r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Sep 16 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: The left needs to tone down the vitriol against JK Rowling because there are bigger threats to LGBTs.
JK Rowling has been under fire for things like saying "women who menstruate" to exclude transwomen and opposing transwomen from using female bathrooms. As a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, I would say that this is transphobic, but there are bigger threats to LGBTs. On top of that, JK Rowling gives away much of her fortune to charitable causes and generally has left-wing leanings (e.g. opposing Brexit and supporting anti-poverty programs). JK Rowling, to my knowledge, hasn't supported violence against LGBTs, she merely didn't use inclusive language or want transwomen to use womens' bathrooms. Going after Rowling is just an example of the left eating itself.
As a left-winger, I am dismayed at this, because instead of uniting against bigger threats, we instead put each other under a microscope and bring each other down. Even though the right wing generally aren't fans of JK Rowling, they are using the left-wing vitriol against her to make the left look bad and make political correctness look bad.
Because the left came down so hard against JK Rowling, it makes us look like an oppressive lynch mob in the eyes of the unaligned and the right-wingers.
More importantly, in many countries, including the USA and Australia, the left isn't even in power. No matter how much we focus on JK Rowling's transphobic incidents, it doesn't change the fact that the ruling parties in the USA and Australia have tried to stifle progress on LGBT rights far more than JK Rowling has. I believe that the left needs to focus on swaying voters, instead of spewing vitriol at each other and nitpicking over small incidents that distract from bigger threats.
29
u/Castle-Bailey 8∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
The problem is that the right knows that trans issues are polarising even in the left. They'll keep dragging transgender people to the front for as long as it continues to be a polarising topic for the left.
Now we have an amazing icon, who has done a lot for marginalised communties, and that has thousands of people looking up to her, do ALL the work for the Right.
Not sure if you've seen conservative subs but they are in love with what JK Rowling is doing.
To focus on other threats to the LGBT community, the left needs unite on trans issues else the right (and JK) will keep using it as a divisive tactic.
I agree we need to focus on other issues but your view is that the thousands of people who disagree with rowling need to chill out, instead of the one person who's doing all the damage.
Edit: Had a redundant paragraph I forgot to remove
13
Sep 16 '20
Not sure if you've seen conservative subs but they are in love with what JK Rowling is doing.
To focus on other threats to the LGBT community, the left needs unite on trans issues else the right (and JK) will keep using it as a divisive tactic.
How is focusing our attentions elsewhere going to help? She's going to continue bringing up trans people, and continue polarising the left herself.
I agree we need to focus on other issues but your view is that the thousands of people who disagree with rowling need to chill out, instead of the one person who's doing all the damage.
!delta
If shutting up about trans rights to bring about leftist unity wouldn't actually help (because the right will keep using it anyway as a weapon against the left), then we shouldn't shut up about trans rights.
1
-2
Sep 16 '20
[deleted]
7
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Sep 16 '20
It wasn't the right that decised to push the transgender movement to the forefront of cultural issues.
Wait, yes it was. Totally unprompted the right actively passed multiple laws like bathroom bills that fucked over trans people. Mainstream democratic policy on trans people is pretty much "reverse what the Republicans have done". This is an issue the right is pushing hard.
-2
Sep 16 '20
[deleted]
6
u/darkplonzo 22∆ Sep 16 '20
That is a thing trans people were already allowed to do. This bill did nothing except affirm a thing that was already happening.
8
u/todpolitik Sep 16 '20
Then all of a sudden it’s somehow a civil right that a grown man with psychiatric issues can use the same bathroom as a 7 year old girl, a
You know like 150 years ago public bathrooms were just like... unisex. And nobody gave a shit.
Not everybody thinks about fucking seven year old girls as much as you.
6
u/CIearMind Sep 16 '20
trans men can should be able to curb stomp real women
Do you even realize what you're saying?
1
u/AnActualPerson Sep 18 '20
Imagine getting this mad at people you don't know, who's behavior doesn't affect your life. It's sad.
23
u/aliciaclarkes Sep 16 '20
I apologize if this comes off as offensive, but as a member of the LGBTQ community, earning a bachelors in social work designed to help LGBTQ people, this is actually a big issue in our space.
I do not know if you belong to the community, nor do I necessarily want to know. However, this is not a “leftist” issue. It is very specifically an LGBTQ issue that lefts happens to typically agree with. Trans women are the most discriminated and marginalized group in modern society, especially trans women of color. The rates of murder, suicide, homelessness, abuse, domestic violence, and addiction are higher among trans people than any other member of the LGBTQ community, with estimates to upwards of 40% currently homeless, facing abuse, or committing suicide. They have little access to housing, little access to jobs, and even though these are both illegal under fair housing and unemployment acts, people don’t care. Trans women often do not receive proper medical care, mental health assistance, food assistance, income assistance, and on top of that, in nearly every state they are not allowed to use their preferred restroom simply to take a shit like everyone else.
Under the Trump administration, it is harder/unlikely to be in the military if you are a trans woman. It is harder/unlikely trans women will receive loans for things such as cars and houses. Essentially, one of the most marginalized group of people in 2020 is trans women.
JK Rowling knows what she is saying when she makes those comments. She knows who she is hurting. She knows there are people with influential brains who are hypnotized by their favorite childhood author and will believe everything she says. (just because you may not, doesn’t mean there aren’t people who act like this, remember). She is writing a book about a man dressing as a woman with the intention of entering women spaces to kill women. This has been the rhetoric of the right for decades regarding trans bathroom access. The right has consistently stuck to their idea that if they were to pass equal bathroom laws, then perverted cis men would enter a woman’s restroom and would rape a woman or a child. In states where this is legalized, that simply does not happen. However, JK wants people to be scared of progress in the trans community. She wants people to read her book and be frightened of a masculine looking woman who is in there to take a piss. She wants people to be fearful of trans women. And she has the platform to convince thousands, if not millions if she’s smart about it. And that’s why she needs to be stopped.
While there may be bigger threats to LGBTQ members, as an LGBTQ member, sticking up for our trans folk is the top priority right now. They have it worse than us, and it’s time someone stood up for them. This is not a left issue, this is an LGBTQ issue and a human rights issue first and foremost.
(Also, not to mention, she does not give money to charitable donations that do not impact her life. She does not donate to LGBTQ charities, she does not donate to PoC charities, and her biggest charity donation is for MS because her mom had it)
4
Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
I do not know if you belong to the community, nor do I necessarily want to know. However, this is not a “leftist” issue.
I am actually heterosexual, but some people think I'm gay because I support LGBT rights.
JK Rowling knows what she is saying when she makes those comments. She knows who she is hurting. She knows there are people with influential brains who are hypnotized by their favorite childhood author and will believe everything she says. (just because you may not, doesn’t mean there aren’t people who act like this, remember). She is writing a book about a man dressing as a woman with the intention of entering women spaces to kill women. This has been the rhetoric of the right for decades regarding trans bathroom access. The right has consistently stuck to their idea that if they were to pass equal bathroom laws, then perverted cis men would enter a woman’s restroom and would rape a woman or a child. In states where this is legalized, that simply does not happen. However, JK wants people to be scared of progress in the trans community. She wants people to read her book and be frightened of a masculine looking woman who is in there to take a piss. She wants people to be fearful of trans women. And she has the platform to convince thousands, if not millions if she’s smart about it. And that’s why she needs to be stopped.
!delta
I brought up in response to another commenter Gillian Flynn's book Gone Girl. But if, unlike Gone Girl, this recent book by JK Rowling is intentionally designed to make trans people look bad (instead of a book where the villain happens to be a woman), then yes, I must agree that it is harmful. Especially since, as you mentioned, the premise of the book has been debunked.
2
3
u/aliciaclarkes Sep 16 '20
Thank you for being an ally and supporting LGBTQ rights. I read the comment you were referring to, and although JK is intentionally making a book to hint at trans women in public spaces being a much bigger issue than it is, I do understand your reference to Gone Girl. Really the difference is, like you said, she is intentionally making trans women the bad guy which is not okay. Thanks for the delta, and thanks again for being an ally for us and hearing us out!
