The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling | The Free Press

[Scott]

Rowling shows her toughness by not caving to the woke culture

I'm leary of the word "woke" because it's so ambiguous, but I think we can agree that 'witch hunting' of J.K. Rowling was off the rails.

No, “we” can not all agree.

I was responding to Tinkerpeach, not to you. When I said that I think we can agree, I meant Tinker and me.

 

[Scott]

There was a trans boy in our neighborhood when my son was growing up. The kids just dealt with him like another person. They thought of him like a curiosity and nobody was lured into becoming one. How does a guy or girl identifying as the other sex cause others to be that way? When my son talked about him, it was just like another kid in the neighborhood. He was not judgemental.

That sounds fine. The main subject in this thread is the villifying of J.K. Rowling, which I don't believe is justified.

 

[Scott]

‘‘People who menstruate,’’

I guess all women who don’t, or never did, have to give back their woman card.

Yet, you democrats are good with replacing the word woman with "birthing person".

Speaking as someone who's neither a democrat or a republican, I think there's room for some middle ground here. I think that simply acknowleging that only humans who develop ovaries are capable of having babies might work? Also, that only biological women can have babies sounds good to me.

 

[Scott]

Agreement is good

I dont see a good winner no matter who does.

I imagine you're talking about the Ukraine war? If so, I think we might be able to agree that the sooner peace talks resume, the better.

 

[Yakuda]

I imagine you're talking about the Ukraine war? If so, I think we might be able to agree that the sooner peace talks resume, the better.

Yes and yes but I don't really care how it happens

 

[Scott]

I imagine you're talking about the Ukraine war? If so, I think we might be able to agree that the sooner peace talks resume, the better.

Yes and yes but I don't really care how it happens

Ok.

 

[Bigdog]

Speaking as someone who's neither a democrat or a republican, I think there's room for some middle ground here. I think that simply acknowleging that only humans who develop ovaries are capable of having babies might work? Also, that only biological women can have babies sounds good to me.

Yeah, or the Y chromosome challenged. But "Double X" people sounds a lot cooler. (Klinefelter excepted).

I hate the fact that even "biological woman" is becoming normalized. It is redundant and nonsensical. Woman is the correct word.

All this other shit is demeaning, IMO. Especially "birthing person" which is a subtle shout out to the derogatory term "Breeders".

 

[Scott]

Speaking as someone who's neither a democrat or a republican, I think there's room for some middle ground here. I think that simply acknowleging that only humans who develop ovaries are capable of having babies might work? Also, that only biological women can have babies sounds good to me.

Yeah, or the Y chromosome challenged. But "Double X" people sounds a lot cooler. (Klinefelter excepted).

I hate the fact that even "biological woman" is becoming normalized. It is redundant and nonsensical. Woman is the correct word.

Here, I'd disagree. I'm fine with people identifying with a gender that's not their biological sex. What I -don't- like is the seeming push to do away with biological sex altogether. I'm not sure how many people understood that J.K. Rowling's point was nuanced. She was talking about biological sex, not gender.

All this other shit is demeaning, IMO. Especially "birthing person" which is a subtle shout out to the derogatory term "Breeders".

I don't see it as demeaning, but I also think one should be able to say "birth capable woman" perhaps. Not all biological women are capable of having babies, either due to old age or things like infertility, and ofcourse transgender women can't have them full stop, so saying something like 'birth capable woman' would not exclude transgender women from being called women, just that they'd be part of the category of women that can't give birth.

 

[Celticguy]

I think it's more that she cares about biological women and girls and is willing to stand out and point out that there are in fact differences between biological women and people who identify as women but are not biologically so.

Yes, that people pretending to be what they area not suffer mental illness.
And a great number of their mother's do as well, called Munchausen's by proxy.

 

[Scott]

I think it's more that she cares about biological women and girls and is willing to stand out and point out that there are in fact differences between biological women and people who identify as women but are not biologically so.

Yes, that people pretending to be what they area not suffer mental illness.
And a great number of their mother's do as well, called Munchausen's by proxy.

No, I don't think that was what she was trying to convey. I think in post #20, I got to the heart of what she was trying to point out- that biological women have some key differences from transgender women. They can both be called women, but one is a woman in gender only, whereas the other is a woman by sex as well.

 

[Bigdog]

Here, I'd disagree. I'm fine with people identifying with a gender that's not their biological sex. What I -don't- like is the seeming push to do away with biological sex altogether. I'm not sure how many people understood that J.K. Rowling's point was nuanced. She was talking about biological sex, not gender.



