Transgender Thread.

  • Thread starter Com Fox
  • 2,194 comments
  • 129,700 views

Transgender is...?

  • Ok for anyone

    Votes: 4 57.1%

  • Ok as long as it's binary (Male to Female or vice versa)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Wrong

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No one's business except the person involved

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • Don't care

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    7
HenrySwanson



And also:

"The controversy prompted AB InBev to end the partnership and remove a number of marketing executives involved in the campaign."

Hardly surprising behaviour, and shows how pathetic these companies and footballers really are with their rainbow flags and messages of support for groups until the backlash actually hits them.
Click to expand...

Customers do of course have that right. Budweiser has a very bigoted customer base, and they're finding out just how much. Budweiser customers seem to be falling all over themselves to show just how much they hate people. But at the same time, transgender people and transgender supporters have not picked up the slack in support of Budweiser. How much money do we expect them to lose over this issue? Sure, they could fall on their swords (further), but is that the demand?
 
Last edited:
Danoff
Customers do of course have that right. Budweiser has a very bigoted customer base, and they're finding out just how much. Budweiser customers seem to be falling all over themselves to show just how much they hate people. But at the same time, transgender people and transgender supporters have not picked up the slack in support of Budweiser. How much money do we expect them to lose over this issue? Sure, they could fall on their swords (further), but is that the demand?
Click to expand...
I'd say it's best to stand up for what's right rather than cave in to their transphobic consumers.

I wouldn't be able to put a number on how much they should lose financially before giving up on their "principles".

They could go even further as a bank did over here
 
HenrySwanson
I'd say it's best to stand up for what's right rather than cave in to their transphobic consumers.
Click to expand...
Anheuser-Busch is a publicly traded company, which makes that all the more difficult. But it's hard for me to say that how much someone should personally sacrifice for a particular cause.
 
omgitsbees
It's not really a dust up, it's her entire personality at this point https://www.vox.com/culture/23622610/jk-rowling-transphobic-statements-timeline-history-controversy

Anyways, this isn't really the thread for this and its going into off topic, there are plenty of resources out there with a google search that show her history of having far right views, including following people, and liking tweets, that include people that identify as nazi's.
Click to expand...

You started this by quoting a rowling comment that defended jewish people and referenced "never again". But she's a Nazi sympathizer because she liked and then unliked a tweet that was from someone who was a nazi sympathizer? I think that's a long way to go to claim she's far right-wing.

Your article cites a friendship with Helen Joyce as evidence that Rowling is transphobic. I've read Joyce's book "Trans" about trans activism, and I don't think it's fair to label as transphobic even though I do understand the tendency to read her statements (and rowling's) without nuance. The point both of them make is nuanced.

Rowling and Joyce are both examples of what gets belligerently called "TERFS", meaning "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Generally you don't see a lot of feminists in the right wing. And make no mistake, Rowling's various rants come off quite feminist. They're labeled "trans exclusionary" and "radical" because they support instances where self-identification may be insufficient. The instances include things like prisons, sports, bathrooms, rape/domestic abuse crisis centers, etc. I don't think this qualifies as right-wing. It is feminist though, even though I think radical is not appropriate.

I get that characterizing rowling as right wing doesn't necessarily belong in the trans thread, but given that the transgender self-identification fight seems to be the primary reason for the characterization, this seemed as good a thread as any to discuss it.

So why do you think Rowling is a hard right winger? Generally by activists in the trans movement she's referred to as a radical feminist.
 
Last edited:
I can concede that she is maybe not far right, but still pretty radical in her views, and absolutely a bigot. I'm not really willing to think otherwise of her at this point. That article mentioned a lot of other examples of her bigotry. also, there is a lot of overlap with transphobic views and being far right. That said a wikipedia article I found just now has a pretty detailed look at her political history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling and a lot of it does lean to the left, but I still maintain that her bigoted views towards the trans community overshadow everything else, but will admit I was a quick to label her far right.
 
