J.K. Rowling defends speaking out on trans issues

[GagaSine 7,464]

1 minute ago, KanyeWest said:

"But, as many women have said before me, ‘woman’ is not a costume. ‘Woman’ is not an idea in a man’s head. ‘Woman’ is not a pink brain, a liking for Jimmy Choos or any of the other sexist ideas now somehow touted as progressive. Moreover, the ‘inclusive’ language that calls female people ‘menstruators’ and ‘people with vulvas’ strikes many women as dehumanising and demeaning"

This was her quote. 

Okay if u call trans men menstruators and they're fine with it, then it makes sense. But for women it would be pretty negative 

She wrote this as a response to backlash to a tweet where she responded to an article about ‘people who menstruate’, she chose to use the term ‘menstruators’ which no one uses really. It is not dehumanizing. It is inclusive. 

[mcphee 1,778]

Calling her a c*nt, TERF, or sending death threats on twitter isn't activism. I wish people would realise that.  The unfortunate thing is for a lot of people to realise - freedom of speech works both ways. When you are as high profile as JK however, you need to be smarter as to what you bring to the publics attention - because you can cause a lot of harm.

Trans people are facing enough persecution as it is, and whilst I wholly agree with her that misogyny is as big a problem today as it has ever been - the two aren't comparable. That's where I take issue, and I think a lot of people do. If someone is a predator and they intend to cause other people harm, they will find a way of doing it - access to a bathroom or not. The idea that she's got may come from a place of trauma, but it's ignorant. Profiling trans people in this way is harmful. 

As a cis gay man I don't feel wholly comfortable inserting myself into the conversation, but I have trans friends - I work in the LGBT nightlife scene in my city... and it just isn't sitting well at all. There is no way anybody could sit and say - with a straight face - that a cisgendered woman is in any way worse off than a trans person. There is no argument there. It comes from an absolute place of blind privilege. 

 

[Arturo 40,746]

1 minute ago, Suuus said:

Are you referring to StrawBerryblond 

I’m referring to anyone who wrote something just as long to try to say they’re not racist while still not changing their regressive rhetoric. Much like Ms. Rowling is doing.

 

[GagaSine 7,464]

5 minutes ago, Fish said:

your rhetoric is dangerous. You're actually saying that we cannot have a debate on this because it's about "human rights". Yes it is about human rights. It is also about science, psychology and a bunch of other stuff. It's very complex, and sometimes emotional. People should be allowed to express views and opinions that are contrary to the more aggressive, majority, opinion. The way you're approaching this is actually restricting the free exchange of ideas and opinions in a democratic form of society. You may be right, but you can't always assume you'll be.

This is hardly a debate when most people are just using straight up lies and misinformation to back up their points against one of the most marginalized groups on the planet that are murdered daily and haves low life expectancy because of bigotry and discrimination. You wouldn’t ‘debate’ someone on wether white people deserve to live would you? There is no debate to be had there.

The majority are the bigoted transphobes despite the popularity of SJWs on websites like twitter, so idk what you mean by that at all.

 

trans people have to work so hard to command basic respect and to live, the idea that their freedom is oppressing anyone is a joke because they barely have any as it is.

[Mugiwara No Luffy 255]

The bitch needs to go away and sit down somewhere else without an internet connection, ****ing terf. 

[Fish 6,086]

4 minutes ago, GagaSine said:

This is hardly a debate when most people are just using straight up lies and misinformation to back up their points against one of the most marginalized groups on the planet that are murdered daily and haves low life expectancy because of bigotry and discrimination. You wouldn’t ‘debate’ someone on wether white people deserve to live would you? There is no debate to be had there.

The majority are the bigoted transphobia despite the popularity of SJWs on websites like twitter, so idk what you mean by that at all.

you're missing the point. a lot of people agree that trans lives matter, including J.K. Rowling. IDK if you have read her piece. It's just you coming in here saying we cannot disagree with your views because it's "human rights". It way more complex than that and sometimes yes people will have different opinions on human rights, regarding their scope, how they should be achieved, the philosophical concepts underlying them, etc etc.  

 

You can disagree and call out certain points of views, but try to debunk them with arguments, rather than saying its human rights bye. anyway you sound like just another SJW who thinks he/she knows the truth of the world. it's hard to have an open conversation.  

[Suuus 5,632]

7 minutes ago, Arturo said:

I’m referring to anyone who wrote something just as long to try to say they’re not racist while still not changing their regressive rhetoric. Much like Ms. Rowling is doing.

 

Oh oké sorry 

[Seeka 12,372]

I think we're all forgetting the originally tweet that started this. Which caused the original outrage. Where she basically said trans women aren't real women, and set up these guidelines on what a real woman is. 

She's not only transphobic, but she's somewhat misogynist. 

She could have left this alone. But she found that she needed to defended herself. Her actions are speaking louder than she ever will. 

Her arguments hold no water.

