Help - waded in to JKR row on fb

[crunchermuncher]

A friend on fb has posted something about Fantastic Beasts. One of his friends (who I don't know) has commented that 'The author is a bitch'.

I would really like to say something that stimulates people to think, rather than just blindly swallowing the 'she's a hateful transphobe' line. I also know that this is a particularly woke audience, so any replies need to be minimalist and carefully crafted.

So far I have replied 'why?' And got the predictable reply about her views on trans people. I have asked what specifically she has said. I'm now trying to step away from the conversation for a day or so in case I become enraged by the inevitable nonsense and say something I will regret!

Any tips on a) what to say and
b) how to not lose my shit?

I hate seeing a woman being abused online by another woman, just for standing up for women's rights. It's depressing.

@ClareCAIS I found that link fantastically useful. Thank you.

I think in general there is a problem with how some people take offence

It can be used to shut people down and create special status , it can be used to distract

There are times when people are looking for offense and seeing it when they know it was not intended

Trivial

Is it offensive to hold a door for eg a woman ?

So people say so , I have seen people take offense
Even when they know the holder holds the door for anyone

So now , do you never again hold a door for someone in case they think you are saying they are weak in some way ?

Yes sorry, I worded that badly.

No apology needed. As I said upthread, this is a forum where everyone knew what you meant and it's hard work trying to be precise and clear all the flaming time.

I like calling The Enemy 'Genderists' to avoid confusion. Previously I preferred 'Butlerian Jihadis' but MNHQ didn't like that one.

@scratchedbymycat
I would assume both sides had valid reasons to believe what they believe and neither side is wrong. If I was quite literally sat in between them then I'd more than likely ask to hear both persons point of view and would form my own opinion based off that. The question "What would you do then when one side says you're wrong for siding with the other?" would probably pop up and my answer would be that I dont think it's about agreeing with one side 100%, it's about understanding both sides and coming to common ground. If that's not possible then the conversation has basically come to an end and there isn't any hope continuing it at that point - more things will be learnt by either side with time, so then maybe things will work out better when discussed again in the future.

@MargaritaPie

"What specifically did she say"

Recently she described transwomen as "penised individuals". Regardless what the context is that particular choice of words isn't going to sit well with many people.

Yes, as pp say -- first of all, she was talking about rapists who are charged with rape (which requires a penis) - who want to be referred to as women. So penised individuals is perfectly legally and factually correct.

Secondly, isn't that exactly the correct term of art nowadays? So instead of women = people with uteruses/vagina owners/menstruators/vulva people. Instead of men then penis people /penis owners/prostate havers/penised individuals. What's the problem? Isn't that exactly what we're supposed to say now?

If it comes down to debating whether a comment is transphobic or not, I will be more inclined to accept the trans persons point of view rather than the non trans persons.

So if women say biological class is what defines a woman and not some feeling, then would you also accept that? And that implying woman is a set of feelings and sex is irrelevant is deemed misogynistic by a woman, would you also be inclined to believe the womans point of view instead of the trans person? And if not, why not?

If I see some headline that the word "woman" is now transphobic and anyone who uses it is a transphobia, then I know to take that with a pinch of salt.

And if that headline now means the word 'woman' is removed from healthcare literature for those of the female sex as that is more 'inclusive', do you also take that with a pinch of salt? And when a letter written by a patient requesting a female nurse is handed out as an example for transphobic behaviour, what do you think about that?

Just asking because I am curious if and where you draw the line in the conflict between transphobia and misogyny.

@MargaritaPie

"What specifically did she say"

Recently she described transwomen as "penised individuals". Regardless what the context is that particular choice of words isn't going to sit well with many people.

@MargaritaPie why is it OK for women to be called cervix havers, uterus havers, bodies with vaginas etc but offensive for men to be called penised individuals?

I'm starting to believe what I've read that trans rights activitist actually does mean mens' rights activist.

@scratchedbymycat

I'm straight and white, therefore if I said something that a gay person or black person deems offensive and homophobic/racist to them then I'm not going to question it, I'll simply apologise and not say it again.

How would you respond if some trans people called JKR transphobic and other trans people hailed her opinions as absolute truth? I've seen a lot of trans women applauding her.

I'm Irish. We all love Fr Ted. What would you say / do if an Irish friend said it was racist?

Something like

"You're obviously entitled to your beliefs but isn't there a more progressive way to defend them than gender-based insults and comparing a woman to an animal for daring to express her views? Calling a woman a bitch for having different opinioms to yours sounds like the sort if thing I'd hear a red faced Nigel down the pub doing..."

might annoy them enough to rethink their expression even if not their views if they are that woke/make the 'silent readers' think?

@sanluca
I'm not nearly educated enough to answer your question thoroughly and for that I apologise. I suppose the best way of explaining my stance is that all sides of every argument has validity for the people expressing it, so I would listen to what they say. That does not mean I need to agree with everything, but I would respect their opinion. In the quote of mine you mention, I'm not referring to views as a whole, I'm referring to if I would say something that a trans person deemed transphobic, and a non trans person deemed absolutely fine, then I would value the opinion of the trans person higher as they are the person affected - even if I disagree, as it's not my place to say what is or isn't offensive to someone.

For the second part, I don't personally care in the slightest what I'm called so it wouldn't bother me at all, however I respect other people don't feel the same. I find that firing someone for referring to someone as "female" as "its transphobic" to be ridiculous - the language etc around this entire movement is fairly new and a well meaning person writing "female" should not be fired, in my opinion, no. This could however change if the word female genuinely does become a transphobic word in every day vocabulary, much in the same way that various racial slurs were totally ok to say god knows how long ago, but now they're not.

@Abhannmor I'm sorry, I grew up in France so I don't know who Father Ted is so cant answer that one.

This could however change if the word female genuinely does become a transphobic word in every day vocabulary, much in the same way that various racial slurs were totally ok to say god knows how long ago, but now they're not.

FFS! Making up words to describe disadvantaged groups is completely different. This is just crazy!

@334bu

*This could however change if the word female genuinely does become a transphobic word in every day vocabulary, much in the same way that various racial slurs were totally ok to say god knows how long ago, but now they're not.*

FFS! Making up words to describe disadvantaged groups is completely different. This is just crazy!

Yes it is

Completely and utterly

Creating a sacred caste is very dangerous. It is why girls in Rotherham continued to be trafficked and abused, those who raised concerns were dismissed as racist. I remember years ago 2 gay Foster carers were convicted of abusing boys in their care, they got away with it for years because social workers were scared of being accused of homophobia
It seems to have played some part in the recent tragic cases. Those who raised concerns about Star were called homophobic and bigoted against the traveller community

the language etc around this entire movement is fairly new

The absolutely crucial point is that it's also completely undefined .
"Woman" no longer means female - ok, so what is its definition then?
What is "gender"?

We are not all unwilling to use new language. We have been asking for years for vital terms to simply be defined, so we know what we are talking about.

It has not been done. I can't in good consciousness use words that legally and practically affect huge numbers of (often vulnerable) people if they are essentially meaningless!

@MargaritaPie

"What specifically did she say"

Recently she described transwomen as "penised individuals". Regardless what the context is that particular choice of words isn't going to sit well with many people.

Again, no marg

She specifically called rapists penised individuals.

TRAs made the leap from rapists to transwomen. Just like you just did.

Regardless of context, doesn't that make you transphobic, again?

Thanks for all the replies.

Thanks also A580Hojas but I can speak for myself and say that the essay linked to looks very interesting and is certainly pertinent to the fb debate I've been having. Thanks for your concern about keeping the thread on track though.

To that end, can we pursue the very interesting discussion of offence and censorship as it relates to this issue, rather than being distracted into the nuts and bolts of what JK is or isn't?

