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

[Tiassa]

When They Say, "Why? Why?" Tell 'Em That It's Human Nature ("Why? Why Does He Do Me That Way?")

How about 2016?

Kasey Rose-Hodge↱ tried to explain the problem to "Creepy Heterosexual Men Guarding Our Bathrooms":

My entire life, I've been told to fear you in one way or another. I've been told to cover my body as to not distract you in school, to cover my body to help avoid unwanted advances or comments, to cover my body as to not tempt you to sexually assault me, to reject your unwanted advances politely as to not anger you. I've been taught to never walk alone at night, to hold my keys in my fist while walking in parking lots, to check the backseat of my car, to not drink too much because you might take advantage of me. I've been told what I should and shouldn't do with my body as to not jeopardize my relationships with you.

I've been warned not to emasculate you, to let "boys be boys," to protect your fragile ego and to not tread on your even more fragile masculinity. I've been taught to keep my emotions in check, to let you be the unit of measure for how much emotion is appropriate and to adjust my emotions accordingly. I've been taught that you're allowed to categorize women into mothers/sisters/girlfriends/wives/daughters but any woman outside of your protected categories is fair game.

So to those of you who think you're being helpful by "protecting" me and my fellow women, you're like a shark sitting in the lifeguard chair. I wasn't uncomfortable until you showed up at the pool and the only potential predator I see is you.

Your mothers, sisters, girlfriends, wives and daughters don't need you to walk them to the bathroom for safety.​

It is unsurprising that they won't hear it from the eighty-six year-old woman in 2025↑; they wouldn't hear it from a thirty-something mother back in 2016. Those who won't hear it just won't hear it.

"Your fathers, brothers, friends and sons," Rose-Hodge explained, nine years ago, "need to walk themselves away from their own double standards."

And that's why.
____________________

Notes:

Rose-Hodge, Kasey. "Dear Creepy Heterosexual Men Guarding Our Bathrooms". The Huffington Post. 23 May 2025. HuffPost.com. 24 April 2025. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dear-creepy-heterosexual-men-guarding-our-bathrooms_b_10105512

 

[C C]

Sort of an evolution of the Valerie Solanas model, I guess. Kinda.

Where would the world be without all the pioneers that various psychiatric conditions and untreated syphilis helped engender across the decades, centuries, and millennia? McKenna only got it partly right with his stoned-ape hypothesis. The rest was the innate talent of humankind's propensity for mental illness.

I expect Shulamith Firestone was also inspired by the hidden muse long before she received the diagnosis late in life. Similar to Margot Kidder being in the dark about her bipolar disorder until 1988. While SF's father was indeed strict (the perfect patriarchal archetype for molding her path in life), the murderous-like intensity of the fights between the two during her childhood suggests a mischievous imp was fervently at work in both members of the family.

It's always been fascinating to me how rather fringe and marginal ideas like these manage to disseminate into mainstream culture. In a strange sorta way, it kinda makes me proud to be an American. In the UK, Europe, and elsewhere for instance, even the most underground of underground musicians, say, have some sort of thing, i.e., unions, representation, whatever. This is simply not the case in America. When you're doing your own thing, you're pretty much jammin' econo all the way (unless you've got a trust fund or some sort of benefactors).

Hopefully the computerized equivalent of of a DIY studio in the basement, along with AI generation, won't kill it. The need for live performers will not be replaced, but the feral creativity of the past might be in jeopardy.
_

 

[parmalee]

Likewise, there are some cis women who can never have children, which is a defining part of being a woman. Does that mean they can never, ever fully understand what it is to be a cis woman? I would say no. Their experiences will likely be different than most women's - but that does not make them invalid, or render them unable to understand what it is to be a woman.

Also, a cis woman who never bears children does not in any way diminish her own experiences, and neither does it diminish the experiences of women who do bear children. Likewise, the woman who does bear children does in no way diminish the experiences of the woman who does not. But emphasizing the experiences of the woman who does bear children--when it is in no sense pertinent or relevant to the matter at hand--very much does diminish the experiences of the woman who does not.

This is what Dave Chappelle, for instance, does when at the end of his special, The Closer, he talks about his "love" and "respect" for trans women, but then he concludes his talk by remarking that trans women cannot bear children. So what? That had absolutely nothing to do with whatever he was talking about and it's an instance wherein saying something that is true, but is not relevant to the discussion (consider here the concept of sworn testimony), and it's only role here is cruelty.

