[ 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)]

With regards to the cis men argument, I think there are some fundamental problems with the argument. A few off the top of my head: the evidence from places with different gender recognition laws suggests that it's not a problem, and the argument sort of assumes that trans-inclusiveness is a magical wand that cis men can wave to get wherever they want without considering any of the details of how that would happen, and the assumption that "you open the door to any all men who wish to come inside" doesn't seem like it's obviously the case; there currently aren't exactly armed guards at the doors of most bathrooms to check the gender of people who are going in.

But let's set those aside and say that it is a "wait-and-see" problem. If, in JK Rowling's estimation, the potential "wait-and-see" harm to cis women outweighs real concrete harm to trans women, then at the very least, that seems to completely belie her claim that she actually wants to protect trans people.

And then also, I think your interpretation of JKR here - the idea that JKR isn't being transphobic because she's speaking negatively about cis men, not trans women - relies on a bright line between "cis men" and "trans women" that I don't know whether JKR herself actually believes in. As you point out, it's not clear what JKR is saying, but I think the reason for that is not just that the piece is poorly written; I think there is confusion in Rowling's mind between "cis men who masquerade as trans women" and "trans women" and that she thinks that many or most people who claim to be the latter are consciously or unconsciously actually the former. I think a lot of her line of thought in the essay really relies on calling into question the legitimacy of the identity of a huge swath of trans people in a way that I think is also transphobic in its own right.

[(Anonymous)]

The arguments you give for why trans-inclusiveness is unlikely to cause a significant increase in cis male abuse of women are all the reasons why I personally don’t agree with JKR’s stance and am very much in support of “wait and see.” “Wait and see” just means “We have good reason to believe it will probably be okay, but we can’t know for sure until we try it.”

If, in JK Rowling's estimation, the potential "wait-and-see" harm to cis women outweighs real concrete harm to trans women, then at the very least, that seems to completely belie her claim that she actually wants to protect trans people.

I think it is more than possible to genuinely want to protect one group, but be unwilling to implement a protection for said group if it is at the cost of another, much larger group. That does not make your desire for the first group to be safe any less sincere. I truly believe JRK wants trans people to be safe. But not at the expense of women as a group. And even though I don’t think she is right in her belief that certain legislation for trans people will cause women to be less safe, I think she truly, deeply believes some specific legislation for trans people will cause women as a group to be less safe. If I believed as she does (which I don’t), I would be on her side, because it would be a “needs of the many vs. Needs of the few” situation.

I think there is confusion in Rowling's mind between "cis men who masquerade as trans women" and "trans women" and that she thinks that many or most people who claim to be the latter are consciously or unconsciously actually the former.

I concede, you’re probably right about this. I do get the impression she believes many trans people are merely confused, and that more than a bare few are actually predatory cis men. Which, if it’s not clear, is a view I very much do not support. As an ace/aro person in my thirties, I have a great deal of experience with people believing I’m wrong about my own sense of self-identity; I know how hurtful and exhausting it can be, and I very much avoid perpetuating that on others.

I guess I just don’t find JRK’s views radical or hateful. They’re middle-of-the-road views (honestly, I suspect they’re still left of center, sad as that may be), and they’re unfair to trans people without meaning to be. I get why trans people have no interest in distinguishing between the inadvertently hurtful people and the actively hateful ones; they’re tired, they’re hurt, they just want to wash their hands of the whole lot. Fair. But I don’t think cis-gendered trans supporters are helping the trans cause by conflating people like JKR with actual hateful bigots who actively want to hurt or erase trans people. Because when it comes to the general public, I think you’ll find that JKR’s views are pretty in step with a large percentage of the left, and a smaller but not insignificant percentage of the right. And telling those people they hate trans people, when in actuality they’re just a bit daft, insensitive, and behind the times, is only going to push them to backslide in their slow, tentative embrace of “wokeness.”

[(Anonymous)]

So we seem to agree at least that Rowling's views, however sincere or popular, are wrong and/or not factually well-supported. You agree that it is wrong to argue that trans people are all confused, for example; you agree that it would be wrong to depict trans women as sexual predators; you agree that there is not good factual evidence to support the idea that trans women having access to female spaces will lead to increased levels of violence from cis males. So I think that on its own would be justification for forthrightly rejecting her views: they are wrong.

But also, I think Rowling's politics are of a piece with more out-and-out anti-trans sentiment. I think that the kind of views she represents are part of a continuum with people who are quote-unquote actual hateful bigots; she's certainly using a lot of arguments that they favor. I'm not sure that there is some kind of benign, acceptable, passive transphobia that's sharply distinguishable from active, virulent transphobia. If there were, I'm not sure which side JKR would be wrong. And so as a result of that, I also think that this means that JKR's views are harmful, because the specific views that she's promoting are ultimately part of a broader edifice of anti-trans bigotry.

