Octopus Overlords

JK Rowling is ripping out my heart on her anti-trans crusade.

Yeah, I'll admit I was kinda surprised to see that unfold. I guess her position isn't an uncommon one. She's certainly helped to raise awareness, so that's a silver lining here.

TERF

Something new every day.

Enough wrote:JK Rowling is ripping out my heart on her anti-trans crusade.

One piece of advice for the internet, you will never get anywhere with the idea that person A “hates” person B. Implying it gives Person A an easy straw man to dismantle.

What Person A needs to come to understand is not that they hate Person B. It’s that their words and actions HURT Person B. Whether it’s malicious or not matters of course, but I’m not sure that I’ve seen malice from JK.

The only thing I’ve ever seen actually attenuate someone’s behavior has been the realization that they are actually hurting people. I’ve never seen anyone convinced that they hate someone.

No one here made that accusation, just something I’ve seen over and over online directed at her.

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:33 pm JK Rowling is ripping out my heart on her anti-trans crusade.

Funny. I think that what is happening with her is the worst sort of social media mob injustice. Her long blog post today is worth a read and explains her position. I certainly don't think she is 100% 'perfect' on this but also do not think she is approaching this from ignorance. She has a viewpoint that is fairly complex. That viewpoint may not survive change over time. However, everyone has room for improvement. Instead of engaging her constructively she is literally being bombarded by hate instead of positive attempts to educate her about the viewpoint on these issues that people see. And I've seen what has happened to Ms. Rowling happen too many times driven by ideological purists. This type of nuke them from orbit #cancelculture shit isn't constructive IMO. Educate them. Let them see that they maybe need to understand the impact of their words.

Edit: What RM9 said more concisely.

What is the JK Rowling situation? Impression that I get from stuff I have seen in passing is that she doesn't view trans women as women?

LordMortis wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:49 pm TERF

Something new every day.

SWERF is another. That's for sex-worker exclusionary.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:55 pm What is the JK Rowling situation? Impression that I get from stuff I have seen in passing is that she doesn't view trans women as women?

To sum it up she disagrees on gender as a 100% applicable substitute for sex in the social context.

El Guapo wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:55 pm What is the JK Rowling situation? Impression that I get from stuff I have seen in passing is that she doesn't view trans women as women?

And also views trans men as women apparently. Sorry, short on time to give a legit reply, will hopefully get time later.

I honesty am confused over the outcry on that one. It appears she tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1 ... 09313?s=20

So to me, it looks like she was sarcastically saying "why not say women?". Which was then conflated to mean she was "anti trans". Considering her past support for the LBGQT community, I found the ferocity of the attacks against her to be strange.

If you attack your own supporters if they don't use the exact wording you expect, or you automatically assume that they're anti something because they don't strictly spell out what they mean/point out a physical truth, I think you end up hurting your cause more than anything.

In other words: social media still sucks. I think we should abolish it.

RunningMn9 wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 12:49 pm What Person A needs to come to understand is not that they hate Person B. It’s that their words and actions HURT Person B. Whether it’s malicious or not matters of course, but I’m not sure that I’ve seen malice from JK.

I came into this totally unawares. I also do see maliciousness from my vast familiarity of having just read two bits on the Internet. I do look at the exhibited tweet and see dismissivenessitude.

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/10/87347268 ... tor-tweets

"People who menstruate," she tweeted alongside a link to the article, "I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"

She followed up a few minutes later: "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."

That's the cynicism we use to and declare the other not worth the time or examination. We all do it.

I happen to agree with the sentiment that our language isn't adequate to describe trans/gender identity cultures but that her expression is one of "there is no conversation to be had." I don't care for language control either by Rowling or by the various rainbow communities. I do hope we develop a better communication by the time it's time for me stop walking this world.

Words matter.

This has a pretty quick breakdown on some of her recent hate-loving on twitter. She also co-started a charity with Baroness Nicholson who voted against gay marriage. Scan through this twitter user's account for more (also featured in the linked article): https://twitter.com/sineadactually

That said there are some really awful anti-Terf crusaders out there and a warning to not use Terf and expect it to be received warmly by first and second wave feminists. I used it in a workshop and triggered a good friend. Many will agree with the term but some view using the term as violence against women and with all the violent anti-Terf rhetoric on Twitter it is pretty yikes. That said, I have no problem with the term.

