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

[TheVat]

There you go. Have at it.

I will start with a middle position, along the Noam Chomsky lines of:

we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity. Nor should opposing views all be reduced to hateful strawmen.

 

[exchemist]

There you go. Have at it.

I will start with a middle position, along the Noam Chomsky lines of:

we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity. Nor should opposing views all be reduced to hateful strawmen.

My sentiments entirely.

But I won't "have at it", as it is not a topic on which I feel a need to crusade. It is all very new and it will take some time to work out how society should deal with it.

 

[Pinball1970]

Anyone who has a question is not a nazi, enemy of trans, enemy of gays.

 

[TheVat]

But I won't "have at it", as it is not a topic on which I feel a need to crusade. It is all very new and it will take some time to work out how society should deal with it.

Cool. My take is that people need a common parlance in which to distinguish gender and sex. Most aren't interested in delving into the biological complexity and developmental forces that might result in, say, a male body with a more female brain/personality. It's really easy to wander off into the weeds of deriving a social identity and what cues a person takes or "should" take, from external physicality, from social commands, or from more inner feelings. Social consensus seems to be a double edged sword, with the power to either rule against inner feelings or to accept them. My guess is that acceptance will eventually reduce the felt need for surgical validation and so it will be easier to simply be a sort of hybrid sexual being, a man born with a vagina, a woman born with a penis, and so on. If people were more comfortable with such hybrid ways of being, it might also reduce dependency on medical care. I.e. true acceptance of a range of gender would mean less concern about biological markers. (that said, I think hormone treatment would remain the norm, given that it eases neurological interactions between sex hormones and brain regions that mediate gender)

 

[Sarkus]

My take on the thread title: I think it's either one, or the other, or something in between.

 

[TheVat]

Yes, I was deriving the title, somewhat playfully, from what looked like a fairly polarizing view expressed in another thread in which one poster called her a myopic [deleted]. Another poster said that was not the thread for that, so I tried offering a new one. I fully acknowledge this could be one of those tired old topics already thrashed to death, where wise members are saying, nope, not going down that rabbit hole again.

One thing I do find interesting is how readily people will fashion themselves as well-informed on an aspect of the human condition which they themselves have not experienced. Or try and lift something deeply personal and subjective into a more objective realm of public policy - that's tricky stuff. We all certainly have varying levels of acceptance of subjective reports. When we have a ten year old who says something about who they think they are, for example, we are more likely to question it and suggest they need a little more mileage down the road of life before drawing conclusions. When a thirty year old speaks, we tend to give it more weight. This kind of differentiating between narratives seems to impact quite a bit of the debate on gender transitioning, as it probably should. And it is probably why a fair number of parents who are in no way transphobic get a little worried about rushing the process of self-definition that is part of childhood and adolescence.

 

[C C]

There you go. Have at it. [...]

I suppose there might be a faint motivation for addressing this first, to be clarified later...

• Rowling's Native American issues: On 7 October 2016, Rowling released on Pottermore four pieces of writing exclusively as an introduction to the film Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, titled History of Magic in North America.
  
  It included her fictionalised ideas of "Native American Magic." Her use of Native American religious figures and symbolism from contemporary, living cultures for this work of fiction was met with protests by Native American communities; she was accused of racial insensitivity, violation of intellectual property rights, disrespect and appropriating "Native traditions while erasing Native peoples."
  
  While usually friendly and actively engaged with her fanbase on social media, after answering one question about her interpretation of skinwalkers that resulted in "thousands of tweets directed at her about these concerns", The Washington Post wrote that "Native people took to Twitter to voice their disappointment and demand a response from Rowling, who has not answered her detractors online." "She has not addressed it at all", wrote Adrienne Keene. "The silence is noted, and it's deafening.
  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
  
  Why Germany can't quit its racist Native American problem: When asked if such Native hobbyism is indeed a racist fetishization, Nephin noted that "what would be met with uproar in the United States is met with indifference here in Europe. Fetishizing goes unchecked, because there is a lack of representation, education, and awareness."

So with respect to her retro colonialism mindset referenced above... While "Native hobbyism" in the UK is probably not as intense as it is in Germany, I assume the explanation for this insensitivity is more or less the same across Europe. North America is not next door, it's across an ocean, so the complaints seem too distant to register in the continent's culturally West population. (W.E.I.R.D)

Her work is already in print and film everywhere, there is no taking it back even now that she has consciousness of the faux pas. So consequently saying anything at all would probably invite litigation.

