JK Rowling: Profoundly Misunderstood

[ADigitalArtist]

That post is a reason I don't go to the trans support group. Hardly anyone there has dysphoria, hardly anyone is transitioning and lots of them are still very much looking and acting like their birth sex. Ask something about insurance or name change forms and very few have any idea.
And you mentioning insurance is an issue of MASSIVE implications. We need medical attention, and we need to be in distress to get it. It works tremendously to our advantage to have diagnosis attached to it because then it opens up the possibility of insurance coverage. If lots of trans people are fine without even changing simple things about their appearance that's actually problematic for us because it opens up the possibility to have our gains taken from us.
And we just aren't going through the same thing. We aren't. But anymore it seems effeminate men and tomboys are just called nonbinary and lumped in with us.

Sounds like attacking the wrong problem to me. Attacking the idea of some transgender people not having their transgender identities being defined by pain, and instead of attacking a woefully corrupt medical system where arbitrary criterium need to be met in order to gain medical coverage. Arbitrary criterium set by corporations hoping to deny coverage to as many paying customers as possible to reap the largest profit margins seems like a bad way to set gender norms for anyone.

 

[Estro Felino]

Sounds like attacking the wrong problem to me. Attacking the idea of some transgender people not having their transgender identities being defined by pain, and instead of attacking a woefully corrupt medical system where arbitrary criterium need to be met in order to gain medical coverage. Arbitrary criterium set by corporations hoping to deny coverage to as many paying customers as possible to reap the largest profit margins seems like a bad way to set gender norms for anyone.

IMHO, Rowling had an audience and supporters because I believe that there is a relevant number of trans women who are into ciswomen, and that identify as lesbians.
Which doesn't exist in my country. Honestly, I have met friends who where trans women...but we would get along because we were all into men, so we had the same interests.

I have met them both in Sicily and in Rome. Besides, here it's men who are fascinated by trans women, on the average, so the discourse is about whether men who are into them are to be considered gay, bi or straight. Which is pretty childish, imho.

But the controversy in the US is all about this (following video). And yes, this is due to an excessive number of "lesbian" trans women. Who expect to be liked by ciswomen who are lesbians, but the latter are into other ciswomen.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

IMHO, Rowling had an audience and supporters because I believe that there is a relevant number of trans women who are into ciswomen, and that identify as lesbians.
Which doesn't exist in my country. Honestly, I have met friends who where trans women...but we would get along because we were all into men, so we had the same interests.

I have met them both in Sicily and in Rome. Besides, here it's men who are fascinated by trans women, on the average, so the discourse is about whether men who are into them are to be considered gay, bi or straight. Which is pretty childish, imho.

But the controversy in the US is all about this (following video). And yes, this is due to an excessive number of "lesbian" trans women. Who expect to be liked by ciswomen who are lesbians, but the latter are into other ciswomen.

I don't understand this focus you have on transwomen lesbians. Transwomen are far more likely to be the abused than the abuser in sexual assault statistics, even here in the US where transgender gay people are far more accepted. (Also there is still plenty of problems with ciswomen lesbians and sexual assault as some ciswomen lesbians try too hard to emulate toxic masculinity to meet masc presenting lesbian expectations/stereotypes) Specifically transwomen lesbians, as gay transmen seem largely ignored. As well as trans bisexuals and pansexuals, which is what I experience the most here.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't understand this focus you have on transwomen lesbians. Transwomen are far more likely to be the abused than the abuser in sexual assault statistics, even here in the US where transgender gay people are far more accepted. (Also there is still plenty of problems with ciswomen lesbians and sexual assault as some ciswomen lesbians try too hard to emulate toxic masculinity to meet masc presenting lesbian expectations/stereotypes) Specifically transwomen lesbians, as gay transmen seem largely ignored. As well as trans bisexuals and pansexuals, which is what I experience the most here.

Honestly no man has ever harassed, abused or assaulted me.
On the contrary I like being hit on by men. Not by women, of course, no offense.