Last edited:
omgitsbees
I can concede that she is maybe not far right, but still pretty radical in her views, and absolutely a bigot. I'm not really willing to think otherwise of her at this point. That article mentioned a lot of other examples of her bigotry. also, there is a lot of overlap with transphobic views and being far right. That said a wikipedia article I found just now has a pretty detailed look at her political history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_J._K._Rowling and a lot of it does lean to the left, but I still maintain that her bigoted views towards the trans community overshadow everything else, but will admit I was a quick to label her far right.
Click to expand...

It's all variations on a theme. I don't pretend to know everything that Rowling has ever said on the subject, and maybe she has said some things that truly are bigoted. The extensive list in the Vox article all boils down to a single theme which Rowling laid out in her famous blog post on the subject (which I have read, and if you have not but made up your mind about her anyway, I'd suggest you read). The disagreement comes down essentially to a single concept. The concept is that biological sex matters. It matters in prison demographics, it matters in sports, it matters in personal sexual preference, it maters in how we treat and how we recognize violence. And that difference is highlighted when we're talking about violence by biological males against biological females. What this does is to cause rowling to refuse the mantra "a trans woman is a woman". Because for rowling (and joyce), the laws that are put in place to protect women, which are keyed off of the term "woman", are important and need to stay on the basis of biological sex. As an example, moving a violent rapist who identifies as female to a female prison matters. It matters because by-in-large, biological females are not a violent group, and their prisons reflect that. So when you have someone who is convicted of violence and sexual assault against women, who self-identifies as a woman, and put them in a lower security female prison, the inmates are in danger.

This is the reason (as far as I know) that Rowling has stated that she does not subscribe to the mantra that trans women are women. Because she is protective of biological females and allowing biological males to self-identify into their spaces puts them at risk of physical and psychological harm, not just in prison, but in sports and in therapeutic or medical settings. Rowling herself is a victim of domestic abuse.

If refusing "trans women are women" is transphobic, then you are right. But if you listen to her actual concerns, it's not the bigotry festival Vox appears to want to create. I'm fully willing to grant that she might be hiding worse, more terrible prejudices. But I prefer to reserve judgment until I see them.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
If refusing "trans women are women" is transphobic, then you are right. But if you listen to her actual concerns, it's not the bigotry festival Vox appears to want to create. I'm fully willing to grant that she might be hiding worse, more terrible prejudices. But I prefer to reserve judgment until I see them.
Click to expand...
This is somewhat fair, but I do reccomend you look into it further. A lot of TERF rhetoric is quite clearly just dog whistles, and lot of TERF's hide behind the "feminist" label as an extremely cheap defense tactic to ward off criticism from people who aren't invested in the topic. Old JK has been caught mingling with some pretty vile people in recent years over a shared distaste for trans people, and does not even come close to deserving the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.
 
Aphelion
This is somewhat fair, but I do reccomend you look into it further. A lot of TERF rhetoric is quite clearly just dog whistles, and lot of TERF's hide behind the "feminist" label as an extremely cheap defense tactic to ward off criticism from people who aren't invested in the topic. Old JK has been caught mingling with some pretty vile people in recent years over a shared distaste for trans people, and does not even come close to deserving the benefit of the doubt in my opinion.
Click to expand...
I have a lot of skepticism about these kinds of claims - because every time I have followed them they end up nowhere. So I'm going to have to ask you to point out something specific.

In JK's case (and others), if you listen to what she actually says she sounds legit feminist. I don't get the impression she's hiding.

Edit:

As an example, this excerpt from the vox article says much the same thing that you said:

"For instance, Rowling is friends with numerous anti-trans activists, including Helen Joyce, who’s made alarmingly transphobic statements calling for a “reduction” in the number of trans people."

This is a somewhat intentional misrepresentation of Joyce's position. It suggests that Joyce is calling for the murder of trans people or something. In reality, Joyce thinks that (and claims to have scientific evidence to support) many people who end up transitioning during or before puberty didn't need to do so to resolve their dysphoria, and would likely end up gay and non-trans. I have no idea how accurate this is, I'm not sure anyone does because it's a difficult thing to study. But Joyce is convinced of it and thinks that many teenagers get needless surgery, risk, and associated side effects. She may be completely wrong about all of that, but it's not as "alarming" as is presented. It's actually a question that likely has an answer. She believes that if people wait to adulthood to transition, their medical outcomes will be improved and fewer of them will transition. This is the "reduction" in the number of trans people.
 
