Jump to content

JK Rowling getting cancelled over “TERF-y” twitter comment

Guest

By Guest
in The Political Re-Education Camp

 Share

Recommended Posts

CastlevaniaNut18

CastlevaniaNut18

Posted
Posted

Saying you don't know who she is is like saying you don't know who George Lucas is. I didn't watch Star Wars until my mid 20s and I still was well aware of the guy all my life. 

 

11 minutes ago, marioandsonic said:

 

If I did that, I would never buy anything ever again.

Being outraged all the time can get really exhausting. There's so much to be angry about, I have to try to put things in perspective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said:

This is a much more charitable response than the position and Rowling’s response warrants.

What I find interesting about this TERF stuff is that we aren’t talking about a fight between liberal and conservatives on this issue, it’s a fight between two quite liberal camps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, Jose said:

Even if she does believe this, why would she be dumb enough to express her POV? She should just delete her tweet.

She believes something unjust has been done and the continuation down that path is bad for women and girls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
legend

legend

Posted
Posted

I know very little about this case. Some of Maya's defenders, and Maya's own later tweets, seem to be claiming that Maya only made points about the relevance of biological sex and how society views it, rather than making comments about gender itself. Is that true, or did she make much stronger comments about gender and now is trying to revise history?

 

EDIT: Scanning through some of the documents, I guess this quote of Maya's is pretty bad and doesn't really suggest she recognizes a difference between sex and gender and was making comments on the former. It seems she's trying conflate them or at least demand that pronouns follow sex rather than gender for... reasons.

 

Quote

I reserve the right to use the pronouns “he” and “him” to refer to male
people. While I may choose to use alternative pronouns as a courtesy, no
one has the right to compel others to make statements they do not
believe. I think it is important that people are able to refer to the sex of
other people accurately and without hesitation, shame or censure. This is
important for children to be able to speak up about anything that makes
them feel uncomfortable, and for adults to be able to risk assess the
difference between a single sex and mixed sex situation.”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
Just now, legend said:

I know very little about this case. Some of Maya's defenders, and Maya's own later tweets, seem to be claiming that Maya only made points about the relevance of biological sex and how society views it, rather than making comments about gender itself. Is that true, or did she make much stronger comments about gender and now is trying to revise history?

I read through most of the tribunal report (linked in the OP) and I think this this piece from the Judge’s analysis gives a pretty good indication of her views that have been expressed:

 

Quote

The core of the Claimant's belief is that sex is biologically immutable. There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality. Men are adult males. Women are adult females. There is no possibility of any sex in between male and female; or that is a person is neither male nor female. It is impossible to change sex. Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy. It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds.

Quote

However, I consider that the Claimant's view, in its absolutist nature, is incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others. She goes so far as to deny the right of a person with a Gender Recognition Certificate to be the sex to which they have transitioned. I do not accept the Claimant's contention that the Gender Recognition Act produces a mere legal fiction. It provides a right, based on the assessment of the various interrelated convention rights, for a person to transition, in certain circumstances, and thereafter to be treated for all purposes as the being of the sex to which they have transitioned. In Goodwin a fundamental aspect of the reasoning of the ECHR was that a person who has transitioned should not be forced to identify their gender assigned at birth. Such a person should be entitled to live as a person of the sex to which they have transitioned. That was recognised in the Gender Recognition Act which states that the change of sex applies for “all purposes”. Therefore, if a person has transitioned from male to female and has a Gender Recognition Certificate that person is legally a woman. That is not something that the Claimant is entitled to ignore.


So the issue seems to me to be that Maya holds the view that only biological sex matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
legend

legend

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I read through most of the tribunal report (linked in the OP) and I think this this piece from the Judge’s analysis gives a pretty good indication of her views that have been expressed:

 


So the issue seems to me to be that Maya holds the view that only biological sex matters.

 

Thanks. Looking at some of these positions:

 

Quote

There are only two sexes, male and female. She considers this is a material reality.

...

There is no possibility of any sex in between male and female; or that is a person is neither male nor female.

...

Males are people with the type of body which, if all things are working, are able to produce male gametes (sperm). Females have the type of body which, if all things are working, is able to produce female gametes (ova), and gestate a pregnancy

are not too awful. I mean, it's wrong to be completely absolutist on this because even in biology there can be some interesting exceptions and edge cases, but these positions are at least *mostly* true.

