Ms Rowling: insightful critic of gender policy or myopic [insult]

Konchog said:

Can we push the river? We often want to, but the river resists. But we can steer a little, right? We can assist in avoiding whirlpools and rocks.

Click to expand...

I am stealing that one.

parmalee said:

includes "sports" like frisbee golf and poker (?!) among other things.

Click to expand...

Frisbee golf!? I've been missing out on life!

parmalee said:

- and which has nothing to do with the UN, and that 900 is more like 300, and many of the women who lost these medals have been interviewed and were just fine with their losses and were welcoming of their trans colleagues

Click to expand...

Case by case decisions with professionals making the call. Sports should be fair across all demographics, we do not pitch Boys under 16 RU against boys under 14 for a reason, unless you want to see a blood bath that is (We did that at school in the 1980s, interesting game!)

One thing is clear, gender dysphoria leads has an alarming correlation with mental illness and suicide.
These people need to be looked after, less than 1 in 100? Hardly a global threat to existence.

Kicking them out of sports they have been doing since they were a kid, probably one of the few things that makes them happy.

James R said:

You seem to be implying that you don't think it's unbelievable. That, in fact, you think that is what Rowling has done: confabulated preposterous scenarios to blame transgender people for the crimes of cisgender people.

Please provide some evidence that she has done that, if that's what you believe. You have done your homework, I assume (?

Click to expand...

Just catching up. I would cast a vote, as OP here, for everyone to provide citations when they attribute specific opinions to Ms Rowling. I understand that she is just a placeholder, a sort of synecdoche, for a much larger group of people who are fairly entrenched in views about "the lived reality" of being a cis woman, placing some hurdles on transitioning and (ha) playing fields, the reality of biological sex, and the also large group that wants gender-critical views to be openly discussed and aired without reprisals or career consequences. IOW, if she has gone off the rails in a particular related area of gender politics and free speech rights, I would just like to see footage of the derailment.

Pinball1970 said:

Frisbee golf!? I've been missing out on life!

Click to expand...

Great game. My primary sport for about three years of my youth. One of those sports improved by judicious consumption of beer. Or perhaps another way to put it is beer drinking is improved by being outdoors while walking and tossing a Frisbee around.

Konchog said:

following on, from billvon, I do continue to wonder why we need to use gender or sex as a point of segregation for toilets and changing rooms - it feels very dated. I'm not saying that we should all bundle in either - but there are alternatives.

For example, in terms of changing rooms, it seems completely acceptable to have 'group' vs. 'solo' changing rooms. Many rooms already have this implicitly, albeit with the traditional division as a starter. Toilets could be 'hoses' and 'sit downs'. I dunno - the fact that our collective need (to shit and piss and vomit and bleed and fart) is still wrapped up in weird archaisms of taboo - seems incredibly controversial to me. We appear to be far less modern than we imagine ourselves to be.

Click to expand...

Seems like a lot of restroom unease is really about the misbehaving few, and most people could deal maturely with omnisex restrooms, if there were a few minor visual and sonic buffers. I've noticed some here now where the stall wall goes to the floor, which loses the camaraderie of "damn I'm out of paper over here, could you pass me a couple sheets?" but also gives some sonic buffer and sense of privacy. As you note, hearing others shit and piss is really an enculturated taboo thing without much real foundation, but I don't see that taboo going away entirely. We learn early that defecation is a solitary activity, done in quiet contemplation. Possibly that relates to an instinct going way back to HG bands to keep feces segregated from others, minimizing potential spread of disease/parasites.

As a side note, the fart taboo seems silly, and I will credit the French with droll attempts to demolish it.


And the gender double standard about it, in the US, should go away.

Really, I wonder if just moving urinals into closed stalls, like the commodes, would flush away (sorry) a lot of the anxiety.

Konchog said:

No, I did not skip it. Where is the anchor? Where could we find an anchor?

Click to expand...

