Buying Products That Profit Questionable Individuals or Entities

[Debater Slayer]

The problem is one could probably find a reason not to make a purchase from any source, whether that be the individual, the company or the country of origin. I think one has to draw a line somewhere. Also, the distinctions may seem rather arbitrary to others, the choices we make may be as much emotional as factual.

I completely agree. Therein lies my ambivalence on this subject.

 

[Secret Chief]

Even something like participating in chores is seen as "unmanly" in some narrower communities.

I need to move to one of those.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Sure, but it is unrelated to how they conduct their business.

If Rowling was, for example, banning people who identify as trans from buying her books, or making them pay more somehow, then that would be different. Her opinions on this matter are unrelated to the Harry Potter media.

What is happening is the boycotters are targeting her in indirect ways. Which they have every right to do, and it may or may not an effect. But to me this seems like it will just cause more drama and tension between Rowling and the trans community.

What I think crosses the line is doxxing her and things of that nature. It seems to have become a larger controversy than it needs to be and is only getting worse.

Given her influence, I think her public endorsement of someone like Matt Walsh and propagation of stereotypes about trans people are harmful enough to justify pushback, even if I remain undecided on an outright boycott. I would be uncomfortable with giving her any of my money, but this is different from believing that everyone else should also avoid buying products that give her profit.

Also, when someone with a considerable public presence says and does some of the things she has said and done, it seems to me that they're much more at fault for generating unnecessary drama than any of the random, unknown people criticizing her. The average Joe or Jane on Twitter has nowhere near her social and political impact, and the anti-trans sentiments she has stirred up among her supporters demonstrate this.

I disagree with doxxing her, though. Even with the harm her takes have caused, she remains a public figure, even if an influential one, expressing her opinions. She's not a lawmaker or state official who can directly impose her will on people.

 

[Secret Chief]

I completely agree. Therein lies my ambivalence on this subject.

There's a whole world of difficulty for those of us who have ethical concerns over our dietary choices.

 

[Secret Chief]

There is no scientific consensus on this, though.

Thank the lord then, cos on such criteria I'm a woman! (Nothing wrong with that of course per se, it just comes as a shock at 62).

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think you are misunderstanding here.

All behaviours are based in either biology, psychology or neurology, or they're socially conditioned.

What I'm trying to get at is that behaviours that we consider feminine, for example (prefer people to things), when observed in a person with XY chromosomes, enough of these behaviours tells you the neurotype/psychology etc. of this person is female, which is the 'gender'. Usually these line up, but when they don't you end up with a transgender person. It's gender not sex because it's the behaviour, the psychology, the experiences as of a man/woman. Male and female are always based in something we can in fact measure, otherwise they wouldn't exist other than as cultural phenomena, but we know that they do exist. Unless you are putting forward a TERF kind of argument where you believe the only differences between men and women are sex based and there is no difference psychologically or neurologically?

No, I acknowledge that, on average, there are psychological and neurological differences between men and women. However, what I do reject—since it is not properly backed up by science—is the claim that these differences entail a universal or rigorous definition of gender. Such a claim also overlooks individual differences among members of the same gender and fails to account for them. Even the psychological differences between men and women have sometimes been overblown:

Gender Differences

Several reviews and meta-analyses of the existing research on conformity and leadership in men and women have now been conducted, and so it is possible to draw some strong conclusions in this regard. In terms of conformity, the overall conclusion from these studies is that that there are only small differences between men and women in the amount of conformity they exhibit, and these differences are influenced as much by the social situation in which the conformity occurs as by gender differences themselves. For instance, in Milgram’s studies he found no differences in conformity between men and women.

7.3 Person, Gender, and Cultural Differences in Conformity – Principles of Social Psychology

Furthermore:

Women and men are the same, but different

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thank the lord then, cos on such criteria I'm a woman! (Nothing wrong with that of course per se, it just comes as a shock at 62).

According to the prevalent gendered norms in my country, I'm less "manly" for not believing I should prevent my partner from wearing certain kinds of clothes or having male friends.

There's a reason I vehemently oppose any attempts to treat a culture-specific definition of "gender" as universal or biologically determined.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Given her influence, I think her public endorsement of someone like Matt Walsh and propagation of stereotypes about trans people are harmful enough to justify pushback, even if I remain undecided on an outright boycott. I would be uncomfortable with giving her any of my money, but this is different from believing that everyone else should also avoid buying products that give her profit.

Also, when someone with a considerable public presence says and does some of the things she has said and done, it seems to me that they're much more at fault for generating unnecessary drama than any of the random, unknown people criticizing her. The average Joe or Jane on Twitter has nowhere near her social and political impact, and the anti-trans sentiments she has stirred up among her supporters demonstrate this.

I disagree with doxxing her, though. Even with the harm her takes have caused, she remains a public figure, even if an influential one, expressing her opinions. She's not a lawmaker or state official who can directly impose her will on people.

