Are you awake or a woke?

Jimmy Bizzo

I usually don’t agree with Rowling. However, on this issue she is correct. There is though, another side to the argument. Namely, if you were born a man and you transitioned your body to resemble a woman’s body in the full acceptance that you want to live as a woman, then a woman is who you are. But… a woman is not necessarily what you are. Biology trumps opinion, however ‘woke’ the zeitgeist.

As appears to be the way nowerdays, screaming hordes of ‘woke’ puritans choose only to see one side of the argument, and set about smearing and destroying the reputation of any who dare to resist the social constructivist clarion call summoning all to a brave new world of intolerance where the worst label that can be hung on you is to be right-wing.

But there is no more right and left. There is only up and down. On this issue Rowling is, for a change, on the up side. Her mistake? We all know it, because it’s obvious: she used facts in a counter-argument against the fashionable opinions of the politically naive and terminally offended.

 

Elizabeth Watts

Jk Rowling brought millions of children back to the art of reading and love of books.  And now she is pilloried for stating the obvious, that people who menstruate are women?  The world has gone stark bonkers, completely mad.

Ark.


205 thoughts on “Are you awake or a woke?

  1. I was “woke” this morning at 4AM by my dog who wanted to go out to pee. I HATE being woke like that! Politically speaking, I’m much too much of a fascist to be considered “woke”, a term I simply despise, BTW. In my world, I’m right and everyone else is wrong. Period. I find this to be the healthiest way for humanity to be. You know, everyone being VERY tribal and thinking only THEY, and those who agree with them, are right in their opinions and everyone else is wrong. This kinda thinking is just dandy! Sure beats compromising and listening calmly to all opinions and views on topics and then coming to some sort of agreement on what is best for all involved in any given situation. That way of life would suck. Thank Allah we don’t behave that way most of the time. Hell, were would it get us? How could I know Allah is the OneTrue God and Islam is the ONLY TrueFaith if I felt or thought any other way? Gotta go walk the dog again. At least THIS time I wasn’t “woke” to do it.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. J.K. Rowling’s views are much more complex than simply a focus on biological sex. Although I ultimately disagree with her conclusions because they are based on personal fears about men in washrooms, I have great respect for the research she has done and the respect she shows to people of all gender identities. This article is well worth reading if you are interested in this debate:

    Like

    1. From the article:

      although I’m also aware through extensive research that studies have consistently shown that between 60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria.

      Like

    2. If accurate, I find this is disturbing, and maybe part of the reason for her concerns?

      The current explosion of trans activism is urging a removal of almost all the robust systems through which candidates for sex reassignment were once required to pass. A man who intends to have no surgery and take no hormones may now secure himself a Gender Recognition Certificate and be a woman in the sight of the law. Many people aren’t aware of this.

      Like

      1. I cannot speak to either of these quotes because, first, I am not aware of any research showing that most gender dysphoric teens “grow out” of their dysphoria and she doesn’t cite a source. Second, I don’t know where in the world a man can get a Gender Recognition Certificate without going through lengthy and difficult processes.

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Yes, this struck me as peculiar. I have never heard of the certification she mentions, and I know that it is not true for Canada. My son’s transition took many years and a lot of counselling. It is a very difficult process.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Have no idea if it is limited to the UK. From what I gleaned from a quick gloss read that (extensive?) counselling is required, and other requirements, but no definite commitment to surgery or hormones.

            Like

        1. The statement about 60-90% “growing out” of their dysphoria is incorrect. Carl Sagan has said “JK Rowling wrote a thing about transgender issues which repeats a damaging, totally wrong statistic. She says “60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria.” In reality, this stat applies to prepubescent children, NOT TEENS (1/4)” In addition, those children identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual in their teens.

          Like

          1. As Winston Churchill famously said on the eve of the Normandy invasion: ”What I wouldn’t give for drone and the chance to Skype with Dwight.”
            And that’s all I know.
            😉

            Liked by 5 people

          2. The Twitter account holder is named CarlSagan42. No further details are provided and no referred source/citation for the claim either.
            Unless this IS Sagan. Then we are dealing with an entirely different ball game.
            I think I’ll get my Ouija board out and put on my Tinfoil hat … y’know, just in case.

            Like

          3. Actually, in a former life Jeff was Aisha but he transitioned …. became a Christian then transitioned again and became a camel. No one has been able to establish if he is a Bactrian or a dromedary.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. I’m pretty sure you’re quoting a twitter handle ‘CarlSagan42’ whereas the 80% I’m quoting comes from Dr. James Cantor for the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) and his complaint about problems publishing his research into sexual orientation. He says, “Sexual orientation is in the brain” and not a social construction as transactivists and their willing allies try to portray it. This change is diametrically opposed to best clinical practices because it assumes orientation is not biological. And that’s why the gay and lesbian movement for removing discrimination based on orientation as innate is itself being high jacked in this ideological war to promote gender-based ‘fluidity’ which is something Rowlings has pointed out is incompatible with sex-based differences and treatments based on biological knowledge.

            Liked by 2 people

    1. Maybe such topics need to be discussed more often to reveal and allay fears, misunderstanding and outright falsehoods and also to challenge the media-driven ”bulldozer effect” that is frequently behind such issues?

      Liked by 1 person

  3. It is indeed a very difficult process, or was, in the UK, starting in 2004, when we gained our third daughter. Now it seems the Certificate can be had by those who wish to have it without the long and painful process that it took and that is disturbing for many, including those who have transitioned.
    I found that article very interesting indeed. Thank you, Snowbird of Paradise.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. One of the problems getting good information about the rise in Sudden Onset Gender Dysphoria is that anyone who researches sex-based facts and not correct gender-based ideology is pilloried by the Twitter mob and transactivists as is the institution with which they are affiliated. Even the Vancouver Rape Center has had public funding pulled because they would not allow sex-based males claiming to be gender-based women access to room with vulnerable females and their children housed within. Ideology in action where, once again, males assume the right to determine female decisions.

    In Canada, for example, several clinics and research centers creating knowledge about sex-based differences have been forced to shut down. Many of Canada’s leading sex-based researchers have been let go. Gender rules. University faculties have almost entirely stopped funding any kind of sex-based research and have closed associated clinics. I suspect it has much to do with homophobia, but hey. Changes to legislation have promoted this ideology to the forefront and empowered human rights tribunals to punish ‘wrong-doers’ so that questioning or criticizing physical and chemical procedures to gender- questioning youth is becoming ever more risky and difficult. That’s why we have male pedophiles and murders of young women housed with women in women’s prisons… because by using gender rather than sex as the identifier, these males can get access to more victims. In fact, one convicted male murderer not only gained access this way but continued to sexually assault females in the prison, was removed, appealed on the basis of gender-identity and was returned! We wouldn’t want to protect vulnerable females, of course, if it causes any angst to males when they can claim to be non-menstruating women to continue to harm females.

    Still, utilizing healthcare and surgery still requires a time-consuming and challenging procedure that gender-questioning youth must endure – at least in Ontario – because it crosses into mandatory psychological counselling… for the very reason that over 80% of youth who wish to ‘transition’ at a young age elsewhere express regret having done so and deepening psychology problems later. But that’s doesn’t rule out the 20% who achieve better results so the process remains one that is difficult but available.

    As a victim herself from male violence, Rowling knows just how insidious gender-based ideology is in practice on vulnerable females. The rise in desire to surgically and chemically alter one’s sex in the name of changing one’s gender identity from what has historically been a male-dominated area (ever wondered what happened to transvestites?) to dozens of young girls all at once and in close contact at particular schools is cause for legitimate concern about the longitudinal health and welfare of these children. That transactivism has altered the medical field to the extent where government publications only promote the ideology, get rid of knowledge-based considerations, rename body parts to avoid having to speak to primary sex-based differences and focus on secondary gender-based differences, have access only to promoters of the ideology online and in government counselling, means that our youth are fertile grounds for the males who wish to change wider society to be their sexual playground.

    And as someone with a public platform, Rowling is better able than most to withstand the assault on her character and directed attacks on her publisher by deluded supporters of the ideology, many of who mistake support for transgendered institutionalized ideology as honest and concerned caring for the welfare of others. It’s not. It’s exactly the opposite. This ideology and anyone who promotes it over sex-based knowledge is a problem that just keeps harming real people in real life.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I recall reading of a doctor who was fired for stating he would refuse to address an obvious man as a woman – although his objections were apparently based on his religious beliefs.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. I mostly keep my distance from this fight.

    I try to respect people. The number of trans people seems too high, so I am suspecting that this has become a fad. And then I wonder about the people who behave very much like a male bully, but insist that they are women.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Ah, publicity! See, because puppies are popular, and I crave attention, I often dress in a Scooby Doo outfit and wander into doggy daycare centers demanding I be allowed to pee and poo where all the other dogs do. As the multiple arrests I’ve suffered due to this will show, my way of expressing my inner puppy is highly prejudiced against in today’s world.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. To be honest, I really can’t see what all the fuss is about. On the facts, Rowling is obviously correct. She’s also not anti-trans in any way, quite the opposite as far as I’m aware, so I just don’t understand the blows she’s been receiving.

    Now Minotaur’s on the other hand…

    Liked by 4 people

  7. I think there are two different issues here. First, online harassment which has existed for years. It’s not right. Nobody makes a point by shouting down other people, or threatening them, or ranting while dog-whistling for their own intellectual tribe. It turns debate into a swearing contest. Slurs of “woke” and “TERF” get thrown back and forth like verbal grenades, whether they’re appropriate or not.

    Second is the issue of what Rowling is actually saying about trans people. Is she right? The answer isn’t easy to find.

    After a cursory search online, I found this article which goes into the problems of gender desistance studies. That is, Rowling’s citation of “60-90% of gender dysphoric teens will grow out of their dysphoria[,]” is contested. It’s not necessarily contested on politicized grounds, but rather on changing definitions of gender dysphoria and the nature of some of the studies.

