Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Harry Potter and the Reverse Voltaire

2 replies

wellbehavedwomen · 12/07/2020 23:20

“I agree completely with what you say, but I’ll fight to the death to prevent you from saying it.”

"Why is J. K. Rowling being denounced as “complete scum” by Twitter blue ticks, and being told to “go fuck herself”, “die in a hole”, and “choke on a bowl of dicks” by anonymous accounts claiming to be LGBT+ allies, for expressing a position that turns out to be the absolute cornerstone of an important, and historic, victory for both gay and transgender rights, i.e., that sex exists, the concept of sex underlies the concept of same-sex attraction, and that a person’s sex makes a difference to the kinds of discrimination they face in a patriarchal society (whether that is plain old sexism as faced by females, or the punishment faced by trans and gender non-conforming individuals who do not perform the gendered expectations associated with their sex)? Indeed, as Robin Dembroff pointed out in a recent video response to J. K. Rowling (which now alas seems not to be publicly available), most trans people agree with Rowling that sex exists and most trans people know all too well how assumptions made about people’s sex and how people of a given sex ought to behave can make people’s lives go less well than they should. (Indeed, the main problem with Rowling’s tweets, according to Dembroff, was her failure to realise extent of transgender people’s agreement with these points, a failing for which she may perhaps be forgiven. After all, one does not generally think of responses such as, “Fuck you, you hateful spiteful ignorant hag” as signalling enthusiastic agreement.)"

Really thought-provoking article, by someone asking what, precisely, is wrong with Rowling saying in public what many of those presently denouncing her have agreed to in private... or even argued are intrinsic to same-sex attraction and gender identity to the Supreme Court of the United States?

From the recent Amicus Brief:

“The concept of “sex” is inextricably tied to the categories of same-sex attraction and gender nonconformity. Both categories are partially defined by sex and cannot logically be applied to any individual without reference to that individual’s sex. It is simply not possible to identify an individual as being attracted to the same sex without knowing or presuming that person’s sex.”

Her crime isn't, apparently, her opinions. It's having the gall to say them out loud, and in public.

OP posts:
StuffThem · 13/07/2020 00:33

Purity spiral.

The most worrying thing is that nobody knows how to stop or get out of one.

nancybotwinbloom · 13/07/2020 08:17

Are they saying gay people have got it wrong all these years then and are not same sex attracted but now have to be same gender (even if the sex is not the same) attracted?

Are people still in agreement that there is a difference between sex and gender but that some trans people want things separated by gender not sex (toilets, changing rooms etc) and to scrap sex segregated areas and make them gender segregated or do I have that wrong?

New posts on this thread. Refresh page