Octopus Overlords

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:59 am

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:02 am I think when you use the bathroom defense in the transgender debate you’ve lost.

JK Rowling:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... c-n1229351

As $iljanus posted, you can't frame the rest of it without this context.

Sure, based on her other stances we should give her the benefit of the doubt. We did. She, however, has made it abundantly clear she is anti-trans. She thinks transwomen makes "real" women less safe. She is deliberately, explicitly, and militantly making this argument.

But hey, twist yourself in knots trying to justify it.

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:59 amYou are simplifying this way too much.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:09 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:59 am

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:02 am I think when you use the bathroom defense in the transgender debate you’ve lost.

JK Rowling:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... c-n1229351

As $iljanus posted, you can't frame the rest of it without this context.

Sure, based on her other stances we should give her the benefit of the doubt. We did. She, however, has made it abundantly clear she is anti-trans. She thinks transwomen makes "real" women less safe. She is deliberately, explicitly, and militantly making this argument.

But hey, twist yourself in knots trying to justify it.

The mob has decided it therefore it is true. I have yet to see any knots in the argumentation. In fact, everyone ignores the argument and goes on to repeat what they heard from the mob.

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:18 pm

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:59 amYou are simplifying this way too much.

You're probably right. I don't get into making my life complicated to make other people happy. I believe people should be free and happy to be themselves and love whoever they want. I'll vote "Yes" every time for equality. At the same time I have little interest in anyone who wants to tell me how to feel about something.

Someone tells me they're a Transwoman and wants to be seen as a male?
Someone asks me to vote for gender equality, close pay gaps, and support marrying whoever you love?
Would I support and love one of my kids if they came out as gay or trans?
Someone expects me to feel a certain way about who they say they are?

... and I think, unless I've misread her statements, that this is kind of JK's stance too.

I'm okay with being labelled an asshole on that front if it comes to it. I'm honestly not here (on the planet) to make everyone feel good about themselves. That's really on them.

Sex is real. I am a trans woman who knows hundreds of trans people and who is very active in the community, and I’ve never heard any trans person or expert say or imply otherwise even once. Trans people are often more keenly aware of sex characteristics than anyone else, having often spent their whole lives dealing with the dysphoria that their various sex characteristics cause them, and seeing how other people react to them. I, and almost every trans person I’ve talked to, have had to teach the doctors and nurses who aren’t experts how our biology works just to get basic healthcare. Often one of the main things that trans people want for the world is a better understanding of trans bodies and of biology.

So why did she say that? Why does anyone? This is a very common “Gender Critical” (read anti-trans) rhetorical device. It is an attempt to create a false dichotomy between supporting trans rights and just agreeing with the entire field of biology. The argument is “If we call trans women women, then we can’t discuss sexism against women or sexuality”, but in fact the truth is the exact opposite. Trans women face misogynistic sexism and sexual violence for being women every day. Trans lesbians face structural and street homophobia/lesphobia across the world. Both of those are observable facts. After all, does a sexist abuser ask to see your original birth certificate before sexually harassing you? No. And if we aren’t allowed to describe that reality then how can we address these problems?

Trans people, intersex people, feminists, medical professionals and experts across the world aren’t saying “sex isn’t real” they are saying “sex is more complicated than what they taught you at school”, and that is a fact. Sex is real and, like all biology, it is incredibly complicated. They are also saying “sex and sexism is more complicated than XY = privilege”. Misogynistic sexism is very real and it affects half of the world. We have to be able to talk about it, and we need the words to do that. Any attempt to define woman in a way that excludes trans and intersex women is not only futile, it’s inherently malicious. It doesn’t come from a place of following the evidence and understanding the science, nor from a place of wanting to end sexism, it is an attempted ad hoc justification for the premise “trans women are men”. Trans women being women is a conclusion of the evidence, not a premise. Please don’t fall for it.

Insisting that we treat sex as an unchangeable binary based on some invisible characteristic removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives.

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:19 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:09 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:59 am

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:02 am I think when you use the bathroom defense in the transgender debate you’ve lost.

JK Rowling:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... c-n1229351

As $iljanus posted, you can't frame the rest of it without this context.

