J.K. Rowling is a disgusting TERF

Post Reply New Topic

The article lost me when it started to refer to presumably trans-women as men, that enough to be evidence of some bias. The supposed assault I can see in that video, doesn't really show a whole lot of some dangerous sort of discourse, there being a couple of maybe teenagers in hoods that seem frustrated that did something dumb. If you look at the footage you can even see that it is people on the trans defense side that break up the assault and yell at them for their violence. It is simply not true that all the anti-TERFs are dangerous people that call for violence against TERFs in their transphobic views.

Cherry picking a few people who tweeted in defense of the violence does not prove that case.



You are entitled to say what you want, but your call to hope that more people fight against trans women being called women, and defending a culture of discrimination, is gross. it is akin to hoping that people become more accepting of the views of race realists (racists).

Calls of protecting this rhetoric is the same as wanting to force transwomen (women) into male bathrooms, changing rooms and prisons.

My view is a little different from Forstater's, but I agree that these issues should be open for discussion.

My personal view is that all sides would benefit from greater recognition of the existence and rights of non-binary genders.
That is, that we need to have psychological safety for those whose gender identification and/or superficial gender presentation is different from their biological sex. Whether that is trans people who have not had gender-reassignment surgery, gender fluid people, intersex people, cross-dressers, and so on.

I do understand this debate may feel threatening to trans folk, particularly those who have made life-changing decisions on the basis of societal norms of binary gender (ie transitioned from one gender to the other).
But it's a debate we need to have.

No, what she's saying is not the same.
There is no scientific evidence on significant inherent differences between the races, the scientific consensus is that humans around the world are actually very similar. So there is no biological reason to treat people of different races differently.
However, there are significant biological differences between the sexes.
It is not a simple, black-and-white issue of bigotry, but a debate we need to have on how we integrate trans people into a society which is divided not only by gender but also by biological sex.

I am not going to be against that in concept, indeed I don't have a great grasp of where things fit with my own non-binary nature. But these discussions and stuff are already happening on the pro gender rights (anti-TERF) spaces. I go onto the trans memes reddit and it is accepting of those not on the on the binary, as is treating trans people as their identified gender.

I have actually been curious if my general uncomfortable feeling in changing rooms and bathrooms, was something connected to my repressed non-binary nature. And I fully acknowledge that if it is the case, then there is no real good answer. Pretty sure I feel much more comfortable in the men's room than the alternative, other than having access to gender neutral areas, which as its stands I don't know if that becomes a case of alienating.



I hear you, and I know you have good points on the side where aspects of biological sex can create an inequality. One of those being the example of sports, where it is separated between the sexes to give equal opportunity. Most involved in the trans community understand that it is a very complex topic, that is not going to have any simple answer. Say that a trans-woman that has been taking hormones to be more feminine cannot go into the women's category, then do you have to force a trans-man that has been taking hormones to be more masculine into the women's category? Do you just flat out say that trans athletes are banned from being professionals, or do you put them all against the generally harder category of men as a baseline? Are the categories sex or gender?

It is complicated, and no serious trans rights person is saying that can be solved with a simple ruling. That is until other people make it about gender, using it as evidence that trans people are not the gender the identify as. And it is not okay when you have ciswomen getting into a tizzy and accuse all trans women as possible rapists, like a penis is going to mean they are going to have to violate "natural" women. It is the same kind irrational behaviour that had men beat up gay guys as threats that will violate them. Trans women can be in even greater threat from such irrational men that trans men are just going under cover to trick straight people.

The trans men themselves would much rather go into men's room, even if they have vaginas. They are not going in there because they are afraid they will do something in the women's space or more in danger there. Some might still feel a bit safer going into a gender neutral bathroom if given the choice when they think they might be clocked. But they are the ones in general that are the most familiar with feeling uncomfortable in spaces that does not match their gender.

Bradleigh, as an aside, you don't have to be non-binary to think changing rooms and bathrooms are disconcerting.
So you're not alone on that one. Lots of autistic people are fine with public nudity unless it is their own. I don't even own a pair of shorts for that reason.

I know, that is why I think it would be so difficult to find out if it was the cause, and don't hold up as a reason one way or the other. I too have a preference for long pants, and usually wear them regardless of the fact my country gets super hot.

