Save Women's Sport - the pearl clutching begins

[PRlady]

Right -- in both cases, it is unfair.

Actually I think you are saying that general agreement with an institution or principle doesn’t mean no exceptions can be made.

Stock raises the issue of self-IDed trans women in spaces where women are fearful of biological males, including domestic violence shelters. I think it’s a legitimate concern until and unless it is shown to be baseless, and I’m not sure how that’s done without allowing biological males into those spaces for some long, researchable period of time. So the question is, does the potential harm to biological females in a safe-space environment outweigh the exclusion of trans-women who might themselves need help?

This is just an example. I am unsure of the right answer but I don’t think Stock is Hitler for exploring the question.

 

[MacMadame]

Right -- in both cases, it is unfair.

Child marriage is a lot more than "unfair." It's actually abusive. Trans women playing sports on the girls team is not.

 

[PRlady]

Literal-minded, much? No one compared trans women playing sport to child marriage. She gave a list of issues and institutions like marriage and gun ownership which she supports but which require some limitations. And that is what one question is, should there be any limitations on trans women living as women such as, for example, playing sports.

 

[Trillian]

So you are comparing trans women on estrogen and low testosterone playing sports to child marriage. Nice.

Right -- in both cases, it is unfair.

Literal-minded, much? No one compared trans women playing sport to child marriage.

If you look at the two posts as quoted above yours, that’s a pretty straightforward exchange of “So you’re saying…” “Right, that’s what I’m saying.

I certainly hope there’s no one in this conversation who literally thinks trans women playing sports is equivalent to child marriage. But the comparison was made and then pretty unambiguously confirmed.

 

[MsZem]

So the average, middle-of-the-road person has no problems with respecting people's pronouns, doesn't think that they are being asked to redefine their entire concept of gender and who they are, and thinks kids who identify as transgender should get puberty blockers maybe even if their parents aren't supportive. But does think that trans girls are dominating sport (they aren't) and that "it's just science" (it isn't)

If you take the views of eleven people as representing the average middle of the road person (a problematic assumption, but let's go with it), what this suggests is that most people are not inherently transphobic, and want trans people to live happy and authentic lives. What seems to be a bridge too far for many at this point is situations in which there are competing interests involving vulnerable populations: e.g., access to female-only spaces (because of concerns about cis men, not trans women) and sports, where there are questions about how to balance between inclusiveness and fair play for female athletes.

This doesn't mean that current views will remain fixed, as we saw with marriage equality. But there's work to be done for those who want to nudge moderate (and left of moderate) voters beyond where they currently are.

 

[Asli]

Stock raises the issue of self-IDed trans women in spaces where women are fearful of biological males, including domestic violence shelters. I think it’s a legitimate concern until and unless it is shown to be baseless, and I’m not sure how that’s done without allowing biological males into those spaces for some long, researchable period of time. So the question is, does the potential harm to biological females in a safe-space environment outweigh the exclusion of trans-women who might themselves need help?

I agree with you that's it's a legitimate concern, but I think the current knowledge about the psychological condition of the survivors of domestic abuse and rape is sufficient to see the harm in introducing trans women into female-only places where such women are being sheltered or treated.

By this I mean domestic violence shelters, sexual assault survivor support groups and rape crisis centres for women.

This has nothing to do with whether the trans women represent any danger there, but everything to do with the nature of the trauma these women have lived.

I'm sure almost everyone has some sexual assault/rape survivors among friends or family. Anything about a male presence can trigger panic or anxiety during that period in which she is trying to heal - the broad torso, the forearm or hands, the silhouette seen from the corner of your eye, a look, the voice, the smell, the gait ...

You may need to heal away from this presence. You may feel disgust, anger and hatred against all males. You may want to voice these feelings in an all-female group, without being judged or trying to be polite. These are visceral feelings.

I was shocked to read that in some places in the UK, all support groups are based on gender.

Trans women need and deserve those support groups too. Some could be for them only, some could be mixed. However biological women deserve their own groups and spaces, if they feel uncomfortable in gender-defined groups. The women are there as victims and patients.

 

[Asli]

Also, for rape survivors to give statements to a female police officer and be examined by a female doctor are recent and very important steps. I'm shocked to realise that even this intuitively natural concept is now controversial and the Scottish Parliament had to pass a law for their right to ask for a doctor in a sex-based rather than gender-based way.

 

[Asli]

As I write this, people are trying hold the Pride March in Istanbul. The police has started rounding up the demonstrators even before the start and they have formed a barricade between the journalists and the rest. The streets seem completely full of police, actually.

A few years ago, Istanbul has seen some incredibly joyful and emotional Pride marches, without police interference.

To honor today's brave demonstrators, here's a short and lovely video on the history of Pride in Turkey and how they started with 20 people to end in more than 100,000 in only ten years. English subtitles.

ETA: Please note that this is a happy video, as you can see from the expressions of the LGBT people presenting it.
The level of oppression and violence that you see isn't specific to LGBT. It is the same for women, the left and other groups. There is oppression equality.
The reason why the video is happy is how fast the LGBT movement has got organised and gathered support in a rather conservative society. Go them!

 

[allezfred]

This

https://twitter.com/x/status/1541056343544569859

 

[Asli]

This

https://twitter.com/x/status/1541056343544569859

The post-truth era again.

A natal woman is not only reproductive organs. If you call someone "ovary-carrier" or "menstruating" or "cervix-haver", than that is reducing her to her reproductive organs.

Also the decision of the Supreme Court was decades in the making and has nothing to do with gender critical people. On my side, every feminist is against it.

It's incredible that every subject has to be about the GC vs TA wars now.

 

[PRlady]

Holy shit. Like we haven’t been defined as child bearers for all of recorded history. Being called a breeder, a menstruator or worse, a GG (genetic girl) or fish (!) is helping matters?

 

[Asli]

@PRlady, could you explain to me by what possible logic the Supreme Court overturning Rue vs Wade can be considered the fault of gender critical people? I've seen this on Twitter all day.

Hadn't banning abortion been the main issue of the more religious side of GOP forever?

 

[Trillian]

@PRlady, could you explain to me by what possible logic the Supreme Court overturning Rue vs Wade can be considered the fault of gender critical people? I've seen this on Twitter all day.

Hadn't banning abortion been the main issue of the more religious side of GOP forever?

I’m not the one you asked, and I want to preface this by saying I’m not making this argument myself - but my understanding is that it’s the bodily autonomy thing.

There is a line of thought that a common theme in the way marginalized groups are oppressed is by outright taking away their bodily autonomy - higher incarceration rates for racial minorities, laws governing sexual behavior for LGBTQ people, and attempts to ban gender-affirming care for trans people outright could all arguably fall into that bucket. And so do abortion restrictions. The endgame is for the christofascist white supremacist minority in this country to have literal, physical control over what all of us are allowed to do with our bodies.

The thing is that obviously, it’s not that simple, because a lot of people support gender-affirming care without supporting inclusion for trans people in all areas of life. That’s been the common perspective in this thread. And while I don’t agree with everyone’s opinions and I’ve found a few of them offensive, I don’t think anyone in this thread is complicit in trying to deprive people of their bodily autonomy.

So that’s where that is coming from - it’s a very black-and-white view of conversations that have a lot of gray areas.

 

[PRlady]

I’m not the one you asked, and I want to preface this by saying I’m not making this argument myself - but my understanding is that it’s the bodily autonomy thing.

There is a line of thought that a common theme in the way marginalized groups are oppressed is by outright taking away their bodily autonomy - higher incarceration rates for racial minorities, laws governing sexual behavior for LGBTQ people, and attempts to ban gender-affirming care for trans people outright could all arguably fall into that bucket. And so do abortion restrictions. The endgame is for the christofascist white supremacist minority in this country to have literal, physical control over what all of us are allowed to do with our bodies.

The thing is that obviously, it’s not that simple, because a lot of people support gender-affirming care without supporting inclusion for trans people in all areas of life. That’s been the common perspective in this thread. And while I don’t agree with everyone’s opinions and I’ve found a few of them offensive, I don’t think anyone in this thread is complicit in trying to deprive people of their bodily autonomy.

So that’s where that is coming from - it’s a very black-and-white view of conversations that have a lot of gray areas.

Agreed that it’s very black and white, and I think there are gray areas in most disputes.