See, this just isn't believable.

Here, again↑: It's not just a lack of anchors, but also a refusal or avoidance of any such markers by which we might test an argument for its consistency.

You managed to miss that over the course of three or four posts, and as a result end up saying things about how "there cannot even be a foundation" for that kind of consistency. You also said "We do not need an anchor to be critical thinkers", and maybe you could explain why your or anyone's critical thinking should be reserved from reliability. Moreover, you have asserted reduced capability, "this moment determines the next, and as we have a (much reduced) ability to determine our thoughts and actions, we hold some degree of responsibility", vis à vis what you think, say, and do.

And insofar as you might observe "an increase in the idea that browbeating - even outraged bullying - is used to silence opponents, to deny, or 'cancel', their views", it's a meaningless, unanchored observation. Stop and think about basic function: Your argument would allow people to behave in certain ways while shielding them from the words that describe what they do. You skipped over that part when one of the easiest ways for you to clarify would be to explain how it's wrong.

Still, in the end, you just make it up as you go, in order to muddle through: "Most will have a story," you speculate, "or can think of a time." And it is on the merit of that speculation that you wonder, "It begs the question: What does the qualifier prove?" Well, that's kind of why it's important to hear it from them instead of speculate what they might say: There's a reason this wasn't a huge twentieth-century crisis. There's a reason why the potty police had to start sending their own activists into locker rooms. There's a reason why the kitty litter brigade had to literally make believe in order to stir outrage.


Look, it's one thing if you "have no desire to launder bigotry", but that sanitization is the effect you accomplish and seem somehow unable to dispel. So, again: It's not just a lack of anchors, but also a refusal or avoidance of any such markers by which we might test an argument for its consistency.

Set an anchor. Remember, we're talking about moral relativism, here, so an anchor can be pretty much anything. True, it does help to have a well-founded anchor, instead of some random Ankie McAnchorface for the sake of play. But, remember, it's moral relativism, i.e., relativism, and so, ask yourself: ¿Relative to what?

Like I said, a marker by which we might test an argument for its consistency.

To wit, you "would prefer to set a better example" by what, diluting bigotry, devaluing what it means to be a bigot, because why, does it hurt bigots' feelings, is that the problem?

Tiassa said:

See, this just isn't believable.
Here, again↑: It's not just a lack of anchors, but also a refusal or avoidance of any such markers by which we might test an argument for its consistency.

Like I said, a marker by which we might test an argument for its consistency.

Click to expand...

It's true - you said that. But I lost it in your sense of entitlement, your verbiage, and solipsism. Elsewhere in this discussion you rail against moral relativism

The grumpy old men of yesteryear really were right about something: The moral relativism they worried about, that thin edge driving between people and tearing the fabric of society, really was dangerous.

Click to expand...

No qualification there, Tiassa. You are an absolutist. Or are you not? Do you merely select whatever arrow suits your quiver, no matter where it comes from?

However, it appears to me that you are given to some post-abrahamic absolutism. You tell me that my choice for the word 'bigot' washes it. But if you read what I say, that the map is not the territory, and that words are subject to dramatic change, recognising the bigot within us is hardly changing the territory.

Do you look down upon me, Tiassa? Do you not recognise any intransigence in your texts here? How many times have you said in your own words - "Hey, that's a cool insight, thanks for that?" Do you belong to (or wish to belong to) an academic elite that has cut itself off from the rest of the world, living in an ivory tower where they remain completely ineffectual to anyone outside, who don't really matter to my specialisation anyway?

I stated my "anchor" also - in my response to your question, but I am happy to state it again: We have some responsibility for our actions, because this moment determines the next. It's certainly not Ankie McAnchorface, or a random arrow to shoot you with. It recognises that the universe will have to deal with whatever luggage we bring. We aren't as free from our past as we would want to be - and this sets limits on our ability to respond to the moment.