There is lots of confusion I guess, in the US. In the video I posted, a problem is addressed: about the definition of women according to lesbians.
And this has to do with Rowling's past statements because she had large support from lesbians, especially in the UK (as the video shows). Because they identify as ciswomen who are into other ciswomen. Ciswomen who have female genitalia.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Honestly no man has ever harassed, abused or assaulted me.
On the contrary I like being hit on by men. Not by women, of course, no offense.

There is lots of confusion I guess, in the US. In the video I posted, a problem is addressed: about the definition of women according to lesbians.
And this has to do with Rowling's past statements because she had large support from lesbians, especially in the UK (as the video shows). Because they identify as ciswomen who are into other ciswomen. Ciswomen who have female genitalia.

Good for you. A lot of us have been. Like...1 in 5 women, and especially high rates of transwomen.

Lesbians aren't a monolith. Plenty of lesbians, as well as straight people, don't have a problem with dating trans people. It's fine to have preference for bits, the problem is reducing people to their bits.

And Rowling and those women in groups like LGB Alliance don't recognize transwomen as women at all. They're just men in dresses to them. JK literally blocks people on twitter for saying 'Transwomen are women.'

 

[Estro Felino]

Good for you. A lot of us have been. Like...1 in 5 women, and especially high rates of transwomen.

Lesbians aren't a monolith. Plenty of lesbians, as well as straight people, don't have a problem with dating trans people. It's fine to have preference for bits, the problem is reducing people to their bits.

And Rowling and those women in groups like LGB Alliance don't recognize transwomen as women at all. They're just men in dresses to them. JK literally blocks people on twitter for saying 'Transwomen are women.'

I think that pansexuals or bisexuals are more or less the right term to describe ciswomen who want to date transwomen.

Also because I don't know them. I know no trans woman who is into ciswomen. So the reality is pretty new to me.

As for Rowling, people like her have a controversial opinion, and if you disagree with hers, I guess you should just ignore her.
You can say her opinion is wrong (and I think it is), but this controversy should have been ignored from the very first.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I think that pansexuals or bisexuals are more or less the right term to describe ciswomen who want to date transwomen.

Also because I don't know them. I know no trans woman who is into ciswomen. So the reality is pretty new to me.

As for Rowling, people like her have a controversial opinion, and if you disagree with hers, I guess you should just ignore her.
You can say her opinion is wrong (and I think it is), but this controversy should have been ignored from the very first.

Not all ciswomen who date transwomen are bisexuals or pansexuals. They just don't think of transwomen as something other than women. Women who date women are classically called lesbians.

Check out Contrapoints sometime. She's a very well known transwoman content creator and a lesbian.

I do generally do ignore JK Rowling except when discussions about why I disagree with her come up, such as this thread. But when people are being jerks I call them out on it when appropriate. And JK Rowling is a jerk.

 

[wellwisher]

J.K. Rowling Claims Her Statements On Transgender Women Have Been ‘Profoundly’ Misunderstood In New Podcast

I agree that all the ire drawn towards her positions recently, is nothing but misunderstanding of her position, which isn't an uncommon one, even amongst biologists, sociologists, and anthropologists.

There is a profound difference between the lived experiences of biological females, and trans individuals, for instance.

There is also a split between what is biological sex (ie chromosomes and hormones), and expressed societal gender.

Sex =\= gender or vice versa.

One of the problems for science, with the issue of transgender, is if this is true, it would require redefining the current assumed genetic cause and affect. The data, if true, disproves a main dogma of biology. If one was born with female or male DNA, and you could ignore that and become any form of gender sexuality, then the DNA is secondary to neural input. This would disprove aspects of the genetic theory and evolution.

If you look at the data, the number of students and adults, who now claim some aspect of trans and alternate gender has risen, since it became part of Left wing indoctrination. Can indoctrination trigger genes, through the mind, so certain ones come to the front, overriding even natural DNA assigned at birth?

