Maybe they didn't want to have this kind of influence. Maybe what they do, doesn't really make them fit to wield that influence. But the fact is that they do have this platform, this power, and if we don't do damage control, who will?
We live in a world where a Playboy bunny became the face of the antivaxx movement.
I'm gonna have to agree with KR on this one. Supporting a transphobe is transphobia. It's very simple.
We're merely accusing you of acting the way you've been acting in this thread.
EDIT: When we challenge your opinions, that doesn't mean we're attacking you as a person. We are simply dealing with your statements the way adults do.
That isn't what happened here at all. There are lots of posts in this thread that counteract the points you wrote and I suggest that you do read them. Perhaps I should have made the general you clearer in my second sentence of that post though and for that I apologise.
To counter her new book with yet another nefarious or comic cross-dresser I would like to instead read a book with a high-achieving trans-woman main whose accomplishments came after they have transitioned. Can someone suggest something like that? I so far read three books with trans mains, and I haven't seen one like that. Preferably adventure/fantasy.
Ok, Thanks for the go ahead. Well then.
This here has nothing to do with JKR. If you want to join my headache go ahead. If not just ignore my blabbering.
My question was..., wait first I need to explain:
-I think after following the public discourse long enough I found my 'believe' shattered that man/woman where words for sex and actually words for gender. This doesn't bother me, I just want clear definition by which I can talk.-
So I'm thinking why do we still add 'trans-' in front of man/woman when talking about people who don't fit the general sterotype of gender matching their sex? Is it out of courtesy for less interested people, like I was? Is is just because this term is already well established, used by the people of the community? I'm thinking this because if man/woman means then wouldn't it be redundant to state that it doesn't match with sex? Like talking about red and blue and stating btw. this isn't about sweet or sour.
Or am I just to utopic with my way of thinking. (Or just a moron, lol, me is very confused.)
I kind of want to see an adaptation of the story of Periocles where the curse is actually a blessing in disguise because Periocles was feeling there was something missing in life and is now a badass Huntress under Artemis.
Though that doesn't really adress the realities of physical transition. Because magic and all.
Ah, maybe a business drama where the protagonist reenters the office after transition and climbs up the corporate ladder with newfound confidence.
Non-binary, agender, third gender, two spirit and other genders still exist. Some people also do wish to still acknowledge their transition as well. Some trans people do not use trans to describe themselves post-transition, but some do. It's really down to each individual. The term still gets used though because there are some issues in healthcare, the justice system, social work, etc. that still will only affect transgender people and won't affect cisgender people. So we need a way to talk about those issues without confusion, thus the distinction is still made even for binary trans people sometimes.
Something like that would be great. Just to break the stereotype that if a woman presents or becomes a man she is filling a hero’s shoes, but the reverse is a misfortune.
In my experience (I'm not an authority, this is just my experience) transman and transwoman are generally used when discussing LGBT+ topics or instances where it's relevant, like talking to a doctor, it can help them to know. Day to day, I think you would just call them a man or a woman, that's certainly the case with transpeople I've known. It's like how generally, one doesn't describe oneself as a cisman/woman or a gay man/woman ect unless the conversation is around a topic that requires that information, like this one.
you're acting like she's a supervillain when she's not. She's just a person who made unsavory takes on twitter. I think this is the main problem with cancel culture, we idolize someone to the point we either make them a monster or a saint in our eyes.
I heard some people using this argument, and their concern is not about transgenders specifically. Is about how this law can be exploited:
Gender, as a personal issue, can not be measured or proved. That means it is easy to fake it for your own benefit. This includes cis-male perverts and rapists faking being trans-female to get access to women`s bathrooms among other things.
The argument is not transphobic per-se, but without a clear way to prevent the situations they are concerned about, it just seems like a reckless reform from the outside eye that may risk their own wellbeing.
Im actually incredibly upset with this thread right now.
First off JK dose not have a concentration camp in her back yard for trans people, acting as if this is the same thing by quoting a holocausts survivor is incredibly insensitive to people who had family's relating to that event.
Second I feel like theres a lot of erasure happening right now with crossdressers. Not all crossdressers are trans or even identify as trans (hi hello).
Acting like consumers who are not on twitter, or do not have time for this because they're busy trying to stop actual problems in their life like Nesquik trying to tax them for their own water and calling them transphobic cause they like crime dramas is insane.
Here's the major issue with this argument though: there's nothing stopping men doing that anyway. I haven't been to many bathrooms that are guarded by security checking ID to see if you're going into the right one. If I man wants to attack a woman in a woman's bathroom or locker room, he will, fake trans or not. And they do. If a rapist wants to rape someone, they're going to do it. Banning transpeople from women's spaces won't stop that. (Also this is talking like transpeople aren't already allowed in gender specific spaces, which they are. They are already using women's bathrooms and locker rooms and have been for years).
No, I totally get you. I'm saying that it's an absurd amount of influence. 14.3 million people care enough about what she says to subscribe to her Twitter feed. 14.3 million people want to know her opinions on things. And this isn't counting the people who perk up when they hear her name in the news and so on.
14.3 million followers. Advertisers would pay something in the neighborhood of fifty thousand dollars for a single sponsored tweet from her. Someone with that kind of power, you want them to conduct themselves like a saint.
Also @DiegoPalacios that's a ridiculous thing to worry about. So the only thing keeping hordes of rapists out of women's bathrooms and changing rooms is . . . the fact that they don't have legal access to them?
Why haven't we heard about a massive increase in the number of rapes happening in unisex bathrooms?
This really is one of those "but it sounds so reasonable" concerns. Because, it's already legal. I don't know about in other countries, but the UK it is legal. People talk like it's something that's coming in and will be made law soon and "men will be allowed in women's bathrooms" but it's already legal. Nothing is changing, there's no new law, it's literally like people complaining the sky might be turning blue soon. Being in the wrong gender bathroom is not illegal. Against the rules of the establishment, maybe. Might get you thrown out, maybe. I've accidentally walked into the wrong bathroom loads of times when I'm not paying attention, never been arrested.
But what is illegal is rape and assault. So, I really don't think legality is an issue to these people.
(I will give maybe, just a tiny maybe to things like women's abuse shelters but since they should be monitored at all times that should nullify any risk there as well. And that's assuming these men faking being trans are willing to risk the violence transpeople suffer so often.)
If they don't outright assault anyone and are just being a creep, people can use the fake trans argument to get away with it. Potentially. I don't think a lot of people would buy in to it, but there are conpeople who make conning into a lifestyle, so it's not entirely unthinkable a malicious person could sneak into the wrong room to ogle people, get caught and then launch a twitter flame war ruining the life of their victim by saying it's transphobic not to allow them in. Theoretically. I don't think it's likely, but there are enough people in the world that unlikely is still worrisome.
(Heck, I'd advocate for separate locker rooms for everyone individually just because being naked is really uncomfortable and many people don't want to be seen by anyone.)
There was a controversy about a person saying she was a trans woman, but who still had the male physical parts, wanting to get their privates waxed by people who were not comfortable with waxing male parts. When they refused to do it, the person launched a social media rampage that was a mess for everyone involved. I'd link an article, but I can't remember any specifics. I think it was in Canada? I'll see if I can find it.
When it came down to it, that person just made things harder for trans people who do want to respect people's boundaries and acknowledge people aren't comfortable with touching all types of private parts.
So it is important to at least keep talking about these worries, as unfounded as they may seem, because something can always slip through the cracks of what we believe to be a perfect solution.
(I wouldn't say JK is handling it well though)
