Friends suggesting transphobia and misogyny both rooted in policing gender roles

well done for trying to explain but still doesn’t make any sense to me - How can a women ‘adopt feminine forms’ when they are women though? Femininity doesn’t exist in its own realm- it is intrinsically connected to being a women. And it doesn’t mean just looking pretty or girlie - I am feminine even on the days when I wear no make up, baggy jeans and my husband’s shirt.

I'm sorry, so you think that women have cosmetic surgery to look more like women? As opposed to younger/more attractive?

Um... they already look like women because they ARE women

Stereotypes? Women are not "hypocritical" for succumbing to the pressure to look like younger versions of THEMSELVES.
No amount of surgery/fillers etc. to follow the current fashionable idea of what looks attractive in a woman, when used by actual women, equates to men leveraging those stereotypes order to pretend he also is a woman.
See also: mini dresses, high heels, false eyelashes, long hair, lingerie...

Agree with all of this.

I also suspect that some men think that women intentionally have higher pitched voices/breasts/ different gait/hips/female facial features.

They regard male as the norm, so anything different must be intentional - similar to assuming that people are just being annoying when they don't speak English.

Whether or not Rowling has had a face lift/tweekments, it's on top of the same bone structure.

I think I can express Baileys argument: trans-identifying men are criticized for adopting feminine forms, surgery, the critique is that they are perpetuating sex stereotypes by doing so. Women who adopt feminine forms, surgery etc are not criticized (by the same people) even though they are also perpetuating sex stereotypes.

A heroic attempt at condensing. Assuming that is the argument, isn't that a bit like comparing a black person wearing skin-colour-matched makeup to a white person blacking up?

Regardless, I don't think this is an accusation of hypocrisy that can be levelled at JKR, at least I haven't seen her objecting to men getting plastic surgery if they wish. Wouldn't surprise me if she had something funny to say about oxford giant boob man, but he is definitely in parody black-face territory and nothing to do with trans.

Re drag, this (really clear and well-written) article was posted on another thread here some weeks ago - it directly equates drag to blackface:

https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3209&context=cklawreview

I think I can express Baileys argument: trans-identifying men are criticized for adopting feminine forms, surgery, the critique is that they are perpetuating sex stereotypes by doing so. Women who adopt feminine forms, surgery etc are not criticized (by the same people) even though they are also perpetuating sex stereotypes.

From my perspective the flaw in the argument is that I don’t criticize men who adopt feminine forms surgery etc. for the perpetuation of stereotypes. I accept that people are free to exercise choice about what they look like.

On the subject of drag: that’s not adopting a feminine aspect, that’s parodying it. I think that’s open to criticism. I would level the same criticism at a female performer who did the same.

Just like drag does for sexual stereotypes.

Back to what was asked of you:

What was the point you were making when you started having a random go at Rowling for potentially having cosmetic surgery?

What is your argument?

Bailey doesn’t seem capable of explaining the point they are trying to make clearly.

If your ideas are not rational, but are constructed in an arena where words can mean whatever you like, it becomes very difficult to express oneself with any true clarity.

If using dog whistles, buzzwords and drawing false equivalences usually bring you plaudits amongst your peers, because you are signalling “right think”, you don’t ever have to look for concrete meaning in what you are saying.

“No debate” really hasn’t done any favours for those who are happy with the notion that TWAW without question.

Is the proposition here that women who look like women are wrong? And that if they look healthy and in conformity with whatever is 'ordinary nice' wrt clothes etc they are more wrong? That seems only a whisper away from saying we should be invisible.

Would burkas be enough or do we need a full-on Afghan ruling keeping us inside our homes and forbidden to look out the windows?

'Suddenly' when JKR & other GC elites engage in such behaviour it's 'sniping' about their choices as a diversion from their hypocrisy. Again that's why the GC movement aren't considered to act in good faith or be coherent in their beliefs.

"GC elites"? WTF is one of those? And what hypocrisy?

What is incoherent about saying that people can't change sex and that sex stereotyping is bad?

this isn't about the rights & wrong of feminine aesthetics but the hypocrisy claiming it enables sex stereotypes while also using it.

To avoid another misunderstanding, what do you mean by this?

I haven't said anything about whether this is at the same level of violence as women experience. It was Mapletree1985 who mentioned that in her post that I quoted.

So all you were trying to show with your link was that some trans people have been victims of violent crimes? I don't think anyone would dispute that. Even Mapletree said as much in her post that I quoted: "There is the occasional very rare incident".

You're really not being clear about what you're trying to prove with your random links (posted without comment) and your snipes and digs at other posters and celebrities.

1/10. Must try harder.

Just be clear, I'm a 'fan' of cosmetic surgery so I don't have an issue with JKR or anyone else using it.

If you have at all been following this discussion on the thread you would know this isn't about the rights & wrong of feminine aesthetics but the hypocrisy claiming it enables sex stereotypes while also using it.

