3 ms·

I think the cor of the issue is the -phobic suffix. We instictively feel that 'transphobic' is the same kind of insult as 'homophobic', and there is no place fo

I think the cor of the issue is the -phobic suffix. We instictively feel that 'transphobic' is the same kind of insult as 'homophobic', and there is no place for homophobic people in our society. It immediately tells the reader that Rowling hates or is somehow against trans people while in fact it is something very different: she wants to protect women from men who pretend they are women, and who abuse new laws created in good faith for trans people.

happytoexplain 5y ago
No idea where Rowling lands on what I'm about to say (haven't followed it), but it reminds me: Sometimes I think when people are arguing their opinion X, and that opinion has any overlap, actual or perceptual, meaningful or incidental, with a demonized opinion Y, rather than distinguish X from Y, they will apparently purposefully either leave it ominously unmentioned, or even implicitly lean into the comparison, even if Y is demonized for a good reason and they ostensibly agree with the demonization. I think they do the former sometimes because they obstinately think, "of course I disagree with Y, I shouldn't have to say it", and yes, audiences frequently make unfair comparisons, but many times a comparison is so obvious that it's misleading to say nothing. As for the latter, I think that is a result of either self-destructive frustration (they've given up on arguing and are just provoking), or evidence that they do agree with Y, but don't want to say it out loud. In any case, 100% of the time, it's all unnecessarily provocative and it's destructive to understanding and therefore to the conversation. The one Rowling Tweet I know about off the top of my head falls squarely into this dynamic: The one where she said something sarcastic about how women menstruate. Sarcasm and willfully ignoring colloquial semantics to fall back on "objective facts" devoid of context are very common components of the behavior described above (well, they're common to bad-faith arguments in general).

happytoexplain 5y ago

No idea where Rowling lands on what I'm about to say (haven't followed it), but it reminds me: Sometimes I think when people are arguing their opinion X, and that opinion has any overlap, actual or perceptual, meaningful or incidental, with a demonized opinion Y, rather than distinguish X from Y, they will apparently purposefully either leave it ominously unmentioned, or even implicitly lean into the comparison, even if Y is demonized for a good reason and they ostensibly agree with the demonization. I think they do the former sometimes because they obstinately think, "of course I disagree with Y, I shouldn't have to say it", and yes, audiences frequently make unfair comparisons, but many times a comparison is so obvious that it's misleading to say nothing. As for the latter, I think that is a result of either self-destructive frustration (they've given up on arguing and are just provoking), or evidence that they do agree with Y, but don't want to say it out loud. In any case, 100% of the time, it's all unnecessarily provocative and it's destructive to understanding and therefore to the conversation. The one Rowling Tweet I know about off the top of my head falls squarely into this dynamic: The one where she said something sarcastic about how women menstruate. Sarcasm and willfully ignoring colloquial semantics to fall back on "objective facts" devoid of context are very common components of the behavior described above (well, they're common to bad-faith arguments in general).