Evolution and biology assume random changes on the DNA and natural selection, yet gender bending can lead to a fully integrated behavior; new person. Again this disproves the slow boat DNA random change with the observation of rapid integrated changes that only took years, for thousands of newly transformed.

This would suggest that even animal behavior, all though evolution, was also not carved into stone by random genes and natural selection. They may have been just as pliable and lead to a different integrated DNA change, that is not random, and can occur quickly? The transgender and genetic experiment is not about one random gene or two, but about an entire body and mind makeover from assigned DNA, with all the needed genes able to line up. How does that impact evolutionary theory, if animals could also do an entire natural behavior makeover almost overnight? We should be discussing the implications for science and evolution and the need of large overhaul.

As I look around, I do not see the sciences of Biology or Evolution changing anything. There is no major or minor change of paradigm even being discussed. However, there appears to be lip service to political pressure. If it was more than political programming and peer pressure, and actually real biological, it would totally change the foundation premises of genetics and evolution. The reaction suggests this is more about will and peer pressure.

My educated guess is trans is based on will and choice, similar to role playing. The child can play the role of a super hero. The integrated change is more like an actor and director; copy others, planning and playing a new role. The actor becomes the character. This will not impact the DNA, since it is very superficial only with costumes and pretend. It is more neurological.

The problems is, why does this one group of actors; gender benders, get extra resources for their play? Why not also give the same funding to say the jock actors, who sees themselves as a larger muscle bound machine that can exceeds their DNA and do even better at their sport? Why not give jocks all the steroids, they think would to make them the best jock actor, they see themselves as being? Why do we allow drugs and surgery for trans actors, but not for all the other groups of actors, who play a different role? This dual standard is a tell.

We require the jock actors to stay natural. They need to exercise and practice on their own. Why the dual standard? Steroids for a jock would do the same things as hormone treatment for a trans. Both adds to their costumes, so they can look and feel pretty and fulfill their fantasies. We can also use surgery to add a larger lungs to the jocks, so they have better O2/CO2 exchange. This will make their role look even more natural.

In female sports, if any natural female had any drugs in her system, they will be disqualified; Leftist are jockophobes. If you are trans, you can have residual drugs in your system, since these are needed for your costume. Until everyone who wishes to be different, from their DNA, has resources, I do not believe that any actor group should be allowed to live off the tax payer, until Biology retools the entire genetic theory so we can pick and chose with science, instead of politics.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In the US, why are trans women so obsessed with cisgender women's judgment?

Why are Italians so wrong in their very far off base assumptions about America?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sounds like attacking the wrong problem to me.

How is it the wrong problem when I can't get support for what I'm going through at a support group that's supposed to be for those like me but hardly anyone is like me and able to offer any support or insights?

Attacking the idea of some transgender people not having their transgender identities being defined by pain, and instead of attacking a woefully corrupt medical system where arbitrary criterium need to be met in order to gain medical coverage.

That pain ultimately is a part if it. That's why averting unwanted puberty is important. That's why gender appropriate socialization is important. It's why the medical field must be better trained (my personal anecdote, especially those in the mental health field) to alleviate and even avert suffering.
Another way of looking at it, people can see as female all day but when I see my shadow I see a silhouette that induces dysphoria.
And what I am attacking is that we're all in the same boat together. We're not. To me it feels hardly any different than when someone tries to lump in autism and those who just have poor social skills in the same category. Both categories have individuals who are at risk of loneliness but the reasons are very different and the solutions as well will be different because the two groups are different and have this issue for different reasons.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think that pansexuals or bisexuals are more or less the right term to describe ciswomen who want to date transwomen.

Also because I don't know them. I know no trans woman who is into ciswomen. So the reality is pretty new to me.

As for Rowling, people like her have a controversial opinion, and if you disagree with hers, I guess you should just ignore her.
You can say her opinion is wrong (and I think it is), but this controversy should have been ignored from the very first.