[StrawberryBlond 13,381]

I found her essay very heartfelt in places. Some parts were a bit odd and she didn't bring up Magdalen's very problematic views on some things (by the way, I didn't know she died last year) but she overall explained herself well. I fail to understand why repeatedly saying that she accepts transwomen and accepts them as woman is still making people call her a TERF. I have seen an onslaught of people seeing what they want to see recently and it really doesn't matter what you say or clarify, they're stuck in their biased space. I feel with every fibre of my being what it's like to be in situation like she is right now where she feels she can't be understood no matter how pure her heart is. People were not this quick to judge and belittle not that long ago. They were prepared to discuss at the very least. And to anyone who may say she brought up her sexual assault for the sympathy vote, information like this is rarely given out for that reason in situations like this. We consider certain information not their business but when people are being a certain level of horrible to you, you're aware that their opinion may change if they knew something about you that they normally respect. But they need to know about it first. I'm appalled to see that no one's mentioning her assault, they're just focusing on what they deem as her problematic views. Apparently it's fine to dismiss a woman's assault if she said a comment that might possibly be deemed as transphobic, it cancels any sympathy and support out.

I'm very protective over my status as a woman and while I prefer being called a person in some situations, there are times where being called a woman is entirely appropriate and I do like to be called a person when referring to a specific experience that only biological women can have. I see transwomen as women but I'm going to say what no one else has said yet - not all women are the same but that doesn't make some better, just different. There are women who are trans female and women who are biologically female. Women who have given birth and women who haven't. Women who have been sexually assaulted/raped and women who haven't. Women who a functioning vagina from birth and women who had to attain one through surgery (not talking about being trans here but about an actual medical condition where someone is born female but whose vagina is not fully functioning). Women are are more traditionally feminine and women who are more traditionally masculine. Women who are straight and women who are lesbian. And so many more things, plus more variations within the elements I just mentioned. Women are diverse and no one's better than the other, we're all women, but we're still different. And that's ok. Being different is normal and positive. It's high time all women's views got heard and we stopped using language that seems to remove certain expressions of womanhood. Menstruation is a biological process. It's a physical reality. It's not a social construct. Menstruation only knows your physical sex, not your gender identity. When we say "menstruating women" people should automatically know what we mean by that phrase and know it is not hateful. And for what it's worth, I think it harms the trans movement to think that legislation could come in to ensure that all you need to say you're a man or woman is simply that you are one. That really gives ammo to anti-trans people that it's not a proven psychological diagnosis, even though it is. Such a serious condition should not be something yo ucan merely self-declare. And I'm still struggling to understand why someone could be trans but literally not change themselves in literally any way, not even in how they dress. This is a system that could easily be abused.

I was very nervous about putting this here but like Jo said, sometimes, you have to let genuine concerns be aired for a certain discussion to be made.

33 minutes ago, Franch Toast said:

I'm not on Twitter, so I haven't kept up with all her comments, and I've never read a single word of the Harry Potter series, so I'm not a fan whose perception is colored a love of her books – I'm coming into this with no opinion on her. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt when I can, though at a certain point, I give up (like with Trump and his cronies). I read her essay, and it was full of inaccuracies and ignorance. Having no background on her, what I'm trying to figure out is: is she just ignorant and there is hope for her, or is she intentionally ignorant because she's blinded by her hatred? I don't know. From what people on here are saying, it sounds like she may be past the point of offering her the benefit of the doubt, which is why I put in parenthesis that I might be naïve. Perhaps it's worth noting that I often give people the benefit of the doubt who don't deserve it, as I tend to view the world through rose-colored glasses and try to find the good in everyone, which often leads to me getting burned. Anyway, reading through other comments here, I'm starting to see that she likely isn't well-intentioned, though she's definitely ignorant. Fame and money can't buy intelligence or empathy. 

I highly suggest you read my post above. I like you a lot and I'd like to think you'd appreicate my views on this as someone who, like Jo, is very well-intentioned but is sometimes misunderstood. I really don't think you'rebeing naive, you're initial instinct is there for a reason. Read what she's actually saying, note her support and understanding for transwomen and hear the true intention coming through. She wants transwomen supported but not to the point where biological women's rights and feelings are disrespected and called into question. It is indeed an overwhelming feeling I get when stuff like this occurs of women being told to shut up because our feelings don't matter, which I really hoped we'd be over by now.

[NewUsername 10,411]

2 hours ago, MelbHawker said:

I may not fully agree with her perspective, but I do applaud her for standing her ground and actually addressing the backlash with her own knowledge, experiences and reasoning. It gives context to what she said, and all those who have jumped on the sudden hate bandwagon for her should sit down and read into what she said from her own perspective.

I agree with the point about public female bathrooms being open to any man who simply wants to go in. She's not wrong there.

Or she can maybe try to finally understand she's wrong instead of keeping this up and making it worse.

[GagaSine 7,464]

7 minutes ago, Fish said:

you're missing the point. a lot of people agree that trans lives matter, including J.K. Rowling. IDK if you have read her piece. It's just you coming in here saying we cannot disagree with your views because it's "human rights". It way more complex than that and sometimes yes people will have different opinions on human rights, regarding their scope, how they should be achieved, the philosophical concepts underlying them, etc etc.  

