You said:
That is a fairly obvious point. The fact that you came here to make it seems, in itself, to be indicative of an ulterior motive. Why point this out, except to cast judgment over people who abandon their favorite artists because of those artists’ misdeeds?
So, for thousands of years? You’d think there would be a consensus by now…
She’s obviously talking about an obscure branch of feminism that only last week decided that women from racial and ethnic minorities are, indeed, women.
Just kidding.
It’s not that obscure.
And they haven’t yet come to a consensus about minority women being women.
Thanks for the brackets, that makes me feel really fucking valued.
Have a hug! I value you you (for what that is worth!). Much more so than Rowling, in fact.
Mary Wollstonecraft and Emma Goldman were both on the trans positive side of the argument. This should have been settled by now, and it would have if it weren’t for a reactionary group who believe that transgender people should be separate but equal (we all know how that worked out last time).
Is it even useful to define who counts as a “real” woman? If you ask five random women on the street what it’s like being a woman, you’ll probably get five different answers. Whether cis or trans, we’re all individuals, and we all experience life differently. I believe that’s something to be respected and celebrated, not utilized as a tactic to divide and devalue anyone who doesn’t fit some arbitrary concept of “womanhood.”
As I see it (and I may be wrong), feminism was created in defiance of the stereotypical view that women were “weaker” or “less than” on the basis of their biology. We want to be seen as more than the sum of our (biological) parts-- to be seen and valued for our minds, hearts and souls, for our talents and capabilities. So with that in mind, the views espoused by Rowling and other gender-critical thinkers appear patronizingly anti-feminist, because they’re trying to give and take away rights based on who’s got whatever body parts. Why in the world did we fight for centuries to gain equal rights if we’re only going to turn around and accept the same “biology is everything” limitations we’ve been rejecting? It’s absurd.
I’m all for creating a society where everyone can live without fear. But there’s something disingenuous about the argument that trans women are inherently dangerous because they (might) have a penis. The language used strongly implies trans people are predators who just want inclusion in women-only spaces to cause harm-- and that’s ridiculous. If anything, trans women (and men) suffer just as much from verbal and physical abuse as cis women do… if not more. Trans women need safe spaces just as much as cis women do.
That leads me to another inherent fallacy in the gender-critical standpoint: the concept that giving protection to trans people somehow detracts from or erases the experience of cis women. That’s ludicrous. Rights aren’t a zero-sum game, where more for some equals less for others. Equal rights are for everyone, full stop. It’s not “either-or”; it’s “yes-and.” The existence of trans women takes nothing away from me as a cis woman. I’m still everything I’ve ever been. If anything, finding out how trans women experience their lives as women can only enrich my experience, because I learn more about life and gender outside my own little bubble of being. And that’s a wonderful thing. We’re all in this together-- we need to support each other in love, not tear each other down in fear.
I’ll grant you, some people have been saying, “Shut up, JK,” which might not be helpful. But I think far, far more people are engaging with the argument itself. Pointing out the flaws in the discourse and refusing to accept the bigoted conclusions isn’t the same thing as “shutting down women’s voices.” Disagreement isn’t censorship. And we aren’t obliged to give tolerance to intolerant voices. Arguing that certain peoples’ existence isn’t valid because they don’t fit narrow definitions seems pretty damn intolerant to me.
Tl;dr: Trans rights are human rights. Equal rights for all.
Domestic abuse and intimate partner violence are usually perceived as a heterosexual issue – straight men inflicting violence, including sexual violence, against straight women.
But women can be abusive, too.
During Pride month in 2017, UK domestic abuse charity Women’s Aid wrote that LGBT+ survivors – a quarter of lesbian and bisexual women have experienced domestic abuse in a relationship, with two-thirds of them saying the abuse was perpetrated by a woman, according to Stonewall – are a silenced group, left out of the conversation on gender-based violence and suffering from a lack of access to support.
Amy, herself a survivor of sexual violence perpetrated by a woman, wanted this issue to be part of the discussion. But she was repeatedly shut down.
“When I talked about it to any GC feminist, they would downplay it and say ‘Well, it’s not as bad as with men’ or ‘We want to focus on men,'” she says.
Feet of clay and all that. Lord knows I’ve been most disappointed by Scott Adams for awhile now.
I’m just saying Rowling is “yet another” creator whose issues have been broadcast to such a level that I can’t claim ignorance of them any longer.
But there sometimes comes a point where you can’t avoid that connection.
