Jerry Sadowitz cancelled

[klfrs]

I agree that it’s a complex issue. The reason I used public restrooms as an example was because it was one of the more inflammatory things that Rowling tweeted, and you had asked who she was going after.

In the article you linked JKR was speaking on her rights as a women, so I disagree with a 'going after' characterisation. Isn't it right and proper all women get a say about their spaces and places? I think it would be better for all if us men no longer did. I know - it's another crazy idea! Instead of us men being mostly in charge, hand over full control of womens' spaces and places to them.

For me, your last sentence is key. There may be some women who believe that allowing trans women to share their spaces is trampling. There may be some men who agree. I believe they are both a very small minority, and polling could show that. Personally, I have yet to meet a woman who would fall in that minority. If they did, I doubt we’d be close enough friends to discuss something like this.

There are many trans women, as well as women, who believe women (and other marginalised groups) are being trampled in the gender zeitgeist. Who would get a vote in this poll? Sorry to repeat - to increase understanding you'll have to spend time listening to a wide range of women and trans women.

 

[myles]

Actually 'proving' that Opinion "a" is at least based on a very outdated concept when it comes to biological sex determination is pretty much a walk in the park ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

"For many years, scientists believed that female development was the default programme, and that male development was actively switched on by the presence of a particular gene on the Y chromosome. In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males.

By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme—such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes. In 2011, researchers showed that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis—a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development."

Plenty more where that came from

"My feeling is that since there is not one biological parameter that takes over every other parameter, at the end of the day, gender identity seems to be the most reasonable parameter,” says Vilain.".

My feeling.......this isn't a medical paper, it's a magazine article and is summarised with an opinion.

 

[myles]

For the record, I believe a trans woman is a woman, and a trans man is a man. There may be biological differences, but for me, that’s not what is important. The important thing for me is identity. It’s how we identify, and how society accepts or rejects our identity, that really matters.

Amen - some may think that I am of a different opinion because of my stance on whether Rowling is punching down but I just want everyone to be happy in their own bodies and lives. That means trying to get past definitions and just let people get on with what makes them happy.

I'm still not convinced Rowling is punching down if she is not spreading hate but there you go.

 

[Tony L]

Is she? Who did JKR go "after"?

The sciences of biology and human biology aren't opinion.

Again I refer folk to the excellent Contrapoints JK Rowling video I linked upthread which cites these specific tweets (among many others) and places them in a far wider context and pattern of behaviour. That is all within the first 25 minutes or so, though I’d recommend watching the whole thing.

I’ll also add this from Blair Zon’s Illuminaughtii channel which makes many of the same points, and again cites these specific tweets, but does so from outside of the trans community. This channel is more about corporate behaviour, multi-level marketing, exposing pyramid schemes etc (hence the shape of her head in the animations), but she takes a day out to tackle Rowling’s behaviour and it is a worthwhile companion piece to the Contrapoints video.

As both videos go to great lengths to point out there are clearly legitimate concerns on all sides of these arguments, ones that appear very well understood within the trans community. That said it is hard to view Rowling’s behaviour as anything other than bullying and down-punching from a position of exceptional wealth and power.

 

[klfrs]

Again ...

No need to repeat as I've viewed it numerous times. I maintain a healthy scepticism. Some parts struck me as problematically extreme, and interpretations of JKs tweets dubious. The graphic of JK with "evil eyes" is a form of othering, so verging on hateful, and diminishes credibility of film and Contrapoints.

However Contrapoints is a voice to listen to as part of gaining an understanding of the matters - listening to a broad range of views. I will continue to do so, but not with unquestioning blind faith or free pass in event of bigotry or other failings. That approach never leads to a satisfactory outcome.

I've yet to hear a credible argument for JKRs alleged transgressions.

 

[stevec67]

Is she? Who did JKR go "after"?

The sciences of biology and human biology aren't opinion.

Actually 'proving' that Opinion "a" is at least based on a very outdated concept when it comes to biological sex determination is pretty much a walk in the park ...