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:01 pm I honesty am confused over the outcry on that one. It appears she tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1 ... 09313?s=20

So to me, it looks like she was sarcastically saying "why not say women?". Which was then conflated to mean she was "anti trans". Considering her past support for the LBGQT community, I found the ferocity of the attacks against her to be strange.

If you attack your own supporters if they don't use the exact wording you expect, or you automatically assume that they're anti something because they don't strictly spell out what they mean/point out a physical truth, I think you end up hurting your cause more than anything.

In other words: social media still sucks. I think we should abolish it.

Trans men menstruate but per JK they are women. I read her lengthy statement today and came away unimpressed by most of it.

I deal with this shit all the time to be honest so excuse if I sound exhausted by it. A sport I referee literally has women in its name. Over time they've decided as a democratic organization of teams to become more intersex and trans-friendly. Essentially you can play if you identify as female. No questions asked. I don't have any views pro or con. I just call them as I see them within the rules. However there are a not inconsiderable group of biological female people who are uncomfortable about this because there are still physical differences that matter in a full-contact sport. Not the least is increased risk of injury. Most of those people are silenced because to speak out is to be anti-trans and immediately #cancelled. The smart people stay off social media and don't leave a record of this violation of the groupthink but some occasionally make mistakes. And its always messy. Rowling is just a much more public example of stepping outside the bounds of the orthodoxy on the issue IMO. She honestly is acting out a bit because the reaction is so over the top. I think she feels like she is not only an ally but someone who puts a lot of resources and time into helping.

Is it at all possible that she simply hasn't vetted every person she's come into contact with?

I'm on the absolute fringe of this and my awareness is confined to this thread, but has she directly said anything anti-Trans? Has she attempted to apologize, clarify, or double-down?

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:10 pmHowever there are a not inconsiderable group of biological female people who are uncomfortable about this because there are still physical differences

This is my wife's big gripe. She's fine with people being who they feel they should be, but she absolutely doesn't support mixing some of the physical advantages that come with being born with a Y chromosome into sports and competitions with people who only have two X chromosomes. She views it as unfair and diminishes the efforts of women who've worked damn hard to get where they are.

Her replies have been mentioned above. She supports the Trans community and has a history of LBGQT support in her books, her social media, etc.. She seems to have made some missteps in the past, but I agree with Malchior. I think he sums it all up the best in his posts above.

Destroy twitter, instagram and facebook and I think we'll evolve as human beings so much faster at this point.

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:14 pm Her replies have been mentioned above. She supports the Trans community and has a history of LBGQT support in her books, her social media, etc.. She seems to have made some missteps in the past, but I agree with Malchior. I think he sums it all up the best in his posts above.

Destroy twitter, instagram and facebook and I think we'll evolve as human beings so much faster at this point.

Can you please cite how she supports the trans community?

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:09 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:01 pm I honesty am confused over the outcry on that one. It appears she tweeted the following:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1 ... 09313?s=20

So to me, it looks like she was sarcastically saying "why not say women?". Which was then conflated to mean she was "anti trans". Considering her past support for the LBGQT community, I found the ferocity of the attacks against her to be strange.

If you attack your own supporters if they don't use the exact wording you expect, or you automatically assume that they're anti something because they don't strictly spell out what they mean/point out a physical truth, I think you end up hurting your cause more than anything.

In other words: social media still sucks. I think we should abolish it.

Trans men menstruate but per JK they are women. I read her lengthy statement today and came away unimpressed by most of it.

I think this highlights the trouble you can get into basically. There is a very small exception to this and 5 years ago this statement wouldn't cause anyone to bat an eye. Now making this claim that is 99+% applicable is hateful. It is impossible waters to navigate because the sands are always shifting depending on the groupthink. That said JK *knows* this is controversial and could refrain from it so it is safe to say she is intentionally pouring gas on it. Does that make her an asshole? Sure. Hateful? That's a totally different nut. I think she is doing it to point out what she sees as absurdity and not because she thinks these people are bad or wrong. She also talks about research showing that there are trans people jumping on a bandwagon. That sounds suspiciously similar to anti-gay sentiment from long ago about girls/boys going through phases so I get why people are tweaked.