I don't see it as demeaning, but I also think one should be able to say "birth capable woman" perhaps. Not all biological women are capable of having babies, either due to old age or things like infertility, and ofcourse transgender women can't have them full stop, so saying something like 'birth capable woman' would not exclude transgender women from being called women, just that they'd be part of the category of women that can't give birth.

Well Phoenyx, I have not taken the time to parse Rowling's words.

So, I'll just say that I have not seen any scientific evidence that men and women can switch genders or biological sex.

I'm fine with a man thinking he is a woman. But I don't think the State should force other citizens to Think he is a woman.

 

[Celticguy]

No, I don't think that was what she was trying to convey. I think in post #20, I got to the heart of what she was trying to point out- that biological women have some key differences from transgender women. They can both be called women, but one is a woman in gender only, whereas the other is a woman by sex as well.

From what I've read she does not consider trans to be the sexthey pretend to be.
That said, she does not have anything against them but she does feel that women and girls should have their safe spaces be they women's clinics, restrooms, prisons, etc.

 

[Scott]

Here, I'd disagree. I'm fine with people identifying with a gender that's not their biological sex. What I -don't- like is the seeming push to do away with biological sex altogether. I'm not sure how many people understood that J.K. Rowling's point was nuanced. She was talking about biological sex, not gender.

I don't see it as demeaning, but I also think one should be able to say "birth capable woman" perhaps. Not all biological women are capable of having babies, either due to old age or things like infertility, and ofcourse transgender women can't have them full stop, so saying something like 'birth capable woman' would not exclude transgender women from being called women, just that they'd be part of the category of women that can't give birth.

Well Phoenyx, I have not taken the time to parse Rowling's words.

So, I'll just say that I have not seen any scientific evidence that men and women can switch genders or biological sex.

The key here is in definitions and part of the problem is that the definition for gender is frequently vague. Take, for instance, the following definition from The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, that clearly equates gender with [biological] sex:

**
Either of the two divisions, designated female and male, by which most organisms are classified on the basis of their reproductive organs and functions; sex.
**

Source:
https://www.wordnik.com/words/gender

That could lead one to believe that transgender people can -not- change their gender.

However, I strongly suspect that this definition is on its way out and is being replaced by definitions such as the one from webmd.com, where biological sex and gender are clearly differentiated. Here's their take on gender, specifically gender identity:

**
Gender identity. Arguably, the most important determinant of gender is your gender identity. This is the internal sense of self that states your gender, regardless of the sex assigned at birth. Some of the common gender identities are man, woman, nonbinary, and genderqueer.
**

Source:
What’s the Difference Between Sex and Gender? | webmd.com


The important thing, however, is that they are adamant that biological sex is -not- something that people can just change on a whim. Again from the webmd article:

**
What Is Sex?

Sex is generally determined at birth according to the baby’s chromosomes, gonads, and anatomy. These three features are used to determine biological sex.
**

Source:
What’s the Difference Between Sex and Gender? | webmd.com

I'm fine with a man thinking he is a woman. But I don't think the State should force other citizens to Think he is a woman.

I think the best compromise is to continue the current trend that defines biological sex and gender identity as different things. I'm fine with calling a biological man a woman or a biological woman a man, but I also think it's important that we recognize that a biological man who identifies as a woman will have certain differences with biological women. As a case in point, most people know that men are generally better at sports and I don't think it takes a rocket scientist to realize that biological men who identify as women will tend to do better at sports then biological women.

Conversely, biological women who identify as men will be able to do something that no biological man can do- give birth.

 

[Scott]

No, I don't think that was what she was trying to convey. I think in post #20, I got to the heart of what she was trying to point out- that biological women have some key differences from transgender women. They can both be called women, but one is a woman in gender only, whereas the other is a woman by sex as well.

From what I've read she does not consider trans to be the sexthey pretend to be.

I think it's important to note that not all transgender people consider themselves to have changed their biological -sex-. I think this is exactly the key point J.K. Rowling was trying to make. It's fine to change one's gender identity but one's biological sex is set at birth and at the present time, there is no way to change that.

That said, she does not have anything against them but she does feel that women and girls should have their safe spaces be they women's clinics, restrooms, prisons, etc.

I'm sure you know that there has been some integration in recent years in regards to combining men and women facilities, as well as creating, say, restrooms where only one person can go at a time and that person can be either gender. Other than 'one person at a time only' options, both options have risks. On the one side, we have people fearing for the safety of women if transgender women are allowed to use female restrooms and on the other hand we have fearing for the safety of transgender women if they are required to use men's restrooms.