    So experts – sympathetic and antagonistic to every cause – do not agree on some basic definitions. It’s not going to stop people like Rowling from making snap judgments and relying on things that are not facts. But just because she’s leaping to some unsupported conclusions doesn’t mean her entire perspective is without merit. It just means that a person can disagree with her conclusions.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Never heard of “TERF” before. What does it stand for? These friggin’ labels are truly out of effing hand. We already have plenty of slurs to toss at each other without having to constantly make up new ones! 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. TERF: Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist

        At least that what I think it is supposed to stand for. But it seems to just be a nasty sounding term to throw at the people you disagree with.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. I agree. I don’t think she has malicious intent, but a number of her conclusions aren’t really supported by facts. And there are other problems with her arguments. She’s not giving the details of the Maya Forstater case – which gives the impression she’s trying to misrepresent what actually happened. She also uses numbers in a very questionable way i.e. her use of the “4400% increase”. If you look up the numbers you see they were unusually low before. Nottingham, for example referred only 30 people to transitioning in 2008, in 2016 the number climbed to 1000; and that’s a place with a population of 1.6 million. So the increase doesn’t look unreasonable at all when you look at the totality of the numbers. I’d happily go on to deconstruct the rest of her points, but other people have already done it in great detail.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. I don’t know. This is such a complex topic. I have much to learn and reading to do. In real life, I have one friend/acquaintance with whom I lived through a transition from Alan to Alisa (many months and she still struggles with the painful consequences of surgery). I learned much.
    To be PC I had to (gradually) change my reference pronouns (him to her) and listen as she explained her forgiveness of my blurting out him when I should be saying her. I accept Alisa as a now-female, but also as the person who was then-male, Alan, when I met her. When I sit with her in a mixed gender/sex group, she is not the “same” as the other women at the table, nor is she (or was she ever) the “same” as the other men. Am I woke or awake? I suppose neither. Obviously, an interesting topic. Good pick, Ark. Humans!

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Humans indeed!
      If I may? And excuse any un-PC and blatant ignorance.
      As this seems to be the main point of contention among those who approach transgenderism with trepidation, in mixed company how do men and other (original?) women react to Alisa?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It depends. Most seem to accept her, however, the ones I know and are familiar with have known her longer than I have. I was a woman who told me, “I suppose we need to call him her now.” We try to be supportive. Alisa moved farther away, so I seldom hear anything. She faced and must deal with many struggles, physical, mental, and social.

        Like

          1. I am not able to relate to the experience. The whole gender/sex issue is apparently very large and complex. I need to read what JK has said.

            Liked by 1 person

          1. I have always tried to be understanding and supportive. I drove a long way to the a church where she officially changed her name.
            LOL. Alisa had to mention how nice it was to see so many atheists going to church to support her. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

  9. Without reading through the comments yet … I liked it back when men were men, women were soft and fluffy, and the undecided weren’t so noisy about it.

    I went through my formative years in a much simpler world and (in my own personal humble opinion— to which I am entitled and for which we all fought and died in The War etc etc etc …) it was a much simpler world.
    I like simple …

    Liked by 3 people

    1. We also learned that baby Jesus was born in a stable and got sneezed on by cows and donkeys and visited by shepherds and kings from the orient. I know this to be true because I once played a king in our nativity play.
      🙂

      Like

      1. Your comment about sneezing got my imagination working …

        WHAT IF … the coronavirus was around in baby Jesus’ time and one of the “three kings” had it and sneezed on him and he became infected? Where would we be today? “God” couldn’t have healed him because, well, baby Jesus was “God” … and too young to even know he was infected.

        Hmmmm. Such fun to play “what if’s”!

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Jesus Christ, Nan! Covid-19 could NOT have been around during the time of Li’l Jeebus anymore than it can be around today! It is a FAKE virus made up by atheists and leftist idiots who hate Donald Trump and God. WTF is wrong with people who can’t see this?! 🙂

          Liked by 2 people

      2. Yeah. But fictional baby Jesus still grew up to become a manly man who did manly things with his manly bros, like drink and fish and hike and climb mountains — not some whiny, unemployed, 30-year-old soyboy tweeting obsessively about his existential angst from the safety of his parent’s basement.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. There are many unanswered questions.

    For one, many of the things that we assign to gender, like wearing makeup, the color pink, liking cars, etc…those stereotypes are clearly not universal, and the fact that we still associate many things with a particular gender is antiquated and needs to stop. There literally is no reason why I can’t wear a dress, heels, and stockings and paint my nails.

    The question I’ve been wondering for some time is that if we recognized that there are a lot of things that are associated with men and women m that even if they were on average true, they are not universally true and thus if we took away those stereotypes, would trans people be associating with another gender. If you’re a man, and want to be a woman, what is is about being a woman that excites you. Is it the things that society deems acceptable for women to do that you are identifying with, or is that you just really really want a vagina? It seems to me the latter would be unlikely. It just seems that if we lived in a world without these constructs I don’t know whether or not there would be a strong desire to change genders, because much that humans do would not be assigned to a gender by society.

    I think one should be cautious about going through the whole hormone thing. This is an adult decision, much like religion and I just don’t see the value of putting a young child through that even if they say they want to switch genders. Other than that, I don’t see what harm it does to accept trans people, and I know many women who spend zero time worried about women entering the restroom. Or at least more so in a society that supports trans rights. I’ve seen no evidence that assaults have gone up in women’s rooms. One thing that seems to be true about perverts is that they aren’t particularly concerned with a woman’s boundaries, so I don’t think a graphic of a woman on a restroom door has ever been a particular barrier to a man who wants to go in there and sexually assault a woman.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. I surmise that it’s something incredibly deep for trans people. I’ve seen many comments, including Rowling’s, implying trans people are often just confused gay people – which is frankly ridiculous. In gay people what we often see is what you describe, people not conforming to the male or female stereotypes. I’ve rarely if ever met a gay person who felt “trapped in the wrong body” as many trans people describe feeling. I’m also fairly certain the statistics support your point on assaults/bathrooms etc.

      Liked by 4 people

      1. Yes the testimonials I’ve read from trans people seem to suggest that too. One particular story that really cemented that this was a real and deep phenomena was about a trans who would switch back and forth between feeling like he was a woman to feeling like a man. He had no control and was frustrated, and really just wanted his body to make up its mind. Eventually it did and he is now a she. But it was clear that this was biological, not some fad or some sort of conscious personal struggle.

        Liked by 3 people

      2. I’m a straight white male who’s trapped in the wrong straight white male body. I FEEL like I SHOULD be inside a body like Henry Cavill’s, much better lookin’ body than mine. Now, I wonder, if brain transplants became a “thing”, if he’d mind switchin’ bods with me fer a tad?

        Liked by 1 person

    2. There literally is no reason why I can’t wear a dress, heels, and stockings and paint my nails.

      Of course not, yet correct me if I am wrong, experience, past and present, informs us that the reason men who do this (other than for the purposes of panto/ acting, or disguise,) is because of a desire to ”be” female.
      Re ; children. Agreed.

      I know many women who spend zero time worried about women entering the restroom.

      Perhaps the concern is over those individuals who have not fully transitioned and remain (effectively) male? Probably an overblown fear in any case.
      I realise I am venturing out onto the thin ice here,, and I doubt such concerns would be expressed over a woman in the throes of transition to a man, but these things need to be discussed openly.

      Re restrooms. Is there perhaps a third option?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. But that would mean that my desire to “be” female would be predicated on society determining what is feminine. But these are arbitrary, hence my question about whether or not these constructs are what drives a person to want to be a different gender, or is it deeper than that. The limited testimonials I have listened to seem indicate that it is deeper, but this is in the context of a society that somewhat rigidly determines norms for men and women.

        And I get that it would be very uncomfortable to see in a women’s room a male in those circumstances, but I suspect that if that person is peaking into your stall they probably are legit. lol I mean I suspect most trans people, while they might feel comfortable with the gender they identify with, they are still aware of how they might be perceived and would be more likely to keep to themselves. I think from the trans perspective they are equally fearful of violence against them because of who they are, and so keeping them safe seems also important.

        Like

        1. But that would mean that my desire to “be” female would be predicated on society determining what is feminine.

          I disagree somewhat. A female impersonator’s reason to dress up in a woman’s clothing is not necessarily predicated on the desire to become a woman but to become like a woman, in other words to temporarily deceive.
          If you simply wanted to put on a dress and paint your nails without enhancing the more obvious physical female aspects – breast for example – then you would likely be regarded as a bit weird, but little else. Unless you demanded to be addressed as female and on this basis alone demanded access to traditionally demarcated female zones . And this I believe is where (some of) the real issues begin.
          Of course, in an environment where public toilets are all gender neutral this problem would likely not arise. Although I can see potential issues here as well

          Humans have identified their differences based largely on biological reasons for attracting a mate – and similar examples are found in many areas across the animal kingdom.

          Have you ever seen the film The Crying Game?
          If not, it’s worth a watch.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I’ve seen the crying game. Although it was sometime ago. Extremely well acted movie.