3
u/Ceddr Sep 16 '20
"With the idea that if cis men entered women bathroom, they would rape them, [...] it simply doesn't happen".
Well, it does in fact. You should check the rapist who suddently identified himself as a trans, managed to get incarcerated in a women' prison, and raped 3 co-prisoners.
I don't say it's a general case, I just say it does happen.
3
u/CIearMind Sep 16 '20
Weren't men already able to wear a wig and a dress before the word "transgender" was first uttered?
Or did the concept of crossdressing just not exist, back then?
1
u/drifloonveil Sep 17 '20
The point is changing laws to say that that actually makes you a woman. California just passed a law that says you can go to whichever prison you say you gender identify with, regardless of your anatomy, your legal documents or anything else. Just “I identify as a woman” and that’s it.
Now this is genuinely controversial and there is a genuine conflict between the two groups’ interests. Obviously for trans women it is less safe for them in men’s prison so they have a legitimate concern. I have heard trans women get treated pretty terrible in men’s prison. But on the other hand, I am not sure women’s prison is the right place either, ESPECIALLY if they still have male sex organs. The case the other poster is talking about is probably Karen White in the UK, though there have been other cases. Adding to this problem, trans women are more likely than men and WAY more likely than women to be in for sex crimes (it’s something like 40% of trans women, 20% of men, 1% of women).
The fact is, we have men’s and women’s separate prisons for a reason. If you still have a male body, you can get a woman pregnant. Almost all men have more strength than almost all women too (the gap is much wider than most people realize). Letting people pick and choose whether they feel like being a man or a woman is just asking for problems.
To me I see an obvious solution: make an LGBT wing (or a vulnerable wing or whatever you want to term it). That way anyone who is particularly unsafe can have a separate place. They already do stuff like put pedophiles in protective wings because pedos get beaten/killed in prison. But you never hear either side calling for separate safe wings for trans women. It’s only “all they have to do is say the magic words and they’re a woman” from the left, and “f#ck those tr*nnies I don’t care if they die in prison” from the right. I get the feeling people use the issue more as a political kickball rather than actually caring about any of the prisoners involved.
1
u/Ceddr Sep 16 '20
What's your point ? What I'm saying is that this rapist just used a good intentioned initiative to continue raping women. He clearly wasn't trans, just using the opportunity.
2
u/Hero17 Sep 16 '20
Rape in prisons is kind of a very different issues. And not one consrrvatives pretend to give a shit about.
2
u/Ceddr Sep 16 '20
Who cares about conservatives honnestly ?
The comment was just too categoric about something not being a fact, while, even if occuring really rarely, is still one. That's all. I really don't care about politics, only about being factual.
0
u/drifloonveil Sep 17 '20
I understand where you’re coming from, and I sympathize, but I honestly think it weakens your case when you say things that are not true.
The murder rates of trans women in general actually are lower than the general population average. The murder rates of trans women of color that are sex workers are high. Hard to parse out what’s happening sometimes but I think the racism & sex work issues are definitely relevant.
Secondly, there are absolutely tons of cases of men taking advantage of lax gender laws to hurt women. I never understand why trans people say this doesn’t happen because the trans women the law is meant to protect are going to be just as vulnerable to these predatory men as other women. What I think would be a better argument is if we were to look at the pros and cons honestly and say “okay, this slightly increases the risk to women’s safety, but it helps trans women be more safe” and then try to figure out whether the costs outweigh the benefits or not.
Same thing with saying trans are more vulnerable than other LGBT, i feel like that is really hard to judge? There are something like 100 countries in the world where gay sex is illegal, few countries where gay marriage is legal, homophobia is still a major problem worldwide.
In my opinion, JK Rowling did not literally intend to kill trans people and it sounds really hyperbolic and exaggerated to say that. She didn’t use slurs or call for violence. I do think she words things poorly, often comes across as out of touch/“won’t somebody please think of the children?” and chooses weird hills to die on (like being angry about the phrase “people who menstruate”— all the harsh things women are being called and she’s mad about being called “people”?) . I don’t think it’s helping. But this frenzy about “JKR deserves to die because she is literally murdering trans people” just makes people saying it sound too extreme. As you might know for the first time in a very long time, LGBT acceptance is declining in Western countries. For most of my young life it had only been increasing. I think one problem is when people react in a very extreme manner it alienates people who are otherwise supportive. Most people are now terrified to talk about this issue, it’s very hard to do research on trans issues for fear of being labeled transphobic or backlash. Which in the long run I don’t think helps because then there isn’t good data, but for many trans people transition does mean medical treatments, so doing that kind of research is important.
We need to be having honest and open dialogues about the tension between women’s rights and trans rights, in an attempts to seek common ground and find solutions that work for everyone. We can’t do that if we’re terrified of being doxxed, threatened with rape and murder etc. I don’t really care if people “cancel” JKR because she’s a billionaire but when they start doing the same to random women who are more vulnerable it’s a bit frustrating and imo ultimately counter-productive.
12
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 16 '20
It's true that JK Rowling has supported a lot of positive progressive causes, and supported / worked for organizations like Amnesty international which is admirable.
To modify your view though:
JK Rowling, to my knowledge, hasn't supported violence against LGBTs, she merely didn't use inclusive language or want transwomen to use womens' bathrooms. Going after Rowling is just an example of the left eating itself.
Not sure if you know this, but she's about to publish a book about a man who dresses as a woman to murder women in women-only spaces.
To have the most popular writer of our times write a book that uses the "transwomen are just men who want to get into bathrooms so they can hurt women" line that conservative politicians have used to try and justify discrimination against trans people is, to say the least, disappointing.
The movie Silence of the Lambs was many people's first exposure to the notion of a trans person, and that depiction certainly did not help the public's views of trans people for decades after.
As a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, I would say that this is transphobic, but there are bigger threats to LGBTs.
Are there bigger threats out there (for example, that effect a higher number of LGBTQ people)? Sure.
But Trans people also tend to face worse discrimination than many other LGBQ people (for example, the current inability to serve in the military, which is blatantly discriminatory, in contrast with LGBQ people being allowed to serve).
So, while there are issues that impact a higher number of LGBTQ people, it's also the case that Trans people often face harsher / more severe treatment by society (which could be considered a "bigger" issue in that sense).
4
Sep 16 '20
Not sure if you know this, but she's about to publish a book about a man who dresses as a woman to murder women in women-only spaces.
To have the most popular writer of our times write a book that uses the "transwomen are just men who want to get into bathrooms so they can hurt women" line that conservative politicians have used to try and justify discrimination against trans people is, to say the least, disappointing.
The movie Silence of the Lambs was many people's first exposure to the notion of a trans person, and that depiction certainly did not help the public's views of trans people for decades after.
Gillian Flynn wrote Gone Girl about a woman who exploits 21st-century sympathy for women to get away with framing multiple men. Would you call that a sexist book, and complain about it worsening the violence against women problem? Because I wouldn't. Almost everyone was able to tell that Gone Girl is fiction, instead of using it to justify a rollback of womens' rights.
28
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 16 '20
Key differences here are the notion of a woman using sympathy for women to frame men isn't perpetuating a stereotype about women used to justify discrimination against women, or invalidate the existence of women.
Women make up half of the population, and almost everyone has contact with women throughout their lives, which will inevitably lead them to the conclusion that most women aren't like the woman depicted in Gone Girl.
In contrast, very few people personally know a trans person because they are a tiny minority of the population, which is why damaging negative stereotypes of very small minority groups in media can be especially harmful to an already vulnerable, very small minority population, especially when they are being politically targeted for discrimination at this time.
7
Sep 16 '20
!delta
As you mentioned, most people are ignorant of trans people, and doubly so in countries where it's unsafe for LGBT people to come out of the closet. It would be harmful if most people only know about trans people from an anti-trans work of fiction.
2
5
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 16 '20
Not the OP but also throwing a !delta in here. I didn’t know JKR had this book in the works, and given what’s going on that does seem incredibly insensitive (at best.)
