[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 06 March 2023 - 10:39 PM, said:

And of course I'm being judgemental. I'm not gonna chuck anyone under the bus for it, but I don't agree with people buying it. That's a judgement. So we're back to you apparently thinking we're not allowed to disagree.

It's a sensitive topic. QT's quite entitled to find my position unpleasant. I think I know him well enough by now though to know he isn't gonna take it as me casting aspersions on his whole moral character. I hope he knows me well enough by now.

It's all good man, I know you come at this with a bent at discussion and you're not calling me out, just arguing my points. I would never assume otherwise, we've known each other a long time and have disagreed with each others POV more often than not. I still luv ya.

polishgenius, on 06 March 2023 - 10:39 PM, said:

Quote

Secondly, it really looks like you're saying people "daring" to be public about playing the game are... asking for it?

This is a straight-up lie.

To be fair to Gothos, this is KIND of how I read it as well, whether it was intended or not. It came out as "If you play this game and announce that, you're asking to be lumped in with bad eggs and therefore free target". So I can see how Gothos came to that conclusion.

Quote

But saying it publicly is, whether you intend to or not, risking nailing your colours to a mast you don't want to be near.

Or am I misinterpreting that?

In which case I would counterpoint with my comments about the obvious bad eggs in the "Hate The Game because it's tangentially related to JKR" side that are bullying and doxxing people off social media affecting the more altruistic people on that side of the convo NOT doing that?

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

A huge problem is that right now it's impossible to tell who might be a well meaning but overzealous ally, and who might be a 4chan incel pretending to be either trans or an ally and being overly aggressive in the hope that their doing so will foster further aggression;

Wait...have we resorted to Conservative-like conspiracy theories about false flags now? The idea of that happening in any vast numbers is a little tin foil-y, no?

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

given the current US leaning towards what appears to be leading to a purge of transfolk, it's not unreasonable to expect that far right agitators are using this whole issue to foster resentment and hatred.

Oh yes, absolutely in the US things are dire in that respect and the comments by many at the recent Repub convention only illustrates that point. I agree.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

Trans/Queer folk really want two things: to be able to just go about their day peacefully, and to not have to deal with the constant threat of people wanting to literally erase them from existing.

Does the game do this kin some way that I am not aware of?

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

The fact that Terf Game has a trans character ('Sir' Ona Ryan being a horrific name for a trans character and coming across as a jab notwithstanding) amounts to little more than tokenism to be honest - 'look, see, we have one of you people in, so we ARE inclusive, really!'

Bro...Sirona is the name of a Celtic goddess of healing, and Ryan is an Irish surname. Nothing of what you imply is accurate. Bearing (again) in mind that the two women who actually wrote this game (and were not JK Rowling) created the character and have never been accused of any hate towards any group ever. This constant need to slap JKR's failings as a writer (whatever one may think they are) not the people who made this game is so bizarre to me. The assumption that things were done to be secretly but intentionally hateful is nonsense unless you have some proof that it was written with those intentions.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

. You may as well have a black character called Crispin McBucket, it would be about as inclusive and about as well intentioned. Oh, wait. Shacklebolt. Right, I forgot that Rowling was already pretty outwardly racist for a second there, my bad. Rowling retconning aspects of her universe to try and sidle in with changing social sensibilities is very much a 'how are we doing, fellow kids' moment and I can't see any way that she should be considered genuine in this because of her treatment of and attitude towards minority groups.

The keyword there is "JK Rowling"...who was not involved in writing the game. Moira Squier was the main writer on the game. Do you have some proof that these things connect between Moira and JK and any instances of Moira being bigoted (secretively or otherwise)?

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

There's also rumblings that the lead dev on Terf Game is a neonazi which, whilst I've not verified personally, make me even more uncomfortable about folk lending support to this game and franchise.