            I see what you mean, but I guess what I meant is that among humans there is so much diversity that again you can talk about on average what is feminine and what is masculine, but that doesn’t describe every woman or every man. Not all women are curvy and have noticeable breasts. So again is wanting to be a woman really about wanting to have a vagina? This is the only outward characteristic that I can see as truly female? Perhaps it is. I don’t claim to know,

            Also if we as a society said that it doesn’t matter who wears dresses, high heels and make up, then my action of doing doesn’t make me more feminine. The activity just becomes something humans do. An aesthetic that I simply enjoy and nothing more.
            And is it the case that if I wanted to attract a female, I need to make sure that I look stereotypically male? Does a woman have to be absolutely sure that I have a penis and is looking to see if I have a wallet or a purse? In a society where there are actually no assumptions made about someone who simply likes the aesthetic of painted fingernails and a dress, do I have no chance of attracting a straight female? Perhaps there is a dance I can do like some birds that could show somebody I was interested. lol Is it that we decide as a society to arbitarily pick a number of characteristics, assign it to a particular sex so that we can more easily mate? Maybe, but I haven’t seen such a study asserting that. For most animals the qualities that they value in a mate are fairly straightforward, but we can connect in so many other ways to our fellow humans through shared history, shared culture, shared interests, shared moral values, and these things usually end up being the clincher on long term bonding, over how great she looked in a dress, and I looked in a tuxedo.

            I’m just saying if we deconstructed what, at least to me, seem arbitrary about many gender qualities, then I’m curious what mating and attraction would like in our society. Maybe things would be confusing and wouldn’t work at all, I don’t know.

            Like

          2. So again is wanting to be a woman really about wanting to have a vagina? This is the only outward characteristic that I can see as truly female? Perhaps it is. I don’t claim to know,

            Me neither. But it strikes me as being as fundamental as having a penis and identifying as male.
            I consider biology would triumph.

            Also if we as a society said that it doesn’t matter who wears dresses, high heels and make up, then my action of doing doesn’t make me more feminine. The activity just becomes something humans do.

            Agreed. In our business, if we use a fondant icing or a butter icing it does not change the composition of the chiffon cake underneath. Although, I realise this might not be the best analogy.

            And is it the case that if I wanted to attract a female, I need to make sure that I look stereotypically male?

            I don’t know. What was it about you that attracted your wife? Were you wearing a dress, wig, and nail polish?

            Does a woman have to be absolutely sure that I have a penis …

            If the object is to procreate and you are presenting yourself as male then it would obviously be an advantage.
            Or even of she is simply anticipating sex with a male, the lack of a penis might put a damper on things, wouldn’t you say?

            Perhaps there is a dance I can do like some birds that could show somebody I was interested.

            Most male birds are the more colourful and there is little or no ambiguity regarding gender. Go watch some of the mating displays of Birds of Paradise.

            … shared moral values, and these things usually end up being the clincher on long term bonding, over how great she looked in a dress, and I looked in a tuxedo.

            While some form of mutual interest/s may extend a relationship beyond a date or two, at some point both of you will likely want to remove the wrapping paper and see what’s underneath.
            What do you honestly think your expectations would be?
            Now tell me honestly how you would feel if this turned out not to be the case?

            Remember the scene on the Crying Game when Dil’s transgenderism becomes apparent when the couple undress and her/his penis is revealed? ,

            Like

          3. Swarn, you’ve hit on several issues that are really quite the problem.

            The first is any kind of working definition of what ‘gender’ actually means. This has nothing to do with primary sex characteristics which are, namely, male and female. There is no spectrum in fact, in reality. Quite simply there is almost unanimity that this is binary: either XX or XY. This covers over 99.96% of all humans and is as close to binary as anything. This matters because primary sex characteristics define one’s biology… including past the neck. The effects of these chromosomes on development is not open to question and it causes effect in every conceivable physiological and chemical development of humans. That’s why these are called ‘sex-based’ characteristics.

            Now, when we move into gender, we move away from factual sex-based binary differences – that is to say, away from questioning whether or not sperm or eggs are produced or whether the chromosomes are XX or XY 99.96% of the time. We move into secondary sex characteristics (aspects that have more to do with sexual attraction and fitness) in order to make room for this unknown thing called ‘gender’. That’s why we use different terms called ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’. We know these have something to do with sex-based characteristics (after all there is a preponderance of evidence that different sexes have different interests and even baseline abilities that when plotted fall into two distinct groupings). But it remains the case that all people can have various gender traits and we can have all kinds of spectrums for all kinds of various aspects of masculine and feminine and we can have little or great tolerance for all of these to be on display.

            But on today’s campus where we suddenly find ourselves subject to the campus ideology of what is correct and what is not, we find a strange reversal hard at work claiming gender is the physiological and chemical baseline and sex-based characteristics now the ideology. Yup, ‘up’ now means ‘down’ and ‘white’ another kind of ‘black’ and to point out the reversal of what is true is pretty much a hate crime. Rowling, for example,broke the law of this intolerant ideology by hatefully pointing out that we once had a word for humans that menstruate. It’s insane.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Sorry to butt in again, but I’m wondering if everyone discussing these things considers the enormity and impact of what they’re doing? I spent my childhood hearing theories on what “real men” were supposed to do or not do. It was also a world where “real women” were only the ones who got married and had children. Imagine people feeling entitled to discuss the merits and demerits of one’s identity and the implications that entails?
            One thing I think is clear with transgender people is it’s tough as nails to be one of them. The vast majority can’t walk down a street without people nudging each other and there are the whispers and insults. They represent no danger as proven by statistics across the board and are just trying to get through life carrying this burden which is a disconnect between mind and body. Society has spent most of its history making accommodations for people with power. Consider Boris Johnson, had he been born in a poor family he would’ve had to join the circus – but having gone to Eton he gets to be PM. Isn’t it time we make some accommodations for people who aren’t in a position of power too? Can we not “broaden the scope” of our interpretations to make a little room to perhaps give people a chance to a have a life that’s just a little bit better?

            Liked by 5 people

          5. Thanks 🙂 Gay people have a long history of being spoken of in these terms. Potential rapists just waiting for a chance, and so dangerous as a class every member should be excluded from activities like teaching or bathroom use.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. True. We have lost the ability to listen as a people. I mean, listen with empathy to those who are different than we are and peek our curiosity because of it. What is it transgendered people are saying about THEIR experiences? How do THEY feel about it? I have no friggin’ clue as I do not have to deal with this issue on a personal basis, BUT, I can LISTEN to those who are dealing with it and try to put myself in their place. We all are, after all, human. I can remember hearing all the stories about how “dangerous” gay men using the same bathrooms and showers as straight men would be. I was told these tales by my bigoted family from my earliest days on. I used to, as a kid, give them weight. BUT, then I grew up and got involved with the theater and made dozens and dozens of gay friends and found out my family was full of shit, uneducated, bigoted, and afraid of things they simply did not understand. No gay man has ever tried to rape me in the bathroom or in a public shower and I, IMO, am as good looking as Brad Pitt. It is our fear of the “other” that haunts this world. Until we can see ourselves in those we see only as “others”, we will be doomed to hate and live forever in fear of each other. Sad, really, because, we can do SO much better than this if we simply tried.

            Liked by 3 people

          7. One of the things I find most disturbing is the déjà vu aspect of these discussions. We’ve spent the past 40 years litigating in often brutal ways how dangerous or not dangerous gay men are. Are we predators by nature? Should someone who thinks they have “legitimate” fears of gay people be able to exclude us because of their fears? From jobs? From bathrooms? And just when we thought we were turning the corner, there it all is again. Neatly repackaged for use against trans people.
            I went over Rowling’s text again today, and to be honest I find it more problematic each time I read it. The reader is asked to “assume facts not in evidence” that are exceptionally damning. The inferences and conclusions include that there’s a group of trans activists trying to forcibly “convert” children into transgenderism by pushing them to medically transition even if they’re not transgender. That there are doctors who are part of this conspiracy to convert children. That trans people should, as a class, be barred from certain places because they’re potential predators. That rapists are super-polite and somewhat quirky and only attempt to enter women’s spaces to rape them after dressing up as a woman and getting a government certificate to say they’re female. I could keep going, but you get the gist 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

          8. No it’s not the ‘same shit’ all over again. No rights are being denied. No shared freedoms are being withheld. It’s not the same shit all over again because it’s not discriminatory. What IS discriminatory is the the demand that males be allowed to be women when it suits them and the demand that everyone go along with this charade.

            It’s transactivists demanding that males be able to compete in female-only sports. It’s transactivists demanding access to women’s shelters. It’s transactivists demanding Brazilian wax jobs from those who have built business offering their services to female-only anatomy. It’s transactivists demanding anyone who recognizes the reality of sex-based differences be fired, be censored, be removed from any discussion. It’s transactivists who demand the term ‘woman’ apply to those who wish to claim the description regardless if they have male primary sex organs and physiology. It’s transactivists who demand that their convicted brothers be housed in women’s prisons. It’s transactivists who demand researchers into sudden outbursts of gender dysphoria be silenced and their research defunded. It’s transactivists who demand females advocating for females not be given any platform. It’s transactivists who demand school personnel who encounter a children who questions their ‘gender identity’ (whatever the fuck that is) submit the case to consellors paid by the state to start interventionist therapy (often chemical) without alerting the parents. And the list goes on and on and on. And the bluntest tool is the one most commonly used: suing on the basis of a prohibited ‘discrimination.’ What’s that prohibition? Government who have been successfully lobbied and fooled by transactivists into proclaiming that ‘gender’ is a protected right. It’s utter bullshit.

            It is organized. It is intentional. It is international. And anyone who questions or – Gasp! – criticizes this mass march to males-are-real-women-too-even-if-they-so-choose-on-this-day-but-not-that-day means they are by transactivist definition bigots, haters, and Very Bad People.

            I will again point out that if this model were to be true, that gender is biological but sex-based differences are what are assigned by society, then gays and lesbians have NO ARGUMENT that their same-sex attraction is anything BUT a variable feeling that cannot by transactivist definition be innate. Seriously.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. Personally I have no issues. However, what prompted the post was the flak and serious abuse Rowling received for voicing her views/concerns/fears. whether they were unfounded or not.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. I get the interest and curiosity, and even that many people approach the topic with good will; but I remember during my childhood hearing people discuss whether it was “safe” or not for gay men to be teachers. Or if it was safe for boys to use the same bathrooms as gay men. And once that was over, the discussion was whether it was okay for gay men to be in the military – because of the risks in a foxhole or in bathrooms of – what? Gay men raping heterosexual men?