Why are you so obsessed with applying terms and labels on people they themselves aren't using, and especially with your atrocious habit of assuming and insisting someone must be of a certain sexuality (which is typically wrong)?

 

[Estro Felino]

Why are you so obsessed with applying terms and labels on people they themselves aren't using, and especially with your atrocious habit of assuming and insisting someone must be of a certain sexuality (which is typically wrong)?

I am just saying that the reason why Rowling is supported by many is because of the issue addressed by a lesbian activist from Britain in the video of post #62.
Rowling is entitled to her opinion (even if I disagree with her) but I would like to underline that that lesbian activist has a point. Don't you think she does?

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Re: Euphoria vs Dysphoria

The point is what you make of it. There will always be a degree of pain vs pleasure, happiness vs misery, and a personal choice that leads to a resolution. Being trans is not only picking one singular solution to fix a problem that was causing pain, it is also finding and employing what - in relation to sex and gender - makes you happy and comfortable. Dysphoria is focusing on the things that hurt, euphoria is focusing on the things that relieve that hurt, and it is a personal choice in which you more focus on and use to define your experience.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

One of the problems for science, with the issue of transgender, is if this is true, it would require redefining the current assumed genetic cause and affect. The data, if true, disproves a main dogma of biology. If one was born with female or male DNA, and you could ignore that and become any form of gender sexuality, then the DNA is secondary to neural input. This would disprove aspects of the genetic theory and evolution.

Actually that's a problem for you as science and genetics do not support this cause and effect and it doesn't weld gender to sexuality in such a way.
Amd you fail to mention things like chromosome and brain studies that support the reality of transpeople.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I am just saying that the reason why Rowling is supported by many is because of the issue addressed by a lesbian activist from Britain in the video of post #62.

I'm saying you appear obsessed with telling us who's straight and who's gay and even telling certain individuals what they are even after repeatedly being corrected. This is you, entirely on you and your unhealthy obsession with playing pin the sex label on the ape (and more often than not you don't come close to being right).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One of the problems for science, with the issue of transgender, is if this is true, it would require redefining the current assumed genetic cause and affect. The data, if true, disproves a main dogma of biology. If one was born with female or male DNA, and you could ignore that and become any form of gender sexuality, then the DNA is secondary to neural input. This would disprove aspects of the genetic theory and evolution.

Nope.

DNA determines biology, not gender. While the two can be related, the relationship is not exclusive. While your DNA can determine your biological sex, it does not necessarily determine your gender or gender expression. Gender is a social construct.

If you look at the data, the number of students and adults, who now claim some aspect of trans and alternate gender has risen, since it became part of Left wing indoctrination. Can indoctrination trigger genes, through the mind, so certain ones come to the front, overriding even natural DNA assigned at birth?

Nope.

Again, gender is a social construct. There is no "trans gene". Nobody is "going against their DNA". They are acknowledging and understanding the idea that gender is a SOCIAL category, not a biological one. It stands to reason that, which an idea becomes more accepted and widely spread, more people may openly adopt that particular idea. This has been true of practically marginalised group that gained widespread attention.

Evolution and biology assume random changes on the DNA and natural selection, yet gender bending can lead to a fully integrated behavior; new person. Again this disproves the slow boat DNA random change with the observation of rapid integrated changes that only took years, for thousands of newly transformed.

Also nope.

Evolution is about changes in POPULATION over time, not changes in an individual. Transgenderism isn't a genetic trait. This argument is like saying plastic surgery proves evolution wrong, because it shows you can dramatically alter your appearance over a short period of time rather than over a long period of time. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is and says.

This would suggest that even animal behavior, all though evolution, was also not carved into stone by random genes and natural selection. They may have been just as pliable and lead to a different integrated DNA change, that is not random, and can occur quickly? The transgender and genetic experiment is not about one random gene or two, but about an entire body and mind makeover from assigned DNA, with all the needed genes able to line up. How does that impact evolutionary theory, if animals could also do an entire natural behavior makeover almost overnight? We should be discussing the implications for science and evolution and the need of large overhaul.