This is the first time I’ve run across her attitude toward trans people – I don’t really seek out news about artists I’m interested in, news just happens; I’m a passive fan – and I cannot support it in any way. I’m done with her. Your mileage may vary.
I’m not.
Based on what little I know transwomen are more likely to need the kind of supports that battered women’s shelters provide. And that’s only aggravated if the transwomen are not allowed access to those “women-only” spaces. But if the other women in those spaces are traumatized by the inclusion of the transwomen, I’m not seeing this as a win for women.
So what do we as a society do? Tell the other women at the shelter to suck it up, that they are being bigoted? I’m not very happy with that. I would like to think that education might help – but honestly, once somebody’s are scared of all men I’m not optimistic that a sober discussion of statistics would change their feelings.
I’ve no expertise in addressing the trauma of an abusive relationship or rape or other kinds of gendered abuse – but I cannot believe that just ignoring the stated fears of the victim is the right step.
Yeah, my only experience of being really beaten up was at the hands of a woman – which is probably one of the reasons I don’t understand the desire for women-only “safe” spaces. But I also realize that my perspective and views are not shared by everyone… so I try to listen and learn from folks who tell me what their lived experience is.
This is precisely what is bothering me. I do identify with exclusion, and I empathize with victimization, and I would like to live in a world where people could all be accepted and supported. I think we have a long way to go. That my comments here lead you to believe that I am indifferent or hostile the the issues that trans people face is part of the problem. I’m not. But I also think that simply asserting that all people have human rights is not really adequate.
It’s unfortunately been a known thing about her opposition towards the trans community for a few years now, it’s been mostly passive things such as liking transphobic tweets and semi-vague statements. But it’s now moved onto active opposition, that coupled with the timing that it’s now Pride Month it’s really been highlighted how much of a dumpster fire JK Rowling is. She definitely speaks from a position of ultimate privilege, even if there’s a bigger fallout from her position she’ll live out the rest of her life without wanting for anything and i’m sure there are people out there willing to kiss her ass. She definitely will not miss me, i was never a fan, but i feel bad for the people who were invested in her series.
Why should they be, if the person who abused them were cisgendered men? Transwomen are NOT men. Plain and simple.
First, people who suffer abuse can most certainly be bigoted, including blaming and conflating people who did not abuse them with their abusers. What if a white woman suffered abuse at the hands of a black man, should that white woman be allowed to ask for black women to be excluded? Wouldn’t we find that equally problematic?
Second, should we tell people with less privilege to “suck it”?
Even if their fears are both irrational and expressed in a bigoted way?
So, again, if a white woman asks to exclude abused black women or if someone asks to exclude lesbians, is that okay?
Then help build that.
Whether you mean it or not, you are privileging the concerns of cisgendered women over transwomen. No one has said we shouldn’t care about abused suffered by cisgendered women. But Rowlings using her trauma to advocate for exclusion isn’t particularly helpful for any women. Transwomen ARE women, not just dudes in drag. That’s a major part of my problem with it. They are not putting themselves at great personal risk just to get a glimpse of some boobs, which is what they are often accused of. Being able to come out and be your true self in a society that is actively hostile to that self is incredibly brave. Protecting all women should be our goal, and excluding abused transwomen doesn’t help with that, it only subjects some women to more violence.
I concur; this isn’t the Persecution Olympics. Being abused by cis-het men in the past doesn’t give JKR a ‘right’ to lash out at transwomen now because “they used to be men.”
She needs to fuck off, already.
Wanting equality and safety for all women should never come with a qualifier as it demeans, dehumanizes and lessens the lived experience of all women. Anyone, like JK Rowling, wanting to gate keep and qualify what it means to be a feminist is ultimately not a feminist. They’re assholes.
Multiple people disagreeing with you does not make them disingenuous, but it is disingenuous to imply that it does. Staking a position is not signalling virtue merely because that position has become slightly less dangerous to express due to marginal advances against systemic bigotry against it.
People fighting for their and/or others’ right to exist aren’t automatically brigading the people who are, intentionally or otherwise, using their privilege and platform to support lies and conflationary rhetoric that, intentionally or otherwise, reinforce the systemic bigotry that’s antithetical to their right to exist, even if they get frustrated at that bigotry and use language you or others think is intemperate. And conflating intemperate language with actual misogynistic slurs and abuse as Rowling did in her blog post is also disingenuous.
It’s “black men are after white women” and “gays are pedophiles” panic all over again. Same shit, different decade.
I see booth JK Rowling and Graham Linehan and look on with extreme disappointment and wonder why this is the hill both of them choose to obsess over and die on.
In the case of Glinner:
