TERF's - Feminists that don't think trans women are women

Page 13 of 17 [ 260 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next

Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

02 Jan 2020, 3:44 pm

But what does it say about an ideology when the supposedly fringe minority of extremists are not treated as the crazies that they clearly are, but instead are found in positions of leadership and authority, among university professors and high-profile advocacy organisations, among law-makers and guideline-writers? All the while those less inclined to such insanity has to run damage-control and assure critics that "most feminists don't think like that" or outright denial that "well, I'm a feminist and I don't agree with that, ergo that's not really feminism.".

Also, the original meaning of the word feminism when it was coined by Charles Fourier in 1837 had nothing to do with equality at all. Rather it was what he called a practice of using the treatment and position of women as the sole or at the very least primary measure of a society's merit. Some might call that gynocentric, but I'm told only nazis use that word.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 59,818
Location: Stendec

02 Jan 2020, 4:24 pm

It says nothing about the ideology per se, but truckloads about those who will put up with it.

There are institutions where the unofficial core beliefs seem to include "Anything said against the Patriarchy, especially against wealthy white Christian males, will not only be tolerated, but endorsed and encouraged".  People expressing radical ideologies that support this core belief in whole or in part seem to be fast-tracked into positions of authority (if not outright leadership) at those institutions.

I'm convinced that if you put any two people to the task of defining a concise definition of feminism, you will get at least twenty responses.  Everyone seems to have his or her own definition of what feminism really is, and most of those definitions seem to be at odds with each other.

That's another reason why I prefer Egalitarianism -- equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal justice for all.


_________________
 
No love for Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranian Leadership, Islamic Jihad, other Islamic terrorist groups, OR their supporters and sympathizers.


Wolfram87
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Feb 2015
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,976
Location: Sweden

02 Jan 2020, 4:52 pm

Fnord wrote:
It says nothing about the ideology per se, but truckloads about those who will put up with it.


Well, an ideology is shaped by what the adherents to the ideology think, is it not? And since

Quote:
Everyone seems to have his or her own definition of what feminism really is, and most of those definitions seem to be at odds with each other.


I'm forced to conclude that the label is meaningless. If I said I was a Communist and then said I believe in the free market and private property, you'd tell me I'm not a Communist. If I said I was a Liberal, and that I belive that people should be ruled by a single family appointed by God, you'd tell me I'm not a Liberal. So how come Feminism gets to be infinitely plastic, and at the same time presume to shame people for not wearing the label?



Quote:
That's another reason why I prefer Egalitarianism -- equal rights, equal opportunities, and equal justice for all.


Agreed.


_________________
I'm bored out of my skull, let's play a different game. Let's pay a visit down below and cast the world in flame.


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

02 Jan 2020, 8:11 pm

Wolfram87 wrote:


If feminism was a subset of egalitarianism, the above would not be real.


Okay, I think that was awful. It built itself up on a strawman of what a feminist is by choosing two radicals as an example, one who apparently singled out white men as not being able to comment on oppression, and another that actually wants to execute men for some nebulous reason, if the comments were not taken out of context.

But I want to focus on what I think might be bias on the part of the author of the video. At around 5:30 she mentions a bunch of roles she thinks that historically the sexes have been catered for in fairness of "biological capacities and tendencies" in being recognised. Men get "hunter, protector, defender, warrior, trader, harvester, leader, law maker", and women get "life giver, gatherer, nurturer, sexual companion, healer, adviser, home maker". I don't want to make it look like I am reading too hard, but does anyone see something wrong with this list?

Going past the dichotomy hunter is given to men and gatherer is given to women, like pre basic agriculture is relevant for equality of the genders, you can reorder three of women jobs to be "sexual companion, life giver and nurturer", which basically says have sex for man, have their bay, look after baby. Put home maker on the end and you have look after man's house. Men get trader, leader and law maker, an implication that men are fitted to I guess bread winning and making the rules, while women simply get being an adviser, like they don't get equal power, but they can advise their man a little. Men also have harvester, like a separate thing from the feminine gatherer, because I guess that was when agriculture was a thing, but I pretty sure I remember reading somewhere that there used to be less of a bias at some time to have everyone help with harvests, regardless of gender.