            Liked by 2 people

          11. Because of reasons that are usually unfounded people often react in ways they would not normally do. Maybe if the attacks against people such as Rowling were not so vicious the whiplash would also not be so severe?

            Like

          12. When she drags out the bathroom “danger”, how many attacks do you think that might cause? How many people will read her words and make the association that trans people are inclined to rape?

            Liked by 2 people

          13. I appreciate the strength of feeling, even if I cannot relate directly, – and I am presuming you have read the article she wrote in response – and yet, the blowback she has received, which I’m pretty sure isn’t over yet, does not strike me as the type of scenario that will move this issue along to an understanding conclusion.

            If we include this with the sudden upswing in the whole child gender dysphoria issue – and I don’t have figures or stats on hand – it is probably understandable and somewhat inevitable that such ignorance based fears will impact in such a negative fashion. And in the case of child gender dysphoria, maybe some of these fears are justified?

            Liked by 1 person

          14. I have read the article a few times to make sure I wasn’t judging what she said unfairly. Then I crosschecked the data she referred to. My conclusion was that what she did was dangerous. That doesn’t excuse the brutality of the attacks she suffered, but I understand how angry people are to be stigmatised in that way.

            The stats on the child dysphoria issue are very interesting because what we see is basically that the issue was mostly ignored by parents and doctors until about 10 years ago. Referrals to specialists were in the 10’s in a city like London. That’s a fairly unlikely number in a population of almost 9 million people. According to a C4 fact-check I found, in 2016 and 2017 a total of 2000 children were sent *to be assessed* for gender dysphoria in London. Of those assessed a number will not have dysphoria and those who do will receive treatment as decided by the doctor and the parents. All following incredibly strict protocols.

            And despite all of that, what I can see is Rowling’s essay has succeeded in feeding the myth that children are being endangered by trans people who want to “recruit” them.

            Liked by 1 person

          15. Watch out for the way she uses statistics. Also things like “When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman … then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.”
            But to make sense of it all you have to consider what must be true for her arguments to hold water. Is she describing an innocent class of people or a dangerous class?

            Liked by 1 person

          16. She’s describing some danger males. And yes, dropping the sex-based requirement is taking away another safe space from females. That you want to reframe this as dangerous because it classifies a group as a threat doesn’t surprise me. That is a favourable interpretation for you but dismisses the legitimate concern females have about sharing their safer spaces from dangerous males. From this fact, from this reality about a real danger that harms real females in real life you recast this a danger to transgendered men. Oh, bully for them. Poor, poor victims. As for the females? Who cares as long as more males get their access, am I right?

            Like

          17. It classifies females as distrustful of males who wish access to one of their few safe spaces. I cannot imagine why. It’s not like males have a reputation for causing harm to females. No, non, no. But don’t talk about the females who have a legitimate point; talk about the ‘damaged’ self esteem and hurt feelings of the males who wish access… presumably for nothing but purely altruistic reasons.

            Liked by 1 person

          18. You can’t have it both ways. I’m asking what label is applied to trans people in this scenario? Are the trans people assigned to the category of dangerous? If you say the fear is legitimate, are you saying fear of trans people is legitimate?

            Liked by 2 people

          19. Regardless of the term used for describing males who wish access to female-only spaces, females are being told that to complain or push back against this intrusion is ‘hateful’ and ‘phobic’. That’s the lie. No matter how you wish to describe the group of males who are trying to gain this access, the fact is that you are not considering the female position at all. You expect them to roll over and STFU because of the feelings of those trying to gain this access outweighs everything else. Well, you seem to care a very great deal for the small number of intruders and not in the least for larger numbers of those being intruded upon. That’s not empathy: that’s ideology trying to use the the facade of empathy for the ‘poor widdle victims’ who are the intruders being denied their’ right’ to intrude on others who you portray as the Victimizers. That’s a neat trick of rationalization because when it comes to empathy for victims here, you have it exactly backwards.

            Liked by 1 person

          20. So does that mean you consider trans women predators? That’s a simple enough question. And if you do, you have to provide evidence if you want to make a “safety” argument. Fear alone is not an argument.

            Like

          21. Unlike males demanding and receiving placement into women’s shelter and women’s prisons where real world sexual assaults – even REPEATED assaults – have resulted here in Canada (I don’t know about the rest of the world), I know of no cases of females demanding to be placed in men’s shelters and men’s prisons and sexually assaulting males. Perhaps you do. But I suspect the number would be very small for very good biological reasons. But you already knew this.

            What I care about, Pink, is for vulnerable females (many, like Rowling, who in many cases already have a history of abuse and victimization from sexual assault) to have a few safe spaces from males. This transactivist ideology when implemented only threatens that safety of females… but no one seems to care about the feelings of the woman (with a high degree of likelihood that she already has real world experience of being sexually assaulted) in a rape center or prison being told she has to bunk with a bearded male who says he’s a woman, and that if she disagrees she is a bigot and hater.

            So here’s a question for you: why don’t more people than just the ‘haters’ and ‘bigots’ seem to care at all for what these females feel? You seem quite willing to disregard their feelings even if based on real world experiences but not the feelings of other males who wish to impose themselves on these females presenting themselves as gendered women? Funny, that. Nothing discriminatory about that dismissal at all, I’m almost sure.

            Liked by 1 person

          22. You can try to evade answering, but the crux of this matter rests on this central point: either transgender women are not predators in which case we’re only discussing an unfounded fear, or they are predators – for which you’d have to provide verifiable evidence.

            Like

          23. Is there not a case to be made that some are?

            If this is the case then it would be understandable, even if somewhat exaggerated, that such fears would have some grounds, especially when voiced by those who may have been victims of violence?

            Like

          24. You mean that a percentage of trans women are predators?

            Yes, this is what I mean. And please bear in mind that because of the media-driven world we now live in a single case may be enough to create a shit storm, and humans, being what they are, the herd mentality so often kicks in.
            You’ve been on the receiving end of such prejudice, I’m sure, even before anyone had the opportunity to ”Tweet”.

            Enough so the entire class should be barred from certain public spaces?

            Obviously not. But do you not consider the fear some women have to be real, and the basis of their hesitance to ”share” is not justified?

            Like

          25. That’s the problem with anecdotal evidence and why it doesn’t fulfil the requirements of establishing a point. You can take individual cases, even three cases and give the impression any group is dangerous.
            I can think of three female teachers who had sex with teenage students. I can think of many more than 3 cases of nuns abusing girls. And yet we know better than to try to bar females from teaching or nuns from places where there are young girls.

            Like

          26. Then perhaps it is a case of not knowing how to deal with the unknown or the ”not normal”/”not like us”.
            And as people have not yet learned to adjust and accept they deal with it in the tried and trusted way; namely, by reacting to our basic evolution of flight or fight.

            In this case, all I can say is ”we” have to ride out the storm.

            Liked by 1 person

          27. Interesting take on Rowling. On first read I can’t disagree either.
            However, didn’t Rowling state in her essay that she was doing research for a novel and accidentally ”liked” someone’s Tweet instead of making a screenshot and this was when the trouble first started?

            Liked by 1 person

          28. To reiterate, she stated the ”like” was a mistake as she intended to make a screen shot and she goes on to write that she realised she was going to get a lot of flak (my words) for this error.

            Like

          29. Yes, she stated the like was a mistake but went on to describe Berns in terms of her being an admirable person. And instead of distancing herself from those ideas she just rephrased them in a less aggressive and obvious way.

            Like

          30. Okay, so’s you don’t think I am being a plonker or simply obtuse, I found what has to be the relevant passage. Correct me if I’m wrong?

            Magdalen was an immensely brave young feminist and lesbian who was dying of an aggressive brain tumour. I followed her because I wanted to contact her directly, which I succeeded in doing. However, as Magdalen was a great believer in the importance of biological sex, and didn’t believe lesbians should be called bigots for not dating trans women with penises, dots were joined in the heads of twitter trans activists, and the level of social media abuse increased.

            Liked by 1 person

          31. Yes, that’s the bit. But the thing is if it were a stand alone fact, I don’t think anyone would’ve cared. The problem was that there were so many dots to join which culminated in this essay which more or less confirms the inferences people thought she was making.
            Have you heard of Moral Panic Theory?

            “A moral panic is a widespread fear, most often an irrational one, that someone or something is a threat to the values, safety, and interests of a community or society at large. Typically, a moral panic is perpetuated by the news media, fuelled by politicians, and often results in the passage of new laws or policies that target the source of the panic. In this way, moral panic can foster increased social control.”
            This can happen in wider society as it did with the gay panic of the 70’s and 80’s, but it can also happen within smaller groupings (Salem, Loudun etc). I have the impression Rowling (and even Tildeb) have been exposed to information promoted by groups that benefit from social outrage. Keep in mind they format their message in ways to elicit visceral emotional responses (men in beards bunking with abused women). Images of children being attacked, raped. And if you expose people to enough of these messages they feel a moral obligation to defend the people they think are vulnerable. Remember the Pizzagate case?

            Like

          32. Every case I mention is a Canadian case in fact.

            Because the federal government ruled ‘gender’ as a prohibited discrimination, all kinds of shit is happening to females with the active participation of various levels of governments and Commissions and Tribunals. Probably the most egregious is a male convicted of murdering a young female who then was transferred by request to a woman’s prison in BC because he identified as a woman where he then assaulted at least two females… (both of whom had been sexually abused prior to incarceration… with his womanly non menstruating erect penis. He was transferred out to a men’s prison where he successfully appealed based on his gender identity and was then returned not just to the same woman’s prison but the same cell block with his previous victims!