 

[parmalee]

Where would the world be without all the pioneers that various psychiatric conditions and untreated syphilis helped engender across the decades, centuries, and millennia? McKenna only got it partly right with his stoned-ape hypothesis. The rest was the innate talent of humankind's propensity for mental illness.

I expect Shulamith Firestone was also inspired by the hidden muse long before she received the diagnosis late in life. Similar to Margot Kidder being in the dark about her bipolar disorder until 1988. While SF's father was indeed strict (the perfect patriarchal archetype for molding her path in life), the murderous-like intensity of the fights between the two during her childhood suggests a mischievous imp was fervently at work in both members of the family.

Yeah. I like to point out on occasion that, as a refractory temporal lobe epileptic, I would have been a highly respected figure in many societies and valued for my crazy-ass insights into... well, something.

We should also note that some of Hoelderlin's best verse was composed after he completely lost his mind (to syphilis iirc). Some of Nietzsche's final writings are plainly kooky, but not at all without value.

Hopefully the computerized equivalent of of a DIY studio in the basement, along with AI generation, won't kill it. The need for live performers will not be replaced, but the feral creativity of the past might be in jeopardy.
_

One of my biggest fears is this sort of loss. One of the drawbacks to the democratization of virtually everything is that loss of spontaneity and creativity wherein people are compelled, of necessity, to work with what's there, however inadequate and insufficient. Like Bill Orcutt with his four stringed guitar:

 

[Tiassa]

Brief Notes

This is what Dave Chappelle, for instance, does when at the end of his special, The Closer, he talks about his "love" and "respect" for trans women, but then he concludes his talk by remarking that trans women cannot bear children.

Flashback, 2014↗, when a federal judge in New Orleans ruled in Robicheaux v. Caldwell favoring the state's interest in "linking children with intact families formed by their biological parents", going after adopting families in order to find a reason to be mean to gay people.

The collateral damage of traditionalist moralism can be extraordinary.

It is a weird struggle, finding a definition of woman to suit traditionalist demand. The thing is, both scientifically and, really, historically and culturally, it's also an extraordinary assertion.

†​

If I recall the bit about incels and Sanhedrin 75a:2↗, it is simply to remind that some things just aren't new.

In Christian scripture, there is a synoptic saying often summarized, "Suffer the little children, that they might come unto me." The telling in the Gospel of Matthew stands out in the moment:

The disciples said to him, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry."

But he said to them, "Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

Then children were brought to him that he might lay his hands on them and pray. The disciples rebuked the people; but Jesus said, "Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven."

(RSV↱)

‡​

His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.

(KJV↱)​

Per Mt. 19.12, nonbinary was not an unknown resolution of living circumstance. This isn't a new question.

It's also a telling in which Jesus is like, ¡No, let the children come so that I don't have to listen to these grown-ass morons, anymore!, and the bit about eunuchs was significant of how badly the discussion went. First, the Pharisees, and then His disciples, and He's just thinking, ¿What the fuck, guys?

I mean, sure, men complaining about wives, and all, but, yeah, the whole nonbinary thing just isn't new, either. And that's without the apocryphal account of the disciples getting jealous of Mary Magdalene.

 

[James R]

Pinball1970:

Sex is real, if was not trans people would not want to change it.
Sex Biology and the differences in the sexes is real too.

These types of arguments hinder the real issues trans people have like, acceptance, mental illness and suicide.

I agree. Those are trying to erase the reality of sex aren't doing transgender people a favour. Transgender people face a set of challenges that cisgender people do not (they face their own set of challenges). Some of those are personal and biological. Others are social and cultural. None of those challenges go away just by proclaiming that a transgender man is man or that a transgender woman is a woman.

I have been looking at the business/organization side and unisex facilities seems the best option if the building can accommodate it.

Lots of places already have separate bathroom facilities for disabled people, allowing wheelchair access and the like. Most of the time, those facilities don't see a lot of use. I don't think it would be a huge imposition on anybody to open such facilities to transgender people. Nor do I think that there should be any stigma of "disability" associated with any transgender person who does choose to use them. (As an able-bodied man, I have used the "disabled" toilets from time to time. Not in a way that has impeded their use by anybody with a disability, I hasten to add.)