And women apparently also get healer, lets not forget the likes that many women were killed as witches for practicing some form of healing. That for the longest time women were not allowed to become doctors, with society apparently deciding that women were ill suited to being doctors, and at best could be nurses. The woman also claimed that women have had no interest in taking on the roles of protector, defender, and warrior, which I assume are things like police and soldiers, and correct me if I am wrong, but aren't female police and soldiers a thing? It is totally disingenuous to claim no women following the feminist movement have been interested in this roles, but there has been. You could totally read something like this into the movie Zootopia for all its themes.

The author of the video is totally making it up by saying that all men are having their contributions removed by feminists. I say she also got a bit weird when she started to talk about "reciprocity", when it became a bit difficult to understand what she was championing for. I think what I could figure out was something about giving men their deserved sex, like some part of incel talking points where men are getting stiffed by women, which I find kind of gross. But if this is the sort of representation of egalitarianism, this is exactly the kind of thing why I find it troubling over feminism.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Magna
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jun 2018
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,932

02 Jan 2020, 8:49 pm

^ The presenter in that video is using past tense to refer to "traditional gender roles". I'm not sure why you think she was using present tense when she was talking about those anthropological roles.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

02 Jan 2020, 9:06 pm

Magna wrote:
^ The presenter in that video is using past tense to refer to "traditional gender roles". I'm not sure why you think she was using present tense when she was talking about those anthropological roles.


She was talking about roles that they got recognition in because they were apparently suited for them in terms of biological capacity and tendency. At no point does she criticise that the genders being pushed into these roles. And I don't think I accused her of using them in a present tense, with the exception of protector, defender and warrior, which she did claim are not filled by women in the present.

I actually paid attention to the video that claimed that all feminists are trying remove every possibly accomplishment of men.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,177
Location: Outter Quadrant

02 Jan 2020, 9:31 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
As long as he, she, they, or whatever, is a nice person and not mean to me, their transgender status really doesn’t bother me.


agrees with this


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


Jakki
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2019
Gender: Female
Posts: 10,177
Location: Outter Quadrant

02 Jan 2020, 9:32 pm

kraftiekortie wrote:
As long as he, she, they, or whatever, is a nice person and not mean to me, their transgender status really doesn’t bother me.


agrees with this


_________________
Diagnosed hfa
Loves velcro,
Quote:
where ever you go ,there you are


VAL.M.MILES
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 8 Apr 2020
Age: 18
Gender: Male
Posts: 15
Location: Washington State

14 Apr 2020, 3:39 pm

Twilightprincess wrote:
Funny story:

My mom is very conservative and believes in upholding rigid gender norms.

When we were out shopping together one day, we got to talking with a trans female employee. Mom didn’t know that she was trans. They were gabbing away about hair and makeup.

The woman was basically the daughter my mom always wanted.

I later told my mom that she was trans and Mom was shocked. Perhaps she thought: “Maybe trans people aren’t necessarily bad after all.” Probably not but one can always hope.

(Disclaimer: This is just one anecdotal story and doesn’t reflect the thoughts, feelings, and character of every trans female...men can wear makeup...etc. What the heck? Fill in your own disclaimer! Just don’t yell at me! :P )


That's awesome! I wish my parents were more like that...



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,389
Location: Long Island, New York

10 Jun 2020, 5:45 pm

J.K. Rowling defends controversial trans comments, reveals sexual assault, domestic abuse in lengthy essay

Quote:
“Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling has thrown herself into the goblet of fire once again after publishing a personal essay that details — and doubles down on — her controversial views on transgender issues.

The lengthy explainer posted Wednesday on her website comes just after the author was lambasted online for a series of tweets that argue “sex is real,” which offended transgender-identifying people and their supporters as well as “Harry Potter” star Daniel Radcliffe.

Now, Rowling, 54, has outlined her thinking at length — and revealed her experience with domestic abuse and sexual assault for the first time.

“This isn’t an easy piece to write, for reasons that will shortly become clear, but I know it’s time to explain myself on an issue surrounded by toxicity. I write this without any desire to add to that toxicity,” she opens the missive.

