Whenever TRA’s defend transwomen in women’s spaces by making some sort of statistical or numerical argument (it’s not that many; they have to meet a certain level of testosterone; it’s unlikely to ever happen) they’re implicitly accepting the opposition’s position. “Yes, if there’s many that’s bad; yes, it would be unfair otherwise; yes, if it happens then we’re right to worry. We should keep transwomen out if you were right — but you’re not, so we shouldn’t.”
If transwomen really were women, they wouldn’t say that. If Laplander women tend to be violent, we wouldn’t say none of them can use the women’s Toilets. Cohen brings up the small proportion of transgender abusers as if that matters.When it gets right down to it, he knows as well as we do that TWA not W.
And that statement about her not being an expert on the subject? She doesn’t claim to be an expert on trans. She claims to be an expert on being a woman. And she is, though no more so than any other woman, a statement I imagine she would accept. We are all women differently, but men are not women differently, they are men. So let them be men differently from other men – do a bum swish if they want to, walk and talk with simpering affectedness, put on wigs and make up, call themselves Rachel. Fine. I won’t argue with their right to do that, and be happy with it if that’s what they want. But I will not admit that they are a woman, because they are not. And I will not admit that it is fine and dandy if they use the women’s room, try on clothes in women’s fitting rooms, change their swimsuits in women’s changing rooms, or compete in women’s sports. These are areas where women are more vulnerable than, say, on the bus or in the supermarket. And why are they vulnerable? Because they are physiologically weaker than men.
Transwomen and women share a common risk – men. But transwomen aren’t challenging that risk; they are not challenging men. If they really believed TW (or TM) were uniquely subject to violence more than any other group, they would tackle the ones perpetrating the violence. The fact that they are not challenging the actual perpetrators gives the game away. They are colonizing, not advocating for safety. And colonizers will always try to work with the weakest parameter first.
I suspect after the LGB granted their wishes so easily, appending the T to their own movement without questioning it, they assumed women would just follow right along, because we are caring, nurturing, putting others first, and “nice”. Hence the slogan: Just be nice. They wouldn’t use that if they were challenging male violence, they would use real tools and real arguments and try to enforce some sort of legal or social action, like women have been doing for decades upon decades. No, they use social media to attack and vilify random women (not so random, of course, since the women they attack are all feminists). They don’t attempt to get laws passed to force men to behave, but only to force women to comply.
I stop short of actually being happy about men’s parodies of women. Parodies of other races, nationalities, ethnic groups, and the like are considered bad taste these days, and we cringe at old photos of people doing it. I’m not entirely sure that drag – all drag – is radically different.
I didn’t make myself clear, I guess. I didn’t mean I would be happy with it, but if they want to wear dresses and they are happy with it, I’m not going to interfere. No, I am not happy with men’s parodies of women, either. I find them offensive and I cringe even at plays where gay men put on the extremely effeminate act of being so very girly and wear lingerie intended to portray girlishness (or sexiness? I’m never sure).
When men try portray women in plays (as is done in too many cases) they tend to exaggerate simpering walks, squeaky voices, and giggling. It’s deplorable. When women depict men in plays, they usually just play the role, unless it is a role that is a woman pretending to be a man, in which case it often calls for deepening the voice and maybe putting on a mustache, but there isn’t the same level of exaggerated stereotypical behaviors to say “Look at me, I’m a man!” These behaviors don’t cause them to seem like a woman, they always emphasize that they are a man playing a woman.
Why is the public debate on trans rights and access to healthcare being dominated by someone who is a) not trans b) not an expert on the subject but instead a billionaire fiction author?
Firstly, JK Rowling is a person expressing opinions. She happens to have great fame, and so has a far larger reach than most individuals. Is Ben complaining about her reach? Is he complaining about the public not totally shunning her? Is he complaining that she is free to speak her mind and has not yet been discouraged from doing so? Probably some combination, but more pertinent is, what does he want as a solution to this? “Shut her up” seems to be about all he has.
Secondly, why does Ben want women to bow out of a public debate over what a woman is? Trans women are supposedly experts on being trans women, but women are not accorded the equivalent credit.
Just another day of trans people demanding a one way street in this debate.
Proposition 1: JKR’s views on trans people are irrelevant and shouldn’t be occupying people’s time.
Proposition 2: JKR’s views on trans people are a grave and imminent danger to trans lives. She must be denounced loudly (if not threatened and smeared), and preferably disavowed by every actor who ever worked on a film based on her books.
You can believe (1) or (2) or neither, but not (1) and (2) simultaneously.
Screechy, there is a Proposition 3 possibility. JKR’s views are not irrelevant, but express something important that needs to be heard. They do pose a danger not to trans lives but to the primacy of trans issues on the national debate scene and within the women’s movements if people listen to JKR and understand what she is saying.
That’s the proposition that’s really frightening them. She makes sense, and they do not.