Nope, they fired that guy long before the game was finished, and Alan Tew is the lead dev on it and has been for most of its latter (2021 till release) creative life. Like WB/Avalanche literally did the thing people wanted them to, and fired the guy for his RW online opinions....but here we are 2 years later and people are still saying he's the lead Dev and that's a good talking point.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

Also Quick: your call out about my using Twitter doesn't track: I do not pay money to Elon

It works like any other "free" thing online, your use is paying for Elon's advertisers, as well as their data collection. If you think Elon doesn't make money based on users of the service, I'm not sure what to tell you man. Free isn't free.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

, whereas purchasers of Terf Game pay knowing that their money will fund a bigot.

Elon is a bigot. Using twitter funds him. I'm not sure how that's unclear.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

Usage of Twitter is an unpleasant, bitter pill that anyone who streams has to keep in their mouth because there's no viable alternative and without it, growth and networking is next to impossible.

So it's too hard to stop using it, or fund the creation of a new service that isn't run by bad eggs. Gotcha.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

If there was a viable alternative platform, I'm pretty confident everyone would use it, but there just isn't. I can pretty confidently say the transfolk whose circles I'm in are less than happy about the Twitter monopoly on streamers since Musk took over, but until there's a viable alternative then there's little that can be done.

I dunno, you could stop using twitter? Like you don't need it. At all. It's an opt-in social media for entertainment where you get to spit short sentences into the public ether. Nothing more. Seems like an easy thing to me, but I don't use twitter, so what do I know? The notion that you somehow NEED twitter is weird to me...

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

On the point about trans rights activists vs gender critical feminists - unfortunately, there is no possible resolution there, because one group calls for the erasure of another simply based on who and what they are. The other group simply wants to exist without the threat of dehumanisation and erasure. Society is changing somewhat on this point but until people simply and unanimously accept that transfolk are a thing, and that they're valid, and have a right to exist the same as anyone else, the index issue remains in perpetuity.

I knew I'd snag someone in that if I didn't source it..a fairly well known Dutch Trans author wrote that sentence. So I'm much more comfortable with letting them talk about their spaces, than I am putting words in their mouth. I specifically sought out someone in that space who had a nuanced opinion about it to talk on the subject as I (being straight, and male) can't speak on it with any experience.

Maark Abbott, on 07 March 2023 - 08:41 AM, said:

Just to wrap up before I get a coffee cause this headache is mullering me: a lot of the solution, to my view, is rooted in education. Same way that homosexuality within my lifetime has gone from being something frowned at and pushed out of society to being something seen as normal and to be welcomed (granted, Stonewall happened before I was born but as a kid the attitudes were certainly still unfriendly towards gay folk). As generations adapt to trans and queer folk being integrated into society more, we're likely to see incidents like this with Terf Game decrease further and further, but that has to be supported with educating those who are willing to be talked to. It's just a great shame that most of the people who cause issues for those marginalised groups right now cannot be talked to or reasoned with. I'll also add that I am a cishet guy so my opinions above shouldn't be taken as any sort of gospel on the trans community's views on this topic. I'm an ally, I'm just a little guy.

I want you to know that I appreciate all your comments here, even if I debate them. And yes, I think the goal of helping Trans people exist and be unharrased is admirable. Also, I want to reiterate I am not supportive of JKR in any way, or her comments, and I merely wanted to talk about the game and the controversy as a separate thing. It seems like most people come down on the side of "Can't disconnect the game from her" and I fully accept that POV and understand it.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 07 March 2023 - 02:37 PM, said:

To be fair to Gothos, this is KIND of how I read it as well, whether it was intended or not. It came out as "If you play this game and announce that, you're asking to be lumped in with bad eggs and therefore free target". So I can see how Gothos came to that conclusion.

Quote

But saying it publicly is, whether you intend to or not, risking nailing your colours to a mast you don't want to be near.

Or am I misinterpreting that?

In which case I would counterpoint with my comments about the obvious bad eggs in the "Hate The Game because it's tangentially related to JKR" side that are bullying and doxxing people off social media affecting the more altruistic people on that side of the convo NOT doing that?

The 'therefore free target' is, I feel, a reach from what I said. But if that's how I came across I apologise.

'asking for' isn't quite my meaning either. That's why I said you risk it. You don't have any intent for it to happen, but it does.

To be absolutely clear on the record, I absolutely agree that any doxxing and death threats, targeted harrassment etc are wrong. People shouldn't be doing it, even people I 'agree' with on this issue.