Rowling explains how she first drew the ire of trans activists a few years ago while she was mining Twitter about trans issues for a present-day crime series she’s working on.

“I began screenshotting comments that interested me, as a way of reminding myself what I might want to research later. On one occasion, I absent-mindedly ‘liked’ instead of screenshotting. That single ‘like’ was deemed evidence of wrongthink, and a persistent low level of harassment began,” she writes.

She then started following outspoken feminist, lesbian and biological sex believer Magdalen Berns — who died in September — on Twitter which led her to tweet support for Maya Forstater, a tax specialist who lost her job for posting transphobic tweets.

“I mention all this only to explain that I knew perfectly well what was going to happen when I supported Maya. I must have been on my fourth or fifth cancellation by then,” she writes. “I expected the threats of violence, to be told I was literally killing trans people with my hate, to be called c - - t and b***h and, of course, for my books to be burned, although one particularly abusive man told me he’d composted them.”

Rowling faced more criticism after returning to Twitter a few months ago.

“Immediately, activists who clearly believe themselves to be good, kind and progressive people swarmed back into my timeline, assuming a right to police my speech, accuse me of hatred, call me misogynistic slurs and, above all — as every woman involved in this debate will know —TERF.”

The term, which Rowling addresses at length, stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist.

She goes on to outline five reasons why she is “deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism” and why she decided “I need to speak up.”

Her concerns include how the movement will affect her charitable work that mostly focuses on women because “it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender,” the issue of free speech and how transitioning to another gender is affecting young women.

“I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility,” she writes.

She even goes so far as to insinuate that being trans is a choice — and that she would have chosen to transition to male if she was born later.

“The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred, the more I’ve wondered whether, if I’d been born 30 years later, I too might have tried to transition,” she writes. “The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge. I struggled with severe OCD as a teenager. If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

She goes on to say that being a “woman is not a costume,” using the same phrasing as activists to put a stop to highly offensive cultural appropriation.

That brings her to the discussion of her own experience with domestic abuse and sexual assault after receiving her daughter’s consent.

“I’ve been in the public eye now for over twenty years and have never talked publicly about being a domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor,” she said. “I spent much of Saturday in a very dark place inside my head, as memories of a serious sexual assault I suffered in my twenties recurred on a loop. That assault happened at a time and in a space where I was vulnerable, and a man capitalized on an opportunity. I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with women’s and girls’ safety.”

The screenwriter was married to Jorge Arantes from 1992 to 1995, and they had a daughter, Jessica Isabel Rowling Arantes, in July 1993. She is currently married to Neil Murray since 2001.

“I managed to escape my first violent marriage with some difficulty, but I’m now married to a truly good and principled man, safe and secure in ways I never in a million years expected to be. However, the scars left by violence and sexual assault don’t disappear, no matter how loved you are, and no matter how much money you’ve made,” she said.

Although she does not detail the assaults, she mentions how her “perennial jumpiness is a family joke” as a result.

Rowling ends her essay by asking readers to understand her point of view.

“I haven’t written this essay in the hope that anybody will get out a violin for me, not even a teeny-weeny one. I’m extraordinarily fortunate; I’m a survivor, certainly not a victim. I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions. I never forget that inner complexity when I’m creating a fictional character and I certainly never forget it when it comes to trans people.”

She writes, “All I’m asking — all I want — is for similar empathy, similar understanding, to be extended to the many millions of women whose sole crime is wanting their concerns to be heard without receiving threats and abuse.”

The piece has already sparked huge backlash from critics online calling her transphobic.

“JK Rowling’s lasting legacy will not, it turns out, be the adventures of a troubled, scared, teenager trying to make sense of their life,” teacher and blogger Pete Wharmby tweeted. “Rather it will be making the lives of a lot of troubled, scared teenagers trying to make sense of their lives an awful lot f - - king worse.”


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

10 Jun 2020, 6:27 pm

J.K. Rowling has my sympathy for apparently being a victim of abuse, and she also seems to have put effort into not just being ignorant by in her mind putting herself into the places of people that made the choice to transition. But it pretty much makes it worse that she is unlikely to realize the harm she is doing in making other people feel alone. I think that she has been fed too much stories that anyone unhappy with elements of their gender could start transitioning, and the amount of people detransitioning with lasting effects like sterilization.