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/

"For many years, scientists believed that female development was the default programme, and that male development was actively switched on by the presence of a particular gene on the Y chromosome. In 1990, researchers made headlines when they uncovered the identity of this gene, which they called SRY. Just by itself, this gene can switch the gonad from ovarian to testicular development. For example, XX individuals who carry a fragment of the Y chromosome that contains SRY develop as males.

By the turn of the millennium, however, the idea of femaleness being a passive default option had been toppled by the discovery of genes that actively promote ovarian development and suppress the testicular programme—such as one called WNT4. XY individuals with extra copies of this gene can develop atypical genitals and gonads, and a rudimentary uterus and Fallopian tubes. In 2011, researchers showed that if another key ovarian gene, RSPO1, is not working normally, it causes XX people to develop an ovotestis—a gonad with areas of both ovarian and testicular development."

Plenty more where that came from

I know the science well enough, my degree is biochemistry. My point is that if you maintain that gender = sex then that's a non disprovable opinion.
Attempting to disprove or alter the basic science with genetic abnormalities is bound to failure. If I were to take the opinion stated then "but XYZ genetic abnormality" is a " so what" issue.

 

[myles]

. That said it is hard to view Rowling’s behaviour as anything other than bullying and down-punching from a position of exceptional wealth and power.

Wealth - tangible; power - questionable. This seems to suggest that anyone with fame or cash is effectively banned from airing their opinion - even if that isn't bleeding into hate speech.
It's all a game of opinions; your opinion, my opinion, Rowling's opinion.

 

[klfrs]

I know the science well enough, my degree is biochemistry. My point is that if you maintain that gender = sex then that's a non disprovable opinion.
Attempting to disprove or alter the basic science with genetic abnormalities is bound to failure. If I was t to take the opinion stated then "but XYZ genetic abnormality" is a " so what" issue.

Welcome actual expert of the science!

 

[myles]

I know the science well enough, my degree is biochemistry. My point is that if you maintain that gender = sex then that's a non disprovable opinion.
Attempting to disprove or alter the basic science with genetic abnormalities is bound to failure. If I was t to take the opinion stated then "but XYZ genetic abnormality" is a " so what" issue.

It's really interesting, because I think everyone here wants everyone else to be happy with whoever they are - however, trying to delve into science to strengthen the argument can be problematic, especially in this case. Opinion is opinion and science is fact.....

 

[TheDecameron]

I popped into the bar of a well known cultural venue for an interval drink. All the draft beers were off, there were no diet soft drinks but they had thoughtfully made provision in the gents ( or as the male toilet door sign now said, “we encourage our guests to use the facilities that best reflects their gender identity”).

 

[Tony L]

Wealth - tangible; power - questionable. This seems to suggest that anyone with fame or cash is effectively banned from airing their opinion - even if that isn't bleeding into hate speech.
It's all a game of opinions; your opinion, my opinion, Rowling's opinion.

Again the two videos I link upthread explain this far better than I could ever hope to do. They really are very good. It is not just what Rowling writes herself, it is what she chooses to endorse by retweeting and actively supporting. She has 13.9 million followers on Twitter and countless others elsewhere. This is real power, arguably more than much of the world’s press. The trans folk she is targeting are all too often cast out from their families, have zero wealth, are often in a position of real psychological vulnerability and have the highest suicide rate of any marginalised group. This is not an equal dialogue.

Mass popularity comes with a real power attached. Extreme wealth always carries a real insulation property. It places a person above account as they can just buy their way out of any issue they create. See also Elon Musk, Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Alex Jones etc etc. Even Donald Trump or Boris Johnson. People who all too often play the victim whilst creating absolute havoc for those they target far below.

