[ SECRET POST #4908 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4908 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.



__________________________________________________



11.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 59 secrets from Secret Submission Post #703.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Forgive my squirrely ignorance, but I'm not sure how the Daily Mail and the Sun doing a scummy thing by giving Rowling's domestic abuser a platform is supposed to negate or debunk Rowling saying scummy things/holding and expressing an outdated and hurtful perspective. Both of these things can be wrong simultaneously.

[(Anonymous)]

It means maybe you could have a little more empathy for someone who’s been through what she has

[(Anonymous)]

Again: empathy and discontent aren't contradictory emotions. You can be a victim of violence and also behave like an ass in certain situations.

[(Anonymous)]

Quick question: Do you think that the concussion made her a bigot, or do you just think that having been hurt in the past gives her an indefinite free pass to hurt others?

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe it makes her uncomfortable seeing male bodied people in female spaces.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't know about you, but I don't go around checking.

[(Anonymous)]

You can still tell sometimes

[(Anonymous)]

Oh FFS, no you can't. And even if you could, suspicion isn't justification for checking.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm a cis woman with a hormonal disorder that gives me facial hair.
TRUST ME - y'all aren't as good at "telling" as you think you are.

[(Anonymous)]

I am a cis woman and have been misgendered often enough that I started to hate my body for not being feminine enough. Which is why transphobes piss me off so much. Being misgendered sucks. People who do it deliberately are assholes.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a cis female wife.

She looks very dude-like and wouldn't pass your check because of PCOS.

[(Anonymous)]

I could see her point if she was abused by a man who faked being trans to go hang out in dressing rooms, but that's not the case? And trans women are often the victims of violence, sadly, not the instigators of violence against other women.

[(Anonymous)]

Trauma isn't rational

[(Anonymous)]

Stop making assumptions about her trauma to justify her disrespect of trans people.

[(Anonymous)]

You don't know that at all.

[(Anonymous)]

You can have empathy and realize that being treated like shit does not entitle a person to be disrespectful of others.

[(Anonymous)]

nah, you don't get a free-pass on being a horrible bigot because of past trauma that isn't even connected to her issues as a cis-man abused her.

[(Anonymous)]

I've been abused by men in my life and I miraculously didn't turn into a transphobe who thinks trans women, who face some of the worst prejudice and violence today, are just sexual predators. Almost like using that as an excuse is fucking weak and horrendous.

[(Anonymous)]

a transphobe who thinks trans women, who face some of the worst prejudice and violence today, are just sexual predators.

I don't understand where you all are getting the belief that this is what she's saying. Here is a quote from her essay:

"I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I've outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection."

How are you jumping from that to "JK Rowling believes trans women are just sexual predators"?

[(Anonymous)]

Gee, ask the anon who posted the domestic abuse news link and speculated about Rowling being scared of male bodies in female spaces.

[(Anonymous)]

You are not answering my question. How is the person who is saying, "I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I've outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection," being transphobic?

I will do the work of attempting to interpret your answer for you. Are you saying, "She's not being transphobic in that quote, but she does say transphobic things elsewhere"? Is that your argument?

If so, then I see that as a valid argument, but it would be a much more constructive conversation if people would quote the specific passages which they feel are transphobic, or the specific passages which they feel indicate she's not transphobic. Otherwise, neither side as anything to respond to.

[(Anonymous)]

NAYRT

You've isolated the part of the argument immediately before she undercuts that statement and pivots to talk about all the reasons why actually trans people shouldn't be protected. Her argument is basically that allowing people to use bathrooms according to their gender identity subjects women to increased risk of violence. It seems to me that either she's arguing that cis men will take advantage of gender recognition laws to pose as trans women and use the access this creates to subject women to violence, or she's arguing that trans women are more likely to be violent predators (it's not totally clear exactly what she does think; it's not a very well written manifesto). Neither of these arguments is any good. The first one I think is just plainly ridiculous, and the second is transphobic, factually wrong, has been debunked a million times, and does pretty much directly amount to accusing trans women of being sexual predators.

And on the other hand, if she really believes that trans people need and deserve attention, as she claims, allowing people to use bathrooms based on their gender identity is a really good and straightforward thing that does that.

[(Anonymous)]

It seems to me that either she's arguing that cis men will take advantage of gender recognition laws to pose as trans women and use the access this creates to subject women to violence, or she's arguing that trans women are more likely to be violent predators

It seems clear to me that her argument is the former, and I don’t think it’s a ridiculous concern for a female in our current social climate to have, though it’s not an issue I’m overly concerned about personally. I’m more inclined to a “wait and see” approach. If, in the coming years, men begin using the cover of trans-inclusiveness to assault women in female spaces, then okay, we might have an issue. But if that doesn’t happen (and I doubt it will), then great, no problem. What I got from JRK’s statement was that she doesn’t believe women should have to “wait and see” on this issue. She doesn’t feel 99% of women should have to accept what she perceives as a potential risk, so that 1% of women can avoid a definite risk that is much greater.

I can understand that stance, even though I disagree with it.

However, if JKR’s argument is the latter - that trans women are more likely to be violent predators - then I agree, that is very transphobic and I don’t agree with it or support it at all. However, she explicitly says she believes the majority of trans-identified people pose zero threat to others, and I see no reason not to take her at face value on that. Therefore, I think it’s far more likely that her concern is with cis men using the cover of trans-inclusiveness to gain unchecked access to female spaces for the purposes to harming females.

I do agree with you, though, that her statement is messy and leaves real question as to exactly what she’s arguing.

“When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”

The final bit in bold seems to make it clear that her concern is with cis men abusing trans-inclusivity. OTOH, I agree that the wording of the first half of this quote seems more suspicious of trans people than of cis men.

[(Anonymous)]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaK1dYMXkAI-fxm?format=png&name=large
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EaK1rdAWkAEoeB2?format=jpg&name=medium

Gee, I wonder why we're jumping to that conclusion.

[(Anonymous)]

When she stops dismissing entire oppressed portions of people, I'll have some empathy, TERF.