New statesman article: I once agreed with J.K. Rowling

[KookaburraSits]

Sorry if this has already been posted. It's embarrassingly bad.

www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/03/as-a-victim-of-abuse-i-once-agreed-with-jk-rowling

Highlights of idiocy include:

"It is true that there are no meaningful statistics to suggest transgender women pose a threat to cis women like me. The argument is theoretical — hypothetical even."

"What I did know was that most of the politicians and commentators that I agreed with on every other issue were fighting hard for trans rights. So I understood that I must be missing some piece of the moral puzzle"

"Then I saw how profoundly misdirected her fear was. Because trans women are not the perpetrators but the victims of violence: last year an estimated 375 trans, non-binary or gender non-conforming peoplewere killed across the world."

"They say that sex matters for gender and you cannot call yourself a woman if you haven’t had periods, for example."

Here you are Kookaburra - this answers that drivel very well:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

"last year an estimated 375 trans, non-binary or gender non-conforming people were killed across the world."

in that case it seems significantly safer than being a woman! according to UNWomen globally 81000 women and girls were killed in 2020

I'm so sorry for what happened to Lucy but that argument makes no sense at all. It reads like a high school assignment.

I clicked on this with interest when I saw it on Twitter the other day, because I regarded the New Statesman as a credible source and because people who move from one side to the other interest me; I am genuinely especially curious to hear about what drives a shift away from the GC take on sex and gender - it’s something that could really challenge my thinking.

Obviously, that article wasn’t the one I was hoping to read! Disappointing. The author didn’t give an impression of having much understanding of the arguments put forward by either side, and it’s an incredibly patronising view on JKR to boot.

Quite... "I read Twitter and then I read some longer form things too" isn't quite the Damascene moment a reader would expect...

What people seem to fail to grasp is that they say that "why would anyone go to the effort to get a female ID to attack women?" and because of that "we need to make it easier to self-ID as a woman".

People are not saying that trans people are the perpetrators of crime, but criminals will claim to be trans in order to commit a crime.

Criminals are known liars, why do people not want to accept that criminals would lie about their gender?

Well, this is probably a reason I don't bother with the New Statesman anymore.

Gosh, once I was a silly girl who didn't love Big Brother. I have undergone state enforced repairs and (this is really important) please do it to Julia.

Heard it.

Without reading the article (better things to do, like browse mn) I call bullshit on the author ever being on the side of jkr.

I think that article was reparation for this article published by the New Statesman last month:

www.newstatesman.com/politics/feminism/2022/02/trans-activists-ask-us-to-redefine-what-most-consider-to-be-truth

@BootsAndRoots

What people seem to fail to grasp is that they say that "why would anyone go to the effort to get a female ID to attack women?" and because of that "we need to make it easier to self-ID as a woman".

People are not saying that trans people are the perpetrators of crime, but criminals will claim to be trans in order to commit a crime.

Criminals are known liars, why do people not want to accept that criminals would lie about their gender?

Definitely agree with parts of this. We're not saying that trans people are perpetrators just because they are trans, that would be the definition of bigotry haha!

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though... In this case punishing trans people because of criminal actions done by others.

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though... In this case punishing trans people because of criminal actions done by others.

TRAs (Trans Rights Activists) do not act in the best interests of trans-identifying people. They demand, for example, that male prisoners be given access to female prisoners. Is that what trans-identifying people want? Or do they want the freedom to present as they wish, without being mocked or excluded for doing so?

TRAs demand that data relating to people's sex should be hidden. How did that help the transman who turned up at A&E with severe abdominal pain, but was not investigated for ectopic pregnancy because men do not get pregnant? That female person's ectopic pregnancy caused them to suffer terrible pain unnecessarily and nearly killed them.

Trans people do not suffer due to feminists prioritising safeguarding.

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though... In this case punishing trans people because of criminal actions done by others.

Not placing males in women’s spaces is not a punishment.

Not getting what you want, when it’s not a right is not a punishment.

It may be that a privilege awarded to a few males will be removed because of the behaviour of other males, but that isn’t the fault of women. If it’s anyone’s fault, it’s the fault of the doctors and activists who told those men it was fine to go in there in the first place.

I can’t speak for all women, but I personally would prefer additional spaces and services to be provided, because that way women cannot be accused of punishing men by excluding them from women’s spaces.

"It is true that there are no meaningful statistics to suggest transgender women pose a threat to cis women like me. The argument is theoretical — hypothetical even."

This is a false argument. Reality would suggest (and evidence has been collected that appeared to confirm) that male people would behave with male patterns of offending, whether they claim to be women or not.

The idea that women should have to prove that a subset of men are just as likely to harm them as other men, before those men can be excluded, is frankly outrageous, just as it’s outrageous that women should have to prove a subset of men don’t have a physical advantage in sport before those men can be excluded from women’s sports.

I subscribed to the New Statesman for six months some years ago but had a nagging feeling that very little of its material was proper rigorous journalism. I see it's still not improved.

@JellySaurus, I think we're getting off topic a bit, but I feel I should respond if that's OK.

"Is that what trans-identifying people want?"

Probably best to leave these decisions up to trans people then I suppose. I think that any magority people talking for a marginalised people group tends to end badly, like when men use their privilege to talk over women and tell us what we want.