Konchog said:

You are yet to demonstrate a valid, anchored, moral opposition that must be universally accepted. I am waiting.

Click to expand...

Fallacy. That demand is your invention.

Here, let's back up for a moment to review how we got here:


Note the phrase, "by definition". So, let's be clear about that. Merriam-Webster, bigotry↱: "obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices". And, again, for bigot↱: "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices".

This is why, according to you, "we may have to disagree":


None of what you said actually changes the fact that bigotry, by definition, includes obstinance and intolerance in the face of facts. To hide that particular circumstance among the general does, in fact, devalue the word that describes it.

Still, here's the thing: "We may stick to our opinions", you said, "even illogically or irrationally - but it might be that we do not consider logic or reason to be the foundation of our thinking, or even criteria for discussion. We may argue that feeling and emotional impact serve an illogical, irrational, but biological master."

Thus, #103↑: It seems we're back to alternative facts, then. The unanchored moral relativism of sincerely held beliefs is not exactly unfamiliar.

We'll come back to your point on conflation (#105↑), but in the moment we should observe that it was part of a straw fallacy, skipping over the word "unanchored", and that is its own absurdity.

But, first, we need to unwind what happens starting in #99:


Why is the question confusing? First of all, you argue to discredit the word "bigot", and in the face of the fact that the word, by definition, describes obstinance and intolerance in the face of facts, you went with, "it might be that we do not consider logic or reason to be the foundation of our thinking, or even criteria for discussion". Furthermore, you argue reduced culpability concomitant to reduced faculty: "We may argue that feeling and emotional impact serve an illogical, irrational, but biological master."

So, again: What do you think would constitute reasonable accommodation of this circumstance?

You passed over the question in #114↑, 115↑, 117↑, and 118↑. So, yes, I was wondering (#129↑) if maybe you were ducking the question, so I repeated it. At which point (#130↑) you either got confused, or else you didn't: "Which circumstance? Was I present? Did I have the ability to act? Is it a hypothetical?"

How, at that point, was I supposed to take you seriously? You just argued for reduced culpability according to a rejection of "logic and reason" because one cannot help themselves in service to "an illogical, irrational, but biological master". So, yeah, it seems an obvious question to wonder what passes for reasonable accommodation of the circumstance you just described, and the best you can come up with is, "Which circumstance? Was I present?"

And, so, now you're putting on a show of demanding "a valid, anchored, moral opposition that must be universally accepted", which, as noted, is fallacious, and it does occur to wonder what it about markers by which we might test an argument for its consistency that rattles you so badly.


The thing is, you are trying too hard with conflation:

You still have not acknowledged that you conflate unanchored moral relativism with disingenuity (alternative facts) - yet you are yet to demonstrate either a defence or an alternative.
I call you out.

Click to expand...

First, remember, your original iteration was fallacious. The thing about the actual question, the relationship between alternative facts and unanchored moral relativism, is that you're still trying too hard with the word "conflation". Alternative facts, as such, are frequent players in unanchored moral relativism.

Moreover, something else you're overlooking is the rest of what I said. Remember, I said, the unanchored moral relativism of sincerely held beliefs is not exactly unfamiliar. Okay, look: While, sure, I get you, the phrase, "alternative facts was coined as a circumlocution for lying or deception", the people who coined the phrase would resent your suggestion of lying or deception.

Now, per unanchored relativism, is that bad on you for talking about them that way? Never mind: Per any measure that can be tested for reasonable consistency, we might expect it's bad on them for lying, except people are kind of fuzzy about that, these days—y'know, attacks from the shadows, bullying, cancel culture, the usual lamentations.

The thing about the moral relativism of sincerely held beliefs is that "alternative facts" is the successor to "sincerely held beliefs", which were asserted as a justification for exemption from obligation to equality. Y'know, Christians and, well, birth control, gay marriage, science. Just for instance.