Lots of places also have separate facilities for "staff", which are typically unisex (e.g. single toilet restrooms).

Given that transgender people make up such a small proportion of the population (far fewer than physically disabled people), I'm not sure that providing dedicated bathroom facilities in public places is warranted or necessary. But I'm certainly open to hearing arguments to the contrary.

Also, to the haters: yes, yes, I know that sexual assaults by transgender people in bathrooms are exceedingly rare. That does not mean there is zero cause for concern.

Also: This is not my issue, as a man. This is not for me to decide. I say that the people who decide who can use women's public bathrooms ought to be the women who use women's public bathrooms. And yes, transgender women are welcome, as far as I am concerned, to contribute to contribute to that discussion.

 

[James R]

TheVat:

Well I don't disagree that "plumbing" knowledge is beyond us fellas, but I was trying a bigger picture aspect where I can't say that there are fundamental psychological qualities of being a woman that a trans woman could never access.

Following your argument, would you say that you can't say there are fundamental psychological qualities of being a man that a woman could never access? That sounds like a logical extension of that train of thought. You're essentially saying that human beings are human beings and that sex/gender is unimportant (or relatively unimportant) when it comes to "psychological qualities".

Yet most people recognise that, on average, men are psychologically different to women.

Would it follow, then, that a transgender man could be psychologically different to a cisgender man? And trans vs cis women?

Guess I'm saying ignorance cuts both ways - it's possible we don't understand all that trans women (especially those who have felt female since early childhood and have had hormonal therapy early on) feel and understand of some essential feminine.

The thing is: nobody is going to post an armed guard outside every public bathroom, whose job is to interrogate the inner mental state of each person who wants to enter.

If there are justifiable concerns about who uses bathrooms, then, we need a solution that doesn't require that sort of thing.

To your basic point, all well and good, and no one can factually dispute the medical and scientific reality that trans people are not identical to cis people - indeed, they do need different treatment in the context of healthcare (just as research is showing that different ethnicities may have differing incidences of certain medical conditions, or that women react differently to certain pharmaceuticals, etc). What I'm left wondering, however, is if it's a bit of a strawman to say that there are social forces aligned against your noting the difference between trans and cis people.

I should say: I'm no expert on this. And I should add: I doubt that anybody else who is posting in this thread is an expert, either. (To anybody who does consider themselves an expert, please correct me.)

However, it is my understanding that the most outspoken "trans activists" - such as the ones who send vile rape threats to those they have labelled TERFs - continually shout the slogan "Trans women are women!", usually loudly enough to drown out anyone who might be trying to question that stance.

What that slogan is trying to do is to shut down all questioning and debate. Are trans women identical to cis women? It seems like there are some obvious differences. Maybe they aren't important differences, though. Okay, so how about we discuss this, rather than shouting at each other and sending death threats?

If you, TheVat, imagine that JK Rowling's stories of rape and death threats, and threats to her family, coming from "trans activists" are exaggerated or untrue, then I invite you to investigate what other people who share Rowling's concerns say about the threats and responses they have received from the "trans activist" extremists.

Ideologically, the "trans activist" position is that if somebody declares that they identify as a woman then they are a woman for all intents and purposes. Their transexuality is not relevant in any discussion. Because gender is all that matters. Biological sex either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to the extent that it should be entirely ignored. This is, fundamentally, a radical stance. (I personally view it as a denial of reality - a universe of "alterative facts".) Yet, ironically, the people pushing this ideology are the same people who are slapping the label "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) on moderate feminists like JK Rowling.

Unless your observation was somehow a personal attack or a subtle attempt at social exclusion, I'm not sure how anyone could seriously object. It really depends on what you meant by "treat them differently in recognition of those differences." If you meant help them find local available access to clinics serving their needs, then bravo. If you meant bolster statutes and law enforcement to protect them against transphobic bullies and other abusers, also bravo.

My own position is entirely in alignment with such goals. So is JK Rowling's, going by her own words rather than the slurs that are flung at her by the activists.

If you meant kick them out of sports participation during their formative years, then you might reasonably expect some challenges and headwinds, no?

I think the sports issue is a difficult one. I don't have a nuanced position on that, at this time.

When you say "during their formative years", what do actually mean? Pre-puberty? During their schooling? Into early adulthood? What?

I certainly don't advocate "kicking them out" of sports participation entirely. Most of the arguments that go back and forth about this concern participation in sport at the professional level - the Olympics, in professional paid sports and such.