I think that there are times where people should be kinder about explaining things. But I don't think that there is any use or any justification for not calling JKR's views what they are, wrong and harmful, whoever agrees with them. And I don't think that anything people say when criticizing her views would be a justification for her being a transphobe; her being a transphobe would still be wrong.

[(Anonymous)]

So I think that on its own would be justification for forthrightly rejecting her views: they are wrong.

I never said I don’t reject a lot of the views she expresses.That is not where I’m coming from at all.

I think that the kind of views she represents are part of a continuum with people who are quote-unquote actual hateful bigots

But everyone is part of that continuum. Trans activists are still part of that continuum of “attitudes towards trans people.”

If that’s our argument for why she should be equally condemned, it’s a bad argument.

I'm not sure that there is some kind of benign, acceptable, passive transphobia

You will note that I described JKR as “inadvertently hurtful” and “unfair to trans people.” Does that sound like I’m saying her views are benign or acceptable?

What I am saying is, when we declare that someone who doesn’t hate trans people does hate trans people, it alienates them because they know they don’t hate trans people. They are in their own head and they know for sure they don’t hate trans people. So a bunch of people associated with trans activism telling them what a horrible person they are for hating trans people makes all those people associated with that cause seem extremely aggressive and unreasonable to the accusee. Because the accusee knows for a fact they are being falsely accused of something.

Many of JKR’s views are insensitive and incorrect. Her views are based primarily on fear—not of trans people themselves I don’t think, but of how rampantly misogynistic the current socio-political climate is—and because of that they are alarmist. Her views are unnecessarily detrimental to the well-being of trans people. And I think they deserve to be criticized on these bases.

But to take someone whose views are so thoroughly MOR, and who is also saying things like, “I would march with trans people,” and “Trans people deserve protection,” and reduce their views to bigotry and hatred is bizarrely back-and-white to me.

[(Anonymous)]

JKR and anti-trans bigots have markedly similar views on trans people and JKR is largely adopting the rhetoric and reasoning of people who are very anti-trans. That's what I mean by talking about a continuum.

What I am saying is, when we declare that someone who doesn’t hate trans people does hate trans people, it alienates them because they know they don’t hate trans people. They are in their own head and they know for sure they don’t hate trans people... Because the accusee knows for a fact they are being falsely accused of something.

I strongly disagree with this.

People can very strongly believe that they are not bigoted, even while they are actively being bigoted and believe bigoted things. That someone believes in their heart of hearts that they are not a bigot does not prove that they're not a bigot. And where someone is actually a bigot, I don't think that there's much benefit in prevaricating about that.

Her views are based primarily on fear—not of trans people themselves I don’t think, but of how rampantly misogynistic the current socio-political climate is—and because of that they are alarmist.

I think this is extending the benefit of the doubt to Rowling to a degree that is unreasonable. She tries to make the argument that trans advocacy is anti-feminist, but the things that she says are unsupported or often don't even have any logic to them - she says that trans advocacy will threaten her work with MS patients, for example, and I don't know what you can even say about that. So if all of the reasons she cites for thinking that trans advocacy threatens feminist goals are unsupported if not silly, it's hard to take that part of her argument seriously. I think it's far more plausible that she has some kind of dislike for trans people and for "the trans agenda" as she understands it. I think it's a simpler explanation for the things that she says. And it explains why she is using the same arguments as people who are unambiguously anti-trans, and engages with those people again and again.

But to take someone whose views are so thoroughly MOR, and who is also saying things like, “I would march with trans people,” and “Trans people deserve protection,” and reduce their views to bigotry and hatred is bizarrely back-and-white to me.

Again, I disagree. I think that JKR's views are bigoted, and I think that saying things like "I would march with trans people" is paying lip service. She might accept the validity of some trans people but she clearly dismisses the validity of many or most others, she wants to view trans women as "secondary" women of lesser significance than "natal" women, she opposes legal protections for trans people, and she promotes a number of very familiar, well-worn, disproven and anti-trans canards. It wasn't a slip of the tongue; it was an essay she thought up and chose to write on her own initiative. I don't think that describing those views as bigoted is reductive; I think it's a factual statement. I don't think the few lines about "I would march with trans people" rebut that because I don't think they're sincere.

[tree_and_leaf]

she says that trans advocacy will threaten her work with MS patients, for example, and I don't know what you can even say about that.

She seems to think that, as MS typically manifests differently in men and women, and its course in women is understudied, research into how to help women with MS will be destroyed if we accept trans women as women, because scientists will have no way to differentiate between men and women, or between cis women and trans women. Which is absurd.

I get that the treatment of women with MS is a really important one to her, but if she's presenting that argument in good faith, then she's being completely irrational, and I don't know whether it's because she finds the whole concept of transgender, or of people transitioning, terrifying, or what, but an awful lot of this doesn't seem to have much to do with reality.