5 ms·

>However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women w

by daenz 6y ago

>However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased Wait, what? Are you considered a bigot for not wanting to date someone who doesn't have the genitals you prefer? Can someone shed some light on this please?

BillinghamJ 6y ago
No, clearly not. It is generally well recognised and accepted that people have sexual attraction to other people based on all sorts of attributes. That doesn't take away from everyone else's right to identify as they feel.
zozbot234 6y ago
It's more of a clash of worldviews. People fundamentally disagree about the importance of things like biological sex vs. socially-fluid and arbitrary gender roles. And the thing about this is that both gender-critical TERF's and trans activism are really niche, minority movements; most people will simply never have to care about this stuff. The article also gets into stuff like the underlying dynamics of gender dysphoric identity, which seems to be hignly socially influenced especially in younger folks. People will obviously disagree as to how this dysphoric identity should be treated; some will advocate a more relaxed, wait-and-see approach even as others (including many in the medical establishment) argue for a rapid transition. These are not trivial issues and there are arguments for both sides.
colechristensen 6y ago
There are people who would consider you as such, yes. Can light be shed? Hardly. In the environment described by Rowling, any amount of disagreement within that sphere of thinking can raise pitchforks. It's a sort of corner case for human compassion and understanding in the subtleties and complexities involved, and people are afraid to touch it.
OscarCunningham 6y ago
> Are you considered a bigot for not wanting to date someone who doesn't have the genitals you prefer? The range of different beliefs among humans is so vast that almost any question of the form 'Do some people believe X?' has the answer 'Yes', even for quite extreme values of X. But that doesn't tell us much about the beliefs of typical people. This is especially true when there are folks going around emphasising the most extreme beliefs in groups they disagree with in order to produce a counterreaction.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  There is a rising extreme in the range of American viewpoints which is no longer a question of existence of a rare belief but an almost-theology around various social justice causes and accompanying zealotry. It is somewhat difficult to process in a population accustomed to much different kinds of familiar fervent actions which were based around many conservative ideologies.
emacsen 6y ago
The answer to this is complex and nuanced. First, most reasonable people do not shame anyone for their body preferences- period. It is often more about how than what. You may prefer someone who is taller, shorter, larger, thinner, etc. But if you talk in absolutes, like "Tall people are ugly" then certainly you'll receive criticism. And this of course leaves people feeling hurt. When I was active in dating, I wanted to date women who were attracted to thinner or average men, while I'm overweight. It hurt, but I accepted it. That said, there are some, very tiny minority of trans people who are upset that in not being eligible for dating someone based on body preference speaks to their being perceived as their gender. "If I'm a ___, why would you not date me as such?"- and their answer is "Because you do not percieve me as my gender presentation". Sometimes these people are loud and aggressive in their objections. At the same time, it's also a fact that this is a tiny minority of people, a very tiny minority, and it's used largely as a way of amplifying a problem that largely does not exist- it's a strawman argument which does exist to some extent, but is much smaller than it's being portrayed. Like I said at the start, it's complicated, but it's largely a justification to be hateful on JK Rowling's part.
azeirah 6y ago
FWIW, I'm trans, and I don't believe you're a bigot for not wanting to date someone who doesn't have your preferred genitals.
CJefferson 6y ago
No, Magdalen is considered a bigot for saying trans women are "blackface actors" and "men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women". You can decide if you agree with that or not, but that is the kind of thing she said which upset people.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > "men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women" Many people will not like this, but so-called autogynephilia seems to be a real causal factor behind some varieties of gender-dysphoric identity among people assigned-male-at-birth. (To be clear about this, other varieties do exist that involve very different causal paths.) Her language was obviously unkind, but she was pointing at something quite real.
  - junke 6y ago
    This is Blanchard stuff. Autogynephilia exists (in cis-women too!), but that being a "real causal factor" is disputed: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2010.4...
  - CJefferson 6y ago
    There might be some basis for truth here, but I was also being polite (you didn't know that from my reply). Let's go full quote, just so people don't get the impression that Magdalen was trying to make a fair and reasoned point: "You are fucking blackface actors. You aren't women. You're men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women. Fuck you and your dirty fucking perversions. Our oppression isn't a fetish you pathetic, sick, fuck".
    - zozbot234 6y ago
      Yes, but the reason why that attack is so contentious in the first place is that it hits at a real weakness in trans activism. It was trans activists themselves who first politicized the narrative around things like autogynephilia and rapid-onset dysphoria, by branding these ideas as anti-trans and bigoted no matter how "fair and reasoned" expressed - and this is something that creates real harm, as Rowling obliquely points out by referencing the "detransitioning" trans and contrasting them with folks who took a far more cautious approach to transitioning in the past.
matthewmacleod 6y ago
No, you are not considered a bigot for this by anybody who is worth listening to. There are probably a few extremists for whom this is the case – like any extremist, their views are best disregarded. But that's part of the problem here, and why this is a damaging article. It uses this view from a handful of extremists – "you are a bigot unless you date women with penises" – a view that almost nobody sensible would reasonably agree with, and then holds it up as an example of why another, unrelated set of things need to be fought against. This is a pretty common approach for people to use when trying to discredit or attack something they dislike. I will add that Magadalen Berns, for what it's worth, was an explicit, out-and-out anti-trans activist. To quote her directly writing to a trans woman: "You are fucking blackface actors. You aren't women. You're men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women. fuck you and your dirty perversions. our oppression isn't a fetish you pathetic, sick, fuck" It is dishonest of Rowling to phrase this interaction in a way that doesn't at least acknowledge why her actions would be controversial under the circumstances. And this is a pattern that's repeated throughout the article. Let's call it an "appeal to reasonableness" – what seems like a reasonable and constructive argument on the surface only appears so because a lot of the context has been ignored or misrepresented.
- colechristensen 6y ago
  In America at least, this wing of extremists is getting too big, too loud, and too influential to simply be dismissed. Not that you should take to heart what they have to say, but you shouldn't pretend it's just an aberration.
  - biscotti 6y ago
    I completely agree. Anti-this or anti-that, whatever. American Identity Politics is a rot that has really damaged our western civilizations. She seems invested in protecting women due to a shared experience and becoming convinced through genuine social work that this "movement" and all the toxic wrong-think and undeserved discourse has just served to confuse us and help paralyze rational management of her patients. It makes it much more difficult to look after vulnerable people and has invented terms that are offensive to women. I support her and I hope whatever societies we end up with we institute protections that defend rational people from having wrong-think weaponised against them much better than we do today. Our decision makers shouldnt feel that they must act a certain way because a pressure group has shouted loudly, and does not hold the consent of the demos at large, which erodes respect and damages the legitimacy of our democracy. I am a Brit and unfortunately Identity Politics is extremely dangerous on my Isles. No thinking Anglo-Saxon-Celt-Indian-Sikh-Hindu-Breton-Briton-Norman-Hiberian-Welsh-Scot-Norman-Irish-Kenyan-Ghanan-Ugandan-Nigerian-Jew or other should support it. Each of us can magic up a real ancestral grievance. Some of it's horrific! I'm excited to see how my government handle the next few weeks. The majority position now is unless it stops tolerating unlawlessness, destruction and boat people that the current system has been thoroughly comprimised and is not fit for purpose. If my government wakes up in time, the Antifa element of this illegitimate paid up BLM "movement" & the institutional elements that enable them are in for a lovely shock. All educated black people I know in the UK now are already against them. They and those that have validated mob rule will truly deserve what their weaponisation of race will bring to them, our western civilization (flawed, but still the best) is on fire because of them!