The moral relativism of sincerely held beliefs is inherently unanchored; the purpose of sincerely held beliefs is to stand in the place of unpleasant or inconvenient facts.

That is to say, those folks might might stick to their opinions, even illogically or irrationally, but it might be they do not consider logic or reason the foundation of their thinking, or even criteria for discussion; they might argue that feeling and emotional impact serve an irrational but transcendent, infallible master.

Think it through: After devaluing the word "bigot" by diluting the particular among the general, and presented with the definitional question of obstinance and intolerance in the face of facts, you literally made an argument in defense of obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own prejudices. And asserted reduced culpability, according to reduced capacity.

For as many times as I might have been through some version of this discussion, whether about racism, misogyny, supremacism, or, yes, even bigotry, honestly, I don't think I've encountered so direct an appeal to reduced capability concomitant to diminished capacity. How to say it: We've long suspected? We've kind of always known? Only a few weeks ago↗, I reminded, it really should be just a dumb joke of mine that a rightist plea of general noncompetency is how this ends. Five years before that↗, I was a little more blunt: Consider that at some point, it started feeling like I was bludgeoning the noncompetent; to the other, noncompetency, by that assessment, would be alarmingly widespread.

The blunt line is to suggest, of course you need to relegate bigotry. The alternative is the same as it ever was: If they are right, then why do they act like the guilty?

Tiassa said:

Fallacy. That demand is your invention....

Click to expand...

Tiassa, thank-you so much for taking the time to spell out your thoughts. It may surprise you but you might imagine that it's not always easy to follow your telegraphic style. It does feel that at times you forget that your other interlocutors are outside your mind (hence the accusation - not wishing to diminish you - of solipsism).
I don't want to fight you - I never did.
But can we hold the ignorant, and those incapable of the same capacity of thought to the same levels of responsibility? Uncle Ben (Spider-man) thinks not: With great power comes great responsibility.
We aren't dealt level hands - we agree on that, (and much more, I'll warrant). I accept the validity of diminished responsibility. Who wouldn't?
But we are bigots. I stand by this. You believe that I diminish bigotry in this assertion. Yet you also agree that very few know even how to be vigilant, how to monitor themselves, how to be so empathic and other-aware so as to understand, recognise, and inspire a new view, and the alternative behaviour that such views engender. I am a bigot - but that doesn't put me amongst those who consider everyone else their inferior.
We all carry the luggage of our heritage, it's true. My familial past was entrenched in the Quaker movement, through and through. Ancestors stood up to slavery, a great aunt inspired prison reform. Human rights, of all sorts, have been lobbied for and it's not just heritage. I do not sit still either.
Please do not discount me because I do not fit into one of your boxes. Please do not err by trying to fit me into one of your boxes. I have said it: There are always other ways of seeing things. The number is uncountable.

parmalee said:

When someone fabulates some scenario wherein cisgender men dress as women and go into bathroom and assault people, and then somehow asserts that transgender people are responsible for this problem ....

Click to expand...

So, I happened to mention, about a month ago↑: The idea that Sciforums is where people finally learn about something that has been going on in the public eye for years is kind of strange.

And, what was it, all of Tuesday↑ when I wrote:


Anyway, since you went and said what you did, I don't know, it seems like it might be of some use to remind that nobody should be confused about the fact that it goes on. I mean, y'know, just in case it comes up along the way.

James R said:

Yeah. You missed that a question mark at the end of a sentence indicates that the sentence is a question.

Click to expand...

Here's a just partial excerpt from James' bullshit:

You assume you already know what her opinions and concerns are, without hearing what she herself actually has to say? And you're willing to pass judgment on her on the basis of what you've read about her, including the deluge of hate on the interwebs?
....
Perhaps you think that concerns for the safety of women in such spaces are just "loudly complaining" and that they shouldn't be taken seriously? People certainly shouldn't be allowed to discuss them publically, without being shouted down by a mob. Right?

Click to expand...