Blackbird I agree with you up to a point - why say something you know your listener will find offensive? That's a good starting point for conversation which we learn as children. However, if you want to go beyond Smalltalk and into debating complex issues, sometimes a view expressed may not be objectively offensive in itself, but a moistened may subjectively find it offensive. Does that mean it shouldn't be said? I think it comes down to why it's being said - if purely to cause offense, eg 'your mum smells', then no, of course not. The difficulty comes when simply holding a particular view eg that we should get rid of child benefit because society can't afford it and people should pay for their own children (not my view btw). This is a conversation that could be reasonable to have in the context of the welfare budget. It wouldn't be reasonable to call everyone currently claiming it a scrounger. But neither would it be reasonable to say that because some people find it upsetting that others might see them as scroungers, we shouldn't ever talk about it.

There seems to be a belief that we have the rugby to not be offended, and that offence trumps everything. I don't think that is the case, if there is a purpose to the discussion beyond the offence being caused.

I was offended by the original comments on fb calling JKR a bitch, because she said that if you rape someone with your penis you are not a woman. That she was being abused for standing up for women who have been raped. Why is my offence not important too? There seems to be a hierarchy here with women at the very bottom.

This could however change if the word female genuinely does become a transphobic word in every day vocabulary, much in the same way that various racial slurs were totally ok to say god knows how long ago, but now they're not.

Do you think a word to describe the sex of a mammal, not just humans mind you, will become a word with the same connotation as certain words that are now deemed racist? Do we not then lose a valuable descriptive word to denote the class of mammals that bear young? Why do you think there is such a push to do this with the word for one of the two sex classes but not the other?

And if the members of that class disagree, how do they protest this as the very act of protesting will the be seen transphobic? Which is indeed the case. Do you feel that is the act of a fair and just society that treats all its members are equal? Or have we now gone from 1984 straight to Animal Farm?

Ffs fat fingers here!
Moistened should read listener.

Rugby should read 'right'

Animal farm indeed! That's what I'm always put in mind of.

Racial slurs are invented and applied by a privileged group to the disadvantaged group. There's absolutely no valid analogy with the word 'woman' let alone 'female'.

@Blackbird1234

I don't understand why this is still a heavily debated subject. We all interpret things differently based on our own experiences and views. Some people think the things JKR has said are transphobic, some think they're critical/insensitive and some think they're completely correct, so no one will ever get a "satisfactory answer" to these questions unless they align with their own beliefs.

People are well within their rights to think what they like about what she has said. It is only fair though that they should only be able to base their views on what she actually said, and not innuendo. If one of the TRAs were to bring us a direct quote and say "I believe this statement to be transphobic", that would at least be something, even if we disagreed on the interpretation. But they never do, which implies that they don't have the courage of their own convictions.

@334bu

*This could however change if the word female genuinely does become a transphobic word in every day vocabulary, much in the same way that various racial slurs were totally ok to say god knows how long ago, but now they're not.*

FFS! Making up words to describe disadvantaged groups is completely different. This is just crazy!

Blardy hell I missed that part!

Wasn't there an angry plopper on here recently, lecturing us all that everything single sex is by definition transphobic? Another example of the glorious overreach that we see so often, but if that's your simplistic world view then much of what women talk about is transphobic

@MonsignorMirth

the language etc around this entire movement is fairly new

The absolutely crucial point is that it's also completely undefined .
"Woman" no longer means female - ok, so what is its definition then?
What is "gender"?

We are not all unwilling to use new language. We have been asking for years for vital terms to simply be defined, so we know what we are talking about.

It has not been done. I can't in good consciousness use words that legally and practically affect huge numbers of (often vulnerable) people if they are essentially meaningless!

Yes!

@MrsOvertonsWindow

Wasn't there an angry plopper on here recently, lecturing us all that everything single sex is by definition transphobic? Another example of the glorious overreach that we see so often, but if that's your simplistic world view then much of what women talk about is transphobic

Saw this on another thread recently - wingsoverscotland.com/everything-is-transphobic/