the person who constantly change their gender identity was included in a women only panel.
I think she could be criticized for not be inclusive enough and MAYBE justify until certain degree that a charity wouldn't want renewing the contract of someone polemic like her but the part about being a "danger for democracy" is questionable! Actually I would say it's the opposite: a judge saying certain opinions are unsayable not matter how abhorrent they are it's the real danger for democracy. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that was what JK Rowling was defending: her right to free speech (and that she shouldn't had lost her job because what she said on Twitter).
We will see what happens. I doubt the case is finished yet. Surely, the woman will appeal.
Post by onebluestocking on Dec 27, 2019 15:55:39 GMT
a women only panel
I haven't followed the issue and am not familiar with the people involved. But, I don't see the difference between a biological male dressed as a female joining a woman-only panel (or winning a Woman of the Year award such as Caitlin Jenner), and Rachel Dolezal dressed as biracial serving as NAACP chapter president. People explaining the difference always say that gender is a social construct and race is not, but technical differences do not change the argument that different sexes (or races) have different life experiences and opportunities available to them, and are not the same regardless of outward trappings.
A biological male dressed as a woman is not the same thing as a transgender woman. Transgender is more than dressing up which is partially what made JK Rowling’s tweet offensive and out of touch. Of course it’s complicated in some situations, but generally speaking, just let people live their lives and respect their preferences for how to be addressed and you can’t go too wrong.
However on a biological and scientific basis you are, unless you have a sex change, still genetically the sex you were born. To me that’s just a fact. It doesn’t mean I don’t support and accept people who want to identify and live as another sex. I’m just old fashioned about facts. To me you can’t make something a fact just because you want it to be.
I'm not a biologist but here is one:
The tread is long, I'm copying the tweets here. Maybe things aren't that simple anymore.
Also, on her twitter she has links to papers on the matter:
Thanks Magda. I can’t see all those tweets as I’m working off my phone today. Is the biologist is saying that having a different chromasone make up is not sufficient to determine biological gender.? If so, that’s interesting.
In day to day life my approach is that if a person wishes to be identified as the opposite sex then that’s fine with me. I don’t ask or care whether or not they’ve had a sex change. I was just examining the biological/scientific aspect of the debate as relevant to JK Rowling’s tweet.
As for me getting called transphobic - some people are just too quick to fling labels about these days without actually taking time to understand what a person is saying. Social media seems to have removed context and nuance from some individuals’ critical thinking skills.
That person is actually talking about intersex conditions not transgenderism. There's a lot of confusion out there and some activists indeed use what it's a medical helth issue to "justify" something that doesn't need any justification at all! Are they claiming all trans people or people who claim to have new identities are intersex? Because most of them clearly aren't!
Most intersex people are actually male or female and pro-intersex activism was very against being seen as anything different. They were also against early medical intervention. Something it's much more ambiguous with transgender activists, some of who claim infants know when they are transgender and campaign for medication to delay puberty, for example.
Again I recommend Galileo's Middle Finger. The writer is a very influential pro-intersex rights activist and it's fascinating how some of the goals of that movement actually clash with modern pro-transgender activism.
I think we live in very dangerous times in which a minority of extremists scream and harass to people who have different opinions. They are damaging their cause because even when it seems they are the majority. They aren't. They just believe they are and behave like little dictators. They are influencing some sections of the press and the academia but soon or later they will clash with reality and the ones who will suffer will be the persons they claim to defend.
This is a fascinating thread! Personally, I think it’s fine however people want to label themselves and how they choose to “be” in the world, but finding a commonality between science and identity might be a bit difficult. I think we need to understand that sex is on a continuum just as gender is (and probably most identity considerations lol). Actually, the continuum I envision looks more like a sphere.
Most “true” transgender people know at a very young age - 3 or 4 years old - that they really belong to a different gender, and articulate that to their parental units. It’s quite interesting, actually, that they speak about it at such a young age. And I do think that the large numbers of transgender people we have coming out now and getting the surgical changes is a bit...problematic. There’s way more (it seems) than the normal numbers of about 3%.
I’m wondering if it’s actually some kind of societal identity issue, or some scheme of mother nature’s to cut down on the human population, or even (yikes) some kind of “cool” phase where everyone has to be as unique as possible. The number of descriptors/pronouns one must use today is rather alarming.
Binary/non: he, she, they. Sexual inclination: cis/het/ace/bi/gay/pan. Romantic inclinations: straight, furry, aromantic, etc. All these labels are strung together and then presented to the world as if it encapsulates who that person is. isn’t that really putting limits on identity and understanding?
I get sort of confused about all this micro-labeling and sometimes question if it’s helpful. In a world that needs much more inclusion, creating all these artificial categories seems to me to be doing the opposite, as in “this is my label and I’m standing over here to defend it. You stand over there and defend yours.” It’s sure created a lot of discourse, tho, hasn’t it?