I’m more of the mind that says the religious fascists are knee jerk patriarchal, and anything that gets in the way of men controlling women - which of course includes anything that is not heterosexual relations between two cis people - is a threat. In my last job I had to read a lot of Christian rants and they often mixed abortion, LGB rights and the existence of trans people in one nauseating cocktail.

And of course I have to remind people that the religious Jews, Muslims, Hindus et al ride the same hobbyhorse. Some of the things that extreme-right Israeli politicians have said out loud about gay people recently are too coarse for almost any American fanatic.

ETA: that doesn’t account for incarcerating Black people, although fear of what is thought to be unfettered Black sexuality is a buried theme in a lot of racist rants.

 

[PRlady]

Ok one more thought. I’m older than a lot of you and I watched closely the blowup of the abortion issue in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Back then the only trans person anyone had heard of was Christine Jorgensen and she unfortunately was used as a punchline for jokes. It was not an issue, period.

So no being gender-critical has bloody nothing to do with losing Roe, it was at the top of the GOP agenda before anyone invented the term. This is where I really want to say impolitely that since trans women can’t get pregnant, and trans men taking hormones can’t either and I don’t imagine there are huge numbers of pregnant trans men anyway (leaving out rape and other awful cases) this really is not about you. Sit down.

(Sorry I am really really frustrated.)

 

[Trillian]

So no being gender-critical has bloody nothing to do with losing Roe, it was at the top of the GOP agenda before anyone invented the term. This is where I really want to say impolitely that since trans women can’t get pregnant, and trans men taking hormones can’t either and I don’t imagine there are huge numbers of pregnant trans men anyway (leaving out rape and other awful cases) this really is not about you. Sit down.

I understand the frustration, but I would take a different viewpoint. Trans men and non-binary people do get pregnant by choice sometimes, so there’s a little more complexity on how they fit in with the conversation.

But beyond that, trans people are natural allies to the pro-choice movement. They understand people challenging their right to bodily autonomy and having to fight for appropriate medical care, even if it’s generally in a different context. They face a significant risk of violence in their daily lives. I’ve never encountered an anti-choice trans person, and many of them are very much fighting on the side of cis women feminists. That’s one of the reasons it’s frustrating to me that some self-professed feminists (again, not pointing fingers within this thread) are so dismissive of accepting trans people. It feels to me like fighting with people who are on our side, instead of the people who are actually trying to hurt us.

 

[Jot the Dot Dot]

Feminists get frustrated when the arguments about a woman's right to an abortion gets muddled by trans activists proclaiming that transwomen can also get pregnant, that women can have penises, all because of gender identification.

 

[Trillian]

Feminists get frustrated when the arguments about a woman's right to an abortion gets muddled by trans activists proclaiming that transwomen can also get pregnant, that women can have penises, all because of gender identification.

I’m aware, but here’s the thing: the people making those arguments? They’re pro-choice. They’re fighting on the right side of the battle. They’re not my enemy.

 

[PRlady]

I’m aware, but here’s the thing: the people making those arguments? They’re pro-choice. They’re fighting on the right side of the battle. They’re not my enemy.

I don’t want them to be my enemy either but I’m also not buying the shutdown of discussion of some of the complex issues surrounding it. You were kind enough to stipulate that no one in this thread wants to deny trans people bodily autonomy and that’s true.

I want feminists and trans people on the same side. The extremists on both sides sometimes make that very hard.

 

[Trillian]

I want feminists and trans people on the same side. The extremists on both sides sometimes make that very hard.

I agree that anyone who doesn’t want to look for common ground or have a dialogue is not helpful on any side of a conversation.

The relationship between cis feminists and trans women has always been complicated, and I’m going to say that realistically, there’s a generation gap at play. Not 100%, and of course there are common battles for all feminists of all ages and a lot we’ve never won. But broadly: earlier generations of feminists probably didn’t spend as much time discussing what a woman was, but fought really hard to establish what a woman was worth. And by necessity the approach had to be, “These are things we’re claiming rightfully for ourselves, and we’re not going to let anyone else swoop in and take them.”