It seems we're on the same page, then. I think it's fair that you're uncomfortable with giving her any of your money if you feel she disrespects your values, and I agree that it's different than believing everyone else should avoid buying her products as well.

As for the controversy, I believe she definitely started the feather ruffling, and the reactions from critics only ruffled more (even though individuals don't have near her type of impact, the community of critics as a whole do). I believe she may have reacted negatively to their reaction and things are only escalating back and forth. It's unavoidable, though, when someone famous like that has a bold, controversial opinion.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Thank the lord then, cos on such criteria I'm a woman! (Nothing wrong with that of course per se, it just comes as a shock at 62).

Another example of a "biologically based" gendered trait that is, in reality, only based in ideology and culture:

Many researchers say that keeping eating pork weakens the feeling of jealousy in man because the only animal that is not jealous of its female partner is the pig.

Why has pork been rendered haram in the religion of Islam?

I have heard that argument many times over the years. The above link is hardly alone in propagating it.

 

[Augustus]

I hope we have more studies in coming years about "detransitioning," if only to further address movements that seek to ban medical care for trans people while citing that as a reason.

Given the lack of evidence on the issue, why does JKR worrying that detransitioning may become an issue for a variety of reason count as being 'transphobic'?

Especially in the current ideological and media environment, it seems perfectly rational and ethically imperative to consider such a thing if children and teenagers are being given life altering and irreversible treatments.

Of course many people may benefit from early treatment, but what would be an acceptable percentage of children/teens detransitioning?

It seems like a very complex scientific and ethical question to me, likely with no easy answer. Calling anyone who doesn't toe the ideological line 'transphobic' and hateful doesn't seem like the best approach to finding the most equitable and ethical solution.

 

[exchemist]

Ah...
Now that you mention that... I decided to google his name. I have definitely watched a few very short videos of him questioning people.
The one with the person saying he can't say what a woman is because he is not a woman made me facepalm.

Let's be honest, what he really meant by that is that he can't define what a woman is in a way that he feels safe the far-left won't cancel him. He obviously does have a conception of what it means to be a woman, even if he is not able to state as accurately as he would like to.

Yes. It reminds me of the classic biology question of trying to define "life". We can all set down a list of attributes of living things, yet some things we consider living do not have all of those attributes.

I'm with Rowling on this. I do not consider a person with male genitalia and XY chromosomes, who has announced he is a woman, is in exactly the same category as a biological woman.

 

[Rival]

There's a reason I vehemently oppose any attempts to treat a culture-specific definition of "gender" as universal or biologically determined.

I still think you're missing the point and your Islamic upbringing may be to blame here.

Cultures tend to capitalise on existing neurological and biological differences and make them cultural phenomena, but there are bases for this. It may be a cultural phenomenon that women stay inside and look after children more - what this is based on neurologically is very real: women more drawn to people than things, and have better ability to work with people than ploughs or buildings.

I fail to see how this is problematic.

 

[Secret Chief]

Let's take the CCP as an example. If I buy specific Chinese products, I know some of the revenue is going to the Chinese government that is now committing genocide against the Uyghurs, abusing political dissidents, and exercising geopolitical exploitation of multiple countries.

If I decide to boycott China because of this, I'm left with two issues:

1) my boycott has a minuscule, negligible impact, and

2) I will be inconsistent if I don't also boycott products that generate revenue for Saudi Arabia, the US, France, or any other country with notably abusive policies, be they domestic or foreign.

How to resolve the second problem is, to me, a more difficult question than how to resolve the first one, since I can answer the first by saying that my boycott is primarily conscientious even if it has a negligible impact.

Regarding the first matter, boycotts work (or don't) because of numbers so unless you're going to say, actively protest, then I don't see it as a problem. You are only a drop of water, but that is what makes up a wave. Of course it's conscientious but the effect comes from helping to generate the wave.
Regarding the second, it's not possible to be totally consistent. But I'd obviously say trying is preferable to not trying if one thinks one can be a part of some improvement in the world. We have limited information and have to make what we think are the best choices based on that.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Given the lack of evidence on the issue, why does JKR worrying that detransitioning may become an issue for a variety of reason count as being 'transphobic'?

Especially in the current ideological and media environment, it seems perfectly rational and ethically imperative to consider such a thing if children and teenagers are being given life altering and irreversible treatments.

Of course many people may benefit from early treatment, but what would be an acceptable percentage of children/teens detransitioning?

It seems like a very complex scientific and ethical question to me, likely with no easy answer. Calling anyone who doesn't toe the ideological line 'transphobic' and hateful doesn't seem like the best approach to finding the most equitable and ethical solution.