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:14 pm Her replies have been mentioned above. She supports the Trans community and has a history of LBGQT support in her books, her social media, etc.. She seems to have made some missteps in the past, but I agree with Malchior. I think he sums it all up the best in his posts above.

Destroy twitter, instagram and facebook and I think we'll evolve as human beings so much faster at this point.

Counter point - I don't think BLM has as much impact as it did without social media. Persistent messages showing people the injustice directly moved the needle significantly in a very short amount of time.

More reading here!

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:19 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:14 pm Her replies have been mentioned above. She supports the Trans community and has a history of LBGQT support in her books, her social media, etc.. She seems to have made some missteps in the past, but I agree with Malchior. I think he sums it all up the best in his posts above.

Destroy twitter, instagram and facebook and I think we'll evolve as human beings so much faster at this point.

Can you please cite how she supports the trans community?

Looks like she has tweeted support for the LGBQT community in general in her past. And she also made waves when she confirmed the existence of homosexual relationships in Harry Potter. But most of her googled history right now consists of her missteps in late December when she tweeted support for a woman who lost her job after criticizing the UK governments plan to allow citizens to self-identify their gender, as well as this latest one in which she points out that biologically speaking, women who were born women are the only ones that menstruate.

I just think it's a really bad idea to come down on someone like Rowling who isn't saying you don't deserve to live, or that you're an abomination, with the same vitriol that you normally reserve for that sector of humanity.

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:01 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:19 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:14 pm Her replies have been mentioned above. She supports the Trans community and has a history of LBGQT support in her books, her social media, etc.. She seems to have made some missteps in the past, but I agree with Malchior. I think he sums it all up the best in his posts above.

Destroy twitter, instagram and facebook and I think we'll evolve as human beings so much faster at this point.

Can you please cite how she supports the trans community?

Looks like she has tweeted support for the LGBQT community in general in her past. And she also made waves when she confirmed the existence of homosexual relationships in Harry Potter. But most of her googled history right now consists of her missteps in late December when she tweeted support for a woman who lost her job after criticizing the UK governments plan to allow citizens to self-identify their gender, as well as this latest one in which she points out that biologically speaking, women who were born women are the only ones that menstruate.

I just think it's a really bad idea to come down on someone like Rowling who isn't saying you don't deserve to live, or that you're an abomination, with the same vitriol that you normally reserve for that sector of humanity.

Well so there is no cite for the T part of LGBTQ. Please read over the twitter user I linked, Radcliff and reddit threads for a broader perspective. I have personally looked and have not seen any supportive trans comments by JK but do see many of my trans friends completely gutted by her hurtful missives. Are there any trans folks of any real numbers that actually view her supportive of trans rights? And in her latest no commenting allowed twitter post linking to her essay she pretty much invalidates trans men.

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:59 pm More reading here!

The irony here that it was "invaded by TERFs" and the discussion shut down. Like every other discussion on this topic. Note you can't even see the comments that constituted the invasion because they are deleted.

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:27 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:59 pm More reading here!

The irony here that it was "invaded by TERFs" and the discussion shut down. Like every other discussion on this topic. Note you can't even see the comments that constituted the invasion because they are deleted.

Indeed.

Luckily, there are people on the Internet that are motivated to address this problem.

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:37 pm Luckily, there are people on the Internet that are motivated to address this problem.

Having scanned the deleted comments...some aren't great for sure. However, what you'd also see is any departure from the group position gets the finger of 'terf' pointed and your viewpoint deleted. Cool. This is why I'm so tired of this discussion. You want to tell tons of people what to think? Let's see how well that turns out.

I made it about a third of the way through that before I realized I'm

1) part of the problem
2) part of the solution
3) not a man
4) not a woman
5) a TERF
6) Not a TERF
7) possibly some type of lawn chair

I love reddit. Where else can you go for that much confusion in an equally confusing format?

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:37 pm Luckily, there are people on the Internet that are motivated to address this problem.

Learn something new everyday, thanks!

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:48 pm I made it about a third of the way through that before I realized I'm

1) part of the problem
2) part of the solution
3) not a man
4) not a woman
5) a TERF
6) Not a TERF
7) possibly some type of lawn chair

I love reddit. Where else can you go for that much confusion in an equally confusing format?