There are lots of different ways that lines could conceivably be drawn concerning participation of transgender people in the sports area. Lines could be drawn relating to puberty, for instance. Lines could be drawn relating to people who have transitioned vs those who have not. Lines could be drawn relating to the use of puberty blocking drugs. etc. It's complicated. That's why I don't have a settled opinion on it.

Point is: it doesn't have to be black or white. It doesn't have to be a case of "either ban all trans people from competing in all sports for all time, or give open-slather access to trans people in all sports at all times".

Want to guess what the position of the trans activists on this issue is? Think about the implications of "Trans women are women" and you'll quickly arrive at the correct answer.

At least, in that latter case of differential treatment, you would need to pony up with some evidence of substantial harm.

Arguments have certainly been made concerning claims of unfairness in various professional sports, particularly due to the inclusion of trans women in certain competitions. Whether these are legitimate or not requires analysis. Again, attempting to shut down all debate about it is an extremist position.

 

[James R]

billvon:

Agreed. I have a good friend who is trans - and she has definitely learned a lot about what it means to be a woman. The assumptions about her intelligence and goals, how she's treated in a crowd. She has a perspective that the vast majority of Americans never get; a real life perspective of what happens on both sides.

I agree that trans people bring a valuable fresh perspective on relations between people of different genders.

I have had experiences that you (fortunately) never will. I had a friend of mine die from a skydiving accident, and he died after I did CPR on him for 20 minutes. It really f*cked me up for months afterwards. That's an experience you will never have since you're not a skydiver and the number of skydiving deaths is so low as to render it a statistical impossibility - even if you DID start skydiving right now.

Does that mean you will never fully understand what death means? I would say no. You will have different experiences than I had - but we will still both understand death in our own ways.

See the first part of my response to TheVat, above.

I think you would agree that while I can imagine what it might be like to have a friend die while I was trying to perform CPR on him, I can't fully understand what that experience is like unless I actually have the experience.

I am sorry for your loss, by the way. I use this as an example only because you introduced it. I certainly don't want to dredge up past trauma.

Likewise, there are some cis women who can never have children, which is a defining part of being a woman. Does that mean they can never, ever fully understand what it is to be a cis woman? I would say no.

They can never fully understand what it is like to give birth.

I would not argue that having children is the sine qua non of being a woman, however.

By extension of this thought, I recognise that it quite possible that your personal list of "experiences one must have to be considered to understand what it is to be a woman" are likely to be different from my list, or somebody else's list - if it's even possible to make such a list. Your attitude to transgender women (or to certain aspects of being a transgender woman) might also be different, as a consequence.

Their experiences will likely be different than most women's - but that does not make them invalid, or render them unable to understand what it is to be a woman.

To be clear: JK Rowling has never, to my knowledge, said that transgender women's experience are "invalid". Nor have I ever said that.

It is very likely that JKR has said that she doesn't think that transgender women's experiences are identical to the experiences of cisgender women, and I agree with that. Note: there is no implication here that transgender people have a deficit, though no doubt that is an implication that transgender activists will try to read in.

 

[James R]

parmalee:

Re: the whole bathroom thing. First off, no one is checking ids and all that shit in public restrooms. You just go in the right one. And the fact is, 99.9999 percent of people (probably even higher) do so in good faith. Public restrooms are a monumental success story as far as good faith acting goes--at least, in this respect. I mean, people could be a little tidier. As for the ones who don't? They shouldn't, but again, so long as they are not harming another. And as for the ones who do harm, well, they're committing crimes. We got ways for dealing with that.

That 99.9999 figure looks like a figure you made up, though. You're saying, in effect, that only 1 out of every million people who visits a public restroom does so with bad intentions. I suspect that the true statistics would show that assaults in public restrooms are more common than that. (But, I admit, I don't have the stats. Do you?)

There is a difference that is probably important in the current context, though. If a man (or somebody who obviously presents as a man) is seen going into a public women's restroom, the chances that somebody will call him out on it (or at least be very wary of being in there with him) are probably quite high. But if a man who is presenting as a woman enters a public women's restroom with ill intent, that will probably not set off red flags quite so obviously.

You say "We got ways for dealing with" crimes. Yes, we have ways of dealing with them after the fact. But justice after the fact, if it comes, is often of small comfort to a rape victim. She would far prefer that the rape never happened in the first place. She would prefer to have been in a safe environment in which rape was less likely, in the first place.