            Can you imagine a more vulnerable population of females than those locked into a prison with male sexual abusers? And we do that because… we don;t want to hurt the .feelings of these males?

            I have written repeatedly to my MP and Minister of Justice about this issue and have received responses along the lines Aren’t We Great – And Proud – Because We’re So Damned Sensitive To The Feelings Of Male Women? Every time a transactivist criticizes the VWS as a ‘hate’ group and ‘Bigots’ I donate money to the Vancouver Women’s Shelter. I’ve done that at least 25 times in the last year so don’t tell me it’s not business as usual for transactivists to go out of their way to smear and discredit real females doing work on behalf of vulnerable female victims of male sexual assault and trying their best to protect them from people who offer blank checks of emotional support to these terrible people.

            Fortunately, only a percentage of transexuals are transactivists but this smaller percentage are very loud and very good at getting their feelings validated at the low, low price of causing real harm to real females in real life. And they seem to have little problem getting others to go along with the charade that enables government to help them cause this harm. That’s why I keep saying over and over again, what about the feelings of vulnerable females? Why don’t their feelings matter at least as much as the vocal transactivists in the minds of good people?

            Liked by 3 people

          33. No. Do you know how to do a statistical risk analysis? If your contention is a generalised male risk, which seems to be the standard you want applied to trans people, you have to demonstrate what the generalised male risk actually is. Are you prepared to be honest and discuss real numbers?

            Like

          34. I mention these cases because they ONLY occur when you codify ‘gender identity’ as a prohibited discrimination. The harm is not measured only by sexual assault (by the way, by official policy we can no longer gather sex-based crime statistics so your request cannot be addressed by facts); it harms women who cannot operate and compete fairly in all kinds of ways. Let me list some for you:

            Removing the right of women to assemble outside the presence of men.

            Removing the legal right of women to organize politically against sex-based oppression by males.

            Elimination of the patient right of dependent females to hospital/facility/bed assignments separate from males.

            Removing the legal right of women to be free from the presence of men in areas of public accommodation where nudity occurs.

            Elimination of the right of dependent females to prefer female providers for their intimate personal care requirements.

            Removing the legal right of women to educational programs created for women outside the presence of men.

            Elimination of sex-based crime statistics.

            Elimination of the human right of female prisoners under state confinement to housed separately from male prisoners.

            Eliminating athletic programs and sports competition for women and girls.

            Eliminating data collection of sex-based inequalities in areas where females are underrepresented.

            Elimination of grants, scholarships, board and trustee designations, representative positions and affirmative programs for women.

            Removing the legal right of women to create reproductive clinics, rape crisis services, support groups or any organisation for females.

            Eliminating media and all public discourse specific to females.

            Removal of the right of journalists to report the sex, and history, of subjects.

            Eliminating the legal right of lesbians to congregate publicly.

            Elimination of lesbian-specific organisations and advocacy groups.

            Removing the legal right of women to free speech related to sex roles and gender.

            Elimination of the legal right of women to protection from state-enforced sex-roles (appearance/behaviour/thought).

            Elimination of the legal right of girls to protection from state-enforced sex-roles in public education.

            Anyone who publicly presents this information and is targeted by transactivists for doing so is usually censored by such services WordPress and many known feminists have had their accounts deleted here in Canada. After all, it’s a prohibited discrimination. That’s the point: the codification in law of gender as a prohibited discrimination translates into harming women and threatens now to erase them from the public domain. The same banning is true on Twitter and Facebook. Big (trans)Brother is watching… aided and abetted by government and all its policing and surveillance services to increase the harm you so easily dismiss as rare and trivial, claiming all of it is merely to sell an imaginary moral panic. Hardly… but then if the concerns of real females doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn, why should you care? It’s ALL about protecting transgender ideology from any legitimate criticism that it erases female concerns… yet it does whether you want to call it a moral panic or some other dismissive term.

            Like

          35. You’re like a one stop shop for false information, which comes so quickly it’s almost as if you’re copy/pasting from the propaganda spread by extremists like The Arborist.
            Isn’t it funny that in all the countries where transgender non-discrimination policies have been put in place, women’s rights haven’t suffered at all except in the minds of those creating and promoting moral panic?
            Imagine that all over Europe lesbians are still free to congregate freely!!! LOL!!!
            Do you not recognise the sheer imbecility of the fear mongering you’re trying to promote? The elimination of lesbian organisations? Seriously? Have France or Ireland changed the way they collect crime statistics? Can Spanish women no longer campaign against sex based oppression? Do us a favour of not insulting people’s intelligence any further. It’s tiresome and increasingly desperate.

            Liked by 2 people

          36. Removing the legal right of women to be free from the presence of men in areas of public accommodation where nudity occurs.

            Is this now statute law?

            Like

          37. Yes. It falls under Bill C-16 that launched the whole Jordan Peterson thing about mandatory pronouns. Pink talks about trivial numbers but in Canada’s prison system the last information we have that allowed sex-based statistics to be gathered (it’s now illegal BECAUSE ‘assigning’ sex to suspects is consider discrimination). The insanity never stops.

            “Corrections Canada has advised that between June 1, 2017 and December 3, 2018, 8 biological males who identify as transgendered were transferred to the women’s system. 7 of the 8 were convicted of violent crimes including murder and sexual assault. The total population of transgendered males in female facilities remains unknown.

            Female inmates (who are disproportionally aboriginal, have previously been subjected to violence/abuse and are overwhelmingly convicted of nonviolent crimes) are being housed with male transgendered inmates such as:

            · Madilyn (formerly Matthew) Harks who was convicted of sexually assaulting girls under the age of eight three times and has been accused of harassment and assaulting female inmates while in custody. Current location unknown but thought to be held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit

            · Tara Desousa (formerly Adam Labucan), a dangerous offender convicted of sexually assaulting a three-month-old baby. While in custody, Desousa assaulted female inmates and a female correctional officer. Currently held at the Fraser Valley Women’s Institute which contains a mother and child unit.”

            To this list I have pointed out in a previous comment convicted child killer Michael Williams who brutally raped and murdered Nina Courtepatte and who successfully reapplied and was granted access to the same women’s prison , the same cell block, where had previously assaulted two female inmates.

            Getting information is hard because most people involved with any harm caused by transgendered people in pursuit of imposing their ideology on everyone are generally loath to say anything officially or in public for legitimate fear of being fired, vilified, censored, and have their careers ended. That’s how you censor, by going after the host venue and getting them to cancel identified speakers or be labelled transphobic.

            Of course, if you are one of these people who criticize AND are female, then you get the special term TERF. Funny, that.

            Pink has no problem with any of this and will excuse and forgive and justify for the side of the transactivists but not even a whisper of concern for anyone harmed – especially if female – by this policy. He doubles down and claims this tactic used by transactivists and their supporters is from the imagination, that it is false, that it is to cause moral panic where no real reason exists, and of course done only by the worst of people who then deserve whatever pillorying the transactivists demand in recompense. The call-to-arms against the Vancouver rape shelter is a prime example of what’s going on in every Canadian city when I hear workers telling similar stories. I have no hard data for this and, if I did, it wouldn’t matter to the ideologues. The problem is NEVER with the transactivists who continue to drag people before the human rights tribunals. Note that because the testicle waxing ‘woman’ transactivist used the policy to make money and so can be excused for not representing transactivism (BTW, ‘she’ also had a long history on Facebook with young women asking them all about their sex-based practices.)

            But I see the policy as the root problem here because it opens the door to this kind of abuse and harm of real females in real life. And another problem are all those administrators and managers who have no backbone to stand up against this legal travesty because they know they have to go to court and fight for years if they fail to comply. The policy allows transactivists to get away with all of this.

            Seriously, just try to find a hard definition of what ‘gender’ even means and you’ll immediately see the root problem of codifying into law protection for this mysterious ‘identity’ transactivists use to deny the reality of sex-based differences. When it comes to transactivists, their fundamental faith-based belief is that sex is constructed and gender is biological; and this belief to be taken seriously is a necessary plank for any legally applicable definition of discrimination charges. This is the bullshit assumption, that sex-based differences don’t matter in law but be replaced by concern only for gender identity. This is the assumption that must be respected above all else, one that removes reality from consideration that people are either male or female, either XX or XY, either sperm or egg, and tries to argue that a very very very small number of outliers in this bainary ‘spectrum’ mean the spectrum is suddenly fluid and so sex is assigned/constructed and so gender is biological and so to act on sex-based rather than gender identity is therefore discriminatory. THAT faith-based belief and line of rationalization to impose it on everyone by law is the root problem.

            Like

          38. Interesting, and disturbing.
            I am sure you are aware of Thomas Beatie?

            How does his situation (if at all) , as a (formerly) pregnant man,tie in with male to female transition?

            Like

          39. TB has female biology reconstructed to present as male as much as possible. Transitioning does not change one’s at-birth sex; it masks it later. And the reason I say that is because childhood development cannot help but be tailored to either male or female development based on this biology. Thius development does not stop at the neck with primary sex organs below but causes very different brain development. These biology-wide effects during development are not interchangeable or ‘transitionable’ later… if that’s even a word. TB, in other words, would fully qualify to enter female-only spaces even when presenting as a man.

            Liked by 1 person

          40. Question: In the case of gender dysphoria aren’t the neurological aspects considered separate from the biological?

            TB, in other words, would fully qualify to enter female-only spaces even when presenting as a man.

            What? Are you serious? Even after having transitioned (including ‘top’ and ‘bottom’ surgery? ).

            Like

          41. The neurological aspects? When it comes to gender dysphoria, we’re talking about conflicted feelings related to gender. The research into neurological associations by subjects of long term dysphoria by sex-based researchers with doctorates in this field has all but disappeared.