'Suddenly' when JKR & other GC elites engage in such behaviour it's 'sniping' about their choices as a diversion from their hypocrisy. Again that's why the GC movement aren't considered to act in good faith or be coherent in their beliefs.

Go on then, what is the "argument being made"?

You decided to start sniping about JK Rowling for reasons which are totally unclear.

Well, maybe they are clear. This sort of speculation about whether or not a woman has had cosmetic surgery is due to misogyny and ageism.

I don't care whether or not she's had any cosmetic surgery. Why do you?

Again, the context of this discussion was the OP questioning that trans people experienced a safety risk & I provided the data that showed they were.

Your point of whether this rises to the level of violence women experience is irrelevant.

Your link was in reply to this post:

Can you show us the statistics on the violence experienced by trans identified people as a direct result of their being trans? Because I don't believe it happens. There is the occasional very rare incident which is made much of, but it's nowhere near the scale of the systemic daily violence experienced by women for no other reason than that they are women.

You didn't make it clear which part of this post your link was supposed to be addressing, since you just posted the link without comment. I assumed you were attempting to show that large numbers of trans people were victims of violent crimes (which it doesn't in fact show).

What point were you trying to make by posting that link? It's not at all clear.

If you seriously believe a 60 year old woman can have an un lined full face, snatched jaw line & pristine neck, technology has news for you.

And no there's no vilification in suggesting people have had 'work' done for their own personal pleasure. If you think this is vilifying then that's more a reflection on your views on cosmetic work than any one else’s.

"And "one woman had a facelift therefore all women are hypocritical about male standards of femininity" seems essentially very silly indeed as an argument to propound."

Well, that's not the argument being made.

I said no such thing about "large numbers". And the evidence is posted. That you are in denial even when evidence is in your face is on you.

Sex categorisation is in essence is about distinguishing traits that includes both reproductive sex, secondary sex & behavioural traits. That's just a fact of what humans do in reality. I don't make the rules for social distinctions & categorisations society does.

Of course personally, how an individual person interprets sex distinction is upto their own subjective opinions that everyone is entitled to but they aren't entitled to tell others how to define themselves.

How society decides to treat different people is upto the utility in the circumstances involved for the prevailing culture. There's no definitive answer because different cultures often have different values for example Western countries have varying policies regarding how their society is structured.

But what it does mean is that sneering at older women for having plastic surgery is NOTHING to do with the word “Womanface”

An older lady of my acquaintance has had a little tweak behind her ears, on account of age and gravity make her lips permanently turned down at the edges.
This consequently made her look like a right miserable old bugger even when she'd had good news. Catching sight of herself in a mirror when she's out and about became quite depressing for her so she treated herself to the teeniest lift possible to do the job without looking as though she'd had surgery.

This wasn't to make her look like a woman, or more like a woman because she 'is' a woman. It wasn't to attract men certainly. It was to make her countenance and expression more cheerful and less morose and it has worked.

But it does make you associated to the class of Ingestive Hydration Mammals or 'drinker mammals' as common gendered personality inclinations are associated to one sex more than the other.

Ingestive Hydration Mammals- another good band name thanks.

I'm wearing a yellow shirt today. Does that make me associated to a class of lifeforms that includes the albino Burmese python, sunflowers, Brazilian footballers and the gold laced nudibranch?

This is a bit of a derail.
My ideas on how some esthetic preferences are dictated or not by the patriarchy has changed with time.
Just to make an example, when I was younger, I hated shaving my legs and I felt it was an imposition coming from society. Now that my legs are not that hairy anymore, I have a slight preference for shaved legs, for the smooth and tidier look – and I realise that I similarly prefer my DH beard shaved and a bit tidy, rather than too long.
I think that “patriarchy” is just one of the forces that drives esthetic and personal preferences.
We (females and males) generally tend to prefer symmetry.
In males and females, there’s a drive to look younger and to mitigate the signs of ageing.
Some aspects are linked to socio-economic status. For example, being tanned was associated with outdoor work and higher classes would avoid the sun and cover their skin with powder, now it’s the opposite, as being tanned is associated with leisure time. When sugar was an exotic luxury, black teeth became fashionable.
Long hair in males was associated with rebellion and freedom in the 60 and 70.
I speculate that, even in the most egalitarian society, there will be a tendency to accentuate some female and male characteristics – driven by sexual reproduction and the “necessity” to signal male or female for reproductive purposes.
With time, my view has become more nuanced and I recognise that we don’t all value the same things, and I stopped being judgemental of women that use a lot of make-up and are always put together, although it’s still not my style 😊

Changing rooms for males and females, masculine and feminine are genders and not relevant.

I think it's helpful to remember that the reason we have legislation to allow single sex facilities is that in general sex discrimination is not lawful.

If sex were just personality we wouldn't have that prohibition and no legislation would be required to have a masculine or feminine changing room.