Civilization involves balancing liberty and security. If society decides to pay bathroom enforcers--and they're gonna have to pay em a lot better than those who do a similar task in developing countries, because they're either gonna have to be armed or to have the capacity to beat the crap out of you (or subdue you)--then that's what society will do.

So far, society has decided that bathroom enforcers are, in most circumstances, not required, despite the risks. I can't see that adding trans people into the equation will change that.

It could be, however, that more should be done to protect women (trans and cis) using public restrooms. It could also be the case that more should be done to protect cis women from men who present as women in public restrooms.

Funny though how this only became an issue around the same time that trans people became a public "issue".

It was probably an issue before that. It just got wider airplay for various reasons - not least because of right-wing political demonisation of trans people.

As I have already mentioned, however, note that the main targets of the radical trans activists are not the right-wing anti-trans people, but left-wing moderate feminists. Go figure.

(Between that and the whole thing with mocking and bullying trans athletes, non trans athletes, high school kids, et al, makes me question Rowling's, et al, "love" for trans people. Maybe Rowling is like those people who "love" "the gays", but hate their "lifestyle"?)

You keep accusing Rowling of these sorts of things, snidely. But you don't bring the evidence.

Perhaps JKR has "mocked" and "bullied" trans athletes. It would be good to see some actual examples, if they exist. You know, just to support your continual accusations.

As for your idle speculation that maybe Rowling "hates the trans lifestyle", that's just another attempt by you to cast aspersions on her character, probably baselessly. But this how you roll, isn't it?

 

[James R]

So to those of you who think you're being helpful by "protecting" me and my fellow women, you're like a shark sitting in the lifeguard chair. I wasn't uncomfortable until you showed up at the pool and the only potential predator I see is you.

​

This is all well and good, but it's not primarily men who are the targets of the trans activists. It is women like JW Rowling. Self-declared feminists who have voiced their concerns.

 

[James R]

Also, a cis woman who never bears children does not in any way diminish her own experiences, and neither does it diminish the experiences of women who do bear children. Likewise, the woman who does bear children does in no way diminish the experiences of the woman who does not.

Are you going to claim that JKR has said that women who have not had children are lesser, now, as well?

But emphasizing the experiences of the woman who does bear children--when it is in no sense pertinent or relevant to the matter at hand--very much does diminish the experiences of the woman who does not.

And JKR did that, did she? When it was in no sense pertinent or relevant to the "matter at hand"?

Oh, wait. No. You're concerned about Dave Chappelle!

This is what Dave Chappelle, for instance, does when at the end of his special, The Closer, he talks about his "love" and "respect" for trans women, but then he concludes his talk by remarking that trans women cannot bear children. So what?

So ... who knows? I guess we'd have to watch Dave's special to get a sense of the context in which he mentioned that. You haven't given us much to go on. Maybe Dave was in the wrong. Maybe he wasn't.

Does something Dave Chappelle said in a comedy special have some relevance to things that JK Rowling has said elsewhere? If so, maybe you should make the links explicit.

That had absolutely nothing to do with whatever he was talking about and it's an instance wherein saying something that is true, but is not relevant to the discussion (consider here the concept of sworn testimony), and it's only role here is cruelty.

Let's assume you're right and Dave Chappelle is a cruel, horrible man.

What follows, in the context of this discussion?

Has somebody here being holding Dave up as a shining exemplar? If so, I haven't seen it.

Maybe Dave should be cancelled and nobody should pay him to do comedy. What do you think?

 

[Tiassa]

That's Just the Way It Is, Some Things'll Never Change

Evangelical author Jennifer Greenberg↱ explains:

I'm not anti-vaccine, but it bothers me that my kids' pediatrician has repeatedly "strongly advised" the HPV vaccine (for STDs). They wanted to give it to my 9YO and 10YO today. I planned to get a new pediatrician last year after leaks of "gender affirming care" and the transitioning of kids by Texas Children's but I hadn't gotten around to it yet. I hate "the new normal" and I don't want it for me or my family.​

And, yeah, sure, that sounds about right.
____________________

Notes:

@JennMGreenberg. "I'm not anti-vaccine, but it bothers me that my kids' pediatrician has repeatedly 'strongly advised' the HPV vaccine (for STDs). They wanted to give it to my 9YO and 10YO today. I planned to get a new pediatrician last year after leaks of 'gender affirming care' and the transitioning of kids by Texas Children's but I hadn't gotten around to it yet. I hate 'the new normal' and I don't want it for me or my family." X. 22 April 2025. X.com. 24 April 2025. status/1914794642521891328

 

[ольга]

TheVat:

Following your argument, would you say that you can't say there are fundamental psychological qualities of being a man that a woman could never access? That sounds like a logical extension of that train of thought. You're essentially saying that human beings are human beings and that sex/gender is unimportant (or relatively unimportant) when it comes to "psychological qualities".

Yet most people recognise that, on average, men are psychologically different to women.

Would it follow, then, that a transgender man could be psychologically different to a cisgender man? And trans vs cis women?


The thing is: nobody is going to post an armed guard outside every public bathroom, whose job is to interrogate the inner mental state of each person who wants to enter.

If there are justifiable concerns about who uses bathrooms, then, we need a solution that doesn't require that sort of thing.

I should say: I'm no expert on this. And I should add: I doubt that anybody else who is posting in this thread is an expert, either. (To anybody who does consider themselves an expert, please correct me.)

However, it is my understanding that the most outspoken "trans activists" - such as the ones who send vile rape threats to those they have labelled TERFs - continually shout the slogan "Trans women are women!", usually loudly enough to drown out anyone who might be trying to question that stance.

What that slogan is trying to do is to shut down all questioning and debate. Are trans women identical to cis women? It seems like there are some obvious differences. Maybe they aren't important differences, though. Okay, so how about we discuss this, rather than shouting at each other and sending death threats?

If you, TheVat, imagine that JK Rowling's stories of rape and death threats, and threats to her family, coming from "trans activists" are exaggerated or untrue, then I invite you to investigate what other people who share Rowling's concerns say about the threats and responses they have received from the "trans activist" extremists.

Ideologically, the "trans activist" position is that if somebody declares that they identify as a woman then they are a woman for all intents and purposes. Their transexuality is not relevant in any discussion. Because gender is all that matters. Biological sex either doesn't exist or is irrelevant to the extent that it should be entirely ignored. This is, fundamentally, a radical stance. (I personally view it as a denial of reality - a universe of "alterative facts".) Yet, ironically, the people pushing this ideology are the same people who are slapping the label "TERF" (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) on moderate feminists like JK Rowling.


My own position is entirely in alignment with such goals. So is JK Rowling's, going by her own words rather than the slurs that are flung at her by the activists.

I think the sports issue is a difficult one. I don't have a nuanced position on that, at this time.

When you say "during their formative years", what do actually mean? Pre-puberty? During their schooling? Into early adulthood? What?

I certainly don't advocate "kicking them out" of sports participation entirely. Most of the arguments that go back and forth about this concern participation in sport at the professional level - the Olympics, in professional paid sports and such.

There are lots of different ways that lines could conceivably be drawn concerning participation of transgender people in the sports area. Lines could be drawn relating to puberty, for instance. Lines could be drawn relating to people who have transitioned vs those who have not. Lines could be drawn relating to the use of puberty blocking drugs. etc. It's complicated. That's why I don't have a settled opinion on it.

Point is: it doesn't have to be black or white. It doesn't have to be a case of "either ban all trans people from competing in all sports for all time, or give open-slather access to trans people in all sports at all times".

Want to guess what the position of the trans activists on this issue is? Think about the implications of "Trans women are women" and you'll quickly arrive at the correct answer.


Arguments have certainly been made concerning claims of unfairness in various professional sports, particularly due to the inclusion of trans women in certain competitions. Whether these are legitimate or not requires analysis. Again, attempting to shut down all debate about it is an extremist position.

Соревнования между тиансгендерами нужно выносить в отдельную группу. Так, как это сделано в соревнованиях между обычными полами. Т.е. : женщины - отдельно в своих группах, мужчины - отдельно, трансгендеры - отдельно.

 

[James R]

Olga:

Competitions between Transgender should be placed in a separate group. The way it is done in competitions between ordinary genders. That is: women - separately in their groups, men - separately, transgender - separately.

That might work at the highest professional level of competition, if there are high enough numbers of transgender people who are qualified to compete at that level. Whether transgender athletes would consider this the best solution is another question - which is why they should, of course, be part of any discussion about this.