I just also understand why most trans people as a broad group don't feel the need, or even have it cross their mind, to call out any individual instance of it 'from their side', if it's not them or someone close to them doing it. Even if that's a tactical error or however you want to put it, and frankly in part because it's a tactical error. I don't live a life where something someone- totally unrelated to me, ultimately- says is a tactical error that makes my literal existence harder. I find it hard to get angry at people who do for not having 'perfect' responses.



Ultimately the way I see it is you don't think the game should have become a cultural battleground. You may well be right, it's very odd and from a distanced perspective very silly that it has. But it has, and I don't think we gain anything from acting as if it hasn't. There seem to be a lot of trans people out there who have made it very clear that buying the game, to them, feels like a statement of their unimortance if not an outright attack or support for the movement against them. You obviously don't intend it that way, and I know that, and anyone you know personally will know that. But a lot of trans people are, it seems, seeing the popularity of the game and feeling the public at large feels it's more important than them. Even if you don't intend to add to that feeling in any way, it must be so infuriating for those that see it that way to see the game be successful. So I'd rather not contribute.

That's all a bit clumsy but I hope the point got across.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 07 March 2023 - 03:38 PM, said:

The 'therefore free target' is, I feel, a reach from what I said. But if that's how I came across I apologise.

Oh gods, there's absolutely no need to apologize. We are just having a discussion here, I know there's no ill intent behind anyones words.

polishgenius, on 07 March 2023 - 03:38 PM, said:

'asking for' isn't quite my meaning either. That's why I said you risk it. You don't have any intent for it to happen, but it does.

I get it, so like how my sister and brother in law used to wear their COVID/anti-vaxx conspiracy on their sleeves and it caused the rest of us to judge them by that. Okay, well that makes sense.

polishgenius, on 07 March 2023 - 03:38 PM, said:

Ultimately the way I see it is you don't think the game should have become a cultural battleground. You may well be right, it's very odd and from a distanced perspective very silly that it has. But it has, and I don't think we gain anything from acting as if it hasn't. There seem to be a lot of trans people out there who have made it very clear that buying the game, to them, feels like a statement of their unimortance if not an outright attack or support for the movement against them. You obviously don't intend it that way, and I know that, and anyone you know personally will know that. But a lot of trans people are, it seems, seeing the popularity of the game and feeling the public at large feels it's more important than them. Even if you don't intend to add to that feeling in any way, it must be so infuriating for those that see it that way to see the game be successful. So I'd rather not contribute.

Yeah that makes sense.

I'm just curious how that squares with the Trans people and other typically progressive allies I've seen (again mainly on TikTok) who don't think the game is 'the battleground' as there are a lot of them as well, do THEIR feelings on the matter and how maybe making this game the whipping boy sullies the overall fight by not REALLY fighting against the real threats and basically dooming this by mild association VS attacking JKR directly or other anti-trans people, not matter? When a progressive fight decamps amongst itself like that, who is in the right? Neither side is anti-trans, but they disagree on this particular...if that makes sense?

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 07 March 2023 - 04:22 PM

[Maark Abbott]

God I hate the reply to multiple segments of text thing, it makes it a nightmare to pick out each bit. Anyway.
The thing with Twitter, Quick, is that for some lines of work it's basically essential and if you don't use it you will go absolutely nowhere. There is no viable alternative platform, though folk more experienced than me have been investigating alternatives ever since Musk took over because no one wants to use it with him in charge - but until there IS a viable alternative, we're stuck with it. It is a sore point and has been for some time. I think the current frontrunner for a replacement is Mastodon, but I'd need to check in with some pals about that as I think there was something or other a bit fucky with it.

I can't agree that advertising revenue generated on that website tracks to someone directly giving money to a creator who uses their royalty to actively make the lives of minority groups worse is comparable. This is a common argument I see used against transfolk on the bird app - "but you're using Twitter, you're funding your own oppression". Ad revenue is generated, but it doesn't come directly out of my pocket or that of other users. Sales of the game would come out of my pocket. Me giving money from my pocket to an IP would be a direct endorsement of that IP; advertising revenue generated is not.

