Augustus
…
She's mirroring the form of his tweet: he starts by saying something praising Rowling as a means of saying something critical about other women. She says something positive as a means of saying something critical about his approach.
You see people doing this on RF every day, responding in the form of the post they are replying to.
I can't see anything that she has said that is "anti-scientific", all of her views seem scientifically defensible, even if the science is often blurred on this issue.
To me it seems like she thinks transwomen should be free to live as women in general, but it must be acknowledged that there are differences between ciswomen and transwomen and these can be consequential. If you accept this then this is an issue of competing rights rather than right/wrong.
For example, should a women's refuge for victims of sexual abuse be allowed to refuse entry to a transwoman with a penis? Some people will insist its transphobic to do this, but there is clearly legitimate reasons why their presence may be intimidating to vulnerable ciswomen. You need to favour one right over another, and favouring the ciswomen does not necessitate hate or prejudice against transwomen.
Unless you say there can never be any differences in treatment between cis/transwomen you are accepting there must be some lines drawn that justify different treatment, it's just a question of where ti draw these lines. But to get the most equitable solution to all involved, this would require the ability to discuss the issue openly, without the fear that armies of ideologues will parse every word you say and try to "problematise" it to gain social credit.
We also have to accept that if self-ID is all that matters, some bad-faith actors will abuse this. This will cause some harms. The extent to which this will happen is unknown and unknowable, but it certainly will happen because that's human nature.
Rowling pointed out that cismen will abuse the system, and this got spun into "she says transwomen are just men in dresses".
The other point of criticism is that she has expressed concern that vulnerable teens are being transitioned too quickly and without sufficient safeguarding.
This is a highly disputed area, but a gender identity clinic in the UK was closed down amid accusations it was fast-tracking people without sufficient exploration of alternatives, and some researchers have suggested detransitioning is underreported.
It seems like a legitimate concern to me on an issue people should investigate further with an open mind and look at the emerging evidence. I don't think anyone can say who is "right" at this point.
What would you say is the best evidence she is "anti-scientific"?