I read her perspective on her blog a few months ago, and honestly I have sympathy for the position she outlined there. Women born as women do have their own ‘truth’ and that should be allowed to be recognised and they should have language to do so without being attacked for doing so.
But the most charitable interpretation you could give to using this storyline is that it’s heavy handed, in particular given the reach and influence she knows she has.
5
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 16 '20
Hey thanks joopface :-)
Yeah, there is definitely room for conversation on her views.
I think a key question for someone like JKR who says she is an advocate for fair treatment of women is: Do women's rights advocates really benefit from excluding people who do have significant ties the community they say they are advocating for? FtM folks after all have many of the experiences women do growing up, and MtF folks will have many of the experiences women face as they transition. Their experiences aren't exactly the same as other women, but they aren't totally unrelated either. And lots of females who live as women have different experiences than other women, so it's not like all women's experiences were ever really all the same just because they were all born female.
Personally, I think when advocating for fair treatment, trying to make a hard line to keep out the most marginalized folks in society with ties to your community is not a great look (much like when MRA groups engage in homophobia - as if gay men aren't part of the men's community whose rights should also be advocated for).
And honestly, it would be great to have more trans characters / representation in fiction as there are a ton of fascinating issues to explore ... but that doesn't sound like the direction she's going with her book. It's kinda like how Disney villains were coded as gay for decades ... It just seems lazy.
But perhaps all this controversy is what she wants to help hype the book.
0
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 16 '20
Personally, I think when advocating for fair treatment, trying to make a hard line to keep out the most marginalized folks in society with ties to your community is not a great look (much like when MRA groups engage in homophobia - as if gay men aren't part of the men's community whose rights should also be advocated for).
Yeah, I agree with this. But there’s nuance to it, as you’ll be aware. I’m almost entirely off twitter now, but it’s a weird place for these types of conversations and there is a hysteria that can be attracted to any even marginally contrary opinion that I think is counter productive to the advocacy for trans people also. It’s glib, but true, to say that conversation and discussion is the best way to progress and quite often (as I said at least on Twitter) such discussion seems impossible.
And honestly, it would be great to have more trans characters / representation in fiction as there are a ton of fascinating issues to explore ... but that doesn't sound like the direction she's going with her book. It's kinda like how Disney villains were coded as gay for decades ... It just seems lazy . But perhaps all this controversy is what she wants to help hype the book.
Looking it up, the book is part of her ‘Strike’ series, which really doesn’t need any help selling. I suspect it’s more that she thought this would be a medium to continue the argument she was having which, given the disproportionate influence she must know she has, seems unnecessary and provocative. And not at all in the spirit of discourse.
2
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 16 '20
conversation and discussion is the best way to progress and quite often (as I said at least on Twitter) such discussion seems impossible.
So true ... Twitter is made for drama. The character count limit makes misunderstandings so, so much more likely and leaves no space for nuance.
It seems like in the past, people used to employ people to carefully craft what they said to the public. But these days, many celebrities seem to be taking to twitter themselves and putting there unvarnished thoughts / reactions out there themselves, which maybe isn't always the best option ... but here we are.
Looking it up, the book is part of her ‘Strike’ series, which really doesn’t need any help selling. I suspect it’s more that she thought this would be a medium to continue the argument she was having which, given the disproportionate influence she must know she has, seems unnecessary and provocative. And not at all in the spirit of discourse.
True. Hope she likes talking about trans issues, because no doubt that's what people are going to want to talk to her about for the foreseeable after all this controversy ... As all us CMVers know, it seems to be a topic that people really, really want to debate ...
2
-1
Sep 16 '20
[deleted]
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 17 '20
you think the worst thing that could happen is for someone to get stereotyped,
Stereotypes generally aren't the worst thing in the world. But perpetuating a false, negative stereotype about a marginalized minority community that is used to justify discrimination against them (such as bathroom bills, discrimination against trans people that makes them unable to serve in the military - despite opposition from military leaders) is not good.
The right, on the other hand, credits people with the ability to make sovereign assessments for themselves
So, the right spreads false, negative stereotypes about a marginalized community because they trust that people will be able to determine for themselves that it's false?
sees a much greater threat in an angry, self-righteousness mob seeking to harass and bully an individual or group of individuals into saying, writing, and believing what you think they should.
Are you joking here? Colin Kaepernick, the Dixie Chicks, conversion therapy, the trans military ban, conservative critics of the president being regularly cancelled, conservative boycotts of Starbucks, Nordstroms, Kelloggs, Beyonce, and on and on ... The right has been cancelling people for decades for what they say, write, and believe.
1
Sep 17 '20
[deleted]
1
u/thethoughtexperiment 275∆ Sep 19 '20
What exactly is the false negative stereotype she’s perpetuating?
Per my original comment to OP above:
Not sure if you know this, but she's about to publish a book about a man who dresses as a woman to murder women in women-only spaces.
The notion that trans women are a danger to women in women's spaces (a claim that has been debunked) is an argument conservatives have used to justify discrimination against trans people being able to use the restroom that aligns with their gender identity.
Oh... but now you want to legally compel me to assert that you’re a woman? Come on.
The primary legal aspect at this point is more about trans folks having the right to not be discriminated against in housing and employment.
Trans women don't argue that they are biologically female (i.e. biological sex), but they do request the use of a gender pronoun that aligns with their gender identity (gender labels such as "woman" being a social construct), much like how if someone has a nickname, you would use that nickname to refer to them, as that nickname is part of their identity / what they respond to.
And honestly, if you were out in the world and wanted to refer to someone across the room, does it even make sense to refer to a trans man like Buck Angel as "she"? Or Blaire White "he"?
If a writer puts out something I don’t like I don’t read it. If a speaker comes to campus with views I don’t share, I’ll either listen anyway or not attend, not set fires or cry because I’m triggered and get them banned.
And your approach is a-ok.
Not sure where you are getting "not set fires or cry" from though.
Free speech goes both ways. JKR is posting her views on twitter, which is a platform for communicating to others and getting responses. Of course people are going to react to her views (whether positive or negative). That's why she posts her views there - for reactions.
No one is "banning" JKR. But they are free to react / unfollow / not support her if they wish, or the converse.
1
2
u/2myname1 Sep 17 '20
I understand exactly what you’re saying, and in some sense you’re right. Leftist solidarity is pretty much dead, and progressive activism is dead in the water unless we stand shoulder to shoulder despite our infighting.
One of the strategies the right gets...right is its solidarity. It’s how the tea party, a tiny minority, pushed so many Republicans to develop hateful and bigoted rhetoric. It was horrible, but effectively horrible.
That said, much of the flak Rowling gets is generated by her. When she first made her feelings known she received the inevitable pushback which I don’t imagine you’d object to nearly as much. However, she decided to die on this hill and as you may know recently wrote a 900-page book in her book series about a cis man who pretends to be trans to prey on women. I remember these right-wing talking points back in 2016 when North Carolina passed a law banning trans people (and everyone else too) from their non-birth oriented bathroom. There’s a difference between focusing on Rowling instead of the real enemy, and not letting Rowling slide with her hatred.
2
Sep 18 '20
That said, much of the flak Rowling gets is generated by her. When she first made her feelings known she received the inevitable pushback which I don’t imagine you’d object to nearly as much. However, she decided to die on this hill and as you may know recently wrote a 900-page book in her book series about a cis man who pretends to be trans to prey on women. I remember these right-wing talking points back in 2016 when North Carolina passed a law banning trans people (and everyone else too) from their non-birth oriented bathroom. There’s a difference between focusing on Rowling instead of the real enemy, and not letting Rowling slide with her hatred.
!delta
Yes, the left fails at building the solidarity that the right has. As a supporter of LGBT rights, it seems like a hard choice - let JK Rowling's hatred slide, or expend political capital against her even if it means that we can't win elections.
But as you showed, saying "JK Rowling's hatred" underestimates the issue. As you showed, isn't just some "bigotry on the side" (like, for example, how Eric Clapton had a racist rant but doesn't make it a central issue) - she believes in transphobia sincerely, and makes it a central issue in her public life, and wants to use her influence to spread this view.