 

But then this

Quote

It is sex that is fundamentally important, rather than “gender”, “gender identity” or “gender expression”. She will not accept in any circumstances that a trans woman is in reality a woman or that a trans man is a man. That is the belief that the Claimant holds.

 

is where she loses me. Gender is very clearly a social aspect; one that changes across history, and there's no reason to assume gender has to couple perfectly with your biological sex. I guess you can insist that pronouns must only follow sex, but that seems like a silly battle since I don't think there is much utility in having special pronouns for sexes to begin with. It's just historical and unless you're literally talking about biological fact (e.g., in a medical environment), there's no reason to resist letting pronoun usage (or even "man" and "woman" in general contexts) morph to gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

@legendI’m not sure they she is disagreeing that gender is a social construct, more so that gender is inherently changing while biological sex is not. She does indeed overstate things in the regards to the existence of only two district sexes with those notable edge cases, but those are so far outside the norm they seem to fall perfectly into the realm of “exceptions that prove the rule”.

 

It seems her contention is that issues regarding the treatment of the sexes being different is not based in personal gender identity, but in biological sex. Basically, a female isn’t more likely to be the victim of domestic violence because she identifies as a woman, even if gender roles play a part. She is at heightened risk because she is a biological female.

 

That point certainly could be debated, but I THINK that is what she is getting at as I’ve tried to read and understand what this fight is about :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kal-El814

Kal-El814

Posted
Posted

For me personally, in broad strokes...

 

Regardless of what my personal thoughts on gender, sex, and intersectionality, there's little doubt that for many if not most trans and non-binary people, being referred to by non-preferred pronouns is hurtful. Cishet people sounding off with takes about how biology is the only / main thing that matters generally, or telling trans people that they'll always be male / female or even a man / woman despite how they identify is also incredibly hurtful. This is a group of people that experiences much higher rates of depression, suicidality, etc., than the general population. It seems a trivial effort to call people what they want to be called, and strong public takes that insist that people are not how they identify are bizarre to me.

 

So for a bunch of cis folks to sound off being all, "well actually your genes," feels like it misses the point tremendously. And given the topic, I'm not particularly inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt.

 

EDIT - and reading some of Maya Forstater's tweets on the topic, and how she wants to protect women's bathrooms and dormitories from biological males... she can fuck right off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Reputator

Reputator

Posted
Posted

I don't know if this is the place for this but I've ALWAYS had a hard time accepting transgenders on a fundamental level. At least I recognize this is my problem and not theirs. It's not that I refuse to refer to people how they want to be called — obviously that's their right alone to decide. But there have been very embarrassing situations where I've used male pronouns to refer to a trans-woman (who, frankly, did a really poor job of "dressing the part"), and my only moral salvation is that the person was a complete lazy nimrod that treated everyone else like shit. But it was an accident, and the problem rises from a deep-seeded, hardwired mental code for how to identify genders, and when someone identifies the opposite of that, my brain stumbles over itself quite often.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
SimpleG

SimpleG

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Reputator said:

I don't know if this is the place for this but I've ALWAYS had a hard time accepting transgenders on a fundamental level. At least I recognize this is my problem and not theirs. It's not that I refuse to refer to people how they want to be called — obviously that's their right alone to decide. But there have been very embarrassing situations where I've used male pronouns to refer to a trans-woman (who, frankly, did a really poor job of "dressing the part"), and my only moral salvation is that the person was a complete lazy nimrod that treated everyone else like shit. But it was an accident, and the problem rises from a deep-seeded, hardwired mental code for how to identify genders, and when someone identifies the opposite of that, my brain stumbles over itself quite often.

I have a similar issue, part of it stems from how we identify genders and if you are doing your best not to use the wrong words that seems to exacerbate the problem. I had a trans person point that I have a very obvious pause when using a he/she , him/her. They said most trans understand and appreciate that folks try it and it only becomes an issue when its obvious someone is doing to be an ass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
fuckle85

fuckle85

Posted
Posted

The whole "having to remember multiple pronouns is too much and i won't stand for it" argument is such a hilariously stupid hill to die on.  He, she, and they will basically cover it for the most part.  And when in doubt, just go with they.  It's not very difficult to get in the habit of saying they/them for everyone if remembering specific pronouns is too many words for your brain to balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...