            As for females presenting as men and gaining access to female-only spaces, I’m speaking purely of sex-based rights. I would hope a person born female but transitioned to presenting as a man would not want to enter these spaces, but an argument could be made. Once upon a time when we had better information of sex-based differences, we could reasonably argue that BECAUSE, say, 95% of sexual assaults were committed by males against females, places of protection from males for females could be supported with a designation of female-only and reasonably enforced on the basis that this helped clients of sexual abuse feel safer. Not safe. Safer. The client’s feelings of feeling safer no longer matter in this Brave New World; the only feelings that matter are those who presume to have feelings that outweigh all other considerations and have the law to support this bias in practice. I guess it was the gender of the abuser that caused these sexual assaults. Change the gender…. voila!… get rid of, say, 95% of sexual assaults! Who knew it could be this easy?

            Welcome to the Magical Kingdom.

            Like

          42. Way too crazy for me.
            This time I am definitely going to excuse myself and carry on watching some Star Trek.
            You and Pink can continue to duke it out…

            Best.

            Like

          43. When did you stop beating your wife? This is the crux of the abuse allegation: You can avoid the answer or … blah blah blah. False dichotomoy. The issue I raise is that you are making an assumption that the feelings of male transactivists to impose themselves into female only spaces are the only ones that matter here.

            Like

          44. Group-based thinking will lead you into this kind of mistake, Pink. You are assuming we are speaking of gender groups – one of your own making – that insists that female incursion into male-only spaces has to have the same safety issue as males into female-only spaces. But the reality is that the vast majority almost all sexual abuse assaults occur by males against females. This fact does not support the hurt feelings of males who wish access to female-only spaces so you won’t go there. Yet THAT is the correct group identifier you are missing/avoiding when you arbitrarily switch into this ‘gender’ nonsense. So you do not have to achieve equity between male and female abusers before you can reasonably establish safe spaces for females. That’s a mug’s game when reality shows us male/female sexual assault is almost unidirectional. That’s where your ‘question’ fails to meet reality, and so a ‘question’ like the one you raise and has no evidence from reality to support it and so can be dismissed on the same grounds.

            Like

          45. So, what number attempt is it now where you try to change the subject, because you know that the answer completely dismantles your argument?
            Either trans women are dangerous as a class, or they are not. If you assert they’re dangerous, present the evidence. If you don’t have the evidence, have the character to stop spreading destructive myths.

            Liked by 1 person

          46. Character?

            I’m rejecting your FRAMING of this as a ‘class’ discrimination. It’s you who are refusing to admit we’re talking about real males and real females and real problems of assault by males against females. That just so happens to be a real problem that will be carried into female-only safe spaces.

            The issue at hand is prying open female-only spaces for males CLAIMING the right to do so BECAUSE they are claiming to be ‘women’. There’s the linguistic trick, the presumption, the demand by transactivists, that ‘women’ means female, so access to female-only spaces SHOULD be open to anyone – including males – who simnply SAY they identify as a woman. That’s why the Twitter Mob is all a- tizzy about Rowling daring to suggest that we used have a term for people who menstruate called ‘women’ because THAT term when genderized means males, too! That’s the bullshit. But the fact of the matter is that fully intact males are still males and not females. That’s not my ‘character’ speaking; that’s REALITY. Like the transactivists, however, you’re trying to get around this fact by insisting the term ‘women’ means anyone who says they are should be able to impose themselves on female-only spaces or be considered of questionable character… ie, a bigot or hater. Stack the deck much?

            Like

          47. The issue at hand is prying open female-only spaces for males CLAIMING the right to do so BECAUSE they are claiming to be ‘women’. There’s the linguistic trick, the presumption, the demand by transactivists, that ‘women’ means female, so access to female-only spaces SHOULD be open to anyone – including males – who simnply SAY they identify as a woman.

            This seems to be the crux of this whole issue ( correct me if I’m wrong).
            Can you or Pink define what a ‘female only space’ is?
            Has such a space been (legally) determined?

            Like

          48. Look, if there’s no room for reasonable people on the Left, where do imagine their votes might go? Why doesn’t this concern you? It concerns the shit out of me.

            Nothing anyone can say or do will improve Trump’s chances (and other populist leaders) more than this kind of idiotic intolerance of reality, the rejection of knowledge, the rewriting of history, the racification of all institutions, the undermining of liberal values with censoring and struggle sessions in the name of tolerance and respect and diversity. It’s a one way destructive and downward spiral…

            Like

          49. I think your vision of the world is somewhat skewed. Germany managed to take down some fairly important monuments, including a massive wall – and that wasn’t “rewriting history”. It was reshaping how their citizens see the world. I don’t think liberal values are really under attack. In the UK there’s one liberal newspaper, The guardian, the tabloids which are much more read are primordially right wing, in the worst possible way. We are finally dealing with things society has ignored for most of its history, including race inequality – and thank goodness for that.

            Liked by 1 person

          50. @Pink

            Tildeb said:

            however, you’re trying to get around this fact by insisting the term ‘women’ means anyone who says they are should be able to impose themselves on female-only spaces

            May I ask if this is the case, Pink?
            Is this what the bare-bones of this whole controversy is about?

            Liked by 1 person

          51. Not quite. I see a much deeper rejection of trans people as the real problem. This is disguised and manifested through the myths and innuendo. Tildeb’s “bearded man” wanting to bunk with an abused woman in a shelter? Come on, that’s the bottom of the barrel in attempting to create repulsion to a class of people. And I’ve seen it all before, exactly the same, used against gay people.

            Like

          52. I agree that, on the face of it (pun intended) the ”bearded man” scenario is way over the top and probably ridiculous. (But maybe not?)
            Perhaps it might be a good idea if you clarified the position regarding what a transgender person is?

            Liked by 1 person

          53. France is a “self-identification” state in the sense that the sole requirement is that the person lives as the sex they identify with. That means surgery isn’t necessary, but they do present their case to a judge who makes the decision. That’s been the case for years and there’s no record whatsoever of abuses, bearded men, or any other pattern of crime initiated by trans women.

            Like

          54. the sole requirement is that the person lives as the sex they identify with.

            Excuse my genuine ignorance with this term. Will you clarify.

            Like

          55. I think in the vast majority of cases, and by that I mean over 98% according to Spanish figures (where they’ve had self-identification laws for nearly a decade) trans people are on regular hormone treatments. This means developing breasts for women, developing facial hair for men etc.

            Liked by 1 person

          56. This actually happened in the Vancouver Women’s Shelter, and the woman who complained was a recent rape victim expected to sleep in a bunk bed next to a bearded male wearing combat boots who claimed to be a woman. The Center refused the male ‘woman’ and was defunded by the city for discrimination (~$200,000).

            So don’t tell me females are not directly harmed by this ideology in practice. You don’t seem to care at all about the feelings of females in this issue. You seem to care only about male feelings. Why is that, Pink?

            Like

          57. And yet, on the other side of the issue, it would seem that Rowling’s accidental ”like” and the subsequent fallout has resulted in a sort of media ”feeding frenzy”. (I suppose we can include even a blog post such as this as the debate/row is probably being carried out on a myriad of similar platforms)
            One has to wonder where does common sense feature in any of this?
            Maybe it’s time the ‘knives were sheathed’ to allow cooler heads to prevail?

            Liked by 1 person

          58. Her twitter feed is full of the moral panic stuff. She hasn’t stopped promoting these ideas, which obviously compounds the situation. Much like Tildeb, she believes there’s a threat that must be stopped.

            Like

          59. Well, I don’t Tweet or read feeds ( other than in discussions such as this to gain a bit of context, if I can).
            And yet it seems that as I mentioned, things have turned into a bit of a media feeding frenzy.
            I asked where common sense featured in all of this?
            Replying with more ”fuel to the fire” doesn’t strike me as a way to resolve this.

            Liked by 1 person

          60. Is there a resolution? The way we fought anti-gay propaganda was with a whole lot of persistence. And we still have to do it today. The bigger problem with moral panic issues is that it’s beyond the rational. When emotion and fear take over, it’s all downhill.

            Like

          61. I just perused some of the comments on this issue on her Twitter feed.
            There seems to be a degree of conflation between here personal abuse and fear of abuse by trans people. And it all gets quite confusing.
            This is compounded by survivors of domestic violence saluting her for ”speaking common sense” ( I love the irony – let me scrape a bit of egg off my face, hold on – ) but not actually addressing the supposed/apparent issue of potential violence from Transgender people.
            A Tweet from a woman’s refuge in Nottingham(?) was nothing but supportive of the trans community who have made use of their facilities.
            On another tweet, one trans person wrote: We trans are just sitting here., You picked this hill to fight on. ( more or less).
            And then one reads some really aggressive outburst slating her and round and round it goes.

            I can’t make head or tail of it.
            You can fight it out with Tildeb.
            I need some sleep.
            Night night, Mister Pink.
            Be well.

            Liked by 1 person

          62. … unless the emotion and fear drives supporters of transactivism who point out the feelings of male non menstruating ‘women’ must take precedence in law over legitimate concern of safety for females. All of sudden emotion and fear is only Right and Proper… for the poor widdle victimized males versus the Big and Bad females who stand against this (they’ve even been granted the pejorative term TERFS – trans-exclusionary radical feminists, no less!). Being a TERF by transactivist definition means one automatically and fiat becomes a bigot and hater, so one cannot have a ‘conversation’ about legitimate concerns regarding this male encroachment with such a Big Bad person. Lack of character and nothing but inteloerance, donchaknow. Yup, the Transactivists already hold the moral high ground, you see, so the conversation is already over. Now wax my womanly testicles, you bigoted TERF.

            Like

          63. Myths and moral panic talk about testicles and bearded men isn’t it.

            Question: What is the protocol/current legal position – if any exists – were a transgender woman to enter a beauty salon and book an appointment to have her testicles waxed?
            And in the spirit of being completely open and honest; writing ‘her’ and ‘testicles’ in the same sentence does my head in.