On the flip side, a lot of younger cis women have grown up in an era when women don’t have to fight as hard in many contexts for certain basic rights, but are constantly being sent harmful messages simply about what a woman is. The feminist battle a lot of younger cis women know is: I don’t have to be thin, I don’t have to be pretty, I can be athletic, I can be into STEM, etc. It’s constantly fighting back against what feels like an attempt to define the boundaries of acceptable womanhood, so it’s a much more natural step for many of those cis women to view embracing trans women as another middle finger to the patriarchal idea that there’s a “right” or “wrong” way to be a woman.

Obviously there are complexities and gray areas to all of this. But my general feeling is that trans people are generally on the right side of the fight against oppression along with cis women, so I want to be an ally to them when they’re quite literally fighting to survive.

 

[On My Own]

This

https://twitter.com/x/status/1541056343544569859

It is not yet clear to me which is more troublesome: the incoherence of that thread, or the fact that it has 8.5k+ likes and counting.

 

[allezfred]

It has been three days since the ruling and the most prominent “gender critical” person in the entire world has had zero to say about the assault on women’s human rights in the most powerful country in the world. Think that says it all really. Mustn’t upset her allies.

She did have time to tweet about the anniversary of the publishing of her first book so it’s not like she is staying off social media.

 

[allezfred]

Prominent British gender critical sees Pride flags and posts this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1541198248186183682

 

[MichaelK]

It has been three days since the ruling and the most prominent “gender critical” person in the entire world has had zero to say about the assault on women’s human rights in the most powerful country in the world. Think that says it all really. Mustn’t upset her allies.

She did have time to tweet about the anniversary of the publishing of her first book so it’s not like she is staying off social media.

This person is not a news agency or a politician and she does not have to comment on every issue. Also she declared her views about abortion clearly as pro choice as evidenced in this tweet just a few weeks ago: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1522613347161624582

 

[PRlady]

It’s not the flag, it’s the pronouns, but ugh.

I have to say the bitter fight seems to be worse in the UK than here, but then I’m not in the trenches on either side.

 

[Asli]

I agree that anyone who doesn’t want to look for common ground or have a dialogue is not helpful on any side of a conversation.

I totally agree with you.

But broadly: earlier generations of feminists probably didn’t spend as much time discussing what a woman was, but fought really hard to establish what a woman was worth.

Feminists aren't the ones who have started re-defining what a woman is, according to gender rather than sex.

On the flip side, a lot of younger cis women have grown up in an era when women don’t have to fight as hard in many contexts for certain basic rights, but are constantly being sent harmful messages simply about what a woman is.

Indeed the younger women in the Western hemisphere have had it easier in some areas, mostly thanks to a lot of feminists from the former generations.

Still, often something else has priority over women's problems and issues. It's the story of our lives.

In my early (Turkish) youth, various left-wing factions were dominant in universities and even high schools. Feminism was thought to be a bourgeois concept. The enemy was capitalism. The class struggle was going to to abolish all oppression, including that of women.


In the next decade, a three-year military regime and the erosion of democratic institutions killed those hopes. However, the enemy was militarism and the anti-democratic institutions. Democratisation was going to solve all these problems, including those of women.


Later, a government that became more and more Islamist eroded women's rights. Women's movements gained a lot in strength and became one of the most influential movements in the country. Still, they are hindered by the majority belief that it isn't a question of women's rights, but of human rights and secularity. The enemy is supposed to be Islamism and corruption. Going back to full secularity would solve all these problems, including those of women.


A pattern is emerging.

Last year when the president pulled Turkey out of the Istanbul Convention (for preventing and combatting violence against women) an association here in Paris held a question and answer session/debate on Clubhouse on this subject with young people from my alma mater.

Several of the young men (from Turkey) commented that we were specifically discussing women's rights (translation: losing time with a small detail) while the whole country was going to the dogs. They thought we should first go back to normal.

We had to explain things to them step by step, including the fact that "back" and "normal" won't work for us. Sigh.

 

[PRlady]

I totally agree with you.



Feminists aren't the ones who have started re-defining what a woman is, according to gender rather than sex.



Indeed the younger women in the Western hemisphere have had it easier in some areas, mostly thanks to a lot of feminists from the former generations.

Still, often something else has priority over women's problems and issues. It's the story of our lives.

In my early (Turkish) youth, various left-wing factions were dominant in universities and even high schools. Feminism was thought to be a bourgeois concept. The enemy was capitalism. The class struggle was going to to abolish all oppression, including that of women.