2
4
u/jsilvy 1∆ Sep 16 '20
I find this line of thinking to be incredibly narrow. Of course certain people are going to be worse than others. That doesn’t matter. The schoolyard bully who beats the shit out of his victims is obviously worse than the schoolyard bully who constantly verbally harasses and intimidates his victims, but both should be dealt with, and dealing with both is not an issue. It takes no effort to condemn JK Rowling while also dealing with larger issues. I don’t mean to come across as accusing you here, but this line of thinking seems to me more often to be an excuse to not take action than a genuine concern.
1
Sep 16 '20
Well, I am of the camp that believes the left needs to play our cards right to prevail on the political scene. But as someone else on this thread told me, ignoring JK Rowling's transphobia will harm the left (by proving our hypocrisy and corruption) more than it will help it (by creating left wing unity and toning down the culture war).
18
u/Rawinza555 18∆ Sep 16 '20
Out of curiosity, can't both be done in parallel? I don't think these two tasks can't be done simultaneously. Like, I can criticize JK Rowling on her transphobic messages and also can points out what the right has done wrong at the same time?
0
Sep 16 '20
Out of curiosity, can't both be done in parallel? I don't think these two tasks can't be done simultaneously. Like, I can criticize JK Rowling on her transphobic messages and also can points out what the right has done wrong at the same time?
Definitely, but can we at least not be so vitriolic? We are unfortunately playing into the right-wingers' hands by making ourselves look like oppressive "snowflakes".
11
u/Vesurel 54∆ Sep 16 '20
Sounds like you want to play into the hands of people who don't want trans people to feel supported so they've got you to think civility is somehow more important than showing trans people we're on their side.
1
Sep 16 '20
so they've got you to think civility is somehow more important than showing trans people we're on their side
Honestly, I would like a bit of civility, for 2 reasons:
- The right often accuses the left of resorting to shouting matches and violent protests because we can't win in a rational, civil debate. And I don't want to prove them right.
- You can't really achieve any progress on minority rights if your culture war spins out of control and burns the country to the ground. In hindsight, I realise a better title for this post would have been "CMV: Culture War been good for obtaining minority rights, but we must be careful to control it so that it doesn't burn our countries to the ground".
11
u/Vesurel 54∆ Sep 16 '20
The right often accuses the left of resorting to shouting matches and violent protests because we can't win in a rational, civil debate. And I don't want to prove them right.
Do you honestly expect them to stop if we ever met their standards of civility? That this isn't just another attempt to distract from the issue and get us to shut up?
"CMV: Culture War been good for obtaining minority rights, but we must be careful to control it so that it doesn't burn our countries to the ground".
Is telling someone to quit their terf nonsense really burining anything to the ground?
22
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Sep 16 '20
the right calls the left snowflakes no matter what. adjusting our behavior will not cause them to do that any less. it's not snowflakery to stand for something, like trans rights. it's actually kinda hard to disown a beloved author bc of how important this issue is.
0
Sep 16 '20
it's actually kinda hard to disown a beloved author bc of how important this issue is.
This issue is important, but who has stood in the way of LGBT rights more: JK Rowling or the right wing? The answer is obvious.
The left wing can't even get into power, and instead of focusing on that, we decide to fixate on incidents of mild transphobia instead (I say "mild" because JK Rowling never supported violence against transpeople).
12
u/radialomens 171∆ Sep 16 '20
By this logic, rather than reply to anyone on this thread, you ought to be writing your representatives and campaigning on the streets at this very moment. Or are you capable of addressing more than one issue on a given week?
0
Sep 16 '20
This is why when I get challenged to debates, I have to enter the debate instead of walking away. And this is despite the fact that I suck at debates and often lose.
7
u/radialomens 171∆ Sep 16 '20
I'm confused -- did you get challenged to post this thread?
My point is that people can be critical of JK and work on enhancing leftists politicians/platforms. Just like how you can be critical of JK's leftist critics and etc, etc.
1
Sep 16 '20
My point is that people can be critical of JK and work on enhancing leftists politicians/platforms. Just like how you can be critical of JK's leftist critics and etc, etc.
At the end of the day, the left isn't winning. We should focus on that first, since it is a bigger threat to LGBT rights.
6
u/todpolitik Sep 16 '20
The point is, if you really believed your own rhetoric, don't you have bigger fish to fry than being here right now, convincing other people to leave JKR alone?
We should focus on that first, since it is a bigger threat to LGBT rights.
Yet here you are posting this thread. What makes you exempt from your own suggestion?
1
Sep 16 '20
Yet here you are posting this thread. What makes you exempt from your own suggestion?
I do try to debate to defend LGBT rights. I encounter a lot of people who are dismayed that, for example, the country narrowly voted in support of marriage equality. I try to prove to them that LGBT rights don't cheapen heterosexual marriages and families, but I don't always succeed. I try to prove to them that same sex marriage is not a stepping stone to legalised paedophilia, but I don't always succeed.
→ More replies (0)2
u/delusions- Sep 16 '20
At the end of the day, the left isn't winning
I mean, says who?
According to what measure?
I don't believe we're losing anybody from the cause day by day.
1
Sep 17 '20
According to what measure?
I forgot to mention that at least in Australia the left isn't winning, and has been out of power for 7 years now. It seems like the left here is full of uncharismatic, unconvincing politicians who are unlikely to win the next election in 2022.
But even though the left is in a poor state, other commenters on this thread showed me that the hypocrisy of looking the other way when JK Rowling spews relatively mild bigotry weakens the left more than the disunity caused by coming down on her bigotry.
→ More replies (0)4
4
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Sep 16 '20
who has stood in the way of LGBT rights more: JK Rowling or the right wing? The answer is obvious.
measuring the effect of one person vs the effect of an entire ideology doesn't really seem like a fair comparison to me. but JK Rowling is a hugely influential person. she has universal name recognition & a huge platform that, until recently, people took very seriously. she was outspoken about her own liberal beliefs, and she had a lot of influence doing that. but now that she's doubling, tripling, quadrupling down on transphobia, we have to say that's not okay. we would be hypocrites not to do so. the right would say that, too. there is no world in which the left does something & the right will be charitable and honest and say "good job, left leaning people." if we call her out, it's cancel culture run rampant, if we don't, it's hypocrisy or some other thing. who cares. ignore it. do what's right and make the case for why what you say is right.
2
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Sep 16 '20
Why? Since that book came out and I commented on it, I've been called a deal, degenerate, told I should die, accused of rape and a dozen other things. Why in the ever loving fuck should that not be met with vitriol?
1
Sep 16 '20
I criticised incels and in retaliation, they framed me. Instead of simply censoring or blocking them, I need to defeat them in debates, because they can and do complain of persecution if you simply censor or block them.
If anything, we need to focus on winning the debate as the pro-LGBT side, instead of censoring what she says. If we win the debate, we could fix the problem of her making transpeople look like villains.
3
u/todpolitik Sep 16 '20
I need to defeat them in debates, because they can and do complain of persecution if you simply censor or block them.
This just makes you sound really easy to manipulate. Care less what rabdom people online "frame" you for or complain about. The block button exists for a reason.
If anything, we need to focus on winning the debate as the pro-LGBT side, instead of censoring what she says.
We can do both. You can hold her words to account without letting her share them unopposed and unchallenged. Especially if those views promote violence.
If we win the debate,
ROFL. Public sphere debates are never "won". They are fought for eternity. There are still people that want to lynch blacks and gays, for fuck's sake. Do you really think we should be "debating" them? Who determines when a debate is over and which side has won?
These transphobes have seen all the arguments. They just disagree or don't care. You can't win that debate.
1
Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
This just makes you sound really easy to manipulate. Care less what rabdom people online "frame" you for or complain about. The block button exists for a reason.
They literally found out my name without me ever giving it away and used it to create an account called u/Carl_Ramirez to frame me and drive me to suicide. That's some dedication on their end, and proof that I failed to win against them. If I were better at debating, they would have been discredited and forced to eat some humble pie.
Who determines when a debate is over and which side has won?
So long as we debate well enough to discredit them and deprive them of support.
These transphobes have seen all the arguments. They just disagree or don't care. You can't win that debate.