PS FWIW my own opinion is irrelevant beyond having done a fair bit of research as I was caught off guard due to a total lack of understanding of the whole subject a fair few years ago when all the Jordan Peterson bullshit swept in. I called it largely right and certainly recognised it as far-right bigotry, but I was still slow moving and made many, many errors. I am determined to make pfm a safe-space and challenging transphobia including aggressive TERF arguments is all part of that. That is my only horse in this race.

 

[klfrs]

T*RF

Many women and trans women consider "T*RF" misogynistic and lesphobic. I think they have a point.

‘T*RF’ isn’t just a slur, it’s hate speech

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/09/21/terf-isnt-slur-hate-speech/

Women are a marginalised group. Males who criticise women discussing their issues and defending their rights with "T*RF" are punching down.

 

[ff1d1l]

Many women and trans women consider "T*RF" misogynistic and lesphobic. I think they have a point.

‘T*RF’ isn’t just a slur, it’s hate speech

https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/09/21/terf-isnt-slur-hate-speech/

Women are a marginalised group, so when used by males to criticise women discussing their issues and defending their rights it's punching down.

Most - all - trans individuals are not in a place where punching down is an option. How do you punch down when you're at the bottom?

 

[klfrs]

Most - all - trans individuals are not in a place where punching down is an option.

You seem unsure.

 

[ff1d1l]

You seem unsure.

No.

 

[klfrs]

No.

Yes. Is it "most" or "all"?

 

[ff1d1l]

Yes. Is it "most" or "all"?

Yes.

 

[stevec67]

Welcome actual expert of the science!

It's really interesting, because I think everyone here wants everyone else to be happy with whoever they are - however, trying to delve into science to strengthen the argument can be problematic, especially in this case. Opinion is opinion and science is fact.....

Well, "expert" is a bit strong. I'm not an expert in the biochemistry of sexual development after all. I do have a degree that amply equips me to understand developments, of which there will be a few, it has after all been 35 years since I did my degree. However the fundamentals are unchanged wrt the biological definitions of male and female.

Gender is in my opinion more fluid, but as I said earlier this is an opinion. It has no bearing on the biology and any developments in the biology don't have any bearing on other people's opinions because none of the developments are going to overturn the basic fact that XX is female and XY is male. This basic fact is never going to change, it's proven millions of times (over a billion, in fact, the population of the Earth) over that in the absence of any anomaly XX will always generate a female and XY a male. There has never been an XX human male or an XY human female, and there never will be unless there is some bizarre genetic/hormonal anomaly. Said anomaly would never be fully functional even if they arose. We could at this point discuss chromosome abnormalities such as Xo (Turner's), XXY (intersex), XYY (so-called supermale) etc but the point here is that they are abnormalities.

It's similar to Down's syndrome, in that a chromosome abnormality generates an individual having certain characteristics, but the whole point is that this is an abnormality, and it has no bearing on the scientific reality of the 99.x% of the population that are genetically normal.

 

[myles]

Again the two videos I link upthread explain this far better than I could ever hope to do. They really are very good. It is not just what Rowling writes herself, it is what she chooses to endorse by retweeting and actively supporting. She has 13.9 million followers on Twitter and countless others elsewhere. This is real power, arguably more than much of the world’s press. The trans folk she is targeting are all too often cast out from their families, have zero wealth, are often in a position of real psychological vulnerability and have the highest suicide rate of any marginalised group. This is not an equal dialogue.



[\quote]
There can never be equal and objective dialogue then unless it's trans>trans, because anyone not in that demographic is on the flipside of at least one of those elements in bold. Unless it's about the money and Twitter followers.

I was just interested in the punching down but but have somehow been dragged into the deeper context of it. I've stated my position on my fellow person previously in this thread if anyone is making their own judgment.

 

[miktec]

There's a specific significance to gene RSPO1 "not working normally" in your quote because the article is about people with DSD.
Your inference is incorrect.

Nope - my 'inference' was that the definitive XX/XY divide is not cut and dried and is in fact an outdated concept.

This inference is correct based on the observations of scientists who actually work in the area - rather than just some grumbly bloke on the internet with an axe to grind.