I think it should be recognised that Forstater's views are not trans-exclusionary in every sense (being apparently limited to the issue of transwomen with male genitalia in all-female spaces). And even with that issue, she started to adopt a more radical stance in her tweets in order to kick-start a much-needed debate, and to illustrate how people are being silenced by accusations of trans-phobia.

While my personal views are a little different to Ms Forstater's, I think the label "disgusting TERF" is an over-reaction. Understandable, but not helpful.

Edited to add: the key point where my view differs is that I believe transwomen should have the right to identify (and be identified) as women, regardless of gentitalia. As you put it, chicks can have dicks. However, I agree with Ms Forstater that there still needs to be debate over whether there is automatic access of chicks-with-dicks into every female-only space.

A discussion in that way would be worth having if there was a common thing about men Willy nilly saying they are women to enter female spaces. At it stands Forstater is taking a hard line against trans women being real women, and being in those places. In that light, using her comments as the start of a discussion is like using a Nazi's ccomments for a discussion of if mixed races couples (and children) should be allowed.

I understand if that example does not sound comparable, but to trans people that is what it sounds like. Have you listened to right wing philosophers look at skulls to talk about IQ and test averages of races while ignoring systematic and economic differences?

Sure you can build trends in data, and say there are differences. But that can ignore if any of those things are relevant or truly accurate in the face of what is similar rather than different. You might find the average trans woman has more in common with CoS women, rather than men, especially in terms of wanting to use those women only spaces. Tran excludes don't believe that.

I dunno, seems to me the only comparable analogy would be once where there is a genuine biological difference.

For example, suppose a company is recruiting for staff and they specify that no-one with achondroplasia (dwarfism) need apply, this would justifiably anger those with dwarfism, and the company could probably be taken to court. But if the work was something like window-cleaning, the company might have genuine concerns how to accommodate those with dwarfism in the job. Are they being dwarf-exclusive or dwarf-phobic or should they be allowed to at least discuss whether the work is appropriate?

Probably not a great example, I'll try and think of a better one.

For the analogy to complete itself, it would then have to be something like the little people were then expected to work like the dwarves in lord of the rings. Not just the not getting something, but expected to do something else based on expectations they don't think is accurate. They are not missing out on a privilege, but something that many feels like it dehumanizes them.

I'm very worried by a concept that being a feminist taking side of biological females when possible bio/trans conflict could emerge means she's TERF and being TERF "makes her a bigot". It's automatic attributting bigotry to anyone raising particular concerns. It was done to JK Rowling in the OP.
It's not the way we should discuss with people we disagree.

Accepted, yes, it wasn't a very good analogy.
I'm having trouble thinking of a better one.

This might not be a great analogy either, but see what you think.

You know the permits that let people park in the disabled spots? Recently there was a situation here in which a mother with blind children needed a permit but was denied because of bureaucracy which would only allocate to those with certain physical disabilities affecting walking. (I'm thinking of this as equivalent to the denial of transwomen to women's spaces).

Suppose the government then considers a change in how they allocate the permits. Instead of only allocating to those with certain physical disabilities, they are going to allocate to any disabled person who can explain why they need it. Seems like a fairer system in many ways. (I'm thinking of this as equivalent to allowing all self-identifying transwomen to access women's spaces, even those who have not undergone gender reassignment).

Someone is concerned about this system possibly being abused, that it might potentially lead to disadvantage to those with greatest need, compared to the current system. This person wishes for debate over whether all disabled people should be eligible, or whether we should still take some consideration of differences in physical ability. (I'm thinking of this as (very roughly) equivalent to considering whether those who are still biologically male should be automatically allowed within womens spaces).

Should the person calling for debate on the issue be denounced as ableist scum?

How big a deal is getting fired these days? I mean, there are some people on this forum that can't hold a job. People seem to change their jobs all the time these days.

She wasn't fired. The company she was with simply chose to not renew her contract.

I’ve never been fired from a job.

If people have trouble holding on to a job and are continually fired (despite trying), they might want to apply for disability.

That’s actually one of the things that the SSA looks for when it’s considering a disability benefits application.