Sure, based on her other stances we should give her the benefit of the doubt. We did. She, however, has made it abundantly clear she is anti-trans. She thinks transwomen makes "real" women less safe. She is deliberately, explicitly, and militantly making this argument.

But hey, twist yourself in knots trying to justify it.

The mob has decided it therefore it is true. I have yet to see any knots in the argumentation. In fact, everyone ignores the argument and goes on to repeat what they heard from the mob.

Mob? Are you reading the comments on Twitter selectively or something? The mob coming for trans people to take their rights and shit all over them and cause them to suicide, get raped and be stuck in terminal unemployment unless they are willing to sell their bodies kinda mob under your consideration? The same type of mob that accosts my trans friends with toxic people coming up to them on a daily basis telling them to kill themselves? FFS, keep calling out that big scary mob coming for JK' and blame them for all of trans people's troubles, uh huh. You make it sound like the comments against JK are monolithic and one-sided when they are nothing of the sort.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:27 pm

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:19 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:09 pm

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:59 am

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 8:02 am I think when you use the bathroom defense in the transgender debate you’ve lost.

JK Rowling:

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth," she wrote.

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out ... c-n1229351

As $iljanus posted, you can't frame the rest of it without this context.

Sure, based on her other stances we should give her the benefit of the doubt. We did. She, however, has made it abundantly clear she is anti-trans. She thinks transwomen makes "real" women less safe. She is deliberately, explicitly, and militantly making this argument.

But hey, twist yourself in knots trying to justify it.

The mob has decided it therefore it is true. I have yet to see any knots in the argumentation. In fact, everyone ignores the argument and goes on to repeat what they heard from the mob.

Mob? Are you reading the comments on Twitter selectively or something? The mob coming for trans people to take their rights and shit all over them and cause them to suicide, get raped and be stuck in terminal unemployment unless they are willing to sell their bodies kinda mob under your consideration? The same type of mob that accosts my trans friends with toxic people coming up to them on a daily basis telling them to kill themselves? FFS, keep calling out that big scary mob coming for JK' and blame them for all of trans people's troubles, uh huh. You make it sound like the comments against JK are monolithic and one-sided when they are nothing of the sort.

Fucking hell. I know all that. But don't you get that going from what I'm talking about to jumping down my throat about the problem is why a lot of people aren't interested in engaging. And when they make genuine mistakes they are quickly cancelled into oblivion.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:34 pm Now on to the unrelated topics...continuing to evade the argument. There is absolutely no listening.

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:36 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:34 pm Now on to the unrelated topics...continuing to evade the argument. There is absolutely no listening.

BS. I see a pattern in your posts and thinking and am trying to confirm if I am correct. That's straight-up active-listening to check yourself and make sure you are not off base.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:01 pm

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:36 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:34 pm Now on to the unrelated topics...continuing to evade the argument. There is absolutely no listening.

BS. I see a pattern in your posts and thinking and am trying to confirm if I am correct. That's straight-up active-listening to check yourself and make sure you are not off base.

I see where this is going. Typical bullshit. Thanks for proving my point.

Paingod wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 12:18 pm
Someone expects me to feel a certain way about who they say they are?

... and I think, unless I've misread her statements, that this is kind of JK's stance too.

I'm okay with being labelled an asshole on that front if it comes to it. I'm honestly not here (on the planet) to make everyone feel good about themselves. That's really on them.

$iljanus wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 11:30 am
I could be biased but I think among us forum folk there seems to be a bit more thought behind both sides of the debate.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:32 pm Malchior, are you trying to justify having conversations about trans people or are you trying to defend JK Rowling?

The former I understand. It's super confusing and there's a huge conversation to be held about whether competitive sports are appropriate.

JK Rowling, however, deserves what she gets.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:51 pm And this is what she is up against. Here's a fresh new take on that book series she wrote starting in the early 90s. The mob must have its fresh blood.

https://twitter.com/rosieatlarge/status ... 3093320706

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:17 pm Again, as a white, middle aged man I don't have much to add here, but I will note that this isn't JK Rowling's first time at the rodeo - that article is from December of 2019.

It adds additional context as it relates to what's happening in the UK and what she's said or expressed in the past.