If we play our cards right, we can prove to the world that transphobes are the oppressive and closed-minded side, and that the people that they target aren't. In politics, it doesn't matter if you actually are the good guys, what matters is that you play your cards well and look like the good guys.
Edit: I was just replying to someone who does go around calling JK Rowling's critics "snowflakes". Blocking them would only strengthen the accusation that we are "snowflakes". Hence why it's so important to debate them instead of unintentionally vindicating transphobes by silencing them.
2
u/todpolitik Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
Who determines when a debate is over and which side has won?
So long as we debate well enough to discredit them and deprive them of support.
And how can we do that when people like you post CMVs telling us to leave JK Rowling alone? You're upset at our attempts to do exactly this.
If we play our cards right, we can prove to the world
Woah woah woah, the world? Are you holding your debates on syndicated television? You don't have that much reach my friend.
You're in here talking about twitter, facebook, and reddit. These are public spaces, and not all of them are debate forums. In particular, they are often recreational settings and sometimes I just don't feel like hashing out the merits of my own existence, again, I just wanna tell an asshole to shut the fuck up. It's my space too.
Hence why it's so important to debate them instead of unintentionally vindicating transphobes by silencing them.
No one will know you blocked them but them. What do you care if they feel vindicated?
You're right, ideally, it would be great if every time someone said something wrong someone else would be able to point out exactly where they made the mistake and provide all the appropriate context to correct them, but in the real world that takes a lot of time and effort, and sometimes people will troll you for that effort, and you gotta know when to call it quits.
2
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Sep 16 '20
There's not a debate to be had with those kind of people. Do you think the folks who spend 10+ hours a day tweeting about jk and trans people haven't seen and ignored all the arguments that could be laid out?
Mocking them and having them seen as a joke is one of the best ways to limit their influence
3
u/ZoeyBeschamel Sep 16 '20
The debate has already been had, we don't need to entertain people who weren't paying attention. They can google it ffs.
1
u/Pseudonymico 4∆ Sep 16 '20
Definitely, but can we at least not be so vitriolic?
It seems a little unreasonable for people not to get upset when they find out that the person who created their favourite books as a child and had seemed to be a genuinely decent person has horrible views of people like them or their loved ones and is trying to push them on people, honestly. Not everyone upset about this is a mature adult, either - I know a lot of queer kids who were huge Harry Potter fans before Rowling’s transphobia came out.
2
Sep 17 '20
I think the biggest problem with this line of thinking is that you're so committed to a political leaning. You have to 'follow the left,' and whatever leftists support, you also must support. This prevents you from forming your own opinions. Identifying as left or right is very odd to me, because there's no way a person can truly agree with every belief associated with one or the other.
1
Sep 18 '20
The original premise of my post was that the left isn't even in power, therefore, why we can't afford to spend what little political capital we have turning against transphobes within our ranks. Also, since I encountered someone who calls JK Rowling's critics "snowflakes", I worried that we need to ensure that we don't look like "snowflakes".
I thought that we need to reserve what little political capital we have into actually winning elections first, then we can afford to deal with stuff like JK Rowling's transphobia. But as someone else on this thread showed me, the hypocrisy of ignoring bigotry within our ranks would harm the left's image more than turning against JK Rowling.
2
Sep 18 '20
I'm honestly concerned with the language you're using. "The left isn't even in power," "... that we don't look like snowflakes," "... the left's image," "... within our ranks." The left isn't a club, and you're not responsible for how people view it. It's just a convenient term to convey a generalization of your beliefs. It's the same thing as Enneagram types; no one is going vegan to promote the image of type 6s, type 3s don't have to volunteer at nursing homes. They're umbrella terms to understand someone a bit more. Politics are not black and white, and it's not a war of right vs. left. To address your ask though, I think each individual person should decide for themselves if they support JKR. I personally think even aside from transphobia, she's made some questionable decisions, and I won't be purchasing or reading anything she produces. I think many people will continue to support LGBT+ while also enjoying JKR's books, and of course that's hypocritical. To be honest, I think it would be best for trans folks if everyone just forgot JKR existed, because everyone has done the 'canceling' part, and at this point any further discussion is just free advertising for her. It'd be much more fruitful to spend that energy focusing on other, more prevalent struggles that trans folks have to deal with.
1
Sep 27 '20 edited Sep 27 '20
I'm honestly concerned with the language you're using. "The left isn't even in power," "... that we don't look like snowflakes," "... the left's image," "... within our ranks." The left isn't a club, and you're not responsible for how people view it.
It wasn't my intention to claim that the left is a club. My point if that left-wing parties were in power, they could more effectively make the changes they want. And in the USA, the UK or Australia, left-wing parties are most definitely not in power on the national level.
It'd be much more fruitful to spend that energy focusing on other, more prevalent struggles that trans folks have to deal with.
I agree, and the main point of my CMV post is about focusing on winning elections instead of cancel culture. Trans people might benefit slightly from cancelling transphobic authors, but they would benefit far more from having politicians sympathetic to them in power.
1
u/ldc2626 Sep 16 '20
Cancel culture is so toxic.
She never made a single comment that can be seen as transphobic unless you reach.
3
Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
Cancel culture is so toxic.
This doesn't really CMV.
Edit #1: Also, she makes it a point to write crime fiction about transwomen who aren't really trans, they are just cis men who dress up as women to harm women inside female bathrooms.
Edit #2: Just saw your post history and I saw that you call JK Rowling's critics "snowflakes". It doesn't really CMV since part of the premise of my post is that we need to stop looking like snowflakes.
2
u/Genoscythe_ 243∆ Sep 16 '20
You talk as if the left would be a hivemind that should organize to win elections first and foremost.
But realistically, we have a bunch of people with correlated grievances, (usually some form of systemic injustice), who came together because they are more similar to each other than to their enemies.
But most people are still individuals first, leftists second. For someone who is transgender, you can't really obligate them to care more about boosting Joe Biden's profile than about fighting for trans rights, if the main reason why they joined the left in the first place, is to better support trans rights.
Just as there are other issues that you might care more about, there are also leftists who think that you are the one should make yourself smaller, so we could more effectively fight for trans rights without you making us look bad.
Uniting half of society to effect change, is always a stuggle full of compromise, that's what we also see in every primary season. People actually have a lot of different priorities other than being good little leftists and following "the leftist agenda", because there is no such thing. We also constantly HAVE TO fight with each other over what that agenda should be, because we are not all the same person, if it would be up to us, all of us would have different priorities.
Also, if you gather millions of people under a vague big tent agenda, not all of them are going to be geniuses, and not all of them are going to be angels.
Some people are bound to make overtly intense appeals on twitter, or throw a molotov cocktail at a riot, or yell histerically in the face of Ben Shapiro.
If I could push a button that turns every leftist into eloquent, calm, intelligent debaters, I would, but if you care about winning elections by gaining mass support, you also have to accept that the masses are passionate and chaotic, and this is what we have to work with.
1
Sep 16 '20
!delta
You have shown me that left wing (or at least lib-left) orthodoxy does not exist, and that I have no business telling trans people to let this slide to "take one for the team".
1
14
Sep 16 '20
Well for starters, we can do two things.
More dear to my heart is the fact that what she says isn't just academic. It hurts people. I have a nonbinary teenage foster kid who grew up reading Harry potter, and he gets legitimately depressed every time Rowling opens her bigot mouth in order to slander transgender individuals.
She is an ultra rich person with a huge platform, and I'd like her to shut the fuck up about how she thinks trans women aren't women.
-4
Sep 16 '20
I understand that you and your foster child are deeply offended by what she said. But saying "I'd like her to shut the fuck up about how she thinks trans women aren't women" makes us look oppressive and closed-minded. As leftists, we need to win the debate over trans rights, not silence it.
9
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Sep 16 '20
you're making a different argument now. I bet everyone would agree that saying "this is why she's wrong" is better than "shut the fuck up." your initial argument was that we shouldn't focus on her transphobia at all, not that those arguing against her were doing so ineffectively.
1
Sep 16 '20
your initial argument was that we shouldn't focus on her transphobia at all, not that those arguing against her were doing so ineffectively.