While I have a CDIB card via my fractional indigenous ancestry, I'm not culturally entrenched in my tribe enough have worthiness to share the same soapbox (i.e., it would be a spectacle of pretentious self-righteousness or hypocrisy (etc), given how chest-deep I am in the other side of heritage).

• Political views of JK Rowling - transgender people: In 2020, Rowling spoke out against a Devex article for using the phrase "people who menstruate" instead of "women". She stated that denying the reality of biological sex erases the experiences of women worldwide [...] Responding to criticism, she stated her view that "sex is real and has lived consequences", while additionally writing: "I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them."
  
  [...] Rowling characterises arguments that femaleness does not reside in the sexed body, and assertions that biological women do not have common experiences, as being misogynistic. She finds language calling females "menstruators" to be dehumanising, and she believes that the trans activist movement seeks to erode women as a political class as well as a biological one.

Given that self-identified "leaders or representatives" of just about every marginalized population group (oppressed either today and/or significantly in the past) likewise raises the pitchforks in preemptive outrage at any sign of some _X_ being a potential slippery slope ("Nip it in the bud!"), I feel that Rowlings similarly has the right to do so, in that context. I refer here to her broad concern about "women who are born physically female" entering a renewed phase of social demotion or a redesigned form of it. And not other items or specific things she may say or do that could be questionable for one reason or another.
_

 

[billvon]

we should be able to have a calm chat about these matters, and no one should have their free speech rights constrained as we find our way on such complex matters of human identity. Nor should opposing views all be reduced to hateful strawmen.

1) She's wrong on this

2) It's mainly because she's old. My grandmother was born in 1901 and was a huge racist. When she got older and got a black caretaker she couldn't stand her at first. But over time she gradually came around to the idea that blacks weren't that bad, after getting to know Lilly. She was a product of her time; in Ireland in 1910 there really weren't any black people, much less people preaching tolerance. To her credit she partially adapted with time. Hopefully Rowling will as well.

 

[Sarkus]

2) It's mainly because she's old.

Excuse me??
How old do you think she is?? You're sounding incredibly ageist. Which would be ironic given the discussion.
People older and much younger than her share her views... and disagree with them. Saying it is "mainly because she's old" is as lazy as it is wrong.

 

[billvon]

Excuse me??
How old do you think she is??

In her 50's. Heck, she's probably younger than me. But older people _tend_ to have more trouble adapting to societal changes. I've seen dozens of examples of this.

Some societal change happens because people evolve and change. But often. societal change happens because older people who really are inflexible die off. In the 50's there was a huge opposition to interracial marriage, and in 1958 a poll showed that only 1% of southern whites and 5% of whites outside the south approved of interracial marriage. Today that number is 94%. Some people surely changed as they started seeing more blacks in society and realizing they weren't that bad. But another big factor was that some of the worst bigots died, and their children grew up in a world where interracial marriage was much more common, and thus not new and objectionable.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: The misogynistic insult in the thread title has been removed. Please avoid that kind of thing.

 

[Sarkus]

In her 50's. Heck, she's probably younger than me. But older people _tend_ to have more trouble adapting to societal changes. I've seen dozens of examples of this.

It's still a ridiculous argument. She's 59. If she holds views it is for reasons other than her age, and to say "it's mainly because she's old" (and at what age is one considered "old", exactly???) is an ad hominem. Surely you can see that?

Look, I'm not supporting her views, but dismissing her arguments as "well, it's mainly just 'cos she's old!" Is a rare bit of stupidity on your part.
First, it's giving people an excuse to hold views that is beyond reasoning. She's not going to be getting any younger, after all.
Secondly, if you are older than her, or if you accept the views of people older than her for the arguments they present, but don't grant her the same decency, then you're being hypocritical, not to mention giving yourself a reason to casually hand-wave away her arguments.

It simply doesn't matter that society changes over time when you're looking at why one person holds certain views at a specific time. If more "old" people hold a certain view than younger people, it's showing that views might be changing in society, but it doesn't address why anyone holds the views they do.

Furthermore, your dismissal of her holding those views due mainly to her age is to imply that your own views on the matter are right and hers are wrong, and that age explains most of it.