Regarding right wing conspiracies, I am not going onto 4chan to dig up threads about 'owning the tr00ns' to satisfy this element. If anything is posted by trans friends on this point I may add it in here, but fucked if I'm going onto 4chan to look. That website is vile.

Regards names, yeah sure, Sirona might be the name of a goddess, Ryan might be an Irish surname, but for a franchise associated with TERFs, it's a phenomenally poor choice. Could easily call an Irish character something like Siobhan or Saoirse instead.

Ultimately, folk will see an endorsement of a product associated with JKR as an endorsement of what she stands for, and given it's her IP and she gets a royalty from it, sales of the Terf Game will invariably be seen as endorsement of her and her beliefs. It's entirely unsurprising that a minority group who are experiencing quite a surge in aggression (the amount of messages I've seen sent to folk saying 'increase the percentage' is depressing) are going to feel uneasy around those who put their enjoyment of a middling franchise above their right to exist, and that some of that minority group are going to get actively angry about it. If you want to see the sort of vitriol I mean where folks are literally being told to go kill themselvs, look up Pikamee's graduation - long planned ahead of all this, but transfolk and the Terf Game backlash are being cited by viewers as a reason for their favourite streamer quitting and the sheer amount of hate and death threats being flung around over it is... honestly, what I'd expect from MAGA hatters.

FWIW I think the game becoming a Somme for trans rights is kind of dumb - but like PG said it has, whether we like it or not. And folk will take buying it as a vote against their right to exist, because of the connections and connotations of the franchise and its creator's views, even if there was no ill intent behind it. And unfortunately, as long as JKR is around and puts her royalty towards punching down, there's no way to separate art from artist.

There is SOME good that's come from the entire mess though - discussions like this for one! And I've seen a lot of movement with LGBTQIA+ charities and support groups too. Try to look for the glimmer of sunlight in the clouds, right?

[amphibian]

Quote

As a smarter writer than I once said about all this: The more feelings run high between transgender activists and gender-critical feminists, the further we become removed from a solution.

This writer is not displaying that intelligence with the above quote.

There's not a common frame of reference between "give us the supports and medical care we need to live decent lives" and "you should be repressed back into hiding and/or not exist". "Gender-critical feminists" aren't merely being critical of social definitions of gender, they're purposely leaving trans people out of the supports, protections, and progress that they seek for women while a not-small portion of them actively incite violence and exclusion upon trans people.

That's why "feelings run high". That's why solutions aren't readily available here. It's not feelings at stake here. It's basic stuff like "do I have a place in this society?" And the answer from one side is a pretty clear "No". That's evil.

A video game is a dumbass battleground, yet people pick and choose where they want to be, what they want to say, how they want to be treated. I support trans people and for me that means giving up Harry Potter stuff at least until they drive out the TERF lady running it all. Yes, that means not buying or funding the works of good people who made shitty to me choices like working on a Harry Potter property.

Azath, if you/I really want to support trans people by streaming a game, you/I would pick another game and stream that, then donate the funds. Or better yet, just donate the funds, support trans people, and do it without seeking public acclaim.

This post has been edited by amphibian: 07 March 2023 - 05:43 PM

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 07 March 2023 - 05:42 PM, said:

Quote

As a smarter writer than I once said about all this: The more feelings run high between transgender activists and gender-critical feminists, the further we become removed from a solution.

This writer is not displaying that intelligence with the above quote.

The writer is a Trans person. I expect their view of this is more apt than yours or mine no? Or are we thinking we know more about the Trans experience than an actual trans person? Like I said, I deliberately sought out the views of someone in the space itself who offered nuance. This is that, and I'm not comfortable gainsaying them or saying they are viewing it unintelligently. Shrug.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 07 March 2023 - 04:21 PM, said:

I'm just curious how that squares with the Trans people and other typically progressive allies I've seen (again mainly on TikTok) who don't think the game is 'the battleground' as there are a lot of them as well, do THEIR feelings on the matter and how maybe making this game the whipping boy sullies the overall fight by not REALLY fighting against the real threats and basically dooming this by mild association VS attacking JKR directly or other anti-trans people, not matter? When a progressive fight decamps amongst itself like that, who is in the right? Neither side is anti-trans, but they disagree on this particular...if that makes sense?