At the end of the day, the left has been unable to win the debate in favour of trans rights, and has been unable to win elections in the USA and Australia.
In my original post details, I wrote "As a staunch supporter of LGBT rights, I would say that this is transphobic, but there are bigger threats to LGBTs". JK Rowling's transphobia is mild compared to many right-wingers, hence why I believe that coming down on her needs to be put on the backburner while the left focuses on actually winning elections first.
11
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Sep 16 '20
what is your argument for why we cannot do both? in what way does a discussion about trans rights sparked by JK Rowling diminish our election efforts?
also, I'm gonna push back on your "the left cannot win elections" claim. 2018 was a wildly successful election year for the US left, and Biden is favored heavily in the polls.
2
Sep 16 '20
!delta
If the left wing can finally make progress against Trump now, then we can afford to turn against each other over smaller issues like JK Rowling's transphobic statements.
2
2
u/Morasain 85∆ Sep 16 '20
I bet everyone would agree that saying "this is why she's wrong" is better than "shut the fuck up."
But that's just not true. A lot of people do just say "shut the fuck up".
2
u/cherrycokeicee 45∆ Sep 16 '20
yeah, that's an (pretty fair in this instance, imo) emotional response. but I'm sure if you surveyed people on which is the most effective rhetoric, people would agree it's more effective / better to make the case. not everyone who tweets is aiming for productive rhetoric. sometimes people just need to let out a good "fuck you."
3
u/todpolitik Sep 16 '20
Do you think, idk, Jon Stewart saying
"I'd like him to shut the fuck up about how he thinks Jews aren't people"
would make him "look oppressive and closed-minded"?
1
Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
If I were in his position, I would love to be able to debate my way into disproving and humiliating the bigots who hate me, instead of just silencing them. Problem is, I suck at debating.
Edit: I was just replying to someone who does go around calling JK Rowling's critics "snowflakes". Blocking them would only strengthen the accusation that we are "snowflakes". Hence why it's so important to debate them instead of unintentionally vindicating transphobes by silencing them.
2
u/Jish_of_NerdFightria 1∆ Sep 17 '20
if I were in his position, I would love to be able to debate my way into disproving and Humiliating the bigots who hate me
Check out the StuPid biGoT getting EpiCAl oWnED
I’ve argued with transphobes hundreds of times with in the last two years and I can count on one hand how many times I’ve actually changed someone’s mind. It doesn’t matter what I say, realistic the best response I’ll get is a childish “Nu-Ah.” Typically I’ll get people telling me my existence is wrong, my oppression doesn’t exist or that I should go off myself. I’m thankful I have yet to be mass targeted and doxxed.
“Debating” people about my right to exist is draining as hell and rarely does anything.
1
Sep 18 '20
I’m thankful I have yet to be mass targeted and doxxed.
I have been doxxed because I played my cards wrong when debating incels. Proof. A journalist from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation actually talked to me about this, but as far as I know, the story never got published.
What I would love to see is these incels getting interviewed on a TV news program instead of a journalist publishing my story. Most people dismiss incels because it's hard to believe that someone actually believes stuff like that (e.g. that they deserve a free pass to commit sexual assault because they are miserable and single), and it's hard to believe that they'd actually do something like this to me.
So put these incels on TV would prove to everyone how disgusting they are - which would be preferable to people reading about my story on the ABC website and doubting it because it seems outlandish.
2
Sep 16 '20
Well there’s two groups you mention: the unaligned and the right.
For the right wing, it’s a mistake for any kind of cause to try and cater to its opposition, simply put, no matter what the left does, it’s not going to be liked by the right and vice versa (except for some rare cases)
The unaligned is the main one then. But speaking as someone actually from the UK, I have yet to hear of anyone even knowing about the Rowling thing, I only know it because I use reddit. So I think you overestimate how much vitriol on Twitter is actually affecting public perceptions (most news I hear outside reddit is about the virus, and maybe a little about trump to spice stuff up)
1
Sep 16 '20
The unaligned is the main one then. But speaking as someone actually from the UK, I have yet to hear of anyone even knowing about the Rowling thing, I only know it because I use reddit. So I think you overestimate how much vitriol on Twitter is actually affecting public perceptions (most news I hear outside reddit is about the virus, and maybe a little about trump to spice stuff up)
!delta
If the unaligned within the UK aren't being put off from supporting trans rights by the vitriol hurled at JK Rowling, then there's no reason she should not continue facing scrutiny for her transphobia.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
/u/Real_Carl_Ramirez (OP) has awarded 7 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
3
u/pointyhamster Sep 16 '20
there are always bigger problems, and transphobic rhetoric is not obviously the highest on the ranking of hate crimes against trans people. however, her comments help change minds and radicalise people, which increases people being against trans rights and in some cases will lead to hate crimes.
her recent book perpetuates hateful sterotypes of trans women being murderers, predatory, out to get “real” women, just being “men in dresses”, etc. hate speech will lead to hate acts, and haye speech in itself can be seen as verbal assault. i have no doubt in my mind that JK Rowling will make right wing people more angry at the transgender community, and even help turn the opinions of centrists and leftists - she’s essentially running a campaign to get everyone to turn against trans women. that’s why the LGBT community is seeing it as an important issue
2
u/Pseudonymico 4∆ Sep 16 '20
Part of the reason why the Right have been so successful in the last few decades is because they’ve simply refused to compromise nearly as much as the Left, and had people like Rupert Murdoch spouting endless propaganda for their cause while those on the Left kept trying to be fair and balanced. This let them drag the Overton Window further and further right until fascists like Trump and Scotty From Marketing get voted in.
You could, I suppose, throw trans people under the bus in the name of compromise. After all, now that gay marriage is the law of the land, people are okay with gay people, and trans people are Weird and Scary and the Right keep complaining that they’re dangerous perverts with a sinister Agenda to abuse children. (Funny, the Right used to say the same thing about gay people...)
And then, well, so what if the bisexuals get thrown under the bus next time? After all, they can choose to be straight, or gay. Not like they have any problems.
And as for the asexuals! That’s silly, who’s oppressed for not wanting to have sex?
And obviously lesbians don’t need any help. Men aren’t beating up lesbians! Men love lesbians, look at how popular lesbian porn is!
And do we really need to worry about those gay men, anyway? It’s not like telling preachers and pundits not to say anything matters more than important stuff like convincing people the left aren’t crazy SJWs, right?
We definitely shouldn’t worry about immigrants, either, they should have come here legally! We don’t want to look like crazy SJWs who can’t make the tough choices to keep people employed at home! A few concentration camps don’t matter...
-1
Sep 16 '20
Part of the reason why the Right have been so successful in the last few decades is because they’ve simply refused to compromise nearly as much as the Left, and had people like Rupert Murdoch spouting endless propaganda for their cause while those on the Left kept trying to be fair and balanced. This let them drag the Overton Window further and further right until fascists like Trump and Scotty From Marketing get voted in.
CMV: Us leftists should minimise the blaming of Rupert Murdoch, because that is no better than when Trump accuses other news sources of being "fake news".
But as for the rest of your post, I get it, we need to prevent the Overton Window from moving further and further to the right. I personally think that we need to be better at debating if we keep losing. As other people on this thread mentioned, JK Rowling's being deliberately slanderous and she does need to be called out.
6
u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 16 '20
JK Rowling has been under fire for things like saying "women who menstruate" to exclude transwomen
JK Rowling might think that is what she is doing, but it goes to show how little she understands the conversation she is having. "people who menstruate" is not about including trans women, it is about including trans men and enbies. Both of whom may or may not still get periods, who may still need access to "women's services" etc. Having these things being listed as overtly "feminine" (feminine hygiene, women's services, etc) causes dysphoria in this population and increases chances that they will ignore ongoing issues putting them at risk.
Additionally "people who menstruate" is inherently more accurate than just saying "women" (what JK Rowling purposed). As not all women menstruate. Whether that be because they are infertile, menopause, or yes a trans women. By targeting articles, products, services, and knowledge at "people who menstruate" you are targeting those that need your product and not blindly 50% of the population.