I’ve thought, written about, and talked about cancel culture a lot over the past few years. People often ask me if I think it really exists — if “canceling” someone can have any meaningful effect, or whether it’s entirely a performative stance. But I think that question flattens cancel culture’s power. To me, “canceling” someone can’t be about punishing one individual or ruining their career; even if humanity could agree on what social crimes were worth punishing, no one wants to live in a world where you can be blacklisted from existence, like in that one episode of Black Mirror.

Instead, I think cancel culture is best treated like a collective decision to minimize the cultural influence a person and their work have moving forward. This approach has already been applied to some 20th-century figures whose art is now almost always foregrounded within the context of what remains problematic about it: White supremacists Ezra Pound and H.P. Lovecraft, and the white supremacist film Birth of a Nation, are the clearest, most well-known examples, but society has also recalibrated the way we discuss more recent creators like Woody Allen and Michael Jackson. In all of these controversial cases, the approach usually winds up being one of compromise: No one wants to lose Cthulhu or “Thriller” or Annie Hall, but we also can no longer talk about any of those stories without making it clear that they were created by bigots or predators.

With J.K. Rowling, we’ve reached that point nearly in real time. Already, we can no longer talk about Harry Potter without foregrounding the prejudice lurking beneath the surface-level morality of Rowling’s stories. Many aspects of Harry Potter are already up for debate and reevaluation. The sad and messy truth is that Rowling’s transphobic comments may have ruined Harry Potter for many of its fans.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:17 pm Again, as a white, middle aged man I don't have much to add here, but I will note that this isn't JK Rowling's first time at the rodeo - that article is from December of 2019.

It adds additional context as it relates to what's happening in the UK and what she's said or expressed in the past.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:55 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:17 pm Again, as a white, middle aged man I don't have much to add here, but I will note that this isn't JK Rowling's first time at the rodeo - that article is from December of 2019.

It adds additional context as it relates to what's happening in the UK and what she's said or expressed in the past.

Right and she addresses much of the article from December in her recent blog post. So it does indicate she is somewhat paying attention to the facts if not understanding/not caring about the gap people are accusing her of. Whether you believe her explanation is up to the individual obviously. Some of what she wrote definitely reiterates some of the mistakes/errors she has been accused of.

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 1:51 pm And this is what she is up against. Here's a fresh new take on that book series she wrote starting in the early 90s. The mob must have its fresh blood.

https://twitter.com/rosieatlarge/status ... 3093320706

Enough wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:15 pm And who says that OO RP is hive mind, thanks for being brave enough all to share different thinking and opinions. The issues before us today are confusing as heck and there are no hard and fast answers. We are all learning.

noxiousdog wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 3:07 pm

malchior wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:55 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:17 pm Again, as a white, middle aged man I don't have much to add here, but I will note that this isn't JK Rowling's first time at the rodeo - that article is from December of 2019.

It adds additional context as it relates to what's happening in the UK and what she's said or expressed in the past.

Right and she addresses much of the article from December in her recent blog post. So it does indicate she is somewhat paying attention to the facts if not understanding/not caring about the gap people are accusing her of. Whether you believe her explanation is up to the individual obviously. Some of what she wrote definitely reiterates some of the mistakes/errors she has been accused of.

When you're scared of trans-women in bathrooms, you've pretty much outed yourself.

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 2:17 pm Again, as a white, middle aged man I don't have much to add here

Smoove_B wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:03 pm I wasn't (and am still not) into Harry Potter in any capacity, so I can't relate. However, if Stan Lee ever came out and said awful disgusting things about marginalized people while still trying to promote the X-MEN comics (at least as I read them as a teenager), I think I'd be really conflicted right now. So while I can't directly relate, I can certainly appreciate how difficult trying to reconcile these two things must be. Thankfully, it was quite the opposite (though I didn't know that as a teenager).

After living a colorful but very gender-conforming life as the largest comic-book dealer in America for forty years, I became drawn to performing as a drag queen after a massive brain infection. West Nile-induced encephalitis of the hypothalamus nearly killed me in 2009.

America's divorce is getting really weird. The left got Nascar and the right got Harry Potter.

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:48 pmAt once?

Unagi wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 6:41 pm

LordMortis wrote: Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:48 pmAt once?

38!