Welcome to life overall, were you not confused by Rowling's contradictory language? Is a trans person only that way because they are trying to avoid homophobia or are they icky men trying to masquerade as lesbians? Or maybe they're trans because they're autistic? I mean come on Rowling, you really think it's easier being trans than being your born gender and gay? Or maybe you just want a hallpass to the girls restrooms? All are reasons JK cites, but I sure don't see any validation of trans people.

This is one of those cultural battles I'm happy to let play out without any particpation whatsoever. Not because I don't care about the outcome but because the fight takes place in an arena that is completely incomprehensibe to me.

It's one of the reasons I always qualify material I present as using the language of the person/people/group that created the report/study I'm referencing. For example, I gave a presentation earlier this year on new housing options that were opening in NYC for "LGBT Senior Citizens". Again, this was their terminology, not mine. In researching it, there are apparently arguments over:

LGBT
LGBTQ
LGBTQ+
LGBTTIQQ2SA
GSM

That's not my fight. If NYC is calling it "LGBT Friendly Senior Housing", that's how I'm referencing it. I absolutely care, but I am unable to offer anything meaningful to the debate.

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:26 pm This is one of those cultural battles I'm happy to let play out without any particpation whatsoever. Not because I don't care about the outcome but because the fight takes place in an arena that is completely incomprehensibe to me.

I just like how she launched this recent volley during Pride Month. But yeah, it's a pretty deep pool to get oriented in.

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:23 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:48 pm I made it about a third of the way through that before I realized I'm

1) part of the problem
2) part of the solution
3) not a man
4) not a woman
5) a TERF
6) Not a TERF
7) possibly some type of lawn chair

I love reddit. Where else can you go for that much confusion in an equally confusing format?

Welcome to life overall, were you not confused by Rowling's contradictory language? Is a trans person only that way because they are trying to avoid homophobia or are they icky men trying to masquerade as lesbians? Or maybe they're trans because they're autistic? I mean come on Rowling, you really think it's easier being trans than being your born gender and gay? Or maybe you just want a hallpass to the girls restrooms? All are reasons JK cites, but I sure don't see any validation of trans people.

I also don't see any overt condemnation. I do see a lot of words that you personally injected into her narrative. I also see her emphatically stating her position isn't meant as such either in post tweet words.

Should we attack someone who might just be on someone's side after all, but may just be clumsy and awkward at times, with the same fervor we usually reserve for outright homophobic and intolerant religious nuts who literally call for the death of anyone who doesn't fit their mold for what a person should be/act like? Or should we try to see that sometimes its best to understand someone first in the same way you want others to understand you?

In any case, I guess it's best that I just agree with Lawbeef. It ain't my arena and I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to condemn, praise or even see context at times. And in this day and age, sometimes even asking questions or committing a verbal misstep can lead to accusations of being Satan incarnate.

Paingod wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:13 pm Is it at all possible that she simply hasn't vetted every person she's come into contact with?

I'm on the absolute fringe of this and my awareness is confined to this thread, but has she directly said anything anti-Trans? Has she attempted to apologize, clarify, or double-down?

malchior wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 1:10 pmHowever there are a not inconsiderable group of biological female people who are uncomfortable about this because there are still physical differences

This is my wife's big gripe. She's fine with people being who they feel they should be, but she absolutely doesn't support mixing some of the physical advantages that come with being born with a Y chromosome into sports and competitions with people who only have two X chromosomes. She views it as unfair and diminishes the efforts of women who've worked damn hard to get where they are.

I missed this but make no mistake I actually think that there is a discussion to be had here and a legitimate balance to be struck. I've refereed hundreds of games including international competitions. I've never seen an overwhelming advantage and there definitely is a need to balance whether excluding folks is harmful to them. Even if there was an advantage, perhaps there is a clear benefit including social justice and inclusiveness that merit giving them a space to compete. It is complicated. I'm not espousing a position one way or another. That is for the league membership to decide.

However, what I see is an illiberal tendency rising on the left. Is there space for a reasonable discussion about this and other topics outside a core orthodoxy? Not really, it is hard to impossible to pull off in the current super charged environment. Any discussion breaks down with a core cadre of hardcore virtue warriors staking out supposed high moral ground based on #cancellation. You can see it in the deleted/removed comments in the reddit thread. In any case, my opinion is if your goal is to move public opinion and build support for excluded folks some confrontation of values is indeed necessary. However, it feels like this is the worst way to do it because you aren't communicating or listening to each other.