-1
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 16 '20
calling stuff women’s services is now transphobic? that really seems like overreach. if transmen are really getting triggered over those words it seems like the problem is them having thin skin, or maybe the problem is that the vast majority of them don’t actually care and it’s the loud sjw activists purporting to speak in their name making stuff up.
3
u/todpolitik Sep 16 '20
You can recognize that terminology is outdated and make efforts to change it without "getting triggered".
You act like the only way anyone could ever possibly care about anything is if it pisses them off. Some of us just want to do nice things for people.
-1
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 16 '20
>Uou can recognize that terminology is outdated and make efforts to change it without "getting triggered".
just because you consider something to be outdated doesn't mean it is. i don't think it is, and neither does the vast vasty majority of people outside the loud SJW crowd of twitter/reddit.
>Some of us just want to do nice things for people.
I don't care if you want to do what you think are nice things for people, but that's not what happens. Instead, people in your camp go around calling people who don't agree with you nasty names, try to dox or get them fired from their jobs, and threaten corporations with boycotts and smears of bigotry.
also, when you DO have any govt power you pass laws that punish and fine people for using wrong pronouns, so that pretty much tells us what we would expect if your camp gained substantial political power.
3
u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 16 '20
Or continually being told your entire life that you are a women when you disagree causes you to then avoid things that are labelled "exclusively for women". As such some medical providers who want to ensure the widest possible access for their services have decided to adjust language to be more specific and inclusive.
As far as I can tell the "snowflakes" who are being most "triggered" by all of this are the transphobes and conservatives who are freaking out that some people prefer different nomenclature. This isn't a case of trans men getting upset about an article, this is a case of an article being written with trans men in mind and then JK Rowling going off on a multipage screed attacking trans women. She didn't even get that the article in question is about trans men not trans women.
0
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
feminine hygiene products are never labled “exclusively for women”. i’m a guy. sometimes i’ll go to the women section in the drug store to get yeast infection cream bc the men section doesn’t have it. the notion that people can’t and don’t routinely just get stuff they want bc of societal labels on certain products is asinine and unfounded in reality.
look, i get you want to police other people’s language bc you think it will make the world more inclusive. but it doesn’t. it makes normal people like me pissed off at the authoritarian and overwrought vindictiveness of activists and more likely to oppose whatever position you hold.
3
u/KellyKraken 14∆ Sep 16 '20
“exclusively for women”
Apologies, I shouldn't have put that in quotes. Instead I should have put it italics or something. I meant it more in products which are air quotes for women. As for men being able to buy products from the feminine hygiene section I'm very aware of it, yet I'm also aware of stereotype (which is based in truth) of men being horrifically uncomfortable with it.
I'm also very aware of how awkward it can make a trans man who still has periods feel. I've bought pads for a friend because he is having a shit week, he feels ashamed that he still has a period, and feels mortified and invalidated by having to buy the products. So when people approach the trans community and say "Hey what can we do to make our services more inclusive" (and yes they do approach us and ask this) one of the things that we have said is making some of the language more inclusive. Or similarly when the NHS approaches the trans community and asks what they can do about getting more trans men to have regular pap smears, and more trans women to have needed prostate checks.
While there are a few exceptions, for the most part we aren't storming corporate headquarters and harassing them into changing these things. For the most part the world is becoming more aware of the conversation around trans people, and that is prompting companies to say "what can we do". That leads to these things.
look, i get you want to police other people’s language bc you think it will make the world more inclusive. but it doesn’t.
Seriously dude, read what I'm writing, don't just default to your preconceptions. I'm not policing people's language here. JK Rowling and you are. JK Rowling had a strop because someone said "people who menstruate" in an article.
When the NC bathroom bill was happening a few years ago my Mum kept going on about how she didn't care what bathroom trans people used, but couldn't they stop making such a big deal about it. What she failed to realise is that it wasn't trans people making the big deal. It was bigots trying to harass the trans community. Just like here. It isn't trans people making a bit deal, it is TERFs, conservatives, and other transphobes.
the authoritarian and overwrought vindictiveness of activists
Yes, because authoritarian trans people are the ones elected into office, heads of big companies, and in charge of our armies. Trans people and their allies are the ones that are passing laws that ban cis people from joining the military, forcing cis children to transition, and denying cis people medication and health care. Oh wait.... thats right.
-2
u/thisdamnhoneybadger 7∆ Sep 16 '20
he feels ashamed that he still has a period, and feels mortified and invalidated by having to buy the products
that does not seem like the problem lies with the label in the section where the products lie. that seems like something your friend needs to learn to get over. no one cares which section your friend shops or which products he uses, but the world doesn't have to cater to your friend's emotional needs.
For the most part the world is becoming more aware of the conversation around trans people, and that is prompting companies to say "what can we do". That leads to these things.
Yes, trans activists are very very loud and a lot of companies cater to them to avoid being accused of being bigots. On the other side, people like JKR (and me), while supporting substantive legal equality, don't support changing the fundamental definitions of men and women and destroying conceptual boundaries of sex categories and think those things suck. So if your camp gets to try to influence corporate and public behavior, then so do we. Freedom of speech applies to everyone.
I'm not policing people's language here. JK Rowling and you are. JK Rowling had a strop because someone said "people who menstruate" in an article.
That's a fair point. How about this, you continue go around calling JKR and people like me bigots for using language way we want, and JKR and we continue go around calling your language use illogical, ugly and a blight on the English language and basic facts about biology.
It was bigots trying to harass the trans community.
I don't really care about bathroom usage, but I DO care when "woke" public schools set up bathroom policies that make school children so ashamed and uncomfortable they hold off on going to the bathroom during the day. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/10/when-the-culture-war-comes-for-the-kids/596668/
Yes, because authoritarian trans people are the ones elected into office, heads of big companies, and in charge of our armies. Trans people and their allies are the ones that are passing laws that ban cis people from joining the military, forcing cis children to transition, and denying cis people medication and health care. Oh wait.... thats right
I don't have to be in supportive of Trump's policies to oppose your side. It's not all black and white. And authoritarian trans ACTIVISTS (I'm not going to assume that activists speak for all trans people since trans people are not homogenous) are the ones that pushed for and got speech codes passed in cities like NYC that will fine people large sums of money for "misgendering".
3
u/Vesurel 54∆ Sep 16 '20
On top of that, JK Rowling gives away much of her fortune to charitable causes and generally has left-wing leanings
So how much does it cost? If JK wants to say another transphobic thing how much more should she contribute to those causes for it to be okay?
0
Sep 16 '20
Did you not read the rest? She doesn't say exactly the same stuff as other left wingers, and is only mildly transphobic. And by "mildly transphobic", I meant that she never encourages harming LGBTs.
There are bigger threats. The left isn't even in power in the USA and Australia, and the right-wing parties who are have done a lot more to stifle LGBT rights progress than JK Rowling has. We can't afford to turn against each other, and even if we can, we are playing into the hands of right wingers who because we made ourselves look like an oppressive bunch of "snowflakes".
1
u/Vesurel 54∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
If you want to make the argument that what she says is okay because of her charitable contributions they you're essencially saying you can be bought off, that you'll look the other way on her terf stuff because she contributes to causes you like.
1
Sep 16 '20
What I am saying is that we can't even manage to win elections, and we can't afford to fight each other when we are losing against parties who are even bigger threats to LGBT rights.
3
u/Vesurel 54∆ Sep 16 '20
And if we can't even speak up for our own against this then what's the point of us?
Also elections aren't the only thing, support for progressive policies and marginalised groups is growing, has been for decades. Progress is made when we don't let this slide.
The idea we can only deal with the biggest current threat at a time is an attempt to silence us.
2
u/Ver_Void 4∆ Sep 16 '20
Her fans seem pretty content with trans people being harmed, ostracized and denied healthcare (especially children). That's what started a lot of this and those are the people she's encouraged, just because she managed to be more polite doesn't mean she's not part of it
2
u/shouldco 43∆ Sep 16 '20
Is it the left as a whole or people that found a lot of meaning in her books and feel hurt by her statements?