I think that she really needs to talk to some trans people that have happily transitioned, instead of whatever source she is using that is colouring her idea of trans people. But she does not get a free pass just to act as a gatekeeper to womanhood unopposed. Being a victim of abuse does not give someone moral right to push damaging beliefs.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


HeroOfHyrule
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 4 May 2020
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,247

10 Jun 2020, 7:24 pm

Quote:
The lengthy explainer posted Wednesday on her website comes just after the author was lambasted online for a series of tweets that argue “sex is real,”

Sex is real, and so is the neurological differences between males and females. In some people, the development of those differences doesn't always align with someone's chromosomes and primary sex characteristics, which is what causes someone to become transgender. I mean, intersex people exist, and we're not denying their existence. We understand and accept that there's biological mechanisms behind their configuration, and accepting that doesn't destroy the entire notion of "sex" and mean anyone is saying it's not real.

Quote:
She goes on to outline five reasons why she is “deeply concerned about the consequences of the current trans activism” and why she decided “I need to speak up.”

Her concerns include how the movement will affect her charitable work that mostly focuses on women because “it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender,” the issue of free speech and how transitioning to another gender is affecting young women.

What consequences? Has she listed any actual consequences? I could have easily missed them, but it appears that all she has done so far is get frustrated over a misconception that people want to argue "sex isn't real", and insinuate trans women are a threat to cis women and are stealing resources from them.

Quote:
“I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility,” she writes.

What explosion? Does she mean the fact an increasing understanding of transgender people and rising media coverage has made people more aware of their existence, more eager to accept it, and has made it so people are more likely to recognize that they themselves are dealing with the same issues?

Also, how often does she think people are detransitioning? Does she realize that often you have to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or at least a letter from multiple psychologists, and have been presenting as the gender you are for some time before you can do anything relating to medically transitioning? You don't go to a doctor, tell them "Inject me with that sweet estrogen!", and they hand you a vial and tell you to go on your merry way. It often takes years for trans people to be able to medically transition. It honestly seems that people who are detransitioning have often lied to professionals, or those professionals have not questioned them as much as they should have and treated these serious treatments too loosely. It's sad these people made decisions they regret and were not properly screened out, but that's not at any fault of actual trans people and does not invalidate the existence of trans people.

Quote:
“The writings of young trans men reveal a group of notably sensitive and clever people. The more of their accounts of gender dysphoria I’ve read, with their insightful descriptions of anxiety, dissociation, eating disorders, self-harm and self-hatred... The allure of escaping womanhood would have been huge... If I’d found community and sympathy online that I couldn’t find in my immediate environment, I believe I could have been persuaded to turn myself into the son my father had openly said he’d have preferred.”

Trans men commonly have these issues with mental health due to harassment and a lack of support, especially anxiety, depression, and self-harm. Eating disorders are also more common due to gender dysphoria and the persons doubt about their ability to properly transition. Also, trans women develop eating disorders more often than cis people, too, but I believe trans men are recognized more often as they are physically female, and people who are in that group are overall more likely to be recognized and diagnosed with ED's.

Quote:
She goes on to say that being a “woman is not a costume,” using the same phrasing as activists to put a stop to highly offensive cultural appropriation.

No self-respecting trans woman would treat being a woman "as a costume". Transitioning is not playing dress up with your friends, it's not cosplay, and it's not cross dressing.

Quote:
I couldn’t shut out those memories and I was finding it hard to contain my anger and disappointment about the way I believe my government is playing fast and loose with women’s and girls’ safety.”

Is this an insinuation that trans women are an inherent threat to cis women? Trans women experience sexual assault and domestic violence, too, more often than cis men, but don't have the same amount of resources to cope with and escape these situations that cis women do. I also find it hard to contain my anger and disappointment when the government is playing "fast and loose" with women's safety... all women's safety.

Quote:
I’ve only mentioned my past because, like every other human being on this planet, I have a complex backstory, which shapes my fears, my interests and my opinions.