When it comes to prisons, it's also complicated. The following news article is a good example:
N.J. trans prisoner who impregnated 2 inmates transferred to men's facility | nbcnews.com

 

[Bigdog]

The key here is in definitions and part of the problem is that the definition for gender is frequently vague.

I appreciate the research and supporting quotes for your position.

"The internal self that states your gender". So if you think it, you are it. This is illogical. It is fantasy. A fantasy is the foundation stone of your whole position.

After reading your post, I can only conclude that they are defining gender identity as not the same as gender.

And I find changing the definitions of words to be quite Orwellian and terrible for discourse.

 

[Celticguy]

I think it's important to note that not all transgender people consider themselves to have changed their biological -sex-. I think this is exactly the key point J.K. Rowling was trying to make. It's fine to change one's gender identity but one's biological sex is set at birth and at the present time, there is no way to change that.



I'm sure you know that there has been some integration in recent years in regards to combining men and women facilities, as well as creating, say, restrooms where only one person can go at a time and that person can be either gender. Other than 'one person at a time only' options, both options have risks. On the one side, we have people fearing for the safety of women if transgender women are allowed to use female restrooms and on the other hand we have fearing for the safety of transgender women if they are required to use men's restrooms.

When it comes to prisons, it's also complicated. The following news article is a good example:
N.J. trans prisoner who impregnated 2 inmates transferred to men's facility | nbcnews.com

Trans ignore the matter of biology as it cannot be argued and instead try to say that feeling like a woman is the only criteria. That simply doesn't fly with actual women or girls or guys for that matter.

For those pretending to be the other sex it does present a problem for restrooms/locker rooms. But as its the one putting themselves in this situation, its their risk to bear. Same as those who prefer motorcycles to cars must bear the risk of far greater harm if they find themselves in an accident. School kids are a real issue but my wife's high school came up with a great solution. She ran the clinic which had it's own restroom and trans kids (and other kids with medical reasons for needing extra privacy) would just go there. Worked out very well. The trans kids were in there a lot anyway if they were having rough days so they were comfortable with the missus.

The real issue is mental health professionals pursuing the vastly more profitable route of unsafe drugs and elective surgery over curing the mental illness. The growing ranks of young people coming to regret decisions made before they were prepared to make such life altering decisions really should be all legislators and medical people need to not allow these treatments before age 21.

 

[Scott]

The key here is in definitions and part of the problem is that the definition for gender is frequently vague.

I appreciate the research and supporting quotes for your position.

You're welcome .

"The internal self that states your gender". So if you think it, you are it. This is illogical. It is fantasy. A fantasy is the foundation stone of your whole position.

This reminds me of something Frank Herbert, originally a journalist before becoming a well known science fiction author, once said in one of his Dune books. In essence, he said that a word can carry any burden we wish. I personally think that allowing people to identify as the gender that their "internal self" believes them to be should be ok. For me, the important thing is doing what J.K. Rowling did, which is drawing a hard line between one's gender identity and one's biological sex.

After reading your post, I can only conclude that they are defining gender identity as not the same as gender.

It's more that there is not yet a consensus on the definition of gender. That being said, I think it's going the way of webmd.com's definition and I think that's alright, so long as the definition of biological sex doesn't change.

And I find changing the definitions of words to be quite Orwellian and terrible for discourse.

I don't find changing definitions to be a problem so long as people recognize that definitions have changed and so long as the definition of a word isn't being used to hide certain truths. This reminds me of the term "rape" and how it's gotten to the point that it can mean anything from unlawful sex between 2 consenting individuals to someone being brutally raped.

 

[Scott]

I think it's important to note that not all transgender people consider themselves to have changed their biological -sex-. I think this is exactly the key point J.K. Rowling was trying to make. It's fine to change one's gender identity but one's biological sex is set at birth and at the present time, there is no way to change that.

I'm sure you know that there has been some integration in recent years in regards to combining men and women facilities, as well as creating, say, restrooms where only one person can go at a time and that person can be either gender. Other than 'one person at a time only' options, both options have risks. On the one side, we have people fearing for the safety of women if transgender women are allowed to use female restrooms and on the other hand we have fearing for the safety of transgender women if they are required to use men's restrooms.

When it comes to prisons, it's also complicated. The following news article is a good example:
N.J. trans prisoner who impregnated 2 inmates transferred to men's facility | nbcnews.com

Trans ignore the matter of biology as it cannot be argued and instead try to say that feeling like a woman is the only criteria.

I believe you're right that -some- do. Clearly, not all of them do. There's a documentary you may have heard of or seen called "What is a Woman?" presented by Matt Walsh, where he interviews a transgender woman who makes it clear she does -not- consider herself to be the same as a biological woman. I certainly don't know how many transgender men and women feel that there are some clear differences, but regardless, I think you, me and J.K. Rowling agree that there are.