If we're talking about amateur sport - e.g. school kids - then I suspect that in the most common contexts the numbers of transgender people would make such a solution entirely impractical, in that it would effectively ban transgender people from competing. That would not be fair.

Also, it is only unfair if it can be established that being transgender actually confers an unfair advantage, all other things being equal. If it does not, and if there are no other relevant concerns, then it would be unfair to exclude transgender people from competing with those of the same gender identity.

 

[billvon]

See the first part of my response to TheVat, above.

Specifically:

"Yet most people recognise that, on average, men are psychologically different to women."

That may well be true. And a great many people realize that, in SPECIFIC cases, there are men who are far more psychologically women than men - and often these people benefit from changing their phenotype to match their psyche.

I think you would agree that while I can imagine what it might be like to have a friend die while I was trying to perform CPR on him, I can't fully understand what that experience is like unless I actually have the experience.

Perhaps. And similarly if a woman cannot give birth, she may not be able fully understand what it is like to give birth. However, I would argue that she can still experience what it is like to be a woman.

I would not argue that having children is the sine qua non of being a woman, however.

Agreed! Just as being born with a specific set of genitals is not the sine qua non of being a woman, either.

To be clear: JK Rowling has never, to my knowledge, said that transgender women's experience are "invalid". Nor have I ever said that.

No. Where I disagree with her is:

1) Recognizing trans people as women is not "pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender." They are already two different things, and I have given several examples of such differences.

2) Recognizing trans people as women is not "dehumanising and demeaning" to cis women. There are, of course, extremists who insist that if you don't agree that trans women are completely identical to women you are just like Hitler - just as there are cis men who openly hope that trans people can be locked in an asylum so their mental ilness can be treated before they make our children trans. Neither does, or should, define either side of the argument.

3) Giving trans women similar status to cis women does not work "to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it" nor is there any evidence that this is a real threat above and beyond the threats that women already face. It is, of course, possible to find a case where a man claimed trans status solely to assault women, just as it is possible to find cases where cis male janitors used their bathroom access to sexually assault young children. Neither of those argues that trans women - or cis male janitors - should be categorically denied access to women's bathrooms. A better solution is to prevent such criminals from sexually assaulting women, rather than preferentially allowing male cis janitors better access. (And I know you are not arguing that, but that is the outcome of any trans woman bathroom ban.)

This part of the argument reminds me of the older argument that blacks should be denied access to things (like white neighborhoods, or clubs) because they are, statistically, more likely to be criminals. That statistic is supportable - but we have (fortunately) now realized that the social harm done by segregation is greater than any harm done by allowing "those people" to participate in society like everyone else.

In addition, there should not be a political "class" called women, and we should not support any efforts to reinforce such divisions between classes. Women should be considered to belong to the class known as humanity. A great many of our problems in society today can be traced back to people being politically categorized by their class - by their race, or religion, or caste, or income, or size, or heritage, or sex, or gender. Even when there are clear biological differences (i.e. whites vs blacks, or male vs female) such classism is a move in the wrong direction IMO.

 

[James R]

Regarding the question about sports, think about this:

Why do we have separate competitions for men and women in sports?

If sex isn't real, as the trans activists would have us believe, then the separation in sports between men and women must be because of gender differences (not sex differences). If there are no relevant gender differences, either, then what's the justification for separating men and women in sports?

If there are differences that are just about gender (not sex), what are the relevant differences that justify separate competitions for men and women?

Turning to trans people: are there any relevant differences between, say, a trans woman and a cis woman that would justify separate competitions for both groups? Following the trans activist line, there cannot be such differences, because gender is all there is and trans women are women. But other people argue that, in some sports or under certain circumstances, there are relevant differences, not based in gender but in sex. Those people might argue that, in the right circumstances, separate competitions are justified for the similar reasons we give for having separate competitions for cis men and cis women.

 

[ольга]

Olga:

That might work at the highest professional level of competition, if there are high enough numbers of transgender people who are qualified to compete at that level. Whether transgender athletes would consider this the best solution is another question - which is why they should, of course, be part of any discussion about this.

If we're talking about amateur sport - e.g. school kids - then I suspect that in the most common contexts the numbers of transgender people would make such a solution entirely impractical, in that it would effectively ban transgender people from competing. That would not be fair.