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:40 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:23 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:48 pm I made it about a third of the way through that before I realized I'm

1) part of the problem
2) part of the solution
3) not a man
4) not a woman
5) a TERF
6) Not a TERF
7) possibly some type of lawn chair

I love reddit. Where else can you go for that much confusion in an equally confusing format?

Welcome to life overall, were you not confused by Rowling's contradictory language? Is a trans person only that way because they are trying to avoid homophobia or are they icky men trying to masquerade as lesbians? Or maybe they're trans because they're autistic? I mean come on Rowling, you really think it's easier being trans than being your born gender and gay? Or maybe you just want a hallpass to the girls restrooms? All are reasons JK cites, but I sure don't see any validation of trans people.

I also don't see any overt condemnation. I do see a lot of words that you personally injected into her narrative. I also see her emphatically stating her position isn't meant as such either in post tweet words.

Should we attack someone who might just be on someone's side after all, but may just be clumsy and awkward at times, with the same fervor we usually reserve for outright homophobic and intolerant religious nuts who literally call for the death of anyone who doesn't fit their mold for what a person should be/act like? Or should we try to see that sometimes its best to understand someone first in the same way you want others to understand you?

In any case, I guess it's best that I just agree with Lawbeef. It ain't my arena and I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to condemn, praise or even see context at times. And in this day and age, sometimes even asking questions or committing a verbal misstep can lead to accusations of being Satan incarnate.

I do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect. That's something JK is not doing. But, do you apply this same logic to all black lives matter? JK calls for exclusion of trans women from feminism, bathrooms of their gender, is for erecting barriers/gate-keeping to gender confirmation, tells trans men that they are just but hurt over homophobia and are just lesbians and pretty much calling into question the identity of any self-identified trans person and on and on. Take a look at the mainstream LGBTQ orgs calling her out here (Human Rights Campaign, GLADD, Pink, etc. She's basically saying, I'm not racist, but....

If JK Rowling has done her research and spoken to many trans people, as she claims, then she surely knows how hurtful these words are:

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1 ... 2234775552 It does not take a degree in literary criticism to read to subtext in these sentences: "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." Contrasting "being trans" with "being female" clearly implies that the two are mutually exclusive.

Also:
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1 ... 8664701952 This entire post is predicated on the strawman assumption that trans people and their allies believe "sex isn't real." Literally no one is saying that. (OK, this is the internet, I'm sure someone is saying that somewhere.) That is some Dolores Umbridge-level passive aggression.

It's not hate to speak the truth, but using that phrase is a strong indicator that you are being an asshole.

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:58 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:40 pm

Enough wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 3:23 pm

hepcat wrote: Wed Jun 10, 2020 2:48 pm I made it about a third of the way through that before I realized I'm

1) part of the problem
2) part of the solution
3) not a man
4) not a woman
5) a TERF
6) Not a TERF
7) possibly some type of lawn chair

I love reddit. Where else can you go for that much confusion in an equally confusing format?

Welcome to life overall, were you not confused by Rowling's contradictory language? Is a trans person only that way because they are trying to avoid homophobia or are they icky men trying to masquerade as lesbians? Or maybe they're trans because they're autistic? I mean come on Rowling, you really think it's easier being trans than being your born gender and gay? Or maybe you just want a hallpass to the girls restrooms? All are reasons JK cites, but I sure don't see any validation of trans people.

I also don't see any overt condemnation. I do see a lot of words that you personally injected into her narrative. I also see her emphatically stating her position isn't meant as such either in post tweet words.

Should we attack someone who might just be on someone's side after all, but may just be clumsy and awkward at times, with the same fervor we usually reserve for outright homophobic and intolerant religious nuts who literally call for the death of anyone who doesn't fit their mold for what a person should be/act like? Or should we try to see that sometimes its best to understand someone first in the same way you want others to understand you?

In any case, I guess it's best that I just agree with Lawbeef. It ain't my arena and I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to condemn, praise or even see context at times. And in this day and age, sometimes even asking questions or committing a verbal misstep can lead to accusations of being Satan incarnate.

I do appreciate the self-awareness of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Just out of curiosity, is this directed at me?