Last edited:
Danoff
I have a lot of skepticism about these kinds of claims - because every time I have followed them they end up nowhere. So I'm going to have to ask you to point out something specific.

In JK's case (and others), if you listen to what she actually says she sounds legit feminist. I don't get the impression she's hiding.

Edit:

As an example, this excerpt from the vox article says much the same thing that you said:

"For instance, Rowling is friends with numerous anti-trans activists, including Helen Joyce, who’s made alarmingly transphobic statements calling for a “reduction” in the number of trans people."

This is a somewhat intentional misrepresentation of Joyce's position. It suggests that Joyce is calling for the murder of trans people or something. In reality, Joyce thinks that (and claims to have scientific evidence to support) many people who end up transitioning during or before puberty didn't need to do so to resolve their dysphoria, and would likely end up gay and non-trans. I have no idea how accurate this is, I'm not sure anyone does because it's a difficult thing to study. But Joyce is convinced of it and thinks that many teenagers get needless surgery, risk, and associated side effects. She may be completely wrong about all of that, but it's not as "alarming" as is presented. It's actually a question that likely has an answer. She believes that if people wait to adulthood to transition, their medical outcomes will be improved and fewer of them will transition. This is the "reduction" in the number of trans people.
Click to expand...
I'll point you in the direction of this video, which i think does a really good job of succinctly summing up my views on this issue.

CONTENT WARNING: some of these people say some pretty nasty stuff, including swearing and slurs.


If you can't be bothered to watch the video, here's a screenshot of JK Rowling agreeing with Matt Walsh, a self described fascist:
Screen Shot 2023-10-16 at 11.10.22 am.png
There are many examples similar to this in the video, including even more egregious ones.


What I will say is that its really quite challenging for me to spend time arguing for trans rights and understanding with strangers on the internet. Perhaps that means I shouldn't have bothered posting here in the first place, but I've typically seen you as a well mannered, friendly member of this community so I decided to try and point you in the right direction. But yes, id much rather avoid having an argument on this topic, as it really quite directly personally affects me and I spend way too much time thinking about the topic as it is. And I think this is actually part of the problem you are having; discussions about this topic usually very quickly devolve into throwing insults, because trans people tend to be extremely sensitive when discussing topics relating to their rights to exist. Which I actually think is pretty fair enough, even if its not particularly helpful for discussion.

Thats my piece, Josie out.

EDIT: also, I think the term "Feminism" is entirely relative to ones world view. Anyone can technically describe themselves as a feminist, and many people have done so whilst holding opinions that most other "feminists" would strongly disagree with. And, considering I believe that trans women are indeed women, I'd say JK Rowling is a pretty crap feminist. "Trans exclusionary" and "feminist" are kind of mutually exclusive terms in my world view.
 
Last edited:
Joanne Rowling doesn't even have a middle name, and the fact she pretends she does is enough for me to despise her.
 
Daniel
"I'm tired of the LIBRUL TRANS-AGENDA taking over my INTERNET"
Click to expand...
That it could be that is hilarious, but bitchfits from the other side are hilarious as well. Like this:
CarreraGT
What are you talking about? You guys are asking whether homosexuality is a problem that needs to be cured. It's 2022, pull your heads in.

Thread reported
Click to expand...
 
Northstar
You've been a member since March of 2022, and this is what gets you to finally post? :odd:

And there is a way, but frankly I feel this thread being visible is important, so I'm not going to tell you.
Click to expand...
I think I guessed how to do this and tested it out briefly just to satisfy my curiosity before reversing the change.

I'm not going to tell them either.
 
CarreraGT
There are no sides to this, some of you people need to grow up. Funny that it's always the Americans...
Click to expand...
I don't know, I find it pretty funny to see someone report a thread based on the posts from twenty years ago. Earlier posts in the thread were done in a very different time and context, and as far as I'm aware, the content of the discussion has largely moved on from talking about "is it okay/is it a sin" to issues affecting gay people.
 