I mean, those people are pretty definitely right that there are better battles to fight. The thing is, though, I don't think those people are hurt by me not buying the game (or even by me saying I don't think people should).

On who is in the right... well, both can be, ultimately. This is, in part, an emotional subject, and subjective because of that. The people who feel attacked by the success of the game aren't wrong. The people who don't feel attacked by it, or that it's not an ultimately helpful battleground in the big picture, aren't wrong either. In this particular instance, I prefer to do what I think I can to not hurt those I know who would feel attacked by it, which is why I stand where I do on it.

[QuickTidal]

Oh, and as an aside about "association with shitty people", does anyone remember the 2003 Oscars when noted shitbag Roman Polanski won the Best Director prize for THE PIANIST, and Harrison Ford presented, read Polanski’s name, grinned; and the crowd roared with delight? And Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, and Harvey Weinstein gave the disgraced filmmaker a standing ovation?

Or how about six years later, when Hollywood circulated a petition signed by over 100 actors, filmmakers, and producers from across the globe calling for the release of Polanski, who’d been detained in Switzerland. The signatories included Tilda Swinton, Isabelle Huppert, Penelope Cruz, Diane von Furstenberg, Wes Anderson, Natalie Portman, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, Monica Bellucci, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Harmony Korine, Ethan Cohen, David Lynch, Harrison Ford, Guillermo Del Toro, Jonathan Demme, Woody Allen, Terry Gilliam, David Lynch, Michael Mann, and Alexander Payne...

The world seems to have forgotten.

I feel like the point I'm making is that 'association' is often a sticky ball on a slope that rolls downhill until it includes everyone and everything.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 07 March 2023 - 06:15 PM, said:

amphibian, on 07 March 2023 - 05:42 PM, said:

Quote

As a smarter writer than I once said about all this: The more feelings run high between transgender activists and gender-critical feminists, the further we become removed from a solution.

This writer is not displaying that intelligence with the above quote.

The writer is a Trans person. I expect their view of this is more apt than yours or mine no? Or are we thinking we know more about the Trans experience than an actual trans person? Like I said, I deliberately sought out the views of someone in the space itself who offered nuance. This is that, and I'm not comfortable gainsaying them or saying they are viewing it unintelligently. Shrug.

I know exactly where you got that quote from.

Valentijn de Hingh at this link: https://thecorrespon...-not-the-answer

And yes, they're wrong about this concept. They also wrote it 3 years ago in which time JKR got worse.

JKR is funding and emboldening people who are doing things like killing Brianna Ghey. Nobody has made an attempt on JKR. There's an asymmetry of violence happening here that must be acknowledged.

[amphibian]

QuickTidal, on 07 March 2023 - 06:49 PM, said:

Oh, and as an aside about "association with shitty people", does anyone remember the 2003 Oscars when noted shitbag Roman Polanski won the Best Director prize for THE PIANIST, and Harrison Ford presented, read Polanski’s name, grinned; and the crowd roared with delight? And Martin Scorsese, Meryl Streep, Jack Nicholson, and Harvey Weinstein gave the disgraced filmmaker a standing ovation?

Or how about six years later, when Hollywood circulated a petition signed by over 100 actors, filmmakers, and producers from across the globe calling for the release of Polanski, who’d been detained in Switzerland. The signatories included Tilda Swinton, Isabelle Huppert, Penelope Cruz, Diane von Furstenberg, Wes Anderson, Natalie Portman, Darren Aronofsky, Martin Scorsese, Monica Bellucci, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, Harmony Korine, Ethan Cohen, David Lynch, Harrison Ford, Guillermo Del Toro, Jonathan Demme, Woody Allen, Terry Gilliam, David Lynch, Michael Mann, and Alexander Payne...

The world seems to have forgotten.

I feel like the point I'm making is that 'association' is often a sticky ball on a slope that rolls downhill until it includes everyone and everything.

