On the face of it
Oh is that so.
It’s not about “banning trans people.” It’s about women running a facility for women. That’s all. It’s none of Willoughby’s business. He should stop trying to bully women into joining his cult.
Lots of things are adjectives. It doesn’t follow that all adjectives mean the same thing. Yes, it is ok for rape crisis centers to say no men.
Some other modifiers: fake, pseudo, ersatz, alleged, plastic, blow-up, would-be, wannabe….
I’m confused. I thought it was considered outrageous to compare transgender identity to transracial identity. Did the rules change again?
To give a less snarky comment:
The only reason there’s a trans-related controversy over rape crisis centers to begin with is because they discriminate on a ground (sex) that we generally think is an illegitimate basis for discrimination. Both Beira and ERC are going to exclude survivors of abuse on the grounds that they are “men,” the difference is just that they will define that term differently. But if someone were to denounce ERC on the grounds that they turned away a male-bodied, male-presenting, male-identifying survivor, because hey, that’s just like turning away someone because they’re black or Irish, I think the flaw in the argument would be obvious. (I mean, you can certainly argue that crisis centers should be open to all, but I don’t think most people would recognize it as a winning argument.)
Abstract arguments and comparisons to hypotheticals aside, what’s the harm that Willoughby fears here?
Yes, presumably some trans women will be turned away from Beira. But ERC would surely continue to exist. Sadly, there are probably enough victims of abuse for two shelters to exist in the same city. These aren’t competing capitalist enterprises in competition with each other. Unless you believe that cis women will avoid ERC in favor of Beira in such numbers that ERC effectively becomes a trans women only facility, and it isn’t cost-effective to run a facility with such a limited clientele. (Note that this flies in the face of the constant assurances that trans women are victimized in massive proportions.) Even if this were true, what a damning set of facts that would be: that women of Edinburgh have very strong preferences for facilities that are cis women only, but that these abuse survivors’ strong preferences must be overriden because it’s more important to re-educate these “TERFs” than it is to take care of abuse survivors. Let no opportunity to “correct” wrongthink go unexploited!
@Screechy #2
Of course the rules changed again. Like those genderfluid folx who are men one minute, women the next, and enby five minutes after that, rule fluidity means that what’s required now is the opposite of what the TAs said out of the other side of their mouth at the start.
My respect for JKR keeps climbing, she’s my kind of billionaire (or was, who knows). Still not going to read the books though. The thing that stands out for me from all this is the truely infantile squalling from the TRA/MRA types. NOTHING can be done by women for women, unless it centres trans women, while at the same time pretending that they’re ‘just’ women. Honestly, I’ve seen better socialisation in pre-schools.
Why not read the books, Rob? I began the first Harry Potter and gave up halfway through, but enjoyed the movies.
I found the Cormoran Strike novels quite compelling and entertaining, except the most recent one. Perhaps not up there with “Great Literature”, whatever that means this week, but a damned good read.
As for whatever Rowling does with her money, that’s up to her, and she certainly does seem to put it to better use than buying yachts, airplanes, and renting wombs. More strength to her cheque writing hand.
Rev, some of us don’t read JKRs books because we aren’t interested in the type of literature she writes. I read mostly non-fiction and historical fiction, with occasional “great literature” tucked in, but mostly non-fiction. So I think it’s fair for someone to say they won’t read the books.
Rev, I do read fiction, but I just didn’t find the writing style in the bits I read in the first couple of books engaging. Maybe I would have done when I was 11, but then at 11 I was reading Lem, Clarke, Asimov…
There are so many good books and series of books out there that committing to thousands of pages of a writing style that doesn’t grab you is poor use of time. I don’t judge people that have enjoyed the books though.
Accordingly, I give you a new adjective: Trans-MacBethian (with apologies to the immortal Bard.) As in “I am in bullshit / Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o’er.”
Rape crisis centres full of rapists? What could possibly go wrong?
No, it’s not like there’s any need at all for refuges for women escaping male abuse. That is, the ones who make it out alive. The dead ones don’t need any such facilities, and there are more of them every week.
These assholes really think the entire fucking universe revolves around them.
IF YOU THINK THERE”S A NEED, BUILD YOUR OWN GODDAMN SHELTERS WITH YOUR OWN FUCKING MONEY! DON’T STEAL THEM FROM WOMEN YOU NARCISSISTIC, BULLYING BASTARDS!!
About this question of Not Great Literature and whatever that means and a compelling read and not planning to read books by X or Y – one criterion for compelling reads for some people is good writing, or at least good enough writing. I’ve tried JKR a few times and she just doesn’t write well enough for my taste, at least not in her fiction. The essay she wrote when she threw down the gauntlet on the trans question was well written, but the fiction I’ve sampled isn’t. I’d keep quiet about it, but this idea that bad writing can be a good read makes me twitch. Adequate writing can be a good read, writing that’s so neutral you don’t notice it can be a good read, but beyond that…not so much. The writing matters.
Also by the way for an example of excellent writing see YNnB’s final paragraph @10.
OB @#10: Oh I dunno. That final par is hard to read aloud whilst maintaining dulcet tones. “Everything in moderation.” as my late grandmother used to say. ;-)
She writes better prose than Niven at least (and even he’s fun if you enjoy the subject matter and can tolerate the amount of sex).
Different strokes… The Strike novels are a major upgrade on HP.
Not going to argue that you absolutely have to read HP, but when you sample it, keep in mind that Rowling wrote each book with the idea that the kids reading them are about the same age as Harry. So Vol. 1 (Harry at 11) is a lot different in tone and story complexity from vol 5,6 or 7. IMO, the series only starts to get good in vol. 3.
The Strike novels do adapt well to television. They’re started a new series on the Beeb, Troubled Blood. Good tec stories will take you into various milieus with characters that have to be distinct. I think JKR does that pretty well. She doesn’t write brilliant dialogue or psychological depth, but that’s not her thing.
The Strike telly series are well-shot, the two leading characters, Strike and Robyn, have plenty of presence, and you do root for them against the evil ones they are pursuing.
I agree on the prose of #10’s final paragraph. It’s concise, direct, and has the proper emphasis for the subject matter.
Nobody needs to spend that much money on a shelter for women, exclusively, just to “own the trans.” All she would need to do is write another essay on the subject. To assume such a dark motive is more revelatory of the tweeter than the subject. He sees the world through a particular lens, and it’s a dark and cloudy lens, It’s Paul’s “glass darkly.” Everyting in Willough’s life must relate to his desire to be acknowledged as a woman by everyone, and any exception to that is frustrating to him, and so he must lash out.
God forbid women have shelter away from such conflicted men, their instability makes them even more dangerous.
This does make the TRA/MRA excuses look rather thin, doesn’t it? If Beira draws women away from the trans-accepting shelters, this creates more spaces in shelters for transwomen, not fewer. It’s an increase in services for them. Why would they be mad about an increase in services for them?
Because that’s not what they really want. What they really want is a buffet of women at their darkest hour, their most vulnerable.
‘What they really want is a buffet of women at their darkest hour, their most vulnerable.’
This objective was really striking in conflict over dating apps as well; I think Ophelia posted something about this a while ago. Women aren’t permitted to put ‘women only’ in their dating profiles, because the whole point of a dating app is for the men using it to have free access to every woman.
What the F do you mean, “the motivation has nothing to do with women”? It has only and everything to do with women being victims of male violence. Women, as women, need recovery spaces and safe havens free from the presence of men. “Women only” is about women; only an imbecile — or a malevolent misogynist — can deny that.
Of course, it is possible to be both at the same time.
It probable. Malice and stupidity go hand in hand more often than not.