Whenever TRA’s defend transwomen in women’s spaces by making some sort of statistical or numerical argument (it’s not that many; they have to meet a certain level of testosterone; it’s unlikely to ever happen) they’re implicitly accepting the opposition’s position. “Yes, if there’s many that’s bad; yes, it would be unfair otherwise; yes, if it happens then we’re right to worry. We should keep transwomen out if you were right — but you’re not, so we shouldn’t.”
If transwomen really were women, they wouldn’t say that. If Laplander women tend to be violent, we wouldn’t say none of them can use the women’s Toilets. Cohen brings up the small proportion of transgender abusers as if that matters.When it gets right down to it, he knows as well as we do that TWA not W.
And that statement about her not being an expert on the subject? She doesn’t claim to be an expert on trans. She claims to be an expert on being a woman. And she is, though no more so than any other woman, a statement I imagine she would accept. We are all women differently, but men are not women differently, they are men. So let them be men differently from other men – do a bum swish if they want to, walk and talk with simpering affectedness, put on wigs and make up, call themselves Rachel. Fine. I won’t argue with their right to do that, and be happy with it if that’s what they want. But I will not admit that they are a woman, because they are not. And I will not admit that it is fine and dandy if they use the women’s room, try on clothes in women’s fitting rooms, change their swimsuits in women’s changing rooms, or compete in women’s sports. These are areas where women are more vulnerable than, say, on the bus or in the supermarket. And why are they vulnerable? Because they are physiologically weaker than men.
Transwomen and women share a common risk – men. But transwomen aren’t challenging that risk; they are not challenging men. If they really believed TW (or TM) were uniquely subject to violence more than any other group, they would tackle the ones perpetrating the violence. The fact that they are not challenging the actual perpetrators gives the game away. They are colonizing, not advocating for safety. And colonizers will always try to work with the weakest parameter first.
I suspect after the LGB granted their wishes so easily, appending the T to their own movement without questioning it, they assumed women would just follow right along, because we are caring, nurturing, putting others first, and “nice”. Hence the slogan: Just be nice. They wouldn’t use that if they were challenging male violence, they would use real tools and real arguments and try to enforce some sort of legal or social action, like women have been doing for decades upon decades. No, they use social media to attack and vilify random women (not so random, of course, since the women they attack are all feminists). They don’t attempt to get laws passed to force men to behave, but only to force women to comply.
I stop short of actually being happy about men’s parodies of women. Parodies of other races, nationalities, ethnic groups, and the like are considered bad taste these days, and we cringe at old photos of people doing it. I’m not entirely sure that drag – all drag – is radically different.
I didn’t make myself clear, I guess. I didn’t mean I would be happy with it, but if they want to wear dresses and they are happy with it, I’m not going to interfere. No, I am not happy with men’s parodies of women, either. I find them offensive and I cringe even at plays where gay men put on the extremely effeminate act of being so very girly and wear lingerie intended to portray girlishness (or sexiness? I’m never sure).
When men try portray women in plays (as is done in too many cases) they tend to exaggerate simpering walks, squeaky voices, and giggling. It’s deplorable. When women depict men in plays, they usually just play the role, unless it is a role that is a woman pretending to be a man, in which case it often calls for deepening the voice and maybe putting on a mustache, but there isn’t the same level of exaggerated stereotypical behaviors to say “Look at me, I’m a man!” These behaviors don’t cause them to seem like a woman, they always emphasize that they are a man playing a woman.
Firstly, JK Rowling is a person expressing opinions. She happens to have great fame, and so has a far larger reach than most individuals. Is Ben complaining about her reach? Is he complaining about the public not totally shunning her? Is he complaining that she is free to speak her mind and has not yet been discouraged from doing so? Probably some combination, but more pertinent is, what does he want as a solution to this? “Shut her up” seems to be about all he has.
Secondly, why does Ben want women to bow out of a public debate over what a woman is? Trans women are supposedly experts on being trans women, but women are not accorded the equivalent credit.
Just another day of trans people demanding a one way street in this debate.
Ben is in fact quite startlingly ignorant about women. He seems to think women exist to do favors for men – little favors like gestating a baby.
Proposition 1: JKR’s views on trans people are irrelevant and shouldn’t be occupying people’s time.
Proposition 2: JKR’s views on trans people are a grave and imminent danger to trans lives. She must be denounced loudly (if not threatened and smeared), and preferably disavowed by every actor who ever worked on a film based on her books.
You can believe (1) or (2) or neither, but not (1) and (2) simultaneously.
Screechy, there is a Proposition 3 possibility. JKR’s views are not irrelevant, but express something important that needs to be heard. They do pose a danger not to trans lives but to the primacy of trans issues on the national debate scene and within the women’s movements if people listen to JKR and understand what she is saying.
That’s the proposition that’s really frightening them. She makes sense, and they do not.