That simply doesn't fly with actual women or girls or guys for that matter.

Here is where I have a bit of an issue. I'm ok with transgender women being called women, but with the understanding that they are a type of women that can't reproduce, for instance, and also have some other differences, which can generally make them better at sports, for instance.

For those pretending to be the other sex it does present a problem for restrooms/locker rooms.

I think describing trans people as "pretending to be the other sex" isn't quite right. While it's true that I only currently know of one transgender person (the transgender woman in Matt Walsh's documentary) that made it crystal clear that she did not consider herself to be the same as biological women, I strongly suspect that she's not the only transgender person who feels this way.

But as its the one putting themselves in this situation, its their risk to bear. Same as those who prefer motorcycles to cars must bear the risk of far greater harm if they find themselves in an accident.

Speaking as someone who used to ride a scooter, I can certainly attest to the fact that they're more dangerous. Luckily, I never experienced any harm myself, but there was one time that was close. I rode a scooter because it was bought for me as a present from my family. I would have preferred a car, but cars were essentially outside the budget, so that was that. My father had no car at the time and hasn't owned a car since either.

I think the issue of where transgender people go to the washroom is simllar. With enough money, I'm sure they could make it so that they have their own washrooms or what not, but I think most don't have this option.

School kids are a real issue but my wife's high school came up with a great solution. She ran the clinic which had it's own restroom and trans kids (and other kids with medical reasons for needing extra privacy) would just go there. Worked out very well. The trans kids were in there a lot anyway if they were having rough days so they were comfortable with the missus.

That works . I think it's things like this that will bridge the gap with these types of things.

The real issue is mental health professionals pursuing the vastly more profitable route of unsafe drugs and elective surgery over curing the mental illness. The growing ranks of young people coming to regret decisions made before they were prepared to make such life altering decisions really should be all legislators and medical people need to not allow these treatments before age 21.

The issue of mental illness is a rather touchy one. To this day, some people believe that homosexuality is a "mental illness". It's not something I agree with. In regards to drugs and surgery, I certainly agree that these things should probably not be allowed for minors, but I think that 18 might be old enough.

 

[Bigdog]

You're welcome .



This reminds me of something Frank Herbert, originally a journalist before becoming a well known science fiction author, once said in one of his Dune books. In essence, he said that a word can carry any burden we wish. I personally think that allowing people to identify as the gender that their "internal self" believes them to be should be ok. For me, the important thing is doing what J.K. Rowling did, which is drawing a hard line between one's gender identity and one's biological sex.



It's more that there is not yet a consensus on the definition of gender. That being said, I think it's going the way of webmd.com's definition and I think that's alright, so long as the definition of biological sex doesn't change.



I don't find changing definitions to be a problem so long as people recognize that definitions have changed and so long as the definition of a word isn't being used to hide certain truths. This reminds me of the term "rape" and how it's gotten to the point that it can mean anything from unlawful sex between 2 consenting individuals to someone being brutally raped.

I disagree with everything you said. However, I do love Dune.

The crux of the issue is this ...

Should the State force other citizens to Think a bio man is a woman ... just because He Thinks he is a woman?

 

[Scott]

You're welcome .

This reminds me of something Frank Herbert, originally a journalist before becoming a well known science fiction author, once said in one of his Dune books. In essence, he said that a word can carry any burden we wish. I personally think that allowing people to identify as the gender that their "internal self" believes them to be should be ok. For me, the important thing is doing what J.K. Rowling did, which is drawing a hard line between one's gender identity and one's biological sex.

It's more that there is not yet a consensus on the definition of gender. That being said, I think it's going the way of webmd.com's definition and I think that's alright, so long as the definition of biological sex doesn't change.

I don't find changing definitions to be a problem so long as people recognize that definitions have changed and so long as the definition of a word isn't being used to hide certain truths. This reminds me of the term "rape" and how it's gotten to the point that it can mean anything from unlawful sex between 2 consenting individuals to someone being brutally raped.

I disagree with everything you said. However, I do love Dune.

Good thing I mentioned Dune then .

The crux of the issue is this ...

Should the State force other citizens to Think a bio man is a woman ... just because He Thinks he is a woman?

I think the state and everyone else should acknowledge there are differences between biological men and women and trans men and women. But I don't think that means we can't call trans men men and trans women women. Just that there should be an asterisk in there. It's like yes, a young woman and an old woman are both women, but everyone knows that an old woman can't have kids. Same idea.