Originally a comment by Bruce Gorton on Grab that pen and sign.
Saw on a comment about Stephen King coming out in support of Rowling:
Eva Webb: Adorable Antifascist Pumpkin Queen
because agreeing to disagree means agreeing to not exist, and agreeing to let the other person write papers that effect policy that affects the lives and rights of the people she’s attacking. there is no agree to disagree when you’re lobbying to have someone’s legal rights taken away or restricted
You don’t have the right to force other people to see you the same way you see yourself, otherwise we’d all want most of the world to see us as ultra-rich billionaires, and the tax authorities to see us as ultra-poor non-profits. That people see you differently to how you see yourself isn’t some sort of phobia on their part, nor is it an unbearable trauma, it’s life.
If you require the affirmation of others to exist, you don’t actually exist. Reality is real whether we agree with it or not, if your existence is contingent on the words of JK Rowling, then you don’t actually exist, any more than Hagrid actually exists.
Rowling is a rich author in the UK. She is not directing UK policy, never mind global policy. Freedom of speech is a right, not all of the “rights” asserted by trans lobbyists actually qualify as such.
For example, there is no right to compete in sporting events under your preferred category. Otherwise the featherweight champion of the world in boxing, would be a mediocre heavyweight. A heavy person identifying as a light person would not be considered as having their existence or rights denied by boxing boards for this rule.
Now I’ve disagreed with some feminists on the issue of abuse shelters before. I think that there is a need for abused persons to have services geared towards them regardless of sex, that abused men do have a need for services directed towards them.
However, it doesn’t help abused men to close shelters that cater solely to women. The needs of the abused should take precedence over anybody’s feelings over the matter, and women who do not wish to face men after being abused, have the right to such safe places free of men even if you disagree with their personal feelings. “I’m a man and I would never…” doesn’t mean that she is in a state to face you, and her state of mind is the important thing in that situation.
People recovering from trauma should not be expected to be at their most emotionally stable, you don’t expect someone to run when their leg is broken, why do you expect the equivalent to people escaping abusive situations? There is a time and a place for discussing such issues, an abuse shelter is not one of them.
And what goes for men, goes for trans too. The answer to abuse suffered by trans individuals isn’t to shut down Women’s Place, it is to create shelters and services that cater to the needs of trans abuse sufferers. If you demand that shelters perform in a way that suits your politics rather than the needs of their residents, then you’re putting your politics ahead of the needs of abuse sufferers. Your rights do not trump the rights of those in need of such services.
It isn’t a denial of trans rights to state as such, anymore than it would be a denial of men’s rights to state as such.
Finally, if Rowling’s position on trans issues was simply ignored, then it would be largely unknown to the general public. Her advocacy only has the meaning it does now, because of the over-the-top reactions of ideologues who are chasing clicks and the latest sensation. It is as important as it is, mainly because of the rush to the virtue signal that has highlighted how lacking in virtue the signalers really are.
In the UK you have the Conservative Party in charge. In the US you have the Republican Party.
There are a lot of issues which should be taking precedence in both countries, and your press is arguing over the views of a children’s book author. There is this plague of highlighting the trivial to distract from the substantive, which only serves to undermine any real progress on any real issues.