That story about the ectopic pregnancy is very sad. Seems like if you're not a cis white man, then healthcare can sometimes be a very unfriendly place. Healthcare definitely should make note of sexed characteristics where relevant.

"Trans people do not suffer due to feminists prioritising safeguarding."

I agree with this :) a really important part of safeguarding is not to assume anyone is a particular threat because of characteristics like race or gender etc... It's part of what allows heartbreaking stories of those considered "safe" to commit terrible abuse.

a really important part of safeguarding is not to assume anyone is a particular threat because of characteristics like race or gender etc... It's part of what allows heartbreaking stories of those considered "safe" to commit terrible abuse

You've made a very unfortunate typing error.

I think you must have meant

a really important part of safeguarding is not to assume anyone isn't a particular threat because of characteristics like race or gender etc...

You're right, people being assumed to be little threat because of their race, job, or gender identity is part of what allows people categorised as "safe" to commit terrible abuse.

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though... In this case punishing trans people because of criminal actions done by others.

Transwomen are male, they are of the sex class that is excluded from women only spaces and services because of the actions of some of that sex class.

An extension of your argument is NAMALT so why should all men be excluded.

Checks are required on people who want to work with children and vulnerable people because of the bad actions of some of the people who worked with children and vulnerable people, is that also punishing a group of people for the criminal actions of others? Or is it just basic safeguarding common sense.

Why should males who decide they are women be treated differently from males who don't?

And there is plenty of evidence of trans people's criminal actions which, remarkably, appear to be no different to males who do not claim to be trans.

Safeguarding is, or should be, based on the worst case scenario and there being no sacred castes.

Reality check:
How many trans people are murdered every year in the U.K.?

www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk
“The latest Transrespect report says there were 369 “reported murders of trans and gender-diverse people between 1 October 2017 and 30 September 2018” around the world.

Nearly half of those (167) took place in Brazil, and a further 28 were recorded in the United States.

According to these figures, there was one trans person murdered in the UK in that time, and a total of nine trans people were murdered in the UK between 2008 and 2017. That’s an average rate of one victim per year.

A back-of-envelope calculation based on this data would suggest that the average trans person has a one-in-200,000 to one-in-500,000 chance of being murdered in the UK over the course of a year.”

The same article states: “Using the government’s figures, we estimate that trans people make up between 0.3 per cent and 0.75 per cent of the UK population.”

From: www.femicidecensus.org/

“110 women

were killed by men in 2020

111 men have been implicated in their killings, but to date only 79 men have been found guilty or, or pleaded guilty to the killing of a woman, or otherwise have been held responsible for the killing in the cases where the perpetrator was detained under the mental health act or died by suicide prior to conviction“

"You've made a very unfortunate typing error. "

Haha, thanks :) it was deliberate, but I agree your way is clearer. If you assume one group is more safe then by the inverse you're judging those not in that group to be less safe, so I think it all works out the same in the end.

"Transwomen are male"

@VestofAbsurdity, I wasn't talking about trans women particularly, I was talking about how trans people in general shouldn't be discriminated against just because of them being trans.

" Safeguarding is, or should be, based on the worst case scenario and there being no sacred castes."

Absolutely! white people shouldn't be sacred, cisgender people shouldn't be sacred, women shouldn't be sacred. It's so important and I'm pleased to see it noted here :)

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though... In this case punishing trans people because of criminal actions done by others.

What do you mean by this?

Who [exactly] is being punished because of criminal actions done by others [which others are you talking about]?

They sense the tide turning against the extreme trans-lobbyists so now they’re trying more subtle less aggressive journalism. This is still just lobbying, it’s still just a piece commissioned and paid for by people with an agenda and I wouldn’t give this nonsense a bigger platform to be honest. We’re all familiar with the debate by now.

@ElaineFuchs

"You've made a very unfortunate typing error. "

Haha, thanks :) it was deliberate, but I agree your way is clearer. If you assume one group is more safe then by the inverse you're judging those not in that group to be less safe, so I think it all works out the same in the end.

"Transwomen are male"

@VestofAbsurdity, I wasn't talking about trans women particularly, I was talking about how trans people in general shouldn't be discriminated against just because of them being trans.

" Safeguarding is, or should be, based on the worst case scenario and there being no sacred castes."

Absolutely! white people shouldn't be sacred, cisgender people shouldn't be sacred, women shouldn't be sacred. It's so important and I'm pleased to see it noted here :)

Yes, I am very disturbed to see people waving white teenagers off on gap years to "assist" with orphanages overseas.

Closer to home, you seem to be grossly misrepresenting what's been happening. People have been assuming that because some men also experience oppression along the immutable axis of race, they would automatically identify with anyone else who experienced oppression along one of the other immutable axes of oppression, such as sex. This was not the case. Men of all races commit rape, and men from racial minorities should not be infantilised as some form of demiman, incapable of hurting women.

As for those who struggle with this concept, I do wonder who they think commits rape in the Global South. Do they think that it's white men doing it all everywhere?

@AlisonDonut

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though... In this case punishing trans people because of criminal actions done by others.

What do you mean by this?

Who [exactly] is being punished because of criminal actions done by others [which others are you talking about]?

It's the definition of bigotry to take the actions of a few and use it to negatively paint a whole people-group.

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).