Daniel
I don't know, I find it pretty funny to see someone report a thread based on the posts from twenty years ago. Earlier posts in the thread were done in a very different time and context, and as far as I'm aware, the content of the discussion has largely moved on from talking about "is it okay/is it a sin" to issues affecting gay people.
Click to expand...
The thread was started 7 years ago, and the posts I reported were from last year...
 
I've recently been writing health articles and am having trouble using as inclusive language as possible when it comes to menstruation and pregnancy.

Referring to pregnant people instead of pregnant women isn't an issue, but the problem comes from talking about people with traditionally female reproductive systems.

I've seen the term AFAB (assigned female at birth), but should that completely replace "woman/women" in every instance?
Another issue is this:



It can get a little....messy, but I'm similarly unsure how it should be worded and default to the terms "maternal".
 
Last edited:
CarreraGT
The thread was started 7 years ago, and the posts I reported were from last year...
Click to expand...
I was referring to your comment in the Homosexuality Discussion thread that TexRex quoted that said "thread reported." :)

HenrySwanson
I've recently been writing health articles and am having trouble using as inclusive language as possible when it comes to menstruation and pregnancy.

Referring to pregnant people instead of pregnant women isn't an issue, but the problem comes from talking about people with traditionally female reproductive systems.

I've seen the term AFAB (assigned female at birth), but should that completely replace "woman/women" in every instance?
Another issue is this:



It can get a little....messy, but I'm similarly unsure how it should be worded and default to the terms "maternal".
Click to expand...

What's a sentence where you're trying to refer to those AFAB?
 
Last edited:
HenrySwanson
I've recently been writing health articles and am having trouble using as inclusive language as possible when it comes to menstruation and pregnancy.

Referring to pregnant people instead of pregnant women isn't an issue, but the problem comes from talking about people with traditionally female reproductive systems.

I've seen the term AFAB (assigned female at birth), but should that completely replace "woman/women" in every instance?
Another issue is this:



It can get a little....messy, but I'm similarly unsure how it should be worded and default to the terms "maternal".
Click to expand...

We had a similar discussion at my work since there had been reported instances of biological men who transitioned to women attempting to schedule OB/GYN appointments. There was a very small but incredibly vocal group of people who were arguing that we should allow this because those who'd transitioned were women. The counter-argument was that an OB/GYN isn't trained to treat biological males since they don't specialize in the male reproductive system. Thankfully, we ultimately decided to rely solely on what biology says a person is for all medical purposes outside of behavioral health, since that's what matters in a medical context.

So now patients are classes as biologically male, female, or intersex but we also record their gender identity, pronouns, and preferred name so someone who identifies as female can get an appointment with men's health if they're biologically male.

To me, this seems like the only way to approach the subject when it comes to almost anything medical. I get behavioral health, but anything outside of that it should be based solely on what biology and your chromosomes say you are. I agree with using the right name and pronouns, but allowing biological males to get a gynecology appointment isn't something I agree with as it takes away an appointment for biological females and the GYN can't really do much for the biological males anyway. There are also medications and treatments that can't be used for certain biological sexes either or may have adverse side effects.

So when it comes to writing scientific papers, I would argue that you should use terms like biologically female, biologically male, or biologically intersex. Using "sex assigned at birth" makes it seem like it can change and at this time it's impossible to change people's chromosomes without killing them. Or you could distill it even more and say "a person with XX-chromosomes or XY-chromosomes".
 
HenrySwanson
It can get a little....messy, but I'm similarly unsure how it should be worded and default to the terms "maternal".
Click to expand...
Fun fact: the etymology of "maternal" (even through all the roots) actually doesn't derive from anything to do with being female, or a woman.
 

Similar threads

Com Fox
  • Poll
Representation in media. Is it important?
Replies
21
Views
2K
TexRex
TexRex
VBR
An Exposé - Pushing Back on Grievance Studies
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
TexRex
TexRex
TexRex
Banned Books
2 3 4
Replies
111
Views
22K
Famine
Famine
VBR
  • Poll
PRIVATE POLL: Social Justice
2
Replies
41
Views
3K
UKMikey
UKMikey
Com Fox
  • Poll
Voting in Elections. Should it be Mandatory, Optional, Restricted, or none at all?
2
Replies
46
Views
3K
Danoff
Danoff

Latest Posts

Back