Heaven forbid you are older than 59, because if you are your entire ageist dismissal must surelalso be applied to your own position. Or do you only apply it to those who disagree with you?
And what to say of any position you might assert going forward on any matter at all... I mean, if you're older than 59 then surely any view is simply held "mostly because you're old", right?


Please, stop being so stupid.
And I guess that since you don't know how old I am then you won't be able to similarly dismiss my views on the ground of me being "old".

 

[TheVat]

Moderator note: The misogynistic insult in the thread title has been removed. Please avoid that kind of thing.

I'm okay with that. My usage was an implied quote of a member, Kristoffer, in another thread - his use of the pudendal insult seemed emblematic of how some respond to Rowling. And, given the topic, and Kristoffer's position, the use of a misogynistic slur struck me as humorously ironic. I'm surprised he hasn't seen fit to weigh in here, given the apparent intensity of his feelings.

(his post is #1075, in the Trump 2.0 thread, and I am not sure how to crosslink between two different threads)

 

[TheVat]

Given that self-identified "leaders or representatives" of just about every marginalized population group (oppressed either today and/or significantly in the past) likewise raises the pitchforks in preemptive outrage at any sign of some _X_ being a potential slippery slope ("Nip it in the bud!"), I feel that Rowlings similarly has the right to do so, in that context. I refer here to her broad concern about "women who are born physically female" entering a renewed phase of social demotion or a redesigned form of it. And not other items or specific things she may say or do that could be questionable for one reason or another.

I wonder how such a process of social demotion would work. It is clear I opened a thread without a full understanding of JKR's views. Does she think trans females would gain some kind of social elevation leveraged by their bigger frames and pregnancy-free career paths?

 

[gmilam]

Can't say I'm familiar with the lady's views either. All I heard was her quote about "there used to be a word for people who menstruate". In that regard I thought she had a point. There are some biological aspects, like being tied to a monthly cycle since puberty (and subsequent fear of pregnancy), that a transgender does not know.

 

[Pinball1970]

In context as per @CC

“If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.”

She added: “The idea that women like me, who’ve been empathetic to trans people for decades, feeling kinship because they’re vulnerable in the same way as women – i.e. to male violence – ‘hate’ trans people because they think sex is real and has lived consequences – is a nonsense.

“I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic and comfortable to them. I’d march with you if you were discriminated against on the basis of being trans. At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.”

That does not sound like an enemy of the trans community.

Some of the terminology is still a bit strange to me, all the pronoun stuff and "people who menstruate" seems a bit of an unnecessary mouthful too.
Who do we hurt by saying women? It never used to be an issue, were we secretly insulting or suppressing people all this time?

Gender dysphoria is a thing I do not think anyone denies that, people physically change their sex from male to female and visa versa, fine.
From experience it gets complicated when children are involved, what to teach them, how to advise if they think they are trans and sports.

Tricky on some of that.

 

[DaveC426913]

(his post is #1075, in the Trump 2.0 thread, and I am not sure how to crosslink between two different threads)

Top right corner of every post:

'Share' button then 'copy URL' button.


https://www.sciforums.com/threads/trump-2-0.166697/post-3751087

 

[C C]

I wonder how such a process of social demotion would work. It is clear I opened a thread without a full understanding of JKR's views. Does she think trans females would gain some kind of social elevation leveraged by their bigger frames and pregnancy-free career paths?

Traditional radical feminism -- before it splintered into various subgroups -- considered gender identity and gender self-identification (expressed in everyday life as gender roles) to be constructed conceptual distinctions introduced by the patriarchy to oppress women. (Note that back then words like "sex" and "gender" were not always as disentangled from each other in the ideological nomenclature, as they [supposedly] are now. Though the distinction can be irrelevant in some cases, when comparing old texts with new discourse.)

• Shulamith Firestone: "The end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally."

The "gender-critical" branch that Rowlings arguably belongs to is presumably oriented toward (political) naturalism. In that it believes that "sex is biological, immutable, and binary". In contrast to the artificiality of gender identities.

Accordingly, this gender-critical faction regards transgender identities as just perpetuating the old style of oppression (gender norms) and introducing new dimensions of it.