by daenz 6y ago

BillinghamJ 6y ago

No, clearly not. It is generally well recognised and accepted that people have sexual attraction to other people based on all sorts of attributes. That doesn't take away from everyone else's right to identify as they feel.

zozbot234 6y ago

It's more of a clash of worldviews. People fundamentally disagree about the importance of things like biological sex vs. socially-fluid and arbitrary gender roles. And the thing about this is that both gender-critical TERF's and trans activism are really niche, minority movements; most people will simply never have to care about this stuff. The article also gets into stuff like the underlying dynamics of gender dysphoric identity, which seems to be hignly socially influenced especially in younger folks. People will obviously disagree as to how this dysphoric identity should be treated; some will advocate a more relaxed, wait-and-see approach even as others (including many in the medical establishment) argue for a rapid transition. These are not trivial issues and there are arguments for both sides.

colechristensen 6y ago

There are people who would consider you as such, yes. Can light be shed? Hardly. In the environment described by Rowling, any amount of disagreement within that sphere of thinking can raise pitchforks. It's a sort of corner case for human compassion and understanding in the subtleties and complexities involved, and people are afraid to touch it.

OscarCunningham 6y ago

> Are you considered a bigot for not wanting to date someone who doesn't have the genitals you prefer? The range of different beliefs among humans is so vast that almost any question of the form 'Do some people believe X?' has the answer 'Yes', even for quite extreme values of X. But that doesn't tell us much about the beliefs of typical people. This is especially true when there are folks going around emphasising the most extreme beliefs in groups they disagree with in order to produce a counterreaction.

colechristensen 6y ago
There is a rising extreme in the range of American viewpoints which is no longer a question of existence of a rare belief but an almost-theology around various social justice causes and accompanying zealotry. It is somewhat difficult to process in a population accustomed to much different kinds of familiar fervent actions which were based around many conservative ideologies.

emacsen 6y ago

The answer to this is complex and nuanced. First, most reasonable people do not shame anyone for their body preferences- period. It is often more about how than what. You may prefer someone who is taller, shorter, larger, thinner, etc. But if you talk in absolutes, like "Tall people are ugly" then certainly you'll receive criticism. And this of course leaves people feeling hurt. When I was active in dating, I wanted to date women who were attracted to thinner or average men, while I'm overweight. It hurt, but I accepted it. That said, there are some, very tiny minority of trans people who are upset that in not being eligible for dating someone based on body preference speaks to their being perceived as their gender. "If I'm a ___, why would you not date me as such?"- and their answer is "Because you do not percieve me as my gender presentation". Sometimes these people are loud and aggressive in their objections. At the same time, it's also a fact that this is a tiny minority of people, a very tiny minority, and it's used largely as a way of amplifying a problem that largely does not exist- it's a strawman argument which does exist to some extent, but is much smaller than it's being portrayed. Like I said at the start, it's complicated, but it's largely a justification to be hateful on JK Rowling's part.

azeirah 6y ago

FWIW, I'm trans, and I don't believe you're a bigot for not wanting to date someone who doesn't have your preferred genitals.