Her past doesn't excuse spouting transphobic rhetoric though, and honestly has no bearing in this conversation as trans women are not an inherent threat to cis women.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,808
Location: London

11 Jun 2020, 4:40 am

^ I think it’s worth reading the whole article, where she qualifies some of those views a bit. But they’re still often pretty insubstantial.

For example, she says that self-ID presents a demonstrable threat to women, but never demonstrates how or to what extent it does.

There’s a particularly odious line where she says she believes trans people (particularly trans men) are being tricked into thinking that they aren’t cis. She supports that by saying that trans men are disproportionately likely to be autistic. Ah, yes, because autistic people are known for following social trends and being easy to brainwash.



MrsPeel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2017
Age: 52
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,746
Location: Australia

11 Jun 2020, 5:30 am

I think Rowling has a good point. There's something quite toxic in the way people are using labels like TERF and transphobic to disable discussion of certain views.

As far as I can tell, Rowling's views are not particularly radical feminist or transphobic. They are more about her trying to correct what she perceives as a troubling tendency to ignore differences in physical sex characteristics in pursuit of transgender political correctness. In particular she has issues with providing blanket permission for self-identifying transwomen who still have male sexual characteristics to enter women's spaces.

So, yeah, politically incorrect in the current climate - and obviously upsetting to transgender folks - but hardly transphobic. It's something that we ought to be free to discuss.



Bradleigh
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 6,669
Location: Brisbane, Australia

11 Jun 2020, 6:16 am

MrsPeel wrote:
I think Rowling has a good point. There's something quite toxic in the way people are using labels like TERF and transphobic to disable discussion of certain views.

As far as I can tell, Rowling's views are not particularly radical feminist or transphobic. They are more about her trying to correct what she perceives as a troubling tendency to ignore differences in physical sex characteristics in pursuit of transgender political correctness. In particular she has issues with providing blanket permission for self-identifying transwomen who still have male sexual characteristics to enter women's spaces.

So, yeah, politically incorrect in the current climate - and obviously upsetting to transgender folks - but hardly transphobic. It's something that we ought to be free to discuss.


But it is transphobic to say that trans women are some special danger just because they have a penis. It implies that if they appeared for all intents and purposes a woman except for one bit that they are too dangerous to near women, so send them to the men's room. And to stay consistent with that thinking Buck Angel has to use the women's restroom.

Look, trans people are more aware than cis people in how they may appear going into a gendered toilet, worried about how they pass, and that they have been forced into what they feel is the wrong bathroom all their life. Could you imagine as a woman being forced to go into the men's room all your life? There was nothing physically stopping someone from going into the wrong bathroom before, and there are generally laws about being a creep regardless of gender or sex before.

These really are not new conversations. Gay men often received violence and homophobia for so long because of some messed up assumptions straight men would think gay men would do, and I think it is generally accepted now that was ridiculous and cruel.

The sort of s**t Rowling just pulled was reacting condescending from the phrase "people who menstruate", because she thinks the correct term is just "woman", apparently meaning anyone who can't is not a woman. And kind of looks like she thinks that trans women cannot sympathise over things like harassment towards women, which very much they can often relate to. She thinks they are all gender posers, not that a woman is unaware she was born with an outie instead of an innie.


_________________
Through dream I travel, at lantern's call
To consume the flames of a kingdom's fall


MrsPeel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 1 Oct 2017
Age: 52
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 1,746
Location: Australia

11 Jun 2020, 6:51 am

Yeah, I understand that it is tough for transwomen having to deal with lack of acceptance, and I can certainly see why Rowling's views would be upsetting.

What I'm concerned about is the sort of reverse-bigotry which shuts down any discussion.
Because I can see that potentially there might be issues with discomfort and, yes, fear from some over automatically allowing biological men into women's spaces on the basis of their self-identified gender - and I'm not saying that fear would necessarily be justified, but it would be there.

I query whether that fear is strictly transphobia or if it is something a bit different, arising from a recognition that much abuse (obviously not all) is perpetrated by men against women, with roots in hormonal and cultural differences between the sexes, and that self-identifying transwomen might be hormonally still male.

I'm not saying that Rowling is "right", but I think this issue needs to be better addressed and we should be allowed to discuss this reasonably without resorting to name-calling.