Ergo, Rawlings preoccupation with biological women being labeled as "menstruators" (etc) as belittling and misogynistic, and a portent of how the patriarchy is retooling and re-asserting itself ("men in dresses"). The slang term for gender-critical feminism -- TERF -- is accordingly deemed an example of such reciprocal hate-speech, too.

But there are divergent areas of radical feminism which are politically anti-natural and inclusive of trans-people. An example is XF, which -- while likewise wanting to disempower the oppressive aspect of gender (gender abolitionism, postgenderism, etc) -- nevertheless goes the opposite direction of allowing countless varieties of gender and non-binary physical sex (genitalia). As long as these are nullified of having privileged social status attached to them.

• xenofeminism: "We have no interest in seeing the sexuate diversity of the world reduced. Let a hundred sexes bloom! ‘Gender abolitionism’ is shorthand for the ambition to construct a society where traits currently assembled under the rubric of gender, no longer furnish a grid for the asymmetric operation of power."

Needless to say, XF seems to be rubbing shoulders with transhumanism when it comes to surgically, genetically, and technologically altering the human body.

• Cyberfeminism: Xenofeminism, or the movement that incorporates technology into the abolition of gender, is a concept that is intersectional to cyberfeminism. It is an offshoot of cyberfeminism established by the feminist collective Laboria Cuboniks. In its manifesto, Xenofeminism: A Politics for Alienation, the collective argues against nature as desirable and immutable in favor of a future where gender is dislodged from power and in which feminism destabilizes and uses the master's tools for its own rebuilding of life.
  
  The movement has three main characteristics: it is techno-materialist, anti-naturalist, and advocates for gender abolition. This means that the movement contradicts naturalist ideals that state that there are only two genders and aims toward the abolition of the "binary gender system". Xenofeminism differs from cyberfeminism because while it has similar ideals, it is inclusive to the queer and transgender communities. The manifesto states:
  
  Xenofeminism is gender-abolitionist. 'Gender abolitionism' is shorthand for the ambition to construct a society where traits currently assembled under the rubric of gender, no longer furnish a grid for the asymmetric operation of power. 'Race abolitionism' expands into a similar formula – that the struggle must continue until currently racialized characteristics are no more a basis of discrimination than the color of one's eyes.
  
  Ultimately, every emancipatory abolitionism must incline towards the horizon of class abolitionism, since it is in capitalism where we encounter oppression in its transparent, denaturalized form: you're not exploited or oppressed because you are a wage labourer or poor; you are a labourer or poor because you are exploited.

 

[billvon]

First, it's giving people an excuse to hold views that is beyond reasoning. She's not going to be getting any younger, after all.
Secondly, if you are older than her, or if you accept the views of people older than her for the arguments they present, but don't grant her the same decency, then you're being hypocritical, not to mention giving yourself a reason to casually hand-wave away her arguments.

Again, I am not basing decisions on whether she has a valid argument on her age. I am making a general statement that older people grew up during times of older morality. If you could bring a circa-1850 man back to life, he would be horrified by the state of race relations in the US. Not that blacks are being discriminated against, but that blacks are accepted like anyone else in society. Even back then, the most progressive of the liberals thought that black slaves should be freed - but not that they should ever marry whites.

Does that mean he is horrible and people like him should have been condemned? Nope. He was a product of his time. And for his time, he was progressive, and wanted to free the slaves - which was a good thing overall.

No one is that old nowadays. But the older you are, the more what you grew up with as "normal" has changed. Google "Overton Window" - it's a good explanation of how the window of what's acceptable moves with time. And the older you are, the more your window has moved. And if you decide that what's acceptable is whatever happened in your life during your 30's (which a great many people do) - then the older you are, the less tolerant you will be of new social mores.

Keep in mind that her making Dumbledore gay got a reaction from the right because it was too "woke." Her Overton window considers homosexuality "acceptable" but transgender women "radical." If she had been born ten years later, it would have likely been centered just a little higher on that list.

 

[Sarkus]

Again, I am not basing decisions on whether she has a valid argument on her age.

Seriously???
You literally wrote: "1) She's wrong on this
2) It's mainly because she's old." - billion - post #8

So please stop lying.

And if that isn't enough, the rest of your post is you just further explaining why you think her age is a factor in why she holds the views she does. So it, too, rather defeats your protestation above.

Or are you also 59+, 'cos then your views on this matter would similarly be wrong "mainly because you're old", right?

Sheesh.