I also wrote: "Anybody who resorts to violent acts to try to prevent thoughtful people from speaking is a danger to civil society. Trying to shut down discussions you'd rather not have is not the way to go about changing hearts and minds. It's what fascists do." Do you agree or disagree?
Violence (including death threats) are not acceptable. Trying to shut down discussions, including uninviting such people to private speaking events, or telling them they are wrong and/or to stop promulgating those opinions, is not a problem provided it is not the government doing so.
For example I have, several times, told anti-vaxxers to stop spreading their misinformation, because it can (and has) killed people. I would also support a local private venue uninviting anti-vaxxers to public events during pandemics, because giving them such a platform can also kill people.
Are you saying you don't believe that Rowling is telling the truth when she reports that she has heard from other women who have received rape and death threats? Do you think she is just lying? Do you think she is unfairly demonising the kind-hearted souls who are trying to shut down speech about "trans rights"?
I think she is exaggerating, as often happens in cases like this. I also think that information is less reliable.
I believe first hand experiences; experiences I have had. For secondhand information (i.e. experiences reported by the media or someone I know) I consider the source, but if the source is one I trust, I will generally believe it. For third hand experiences (i.e. media reports on what someone else's experience was) I believe it less. For fourth hand experiences (i.e. the media reports on what someone says someone else's experience is) - those, for me, are the least credible. They are akin to Trump's "immigrants are raping and killing everywhere; everyone says so."
How do you go about determining whether somebody is a Nazi sympathizer or a Holocaust denier?
I think you would not find it hard. For example, when Daryl Cooper (a guest on Sean Hannity) started talking about the Holocaust one of his first comments was that Germany didn't intend to kill any Jews. "They went in with no plan for that and they just threw these people into camps. And millions of people ended up dead there.” In fact he claimed that Churchill was the “chief villain” of World War II because “he was primarily responsible for that war becoming what it did, becoming something other than an invasion of Poland.” Hitler conquering France was
“infinitely preferable in every way” to an image from the recent Paris Olympics opening ceremony showing drag queens.
After hearing that, would you conclude he was a Nazi sympathizer and/or a Holocaust denier? Or would you feel the need to watch several more hours of interviews to make sure?
Such a law would allow a male sexual predator to enter women-only spaces with impunity, if he were willing to say "I am a woman". And in case you imagine there have been no cases of men who identify as women sexually assaulting women in restrooms, I'm here to tell you that there have been (and Rowling is, too).
Yep. I am sure both you and Rowling can identify such cases.
Now let's compare the number of men who go into women's rooms and assault women. If there are a representative number of cases for both non-trans men and trans women doing this, then there is no benefit to banning trans women from women's bathrooms. And this is what studies have found. From one such study:
“Opponents of public accommodations laws that include gender identity protections often claim that the laws leave women and children vulnerable to attack in public restrooms. But this study provides evidence that these incidents are rare and unrelated to the laws.”
Legislation, regulations, litigation, and ballot propositions affecting public restroom access for transgender people increased drastically in the last three years. Opponents of gender identity inclusive public accommodations nondiscrimination laws often cite fear of safety and privacy...
link.springer.com
In addition, such laws generally REQUIRE people who are visibly, anatomically and hormonally men to enter women's bathrooms. I would argue that that does not improve safety of women.
On the broader issue, can I ask you: are sex and gender different? Has your personal Overton window moved to the position where you think sex is an outdated and irrelevant concept, such that we should dispense with it and just use gender, exclusively?
Yes, sex and gender are different. Sex is not an outdated concept, nor is it as simple as anti-trans activists believe it to be.
One thing she has said (I'm paraphrasing here, to be clear) is that accepting that any man who self-identifies as a women must be a woman is effectively "erasing sex".
I know several trans women who were once men. None of them "erased sex" either effectively or in reality. I know one kid who is genetically male and phenotypically female. They have not "erased sex." A Belgian supermodel - Hanne Gaby Odiele - is also genetically male and outwardly female. She has not "erased sex" - which, again, is not the same as gender.
I know several nonbinary people as well. Kel identifies as "they." So does Emmett. That has not erased sex. Which is also not the same as gender.
Is that your position on these issues? Sex is redundant, passe, outdated and irrelevant?
Nope.
You should not assume that everyone over a certain age is a conservative bigot. That's a big mistake to make.
I don't. A 60 year old, however, does have a stronger tendency to retain the societal mores they learned 40 years ago than a 20 year old. That's basic logic.