Note that I did not miss the question mark, and also note that the question mark does in no way make this not insinuation and baseless assumption.

You're a troll James, and also a bigot and a pathological liar--and I'm not gonna repeat my basis for these claims here, as I have done so repeatedly over the years, as have countless other posters. (So don't ask.) I do question whether or not you really have the problems with memory you appear to have though. At least you have abandoned your longstanding practice of demanding apologies from posters, and I commend you for that--that was really a bad look, though it was quite amusing at times.

I'll get back to some of your other oh-so-sincere questions when I have time, but, no, i didn't listen to your stupid podcast and I don't intend to (because I can read stuff in lieu of that)--did you watch the Last Week Tonight video? You do recall that people have complained about others making them watch stupid videos or listen to shit in the past, yes? (Rhetorical question, I know you don't even remember yesterday. Apparently.) It's a discussion forum, and we generally use written words on a screen here.

Pinball1970 said:

Case by case decisions with professionals making the call. Sports should be fair across all demographics, we do not pitch Boys under 16 RU against boys under 14 for a reason, unless you want to see a blood bath that is (We did that at school in the 1980s, interesting game!)

One thing is clear, gender dysphoria leads has an alarming correlation with mental illness and suicide.
These people need to be looked after, less than 1 in 100? Hardly a global threat to existence.

Kicking them out of sports they have been doing since they were a kid, probably one of the few things that makes them happy.

Click to expand...

That's the thing, professional sports largely create their own stratifications based mostly upon capabilities--and they mostly do a pretty good job at this. As far as meritocracy goes, professional sports is about the closest thing you'll see to an actual meritocracy. Still deeply flawed, but vastly better than ever other aspect of society. I am fairly confident that a male pro basketball player could kick 99.999 percent of men's asses. I am also fairly confident that a female pro basketball player could kick 99.999 percent of men's asses. Same goes for male trans athletes and female trans athletes.

When Rowling says stuff like this:

Girls have been ousted from teams to make way for boys. Women have suffered serious injury playing against trans-identified men (see Payton McNabb, mentioned below).
...
If you want to tell the world you're happy to watch females suffer injury, humiliation and the loss of sporting opportunities to bolster an elitist post-modern ideology embraced by a minute fraction of the world's population, fair enough; you're allowed your opinion.

Click to expand...

she really betrays a lot. Firstly, they are not trans identified men, they are trans girls and trans women. Secondly, women have suffered serious injury playing against other women. Period. TBIs (which McNabb, now a Trumpie who appears at all the events!, suffered) are common in a lot of sports, unfortunately. Pretending that McNabb might have fared better had a non-trans woman spiked her head is beyond ridiculous.

Edit: I we're talking pro basketball players, I probably should have added an extra 9, or maybe a 7 or 8 at the end--so 99.9997 percent.

Pinball1970 said:

Case by case decisions with professionals making the call. Sports should be fair across all demographics, we do not pitch Boys under 16 RU against boys under 14 for a reason, unless you want to see a blood bath that is (We did that at school in the 1980s, interesting game!)

One thing is clear, gender dysphoria leads has an alarming correlation with mental illness and suicide.
These people need to be looked after, less than 1 in 100? Hardly a global threat to existence.

Kicking them out of sports they have been doing since they were a kid, probably one of the few things that makes them happy.

Click to expand...

Another thing here, if we're talking about high school sports especially: Yes, sometimes there are scholarships and suchlike involved, but aren't school sports mostly about giving kids confidence and developing certain skills, maintaining fitness, and all that? It just strikes me as unusually cruel to single out trans kids here. Unfortunately, for a lot of these people, that kinda seems to be the point.

On second thought:

James R said:

You seem to be implying that you don't think it's unbelievable. That, in fact, you think that is what Rowling has done: confabulated preposterous scenarios to blame transgender people for the crimes of cisgender people.

Please provide some evidence that she has done that, if that's what you believe. You have done your homework, I assume (?)