            Liked by 1 person

          64. Honestly, I think we can find extreme examples of people behaving in unreasonable ways in every category of people. This is perfectly evident with the many #karen videos. What the #karen videos don’t mean is that every white heterosexual woman behaves in that way. I imagine in cases like that each salon worker could/should be able to have their own individual policy. But again, let’s make no mistake, we have laws protecting trans people in France, Spain, Portugal, all of Scandinavia and Finland, Greece and many others and all of these “potential” abuses have never materialised. They’re nothing but extremely rare individual cases used for the purposes of fear-mongering.

            Liked by 1 person

          65. “each salon worker could/should be able to have their own individual policy.”

            Not when such a policy is defined in law as discriminatory. That’s the imposition.

            Like

          66. Yes, it was much more complicated than what I presented. Some of the women targeted were Muslim and so the defense they were forced to participate in included competing discrimination. That most left the business entirely is also a harm to more people than just the targeted females. The point, however, was that the unreasonableness of the entire fiasco was enabled by official policy, where real world sex-based differences that are fundamental to the various issues are bulldozed away by those who wish impose their transactivist ideology on everyone without any consideration at all for the harm being caused to real life females by doing so.

            Liked by 1 person

          67. This is a perfect example of you appealing to moral panic to create a misleading impression. I’ve found a record of the case which says:
            “the tribunal concluded that human rights legislation does not oblige a beautician to wax genitalia they have not consented or had training to wax.
            … the court also found that Ms Yaniv had misled the court as to her motives and specifically targeted minority providers.
            … Ms Yaniv’s predominant motive in filing her waxing complaints is not to prevent or remedy alleged discrimination, but to target small businesses for personal financial gains.”
            And it’s frankly shameful that anyone would try to promote falsehoods in this way to create hatred.

            Liked by 1 person

          68. Like usual, you miss the point: the FACT that this ever had to go to a tribunal, the FACT that many of these businesses folded, the FACT that the policy you assume is benevolent allowed this malignancy to occur This is an example of harm I used to point out that harm does not mean ONLY sexual assault. You wave this away – as you always do – with a dismissive term of ‘moral panic’… as if that term makes the harm not real. That’s the bullshit you’re peddling.

            You claim this criticism about this transactivist policy of prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of gender identity causing harm (substitute ‘religion’ here and you’ll see the same apologetic approach you are using repeatedly hard at work vilifying those who have legitimate cause to criticize) is almost non existent, that the very few examples must be a few bad apples like any other organized group of people, that criticizing this policy is unwarranted and fear-mongering and therefore shameful and draws into questions one’s moral character.

            I’ve already mention the Vancouver’s rape crisis shelter being targeted. Read this. Tell me again how shameful it is for these females to be concerned, how fear-mongering it is to have to go to court and spend valuable dollars defending female-only space, how showing concern for this financial burden created by transactivists causes harm to providing needed services to real females in real life in real distress dcraws into question the character of someone concerned, how the real curtting of money from public funding is so trivial as to be something no one excepts bigots and haters of transactivists should be concerned about.

            Pink, I think you’ve mounted your horse to champion what you presume are the poor downtrodden transgendered people and have not just turned a blind eye to the very real harm a policy of criminalizing people on the basis of holding fast to sex-based differences in real life causes but taken the bit between your teeth and to vilify anyone who dares to suggest with facts from real life examples causing real life harm to real life females anything that diverts from the purity of blank slate support for advancing this transactivist female-only erasure. And you are willfully blind to the harm but more than able to excuse every single example in exactly the same way a religious fanatic will brook no recognition of any legitimate criticisms of the beloved dogma.

            Like

          69. You really should be ashamed of yourself. There’s no other way to put it. You’ve dragged out false accusations, you’ve used anecdotal evidence as if it established a pattern that should be attributed to a class of people. You’ve fear mongered with appeals to emotion and you’ve done it all whilst treating me and everyone else reading as if we’re cretins who wouldn’t check if the information you’re providing is false or not.
            Obviously there will always be people who abuse rights, but if one woman commits voter fraud that doesn’t mean giving women voting rights was wrong. The cake lawsuits in America aren’t a good reason to not have passed protections for gay people in that country.
            You sound not a bit like, but exactly like Anita Bryant in the late 70’s. You’re repeating her arguments and fear mongering word for word. It was anti-gay then and you, a small minority of extremist feminists and the Christian Right have recycled that garbage to use against trans people.
            I remember very clearly when you and The Arbourist were pushing a story about the imminent rape dangers that were about to be faced when trans people were allowed into women only train carriages! Remember that? A story that wasn’t just false, it was a fantasy fabrication. When I pointed out that was garbage fear-mongering because women only train carriages hadn’t existed in the developed world in almost 40 years, he just moved on to more deception, and you pretended it hadn’t happened. The religious fanatic is the one who disregards the evidence. That’s something you’ve done at every point in this debate.
            It would be very easy, very straightforward for anyone to make a sensible, statistical demonstration of a danger. It’s done all the time to form policy. The reason you cannot do it, is because the evidence blatantly disproves your “theories”. None of it stands up to muster. Just as Anita Bryant’s anti-gay propaganda didn’t stand up to muster. Gays are not paedophiles and trans women are not rapists – and I’m disgusted anyone would attempt to revive those tropes.

            Liked by 3 people

          70. I seem to recall the overnight sleeping compartments issue (widely used in North America, BTW) were raised by RoughSeasInTheMed. The point then, as is the related point now, is why the concerns of women for their own sense of security are dismissed out of hand? You keep telling me it’s shameful for me to raise this issue over and over again but I can’t help but notice you never address it? Misogyny much, Pink? Or do you get a free pass because you’re pure of heart?

            Like

          71. I’m telling you fraud is shameful. So let me repeat it, I found no evidence of women only sleeping compartments in the developed world during the past 40 years. There was a single exception for one train service in Germany. I include North America in that. So did you phrase your answer to give the impression they exist “widely” in North America? Because if you did, that’s another attempt at deception.

            I’m telling you an unfounded fear isn’t good enough motivation to enforce discrimination. Unfounded fears based on false information like that which you’ve provided is the very definition of moral panic. You’ve implied trans women are predators, but couldn’t back that up with statistics. So you’re left to fear mongering based on anecdotes. And yes, again, that’s shameful because those people will live with the stigma you’re helping perpetuate. Just as gay people before them.

            Liked by 2 people

          72. Didn’t address the misogyny bit yet again I see…. and I not only didn’t imply but you should not have inferred that I though biological females who transitioned to presenting as men were dangerous. But please, don’t change your apologetic tactics on my account. Do it for your own awakening.

            Like

          73. I don’t think you’re in a position to understand what misogyny is. The same way you don’t understand what a legitimate fear is. And as I said before you’re lying. If you’re not saying that trans women are dangerous, then your argument is moot. The fear can only stand if there’s a risk. So which is it?

            Liked by 1 person

          74. The ideology is dangerous because when acted upon in the form of policy and law it creates intolerance, division, and brutality that causes additional real harm to real people in real life. The cost is almost entirely borne by vulnerable females who are expected to silently yield because, well, just because that’s how you become pure and morally superior and not give in to hate and bigotry and transphobia…. How you twist and contort a growing body of evidence of exactly this harm to mean that pointing it out is equivalent to ‘lying’ is a marvel of the mental gymnastics an apologist will take to stay a Faith-full True Believer.

            Like

          75. What cost is borne by vulnerable females? If your saying that you’re not accusing trans women of being rapists or dangerous people, then there is no cost. Also what is this “growing body of evidence” which you haven’t been able to point to? More anecdotal evidence? Or can you demonstrate with numbers that there’s a pattern of danger for which a class of people is responsible?

            Liked by 1 person

          76. If I may? Why is it either / or, and not some?
            Not all Catholic Priests are pedophiles and as far as I aware, Catholic institutions have not prevented or even overtly restricted Priests interacting with children.
            Or has the church recently put safeguards into place to prevent such abuse?
            Is this a legitimate comparison?

            Liked by 1 person

          77. It’s a legitimate comparison.
            What makes a policy discriminatory is if it’s arbitrarily applied to a single group of people. During the campaigns against adoption by gays the religious right often brought up cases of individual abuse. The problem evidently being that abuse by heterosexual people happened all the time.

            Like

          78. If you’re in Vancouver, you intentionally go to a 6 different single salons where you know the practitioners advertise that they will only work on females. When you demand waxing on your womanly testicles and the service is refused, you then take these 6 female proprietors to a human rights tribunal, the costs of which then drive these females out of business.

            Like

          79. To play devil’s advocate:
            Could a parallel not be drawn with the whole ‘We’re not baking wedding cakes for gay people.’ ?

            Like

          80. The policy of ‘gender’ equality creates these very real and very dangerous situations… that always seem to favour males getting what they want but costs females giving up some small measure of protection, have you noticed? Funny, that. I guess one has to compromise one’s ‘character’ to recognize this.

            I also notice you never address this obvious discrepancy in your ‘concern’ for ‘fairness’ and the potential for discriminatory one-sided ‘danger’. Maybe the concern you have regarding this issue isn’t so much for ‘danger’ real or imagined at all… unless its of the kind that holds males to take into account real danger for females and real action to address it… like safe spaces free from the presence of males. Suddenly, THAT presents a danger!

            Good grief.

            Like

          81. Rowling is vicious? Vicious? VICIOUS?

            (Takes a moment to pick jaw off of floor…)

            Because she says…? Or because other people CLAIM she’s ________. So please, do yourself a favour and go ahead and try to find something in that article that can fairly portrayed as VICIOUS. I dare you! I’ll wait…

            ———————–

            But look how EASY it is to fall into the framework portrayed by critics of what Rowling has pointed out and become an unwitting supporter of that which cannot be justified in this particular case but kind of sort of maybe supportive of some OTHER much more personal and tragic and discriminatory ‘lived’ experience. Sure, for THAT we are empathetic and wish to correct but how did THAT get transferred to THIS? Why, it’s the woken way!