In the next decade, a three-year military regime and the erosion of democratic institutions killed those hopes. However, the enemy was militarism and the anti-democratic institutions. Democratisation was going to solve all these problems, including those of women.


Later, a government that became more and more Islamist eroded women's rights. Women's movements gained a lot in strength and became one of the most influential movements in the country. Still, they are hindered by the majority belief that it isn't a question of women's rights, but of human rights and secularity. The enemy is supposed to be Islamism and corruption. Going back to full secularity would solve all these problems, including those of women.


A pattern is emerging.

Last year when the president pulled Turkey out of the Istanbul Convention (for preventing and combatting violence against women) an association here in Paris held a question and answer session/debate on Clubhouse on this subject with young people from my alma mater.

Several of the young men commented that we were specifically discussing women's rights (translation: losing time with a small detail) while the whole country was going to the dogs. They thought we should first go back to normal.

We had to explain things to them step by step, including the fact that "back" and "normal" won't work for us. Sigh.

It’s great for us in supposedly liberal Western countries to be reminded of how dangerous it is for women elsewhere. Of course the US has lost any claim to being a liberal democracy now.

And those younger feminists never believed us when we said Roe could be endangered and there would be a backlash to MeToo and that girl bosses didn’t alter fundamental inequalities for women in the workplace. The most bitter I-told-you-so in history from those of us who remember “Want Ads:Female.”

 

[allezfred]

This person is not a news agency or a politician and she does not have to comment on every issue. Also she declared her views about abortion clearly as pro choice as evidenced in this tweet just a few weeks ago: https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1522613347161624582

When that person has been constantly tweeting to her large following that transgender people are a danger to women’s rights, but doesn’t comment at all when women’s rights are actually taken away in the most powerful country in the world then I am calling bullshit on that.

It’s not like I expect on something she is not constantly talking about.

But again flags and pronouns are the enemies and not the old (and not so old) straight white men that are the big problem for women’s rights…

 

[Asli]

When that person has been constantly tweeting to her large following that transgender people are a danger to women’s rights, but doesn’t comment at all when women’s rights are actually taken away in the most powerful country in the world then I am calling bullshit on that.

J.K. Rowling has never tweeted that transgender people are a danger to women's rights. Or to women, for that matter.

She specifically explained:

I believe the majority of trans-identified people not only pose zero threat to others, but are vulnerable for all the reasons I’ve outlined. Trans people need and deserve protection. Like women, they’re most likely to be killed by sexual partners. Trans women who work in the sex industry, particularly trans women of colour, are at particular risk. Like every other domestic abuse and sexual assault survivor I know, I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who’ve been abused by men.

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth.

J.K. Rowling Writes about Her Reasons for Speaking out on Sex and Gender Issues

"All men who wish to come inside the door" are not the trans women.

Today's trans activists disagree with the "man who feels he's a woman" but that was exactly how trans women at home used to describe themselves only a few years ago (don't know if it's changed now). "I feel like a woman, I want to live as a woman." That was how they wanted to be accepted.

Then of course, in Turkish we don't have gendered pronouns. Or the luxury for any oppressed groups to quarrel with each other, including women and trans people.

Maybe you all need what we have to unite you?

 

[On My Own]

And those younger feminists never believed us when we said Roe could be endangered and there would be a backlash to MeToo and that girl bosses didn’t alter fundamental inequalities for women in the workplace.

Could you explain what this means?

It has been three days since the ruling and the most prominent “gender critical” person in the entire world has had zero to say about the assault on women’s human rights in the most powerful country in the world. Think that says it all really. Mustn’t upset her allies.

Sure.

Gender critical feminists don't want abortion rights. Doesn't matter if they say they do.

I think you're being hysterical. You've stated that it's an emotional subject for you, so I get it, but please know that what you're saying here is just not rational by any definition. You can vent at her, but venting is all it will be.

Since JKR was brought up, I think a lot of people should really think about looking at the clear parasocial relation they have with her. She's not your "friend" because she wrote a book series about "acceptance", and she's not a "friend who backstabbed you" now that she's come out as a gender critical feminist. Nor is she a "friend" to be defended as rabidly, for that matter.