Click to expand...

What exactly am I providing evidence for here? The confabulation or the scenario? Sure, the scenario has undoubtedly happened? So? What exactly does it have to do with transgender people? It's cisgender people committing the offense, yes?

James R said:

What systemic problem did Rowling identify, in this context? Please quote her.

Click to expand...

It's in the fucking linked passage, James:

Girls have been ousted from teams to make way for boys. Women have suffered serious injury playing against trans-identified men (see Payton McNabb, mentioned below).
...
If you want to tell the world you're happy to watch females suffer injury, humiliation and the loss of sporting opportunities to bolster an elitist post-modern ideology embraced by a minute fraction of the world's population, fair enough; you're allowed your opinion.

Click to expand...

James R said:

And, presumably, some of the individuals who lost to transgender athletes do not enthusiatically accept their losses. So.

Click to expand...

Uhhh, durrrr, maybe? Maybe not--without evidence, who knows? Regardless, some athletes (period) do not graciously accept their losses, yeah?

I can provide you with plenty of evidence for athletes who do not have a problem with their trans collegues--in fact, there's some within the linked video. Other than Payton McNabb, can you provide evidence of athletes who object to competing with transgender people?

James R said:

What's the actual issue with transgender athletes that Rowling identifies? Do you even know?

Click to expand...

Do you?

James R said:

Also, if you had been paying attention, you might recall that I already mentioned that the proposed law in Britain would not have required men to dress as women to enter women's bathroom facilities. It would have been sufficient for a man, after the fact, to claim that he identified as a woman.

This is not a concern for you. Why not? Want to explain?

Click to expand...

Don't tell me what is and what is not a concern for me, you fucking prick.

But I'll humor your preposterous "rules" for a moment: Child rape is clearly not a concern for you--why is that, James? (See what I did there with the oh-so-important question mark?)

James R said:

Those two things - "trans people" and "trans ideology" are two very different beasts.

Are you confident you understand the careful distinction that Rowling makes between them? Because, from my point of view, you have already conflated the two several times in this thread.

Click to expand...

Show me where I have conflated trans people and "trans ideology." Also, please enlighten us about what you think "trans ideology" is, as you're clearly the expert on the matter.

James R said:

Can you quote any statement from Rowling in which she says that trans people are somehow negatively impacting women? I think those are your words, not hers.

Click to expand...

Again:

Girls have been ousted from teams to make way for boys. Women have suffered serious injury playing against trans-identified men (see Payton McNabb, mentioned below).
...
If you want to tell the world you're happy to watch females suffer injury, humiliation and the loss of sporting opportunities to bolster an elitist post-modern ideology embraced by a minute fraction of the world's population, fair enough; you're allowed your opinion.

Click to expand...

James R said:

Your claim is that Rowling hates women? Or aren't you expressing yourself very well?

Click to expand...

??? Did you suddenly turn into fogbrain or something? I mean, surely even you can work out that that is not what I said--at all.

James R said:

You haven't listened to the podcast, have you?

Click to expand...

Nope, and I don't intend to.

James R said:

So is closed-mindedness like yours.

Click to expand...

Coming from a dishonest bigoted troll such as yourself, that really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Tiassa said:

Please consider that we were already fifteen years into the question when Rowling pitched her fit last year:

In a recent legal battle that has captured international attention, Imane Khelif, the Algerian boxer who clinched gold in the women's welterweight category at the Paris Olympics, has taken legal action against several high-profile figures, including JK Rowling, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. Khelif's lawsuit centers around allegations of cyber harassment and claims that these public figures have perpetuated online abuse fueled by transphobia.​

​

The controversy erupted after Khelif's bout against Italy's Angela Carini during the Olympics. Shortly into their match, Carini withdrew, alleging that Khelif's punches were unusually forceful. This led to a barrage of online attacks accusing Khelif of being transgender, despite her being born female and not identifying as transgender or intersex. The International Olympic Committee has supported Khelif, stating that "scientifically, this is not a man fighting a woman"​