Also, it is only unfair if it can be established that being transgender actually confers an unfair advantage, all other things being equal. If it does not, and if there are no other relevant concerns, then it would be unfair to exclude transgender people from competing with those of the same gender identity.

Джеймс, несовершеннолетним вообще нужно запретить какие-либо манипуляции, связанные со сменой пола. У детей и подростков психика ещё не устоялась, и вы сами наверняка видели, что они как никто другой склонны к подражанию. Они могут это сделать только для того, чтобы быть похожим на своего трансгендерного кумира, например. Или в другом случае: родители хотели мальчика, к примеру, а родилась девочка. И эти родители могут навязать этому ребёнку мысль, что он "мальчик".

Насчёт взрослых спортсменов трансгендеров: кроме первичных половых признаков самцов от самок отличает ещё и строение скелета, и более развитая мускулатура, поэтому было бы несправедливо поставить такого спортсмена, который развился как мужчина физически, соревноваться с теми, кто развился как женщина.

 

[ольга]

Regarding the question about sports, think about this:

Why do we have separate competitions for men and women in sports?

If sex isn't real, as the trans activists would have us believe, then the separation in sports between men and women must be because of gender differences (not sex differences). If there are no relevant gender differences, either, then what's the justification for separating men and women in sports?

If there are differences that are just about gender (not sex), what are the relevant differences that justify separate competitions for men and women?

Turning to trans people: are there any relevant differences between, say, a trans woman and a cis woman that would justify separate competitions for both groups? Following the trans activist line, there cannot be such differences, because gender is all there is and trans women are women. But other people argue that, in some sports or under certain circumstances, there are relevant differences, not based in gender but in sex. Those people might argue that, in the right circumstances, separate competitions are justified for the similar reasons we give for having separate competitions for cis men and cis women.

Вообще, по моему мнению, трансгендеры - это обычные геи и лесбиянки, которые хотят чтобы у них был больший выбор сексуальных партнёров. Т.е. пассивный гомосексуалист, став формально "женщиной", может заниматься сексом с гораздо большим числом мужчин, которые гетеросексуальны, и предпочитают секс с женщинами. И то же самое касаемо лесбиянок. Потому что гетеросексуальных людей пока ещё в десятки раз больше, чем представителей ЛГБТ.

 

[James R]

Olga:

James, minors should be banned from any manipulations related to gender reassignment at all.

I'm inclined to agree, although to be careful I would ideally want to see your definitions of "minors" and "any manipulations".

The psyche of children and adolescents has not yet settled...

Generally speaking, yes, I think so too. But I would tend to focus more on the issue of informed consent. I think it is very difficult to appropriately inform a minor about the full implications of puberty blockers or reassignment surgeries in a way that they are equipped to understand at the approriate level of detail.

.... Or in another case: parents wanted a boy, for example, but a girl was born. And these parents can impose on this child the idea that he is a "boy".

That is a different thing. That is clearly child abuse.

As for adult transgender athletes: in addition to the primary sexual characteristics, males are also distinguished from females by the structure of the skeleton, and more developed muscles, so it would be unfair to put such an athlete who has developed as a man physically to compete with those who have developed as a woman.

Certainly, that's one of the arguments that is commonly made. The relevant issue is fairness. Lots of arguments can be made about what is fair, however. For instance, is it "fair" that we don't all get to compete in the Olympic games - that only elite athletes get to compete? Their biology arguably gives them an advantage, but most of us are fine with that. We don't take steps to "level the playing field" in that case.

This is one reason why there aren't easy answers here.

In general, in my opinion, transgender people are ordinary gays and lesbians who want to have a greater choice of sexual partners.

I think you're wrong. But you're entitled to your opinion. I think, however, that if you were to survey gay and lesbian people, very few would say they want sexual reassignment. I also don't think they would lie about that.

Besides, it's a fairly radical step to undergo gender reassignment surgery in the hope of thereby gaining access to a larger pool of potential sexual partners. I don't think it's a plausible explanation.

 

[C C]

[...] One of my biggest fears is this sort of loss. One of the drawbacks to the democratization of virtually everything is that loss of spontaneity and creativity wherein people are compelled, of necessity, to work with what's there, however inadequate and insufficient. Like Bill Orcutt with his four stringed guitar:

Or Brushy One String. I've probably hit my Harry Potter limit in terms of straying from the original topic.
_