            That is the insidious nature of this ideology in action: ANY criticism – regardless of its truth value – is presented as something it is only ACCUSED of being (vicious, mean, bigoted, discriminatory, hateful,and of course not only racist but must have some ‘phobia’ attached to it to vilify the character of the person who raises ANY legitimate criticism.

            And the Sheeple go along with this travesty.

            This is how the framing of the woke is used to great affect… that one can accuse anyone in any position of authority or expertise or knowledge who says anything based on ANYTHING that goes against the ideology and that’s good enough to create a Big ‘Ol Bad Victimizer against the poor widdle VICTIM who so desperately needs defending. Oh, and look… the ‘victims’ are males – surprise surprise – who demand they be granted access to female protected spaces – surprise surprise – and who cannot tolerate something as simple as a female calling those who menstruate ‘women’ and so they have to vilify the person – a woman, surprise surprise – who dares to do so

            Again, I’ll point out this ideology insists same-sex attraction is not biological, not innate, not something a person is, but a social construct that is FLUID. For a gay or lesbian person to support this woke ideology of the transactivist movement is like driving the gay agenda bus back into the 50s but assuming it must be progressive because there’s movement. It’s not. It’s regressive. And that’s the kindest thin I can say about this critical social justice insanity.

            Like

          82. Just to be clear. I was in NO WAY suggesting Rowling was vicious, but rather the abuse she has been subjected to was vicious.
            I hope our wires are not crossed?

            Like

          83. Well thank Hitchens for that. Pink is certainly vilifying her. That Rowling funds various women’s shelters and domestic abuse services matters not a tinker’s damn to the Woke, but I think grants her some small measure of respect that perhaps her opinion in this matter is worth hearing without automatically categorizing her as some anti-trans person. She has gone to great lengths supporting individual transgendered people – especially youth – but has dared to speak out against the transgendered ACTIVISTS who demand space in these female-only places or suffer the consequences as determined only by the transgendered activists, who demand her publishers stop publishing her works, who demand people who work in publishing houses not do any work making her books, demanding bookstores and libraries pull her works from their shelves, who demand people stop reading anything by Rowling, and so on and so on and so on.

            Cancel culture at its most tolerant!

            Just look at the ‘discussions’ these far left wing extremists really want you to have…. zero. They demand that the accusation they make alone should become imposed – from these self-appointed judges and juries who are the only ones with the virtue of tolerance and respect on their side – on everyone. And to not agree to these demands is itself transphobic and therefore deserving of the same intolerant and fascist treatment.

            The same tactic is used over and over and over again – from government publications to medical textbooks, from experts in sex-based differences to therapists and school counsellors. In fact, the idea of school personnel reporting a child’s questioning of his or her gender is to be kept from parents BUT forwarded to transgendered websites and counselors. In Britain, medication altering the body’s chemistry can be started on a minor without a parent ever knowing anything about this! And if you as a professional medical practitioner dare to oppose this with good evidence-based reasons, then you will be brought up on charges of being unethical and your license pulled! This is not some trivial problem about victimizing transgendered people but an intentional and organized movement to advance transgendered ideology that gender and not sex is what’s real and woe to anyone who gets in the way.

            Like

          84. Well thank Hitchens for that.

            It pays to take a breather and step back so as not to allow the ”Red Mist” to cloud our judgment. I suspect we all suffer from this condition from time to time.
            As I said to Pink, I shall read her essay again tomorrow after a nights sleep.
            Right now I’m watching some Star Trek.

            Liked by 1 person

          85. And please, watch this. It reveals why I’m so concerned about this woke bullshit: self censorship and intolerance leading inevitably to killing truly and demonstrably progressive liberal values.

            Like

          86. All seems a bit hectic. But then, if you are going to put it about on social media – Tweet Tweet – which to my mind is the dumbest thing anyone can do, let alone someone in her position, then one mustn’t really whine when the shit hits the fan.
            That said, ( not having read the Tweets or anything other than the Guardian article) it does seem a bit over the top.

            However, you also went a bit ballistic misreading my ”vicious” reference, remember?

            But then, no one reads what we write so who cares?

            That said, Pie is excellent. Always enjoy his videos.

            Liked by 1 person

          87. I ‘go ballistic’ as you say when reality gets shunted out of the way to make room for a totalitarian ideology that is completely backwards, completely hypocritical. It’s just another kind of religious belief.

            The person being referenced is a darling of the Woke and so we cannot possibly hold this person to the same standard used against all the ‘bigots’ and ‘haters’ who fail to meet the purity test. But, as the speaker points out again and again, this what YOU want, meaning those who actually go along with this vilification or those deemed impure. It doesn’t surprise me, nor should it surprise anyone who knows anything about religious belief, that such a faith-based ideology is chalk full of believers who themselves are bigots and racists and intolerant assholes. But full of virtue.

            What is being destroyed are classical liberal values… one deluded but oh-so-virtuous supporter at a time. Pink, for example wants it both ways: he wants to be identified as a gay man, that this IS him, which is fine, but yet supports an ideology that absolutely demands all of us consider his sex-based biology for preference – a gay man, meaning a male sexually attracted to other males – is nothing but assigned to him by ‘society’. (I don;t believe he believes this for a second.) He doesn’t see this stark reversal in definition on full display by the woken believer and so is unprepared to be able to defend his identity as innate. It’s now a choice he’s making, donchaknow! He’s let that biology ship sail on, just as he has let that ship sail on for ALL gays and lesbians whose movement to full citizenship was predicated on good biological sex research that revealed overwhelming evidence that sexual preference is not a choice but is, in biological fact, innate. The transactivists want that research gone, never to be spoken of, never to be referenced, and are utilizing people of good intention to do their dirty work for them under the disguise of moral virtue…. claiming that such research adduced from reality is biased and discriminatory and intolerant to their ideology, that is to say, to their religious faith that sex is the construct and gender is innate. That’s why these researchers and anyone who uses this information to inform their opinions are verboten. Blasphemy.

            But please note there is zero tolerance for the impure – and to be impure means respecting reality. That’s what this Twitter brouhaha shows, that we can tolerate slips by the pure but never, ever the impure. There’s the hypocrisy in action, the double standard, just as casting Rowling – who respect reality enough to point out males are not females (Big Shocker there) – as a bigot and a hater has nothing to do with reality and everything to do with virtue signalling, that perhaps the ‘danger’ she actually represents is less tolerance to a reality-denying group of males masquerading as females by pretending ‘gender’ is innate. It’s this innate belief in gender, codified into law as a prohibited discrimination, which is EXACTLY what is needed to produce discrimination! If gender were merely a construct, it would not be discriminatory to classify it as such. Square peg of gender, meet round hole of reality. But woe to anyone who points this out trying to protect real females from real world harm caused by real world males. Think of the poor transactivists! This clerical caste needs our help!

            The circular argument drives me nuts. And it drives me nuts because it’s so palpably hypocritical. Like religion, it denies reality when reality interferes with the claims necessary for the belief to seem rational. It’s a faith-based insanity that otherwise rational and intelligent people continue to fall for… and think well of themselves for doing so, for going along with the Twitter mob and vilifying someone like Rowling for the mysterious sense of ‘danger’ she must represent to the believers.

            It’s a fucking religious cult. And if anyone should recognize it for what it is, atheists should. Yet in far too many cases they don’t… because theyare not haters, they are not bigots, they are so open minded and tolerant that in this case of religious wingnuttery their brains have fallen out.

            Like

          88. I used the term ”ballistic” not because of your view but the fact that you saw red, after reading the word ”vicious, failed to read my comment properly and immediately laid into me with your reply, which went off the rails and became a rant.

            When I mentioned my true position in my reply you didn’t even bother to apologise (not that I lost any sleep over this) but wrote, ‘thank Hitchens for that” which carried with it the tacit suggestion of the phrase: ”Just as well!”
            While some/much of what you write may be right on the money, you aren’t doing your self any favours with comments that sometimes go ballistic and are as long as a book preface.

            Like

          89. True and a deserved rebuke. I am entirely at fault for misreading and then commenting as I did. My bad. I apologize, Ark, and yes, I should have said so earlier. Consider me fully and properly chastised.

            Like

          90. I very much appreciate Andrew Sullivan calling this movement an “illiberal malignancy.” And it religious to its core.

            Like

  11. Tildeb, do you have a news article relating to what you’re saying here:

    “Probably the most egregious is a male convicted of murdering a young female who then was transferred by request to a woman’s prison in BC because he identified as a woman where he then assaulted at least two females[]with his womanly non menstruating erect penis. He was transferred out to a men’s prison where he successfully appealed based on his gender identity and was then returned not just to the same woman’s prison but the same cell block with his previous victims!”

    (emphasis omitted).

    Like

  12. Since Rowling used protection of females as something in her essay, I think it’s relevant to point out some stuff to keep in mind. Here is an article on transgender persons in US prison systems. Note that 34% of transgender inmates are sexually assaulted in prison (the article cites the Bureau of Justice Statistics). Also note that transgender inmates are not allowed to transfer to a different correctional facility on a whim. There needs to be a diagnosis of gender dysphoria or legal paperwork noting the change in gender.

    Also note this fact sheet regarding sexual assault in Canada. Women are disproportionately victimized by sexual assault. Rates in sexual assault are higher among transgender, lesbian, gay, and bisexual persons. One in three females are sexually assaulted in Canada (roughly the same rate as the US if memory serves). It becomes almost a coin flip for transgender people.

    The threat against females that Rowling and others assert is contained in these data, along with the threat to transgender persons. If females require extra protections to keep them safe from such assaults, does that mean extra protections are required for transgender people as well?

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s