​

Amidst the swirling controversy, JK Rowling, the renowned author of the Harry Potter series, found herself embroiled in the dispute. Rowling, known for her outspoken views on gender and sex, had shared posts on X (formerly Twitter) that criticized Khelif.​

​

In one tweet, Rowling shared a picture of Khelif's fight with Carini, implying that Khelif was a man taking pleasure in hurting a woman. Following the lawsuit, Rowling removed many of her posts related to Khelif from her X account, a move interpreted by some as an attempt to reduce her online presence and avoid further scrutiny. Despite this, some of Rowling's retweets remain visible, including one related to another controversy involving Taiwanese athlete Lin Yu-ting.​

​

Elon Musk, the CEO of X, also became a focal point in the dispute. Musk shared a post by swimmer Riley Gaines, which criticized the inclusion of transgender women in female sports. Musk supported the post with a comment of agreement, "Absolutely" Meanwhile, Donald Trump joined the fray by posting an image from Khelif's fight with Carini and voicing his stance on keeping "men out of women's sports"​

​

(The Statesman↱)​

Interestingly, the Newsweek↱ telling describes Rowling breaking silence and speaking out and marking her return after being named in a lawsuit, but says nothing of Rowling's attempt to cover her tracks. To be fair, the headline also observes that she renewed her attacks against Imane Khelif, so it's a mixed bag that, journalistically, captures the implicit prejudices of a view from nowhere.

Click to expand...

Kinda makes this shit:

James R said:

Please provide some evidence that she has done that, if that's what you believe. You have done your homework, I assume (?)\

Click to expand...

doubly hilarious, 'cuz it appears that Rowling, along with James R (oh, but he voted for gay marriage! Bet he's got a Black friend, too), are the ones who failed to do their homework.

But at least she got the trans part right the next time and went after an actually trans athlete:

f you thought J.K. Rowling was done ranting about transgender athletes now that the Paris Olympic Games have long been over, you’d be wrong. After taking about two weeks off from social media, the once-beloved children’s author was back at it this week, going on at length about 51-year-old Valentina Petrillo, an Italian Paralympic sprinter who happens to be transgender.

Rowling posted a grainy photo of Petrillo on X and wrote: “Why all the anger about the inspirational Petrillo? The cheat community has never had this kind of visibility! Out and proud cheats like Petrillo prove the era of cheat-shaming is over. What a role model! I say we give Lance Armstrong his medals back and move on.

Click to expand...

We should also note here the Petrillo is visually impaired, as well. So Rowling really ought to just go fuck herself--

butttt

It seems that Rowling's got some opinions on that, as well:

LGBTQ+ folks came together once more to celebrate International Asexuality Day on April 6 this year — but it was also a day ending in “y,” so J.K. Rowling just had to harsh everyone’s vibe with more of her trademark bigotry.

Not content merely to be known for years of cruel, virulent transphobia, Rowling took to Elon Musk’s X social media platform on Sunday to declare in a wholly unprompted series of posts that asexuality isn’t real (it is) and she seems to be personally offended that anyone would say otherwise (okay).

Rowling denigrated the day of awareness — founded by community advocates in 2021 — as “International Fake Oppression Day” while sharing an image in recognition of the day from the U.K.-based LGBTQ+ support line Switchboard. In replies to her supporters, Rowling proceeded to describe ace folks as “straight people who don’t fancy a quickie,” wondered at how an asexual person would know if they are gay (it’s almost like sexual and romantic attraction are different things, Jo!), and “joked” that she would like to observe an international “Bored of This Shit Day.” Usually, if we get bored of something, we don’t spend an entire day furiously talking about the thing boring us, but that’s just, like, our opinion, man.

Click to expand...