 

You can disagree and call out certain points of views, but try to debunk them with arguments, rather than saying its human rights bye. anyway you sound like just another SJW who thinks he/she knows the truth of the world. it's hard to have an open conversation.  

I never said people can’t disagree with me lol, I just think it’s disgusting that people are debating and saying awful things about trans ppl’s existence bc some wealthy woman has her feelings hurt by being unable to face the music. All her points are incredibly weak.

[Fish 6,086]

1 minute ago, NewUsername said:

Or she can maybe try to finally understand she's wrong instead of keeping this up and making it worse.

maybe this is part of that process too. 

[Fish 6,086]

Just now, GagaSine said:

I never said people can’t disagree with me lol, I just think it’s disgusting that people are debating and saying awful things about trans ppl’s existence bc some wealthy woman has her feelings hurt by being unable to face the music. All her points are incredibly weak.

saying what's in bold is the literal equivalent of saying people can't disagree. 

[mcphee 1,778]

7 minutes ago, Seeka said:

I think we're all forgetting the originally tweet that started this. Which caused the original outrage. Where she basically said trans women aren't real women, and set up these guidelines on what a real woman is. 

She's not only transphobic, but she's somewhat misogynist. 

She could have left this alone. But she found that she needed to defended herself. Her actions are speaking louder than she ever will. 

Her arguments hold no water.

All of this. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[GagaSine 7,464]

4 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I found her essay very heartfelt in places. Some parts were a bit odd and she didn't bring up Magdalen's very problematic views on some things (by the way, I didn't know she died last year) but she overall explained herself well. I fail to understand why repeatedly saying that she accepts transwomen and accepts them as woman is still making people call her a TERF. I have seen an onslaught of people seeing what they want to see recently and it really doesn't matter what you say or clarify, they're stuck in their biased space. I feel with every fibre of my being what it's like to be in situation like she is right now where she feels she can't be understood no matter how pure her heart is. People were not this quick to judge and belittle not that long ago. They were prepared to discuss at the very least. And to anyone who may say she brought up her sexual assault for the sympathy vote, information like this is rarely given out for that reason in situations like this. We consider certain information not their business but when people are being a certain level of horrible to you, you're aware that their opinion may change if they knew something about you that they normally respect. But they need to know about it first. I'm appalled to see that no one's mentioning her assault, they're just focusing on what they deem as her problematic views. Apparently it's fine to dismiss a woman's assault if she said a comment that might possibly be deemed as transphobic, it cancels any sympathy and support out.

I'm very protective over my status as a woman and while I prefer being called a person in some situations, there are times where being called a woman is entirely appropriate and I do like to be called a person when referring to a specific experience that only biological women can have. I see transwomen as women but I'm going to say what no one else has said yet - not all women are the same but that doesn't make some better, just different. There are women who are trans female and women who are biologically female. Women who have given birth and women who haven't. Women who have been sexually assaulted/raped and women who haven't. Women who a functioning vagina from birth and women who had to attain one through surgery (not talking about being trans here but about an actual medical condition where someone is born female but whose vagina is not fully functioning). Women are are more traditionally feminine and women who are more traditionally masculine. Women who are straight and women who are lesbian. And so many more things, plus more variations within the elements I just mentioned. Women are diverse and no one's better than the other, we're all women, but we're still different. And that's ok. Being different is normal and positive. It's high time all women's views got heard and we stopped using language that seems to remove certain expressions of womanhood. Menstruation is a biological process. It's a physical reality. It's not a social construct. Menstruation only knows your physical sex, not your gender identity. When we say "menstruating women" people should automatically know what we mean by that phrase and know it is not hateful. And for what it's worth, I think it harms the trans movement to think that legislation could come in to ensure that all you need to say you're a man or woman is simply that you are one. That really gives ammo to anti-trans people that it's not a proven psychological diagnosis, even though it is. Such a serious condition should not be something yo ucan merely self-declare. And I'm still struggling to understand why someone could be trans but literally not change themselves in literally any way, not even in how they dress. This is a system that could easily be abused.

I was very nervous about putting this here but like Jo said, sometimes, you have to let genuine concerns be aired for a certain discussion to be made.

I highly suggest you read my post above. I like you a lot and I'd like to think you'd appreicate my views on this as someone who, like Jo, is very well-intentioned but is sometimes misunderstood. I really don't think you'rebeing naive, you're initial instinct is there for a reason. Read what she's actually saying, note her support and understanding for transwomen and hear the true intention coming through. She wants transwomen supported but not to the point where biological women's rights and feelings are disrespected and called into question. It is indeed an overwhelming feeling I get when stuff like this occurs of women being told to shut up because our feelings don't matter, which I really hoped we'd be over by now.

If she actually supported trans women she’d know supporting them does not erase or put any of her rights in jeopardy