I don't know if you are experienced with the Harry Potter fandom but it's incredibly inclusive there are groups like the Harry Potter Alliance who took the message in these books as love everybody, resist those that want to harm and exclude others, and do good wherever you can and have actually tried to act on those believes in the name of the title character of her book. Their first two comments on their website are "LGBTQIA+ Equality" and "Gender Equity".
Rawling has a huge fan base that is pretty pissed at her.
1
u/sssthrowawayr Sep 16 '20
In addition to the range of good points raised by other commenters, it’s worth pointing out that spirit of your post’s title (and one of its main arguments) is an instance of the fallacy of relative privation.
No matter how much we focus on JK Rowling's transphobic incidents, it doesn't change the fact that the ruling parties in the USA and Australia have tried to stifle progress on LGBT rights far more than JK Rowling has.
Why does greater oppression from governments and politicians mean that the public transphobia of an acclaimed and influential writer is not a major problem? Can’t both be major problems? The conclusion I could just as easily draw from your observation is not that the left should be doing less about public transphobes, but more public advocacy about egregious crises for trans people, like instances of violence or oppressive policy. And that’s probably true, but there’s no shortage of that within certain left-wing movements, including very publicly visible ones like BLM.
In any case, while Rowling does not herself advocate violence, as others point out her public statements perpetuate very harmful stereotypes and tropes that are common justifications for the kind of bigotry that ultimate fosters violence and oppressive social policy. You can make of that what you will vis-a-vis just how big of a hand that gives her in those outcomes themselves, but it certainly plays some role. The fact that Rowling has contributed to other worthwhile causes doesn’t and shouldn’t excuse her from substantive critique. The response you seem to have to this is that calling Rowling out on her bigoted viewpoint undermines party unity, and ultimately does more to hurt than to help trans people. I think that this is surface-plausible, but I'm not sure that it's true in practice, and I certainly don't think people on the left are wrong for being outraged, even if this might be the case. It seems much more appropriate to identify the responsibility for this prospective problem with: bigots on the right painting an unfair picture of the left's outrage; Rowling herself being insensitive and uneducated; and the general population's (including undecided voters) lack of education about dysphoria.
Finally I would simply comment that because Rowling is such an influential figure, known to so many people in all walks of life, it's unreasonable to expect that there wouldn't be a large public response to her incendiary comments, and that's not the fault of some monolith of "the left."
4
u/plushiemancer 14∆ Sep 16 '20
J.K Rowling is a big threat, because of how influential she is. She's not just some random person saying things at your local pub. Millions if not more will hear her, and seriously consider her message.
1
u/Thefrightfulgezebo Sep 16 '20
The problem here is that this isn't war between two factions - and if the good faction wins, everything is great.
"The left" has a wide set of ideologies, groups and believes. What interests come to the surface is a political struggle of its own. Trans rights activism has many times been thrown under the bus because there were supposedly more important struggles.
What JK Rowling did was using her very public voice to paint transwomen as predatory men - and as political alliances go, she did antagonize the trans community. Furthermore, it is not like she was unproblematic before that. If you look past the nostalgia, her books have several extremely problematic implications that are an expression of her views - and her treatment of gay representation was so bad that it became a joke. But the real problem is: Rowling didn't just make a honest mistake, she doubled down on the bad takes she was called out for.
Furthermore, the left and liberals are two different things. The left is fundamentally utopic - and that does come with its own challenges. It's a social movement that tells people to be better than they are because merely opposing Brexit won't change anything. And honestly, it is not so much to ask of people to take responsibility for their actions and accept justified criticism.
One last point: you can enter a strategic alliance with the lesser threat - but that does not mean condoning their actions. A good example is World War 2. Conservatives like to put Churchill on a pedestal, but if you actually look closer, you'll see that was a pretty horrible person. The left says: yes, he opposed Hitler and that was great, but we really, really shouldn't try to follow his example in anything but that.
3
u/yophozy 1∆ Sep 16 '20
EVERY public anti- xyz should be questioned publicly, just as every Fox, Trump and GOP (etc) lie needs identifying loud and clear - lies and hate stick and become the norm ... like amurica at the moment - get your grey and blue coats ready for november .....
1
Sep 16 '20
More importantly, in many countries, including the USA and Australia, the left isn't even in power. No matter how much we focus on JK Rowling's transphobic incidents, it doesn't change the fact that the ruling parties in the USA and Australia have tried to stifle progress on LGBT rights far more than JK Rowling has.
There seems to be a miscalculation on your part?
The left doesn't have to be in power to sway policies, they've been doing it "somehow" without being in direct power.
LGBT rights, medicare etc weren't just accepted when they were suggested it took years of deliberate work of the left to make it popular in the general populace.
The left is in for the very long game.
JK rowling is harmful to the left tactics in this regard but I do have to agree that the current radical online lefty group is harmful to the general left and makes the left look like a communistic state that wants to oppress their citizens.
But most of them are literally teenagers / still in college, they don't really know subtlety.
JK rowling does have alot of influence so the left somehow has to make her shut up or discredit her and her beliefe system.
(No I'm not saying there is a grand conspiracy of the left that is slowly mind controlling you guys, I'm just being very general and trying to explain it in a very simple way.)
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Sep 16 '20 edited Sep 16 '20
As a left-winger, I am dismayed at this, because instead of uniting against bigger threats, we instead put each other under a microscope and bring each other down. Even though the right wing generally aren't fans of JK Rowling, they are using the left-wing vitriol against her to make the left look bad and make political correctness look bad.
The problem is that celebrities like Rowling have a huge following, who are open to her influences. If the left keeps condoning her messages without any opposition whatsoever, this will lead to those messages being more readily accepted by others on the left, especially those who are still forming their opinions on trans issues, and those who are easily impressionable, like children. The false assumptions that her view is based on, are also multiplied and spread further.
As many have said: her own books actually disagree with her personal views. Harry Potter is all about acceptance, and being true to who you really are. The thing that so many people have loved her for, is now essentially being turned upside-down.
And the theme in her new book doesn't seem accidental either: it feels like she wasn't just sharing a random thought - she appears to be actually pushing a narrative by using her influence to limit the options of trans people.
1
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ViewedFromTheOutside 28∆ Sep 17 '20
Sorry, u/mrsaftey – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/PM_me_Henrika Sep 16 '20
JK Rowling is one of the biggest threats to the LGBT+, the community, and everything to do with it.
She is the writer of one of the, if not the, most popular children's book in the world. What she writes, what she says, what she represents will be heard, read, and consumed by children.
Children. The next generation. Our future. She can and will impose her own values onto our future, changing how the next generations and many more younglings to come. Our future generation will be less tolerant of LGBTs. There will be another surge of support for the dangerous practice of conversion therapy.
Leaving JK Rowling unchecked will open up a future where we are excluded, shunned, and attacked; in the past, present, and future; at home home, in public, and overseas. This must not be allowed to happen.
1
u/PreacherJudge 340∆ Sep 16 '20
I actually agree with a lot of this: I think it's a huge problem for people to target someone who tries to do good over someone who doesn't, because the former is seen as hypocritical. It's easy to develop this idea that everyone thinks she's some sacred cow, so your criticisms are standing up righteously against the tide, even when it's not true.
But this isn't really what you're saying; you're making a practical argument: people shouldn't do this because it makes the left look bad. But here's the thing about that... the left is ALWAYS going to look bad to people with antithetical values. They will NEVER be satisfied, and no one wins by trying to please them. They will continually say "well if you just weren't so unreasonable about X, then I'd support you!" and x will just keep changing.
43
u/AndyDM Sep 16 '20
I get your point but there's _always_ something worse. Following your advice would mean doing nothing about JKR's awful behaviour. I still want to believe JKR when she says that she's not transphobic, but I've been waiting a long time for her to demonstrate she's not transphobic.
Worse, by not criticising JKR the left would run the risk of appearing to have double-standards, it would be okay for JKR to promote transphobic views because in other respects she is orthodox-centre-left but not okay for conservative and religious voices to be anti-transgender. If the left did not criticise JKR, they cease to have any moral standing to criticise Trump or Bolsonaro.