Seems that Rowling is just an all around... what's the word I'm looking for here?

parmalee said:

Firstly, they are not trans identified men, they are trans girls and trans women. Secondly, women have suffered serious injury playing against other women. Period. TBIs (which McNabb, now a Trumpie who appears at all the events!, suffered) are common in a lot of sports, unfortunately. Pretending that McNabb might have fared better had a non-trans woman spiked her head is beyond ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I think this is at the core of the burden of proof issue in this thread. Anecdote is not evidence, but Rowling and many others with anxiety about trans women don't seem willing to own up to the way they rely heavily on the anecdotal. The weakness of the McNabb anecdote (as you note, ball spiking has a TBI potential from any athlete, albeit a rare one) underscores the general weakness of arguing from isolated incidents where the trans female player is a priori painted as hulking brute set loose among the delicate girlie girls - people start sifting for the data that justifies their anxieties and biases and not the truth. In terms of competitive advantage, I have mostly come round to:

parmalee said:

That's the thing, professional sports largely create their own stratifications based mostly upon capabilities--and they mostly do a pretty good job at this.

Click to expand...

When the dust settles, I can easily imagine that sports where those coded-at-birth fast-twitch muscle fibers and stride length do help the trans female competitor (like the exampled sprinting) are sports where either we will see the asterisk (a la Roger Maris) attached to certain wins, or special divisions created, or starting positions adjusted for genuine MAB advantages shown to be consistent among trans players.

parmalee said:

Seems that Rowling is just an all around... what's the word I'm looking for here?

Click to expand...

It's just sad the way someone will start out with a reasonable suggestion - in Rowling's case, it was the free speech no stigma no dogpile thing, with a pinch of crankiness (as one might expect from a professional writer) about convoluted language and confusing pronouns. Had she just signed that intellectual freedom letter with Noam Chomsky, Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, John Banville, et al...


...and moved on, she could have avoided getting out on this ledge where she keeps feeling attacked and goaded into increasingly abrasive remarks and the reactionary bellowing derived from anecdotes. I don't believe she thinks she's right on all these issues, it's more that she now just wants to jab her poison pen into what she perceives as the Maoist brigades of enlightened elitists. And when you get to that point, facts just don't matter as much. l

parmalee said:

Turns Out J.K. Rowling Is Mad at More Letters Than Just the “T” in LGBTQIA+

On International Asexuality Day, Rowling joked she would like to observe “Bored of This Shit Day.”

www.them.us

Seems that Rowling is just an all around... what's the word I'm looking for here?

Click to expand...

The author of that article is dripping with venom, she writes like Tiassa.

At a guess, she’s done just enough reading to validate her preconceived notions about asexuality, just like she only read enough folklore to make the Harry Potter setting lazily racist, as numerous indigenous, Asian, Black, and Jewish critics have long observed.

Click to expand...

Daniel Radcliffe and all the other actors were happy to go along with the series of Potter films.
Beside Daniel Radcliff (mother Jewish) and Helena Bonham Carter (part Jewish,) how many other Jewish, Black and Asian actors never knew they were in a set of racist films?
Or, seems those actors are just all around... what's the words I'm looking for here?
Racist bast*rds.
Lump it on.

James R said:

1. What does holding people responsible for their actions have to do with one's gender?

Click to expand...

Nothing at all.

2. Have I laid the blame for anything at the feet of transgender people in general, in this thread?

Click to expand...

Yes - assaults in women's rooms. Specifically you were describing assaults on cis women perpetrated by trans people. Your own words: "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 assa"ulting women in restrooms, I'm here to tell you that there have been (and Rowling is, too)."

It seems like, for some reason, you're insinuating that I'm a bigot.

Click to expand...

Not at all. You are following the VERY normal process that most people go through when they look for the source of problems. You are not trans; therefore one possibility is that trans people are the largest threat to women. You are cis; therefore you will tend to not see that far more cis people assault women in bathrooms. We all do that, and it takes some effort to overcome that tendency.