JK Rowling: Profoundly Misunderstood

[Estro Felino]

Granted. But that is not all ciswomen.

But I guess this overpopulated world shows that the great majority of ciswomen engage in heterosexual intercourse.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

The world's not overpopulated, that's a eugenics talkingpoint. And it doesn't matter what the majority do, the minority still exist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I never implied that all heterosexual ciswomen are into cismen, I said most surely do...statistically.

You literally did say you think of lesbians who date transwomen are bisexual earlier.

There's statistically a lot of transphobia out there. And while not everyone who has a preference for only cis genitalia are transphobic, there most certainly are people who hide their transphobia behind preferences. Same with interracial dating. But this is an entirely different discussion.

Also, if someone, for example, omits an entire person from their dating pool because they don't like the looks of augmented breasts, I'm allowed to call that shallow.

 

[Debater Slayer]

I'm not dismissing anyone. I'm saying there's a difference between someone like me and someone who is nonbinary or someone like a drag queen. Drag is a performance art so I have no idea why we get dragged onto the drag book reading things. Nonbinaries are doing something entirely different. Crossdressers are doing something different.
That's why we used to be in individual groups and not lumped together. I feel that works better because we are going through different things, have different experiences, and have different needs.

I wasn't saying you were dismissing medical consensus; that was in response to the claim that experts follow a "certain ideology," implying their position is not strictly based on science.

I'm not sure what the criteria are that experts used to decide to classify all of these groups under the transgender umbrella, though. I would need to read more about the pros and cons to understand the issue better.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is plenty of evidence that they are more likely to be assaulted by those born with a penis though.

And I can imagine that some women who had recently been assaulted might find this intimidating so that it no longer feels like a safe space.

Would you consider such a response as unacceptable bigotry?

I can imagine that some women who have recently been assaulted by a lesbian woman, or a person of a particular nationality or ethnic background, or under the influence of drugs, or with a visible mental illness, might have discomfort all the way to panic triggers and feel unsafe around those people recently post crisis.

Should then members of those groups be excluded based on the real lived experience of people who went through those ordeals? Because that's not how any crisis center I've been to before works. And I'll note here that I am also a rape survivor.

I'm largely undecided on the issue of crisis centers that exclude trans women who haven't medically transitioned, but I find the point about being assaulted by someone from a certain ethnic or national background hard to counter. There were people arguing to keep racial segregation in place back when it was being challenged because they had their own stories of being attacked by a black person. So far, I don't see a definitive reason that excluding trans women from crisis centers is fundamentally different from that.

I'm following this discussion because I would be interested to read any counterarguments to that.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm largely undecided on the issue of crisis centers that exclude trans women who haven't medically transitioned, but I find the point about being assaulted by someone from a certain ethnic or national background hard to counter. There were people arguing to keep racial segregation in place back when it was being challenged because they had their own stories of being attacked by a black person. So far, I don't see a definitive reason that excluding trans women from crisis centers is fundamentally different from that.

I'm following this discussion because I would be interested to read any counterarguments to that.

Same. Although I want to point out, talked about this earlier in the post before that one, that the crisis/counseling facility of JK also turns away medically transitioned transwomen. To her, medical transition doesn't make a lick of difference. They are men and therefore dangerous to women (including her "Transmen sisters," a button she has in her affiliate shop.)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's statistically a lot of transphobia out there. And while not everyone who has a preference for only cis genitalia are transphobic, there most certainly are people who hide their transphobia behind preferences. Same with interracial dating. But this is an entirely different discussion.

Reminds me of my ex. She'll say she won't be with a black guy for this preference or that reason, but get her in very private company where things don't leave that circle of people and her attitudes and things she says with her line of thoughts don't match her claims of it just being a preference.

 

[Augustus]

There's plenty of evidence that they're more likely to be assaulted by church clergymen, too. But taking that statement at face value and then monolithically applying it isn't constructive and is prejudicial.

Do you believe it is reasonable to bar cismen from women's crisis centres, or that this is simply prejudice and they should be equally open to all?

Is it ever reasonable to segregate based on sex/gender in your opinion? If so, what are the reasons?

I can imagine that some women who have recently been assaulted by a lesbian woman, or a person of a particular nationality or ethnic background, or under the influence of drugs, or with a visible mental illness, might have discomfort all the way to panic triggers and feel unsafe around those people recently post crisis.

I'm largely undecided on the issue of crisis centers that exclude trans women who haven't medically transitioned, but I find the point about being assaulted by someone from a certain ethnic or national background hard to counter. There were people arguing to keep racial segregation in place back when it was being challenged because they had their own stories of being attacked by a black person. So far, I don't see a definitive reason that excluding trans women from crisis centers is fundamentally different from that.

Imo, at least some of the reason why gender segregation happens is due to biological differences in size, strength, anatomy, propensity for violence, etc. between men and women that mean many women would feel uncomfortable in a mixed space. It is, at least partially, an issue of safety.

Most men are no threat, but understand why they may be perceived as one. It isn't taken as a personal attack on them as potential predators, but just a fact of life that in some situations they will be judged according to the general characteristics of their biological sex, even ones that don't apply to them personally. They are judged according to some form of 'risk profile' based on outward characteristics, not simply on the fact that they socially identify as male.

A woman alone at night might be anxious if a man (or at least someone who appears male) is walking behind her, but feel much safer if a group of women are walking behind her. This is understandable and is not an inditement on the individual man, it simply reflects their assumed risk profile (which will in turn be impacted by their appearance, size, etc.). Much of this response is unconscious and a product of experience (perhaps also impacted by genetics).

Someone born male who later transitions retains many of the same characteristics that cause others to perceive greater risk and that statistically do represent greater risk. They don't suddenly morph into having the risk profile of the average ciswoman.

This isn't saying "transwomen are men in dresses" or that they shouldn't be treated respectfully according to their preferences, just that socially transitioning doesn't change all genetic characteristics.

The same as athletes who transition don't lose the innate advantages that result form male puberty and physiology.

Some people will argue "Sport is always unfair, some are taller, some more muscular, etc." which may be speciously appealing, but misses the key point.

In any cohort of elite athletes, the tallest won't necessarily be the best NBA player, the one with the biggest feet won't necessarily be the Olympic swimmer, etc., if one has gone through male puberty though and the others haven't then they will be the best in a manner that cannot be bridged by any other advantage.

With your example, someone being lesbian, from a particular ethnic group etc does not have the same impact on their 'risk profile' as being born male and undergoing male puberty.

Is there is any evidence you are aware of that the risk profile of transwoman with a penis becomes closer to that of a ciswoman than a male? If so that would negate this point, if there is not then there is the same reason to limit access to women's crisis centres for some transwomen as there are to limit all cismen.

Unless this evidence exists and is incontrovertible, then it is an issue of competing rights. The right of transwomen to have access to female only spaces versus the right of ciswomen to be protected from the increased threat to them from people with penises who have undergone male puberty.

There are legitimate cases that can be made for either side, I don't see that there can be one "right" answer though and that the other simply is irrational prejudice.