It's not that she merely raised the issue. It's that definitively speaking about it as if it had already been established as a significant problem, such as by asserting that all trans therapies for children must be banned (despite the evidence that they have helped people in many cases), only serves to muddy the waters on an issue that, as you pointed out, is quite complex both scientifically and ethically.

She did the same thing with the alarmism about trans women in women's bathrooms. So far, there has been no evidence that men are going out and identifying as women in droves in order to gain access to women's bathrooms and attack women there. The possibility is definitely worth talking about, but as just that: a possibility thus far—not as something that has already occurred or is certain to be a problem.

 

[Shaul]

I think the "Trans" community's attempt to cancel culture J.K.Rowling is despicable.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I still think you're missing the point and your Islamic upbringing may be to blame here.

I've given sources to back up everything I've said so far, though. It's not like there's a scientifically agreed-upon definition of gender that I'm overlooking here. If there were, I'd definitely be interested to see it.

Cultures tend to capitalise on existing neurological and biological differences and make them cultural phenomena, but there are bases for this. It may be a cultural phenomenon that women stay inside and look after children more - what this is based on neurologically is very real: women more drawn to people than things, and have better ability to work with people than ploughs or buildings.

I fail to see how this is problematic.

That there are bases for cultural-specific gender roles seems to me to vary based on the role in question. Of course, assigning the role of raising children to mothers has an undeniable biological basis, but there are numerous gendered roles and traits where this is not the case. For instance, what about biology dictates that women must wear a burqa or that men who don't impose a specific dress code on their female relatives are akin to pigs? What is the biological basis for the idea that women are less intelligent than men?

These are mere cultural stereotypes. Whatever biological basis they might have possibly had would at most be a drop in the ocean compared to the exaggeration and overgeneralization inherent in them.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I think the "Trans" community's attempt to cancel culture J.K.Rowling is despicable.

Boycotts are "cancel culture"? As far as I know, no one is calling for her to be legally penalized for her opinions. Voting with one's wallet is an age-old and valid method of expression, as is encouraging people to avoid giving their money to certain individuals or entities. Do you oppose these personal freedoms?

 

[Vinayaka]

There has been some controversy around the upcoming Hogwarts Legacy video game primarily due to the association with Harry Potter and J. K. Rowling, with some calling for a boycott of the game in order to avoid indirectly contributing to J. K. Rowling's activism against trans people.

What are your thoughts on buying media or any other product that profits people who engage in harmful or hateful activism or who otherwise direct money toward causes you find unethical? Do you believe not boycotting the product makes one complicit, even if indirectly, or can one buy something that generates profit for an objectionable individual or entity without necessarily being blameworthy?

This also applies to buying products financing, say, the CCP, supporters of Putin, or any other entity or individual(s) that you may find unethical or hateful.

It's so difficult with so much stuff. How do we actually know what is produced with child labour? Between that and paying the cheapest price just to make ends meet makes it a tricky deal. I try to support local farmers, and independent businesses, but even that one doesn't really know.

 

[Rival]

I've given sources to back up everything I've said so far, though. It's not like there's a scientifically agreed-upon definition of gender that I'm overlooking here. If there were, I'd definitely be interested to see it.



That there are bases for cultural-specific gender roles seems to me to vary based on the role in question. Of course, assigning the role of raising children to mothers has an undeniable biological basis, but there are numerous gendered roles and traits where this is not the case. For instance, what about biology dictates that women must wear a burqa or that men who don't impose a specific dress code on their female relatives are akin to pigs? What is the biological basis for the idea that women are less intelligent than men?

These are mere cultural stereotypes. Whatever biological basis they might have possibly had would at most be a drop in the ocean compared to the exaggeration and overgeneralization inherent in them.

I would argue the basis for women not showing off body parts comes from this Our Brains See Men as Whole and Women as Parts - Scientific American It doesn't dictate what we should do, but it explains why we feel we should do it as a kind of rectification.

The idea of men being more intelligent than women probably comes from the fact that men work with things and women with people, and tend to do things considered hard science (engineering, physics, chemistry etc.) more often than women, as women engage in soft sciences (psychology, sociology etc.) that are based around people, using things that are not based on a kind of 2+2 = 4 methodology. We still see hard science as the best kind of intelligence, whether we admit it or not, and this is a decidedly male field. It's why we think STEM is better than the Humanities.

 

[Koldo]

Then how does your definition account for trans men, non-binary biological females, or trans women? We know all of them exist, so treating the word "woman" as synonymous with sex is incomplete at best. It works in most cases because most people identify as the gender matching their birth sex, but a supposedly universal definition can't have exceptions.

As per my definition, since being a woman relates to sex, trans women are not women. They are trans women, period. Trans men (that underwent sex reassignment surgery) and non-binary wouldn't be women either, but neither would they be men. I am intentfully skipping the whole gender debate to define 'woman' and 'man'.

I am also not saying this is how everyone ought to use the term. I don't have this kind of authority after all, nor does anyone else.