CJefferson 6y ago

No, Magdalen is considered a bigot for saying trans women are "blackface actors" and "men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women". You can decide if you agree with that or not, but that is the kind of thing she said which upset people.

zozbot234 6y ago
> "men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women" Many people will not like this, but so-called autogynephilia seems to be a real causal factor behind some varieties of gender-dysphoric identity among people assigned-male-at-birth. (To be clear about this, other varieties do exist that involve very different causal paths.) Her language was obviously unkind, but she was pointing at something quite real.
- junke 6y ago
  This is Blanchard stuff. Autogynephilia exists (in cis-women too!), but that being a "real causal factor" is disputed: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2010.486241 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00918369.2010.4...
- CJefferson 6y ago
  There might be some basis for truth here, but I was also being polite (you didn't know that from my reply). Let's go full quote, just so people don't get the impression that Magdalen was trying to make a fair and reasoned point: "You are fucking blackface actors. You aren't women. You're men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women. Fuck you and your dirty fucking perversions. Our oppression isn't a fetish you pathetic, sick, fuck".
  - zozbot234 6y ago
    Yes, but the reason why that attack is so contentious in the first place is that it hits at a real weakness in trans activism. It was trans activists themselves who first politicized the narrative around things like autogynephilia and rapid-onset dysphoria, by branding these ideas as anti-trans and bigoted no matter how "fair and reasoned" expressed - and this is something that creates real harm, as Rowling obliquely points out by referencing the "detransitioning" trans and contrasting them with folks who took a far more cautious approach to transitioning in the past.

matthewmacleod 6y ago

No, you are not considered a bigot for this by anybody who is worth listening to. There are probably a few extremists for whom this is the case – like any extremist, their views are best disregarded. But that's part of the problem here, and why this is a damaging article. It uses this view from a handful of extremists – "you are a bigot unless you date women with penises" – a view that almost nobody sensible would reasonably agree with, and then holds it up as an example of why another, unrelated set of things need to be fought against. This is a pretty common approach for people to use when trying to discredit or attack something they dislike. I will add that Magadalen Berns, for what it's worth, was an explicit, out-and-out anti-trans activist. To quote her directly writing to a trans woman: "You are fucking blackface actors. You aren't women. You're men who get sexual kicks from being treated like women. fuck you and your dirty perversions. our oppression isn't a fetish you pathetic, sick, fuck" It is dishonest of Rowling to phrase this interaction in a way that doesn't at least acknowledge why her actions would be controversial under the circumstances. And this is a pattern that's repeated throughout the article. Let's call it an "appeal to reasonableness" – what seems like a reasonable and constructive argument on the surface only appears so because a lot of the context has been ignored or misrepresented.

colechristensen 6y ago
In America at least, this wing of extremists is getting too big, too loud, and too influential to simply be dismissed. Not that you should take to heart what they have to say, but you shouldn't pretend it's just an aberration.
- biscotti 6y ago
  I completely agree. Anti-this or anti-that, whatever. American Identity Politics is a rot that has really damaged our western civilizations. She seems invested in protecting women due to a shared experience and becoming convinced through genuine social work that this "movement" and all the toxic wrong-think and undeserved discourse has just served to confuse us and help paralyze rational management of her patients. It makes it much more difficult to look after vulnerable people and has invented terms that are offensive to women. I support her and I hope whatever societies we end up with we institute protections that defend rational people from having wrong-think weaponised against them much better than we do today. Our decision makers shouldnt feel that they must act a certain way because a pressure group has shouted loudly, and does not hold the consent of the demos at large, which erodes respect and damages the legitimacy of our democracy. I am a Brit and unfortunately Identity Politics is extremely dangerous on my Isles. No thinking Anglo-Saxon-Celt-Indian-Sikh-Hindu-Breton-Briton-Norman-Hiberian-Welsh-Scot-Norman-Irish-Kenyan-Ghanan-Ugandan-Nigerian-Jew or other should support it. Each of us can magic up a real ancestral grievance. Some of it's horrific! I'm excited to see how my government handle the next few weeks. The majority position now is unless it stops tolerating unlawlessness, destruction and boat people that the current system has been thoroughly comprimised and is not fit for purpose. If my government wakes up in time, the Antifa element of this illegitimate paid up BLM "movement" & the institutional elements that enable them are in for a lovely shock. All educated black people I know in the UK now are already against them. They and those that have validated mob rule will truly deserve what their weaponisation of race will bring to them, our western civilization (flawed, but still the best) is on fire because of them!