Nope nope and nope.

Behaviour and genetics are two very different, though connected, things. Just because behaviour changes doesn't mean the DNA has changed, nor vice versa. This is no an issue for evolutionary theory.

As I look around, I do not see the sciences of Biology or Evolution changing anything. There is no major or minor change of paradigm even being discussed. However, there appears to be lip service to political pressure. If it was more than political programming and peer pressure, and actually real biological, it would totally change the foundation premises of genetics and evolution. The reaction suggests this is more about will and peer pressure.

My educated guess is trans is based on will and choice, similar to role playing. The child can play the role of a super hero. The integrated change is more like an actor and director; copy others, planning and playing a new role. The actor becomes the character. This will not impact the DNA, since it is very superficial only with costumes and pretend. It is more neurological.

The problems is, why does this one group of actors; gender benders, get extra resources for their play? Why not also give the same funding to say the jock actors, who sees themselves as a larger muscle bound machine that can exceeds their DNA and do even better at their sport? Why not give jocks all the steroids, they think would to make them the best jock actor, they see themselves as being? Why do we allow drugs and surgery for trans actors, but not for all the other groups of actors, who play a different role? This dual standard is a tell.

We require the jock actors to stay natural. They need to exercise and practice on their own. Why the dual standard? Steroids for a jock would do the same things as hormone treatment for a trans. Both adds to their costumes, so they can look and feel pretty and fulfill their fantasies. We can also use surgery to add a larger lungs to the jocks, so they have better O2/CO2 exchange. This will make their role look even more natural.

In female sports, if any natural female had any drugs in her system, they will be disqualified; Leftist are jockophobes. If you are trans, you can have residual drugs in your system, since these are needed for your costume. Until everyone who wishes to be different, from their DNA, has resources, I do not believe that any actor group should be allowed to live off the tax payer, until Biology retools the entire genetic theory so we can pick and chose with science, instead of politics.

The rest of this post is just built on the former misunderstandings.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

and it is a personal choice in which you more focus on and use to define your experience.

That sounds like everyone who tells me not to focus on my knee pains. My shins are bowed, meniscus discs and ligaments torn, four surgeries on one knee and arthritis in both. No amount of thoughts or focus will give me a pain-free life. Even when I'm at my best there's still a good chance one of my knees will slide around, lock up and then painfully pop back into place.

 

[Estro Felino]

I'm saying you appear obsessed with telling us who's straight and who's gay and even telling certain individuals what they are even after repeatedly being corrected. This is you, entirely on you and your unhealthy obsession with playing pin the sex label on the ape (and more often than not you don't come close to being right).

It's not about me.
This thread is about Rowling and why she's called TERF or something.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

That sounds like everyone who tells me not to focus on my knee pains. ... No amount of thoughts or focus will give me a pain-free life.

Well, that's not quite what I meant by it, and the two issues do not compare. With respect, I'm not even going to try to do so.

Regarding gender dysphoria/euphoria and being trans, with respect to each person's lived experience, it is not only a matter of pain. Being trans is not reliant on dysphoria, though that may be a present factor. It's not a constant, it's not uniform or monolith, and may very well be greater for some than others. What I'm saying is that you don't have to say "I do this because I was in pain," one can absolutely have the mindset of "I do this because it makes me happy and whole." Will not existing a given way make you unhappy, incurring dysphoria? Perhaps. But that's not the only thing that it's about.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In the US, why are trans women so obsessed with cisgender women's judgment?
I couldn't care less about cisgender women's judgment, because I am into men...so it's their judgment I am interested in.

If trans women had just ignored Rowling's statements, nothing of this would have ever happened.

Yep. Let the story be the story for what it is instead of all kinds of crazy interpretations placed into it just because an author had expressed their personal opinions on something.