I hated every bit of the rally to bring Polanski back.

I thought all of these people were wrong for what they did then. I still do. That's a separate discussion to this even with the overlap of "people you like do shitty things sometimes and appropriately handling that is a generally unique thing for each person o determine, yet putting money in the pockets of the actual wrongdoer seems like a bad idea".

[QuickTidal]

amphibian, on 07 March 2023 - 07:01 PM, said:

And yes, they're wrong about this concept.

So you are claiming that you know better the lived experience of a Trans person?

amphibian, on 07 March 2023 - 07:03 PM, said:

I hated every bit of the rally to bring Polanski back.

I thought all of these people were wrong for what they did then. I still do. That's a separate discussion to this even with the overlap of "people you like do shitty things sometimes and appropriately handling that is a generally unique thing for each person o determine, yet putting money in the pockets of the actual wrongdoer seems like a bad idea".

It's not, it's the same, you've just drawn your individual lines differently because 100 people are on that list and MANY of them are well known and make and star in films you like and the level of removal from them you'd need to make is too big.

I can always bring up the Eichiiro Oda thing to ruin ONE PIECE for you with the "association" argument you're using.

Also, you keep shifting the convo back onto JKR herself, and ignore the lack of involvement she had in the game...you gotta stay on point otherwise you've lost what I'm even talking about. If we are only talking about her back end royalties for creating the world....then that's not going to sway me (she literally has BILLIONS already....no one is funding her to do shit by buying this game (she could fund herself buying a whole country if she wanted to with her existing book money), the vast majority of money goes into Warner Bros. pockets. Rain in the ocean. But if you want to talk about that, we can...

Amusingly enough Musk is a MUCH easier anti-trans (amongst other shit) target in that if Twitter fails (which he overpaid for in the billions) he will have a significant fall from monetary grace....he's at least someone who denying him funding in the form of ads by NOT using twitter and causing it to fail as a service will hurt him. Taking JK's royalties away (and hurting everyone else involved with the game) will not stop her in what she thinks and does or says, and it's not going to affect her sales.

Also "JKR is funding and emboldening people who are doing things like killing Brianna Ghey" is fairly beyond the pale Amph. And video games, Marilyn Manson, and The Matrix caused Columbine....apparently. Is there a world in which these two boys who did this to Brianna heard from JKR (who has been in almost every other way staunchly supportive of the LGBT community) did so based on the back of JK's interactions with the trans community? I highly doubt that. Anyone who takes another persons life has FAR deeper problems, and "seeing a random tweet from JK Rowling" would sway that intent. Their parents influence or lackthereof for starters. So laying the blame at JK Rowling for that murder, even partially is wildly unfair....in fact the last time she even said anything about the whole affair beyond responding to the various death threats she's received in the last few years, was back in 2020 when she talked about how she feels hormone use can be dangerous and cited studies about it (I'm not commenting in that topic as I know nothing about it, but it's worth noting that's the last time she said anything unasked), so "funding" is also a really weird statement unless you can point me at somewhere she was actively funding something anti-LGBTQ?

Also, I still think as I said further up thread that her lived experience is VERY much at play here, and Helena Bonham Carter made some comments in that respect that I feel are valid: “It’s horrendous, a load of bollocks,” she said of the Rowling backlash. “I think she has been hounded. It’s been taken to the extreme, the judgmentalism of people. She’s allowed her opinion, particularly if she’s suffered abuse,” Bonham Carter continued. “Everybody carries their own history of trauma and forms their opinions from that trauma, and you have to respect where people come from and their pain. You don’t all have to agree on everything—that would be insane and boring. She’s not meaning it aggressively, she’s just saying something out of her own experience.” - people have no interest in allowing that lived experience inform her world view and dismiss it often...but it's part of it.

We all carry baggage from our lives that affect our worldview. For example, I consider the legal system in Canada a joke when it comes to domestic assault and abuse...but that's due to the fact that I grew up around my moms abusive boyfriend who nearly killed her more than once...he never saw jail time. Never. In fact, she spent a weekend in jail because she could not show up to a court date with my dad (during their alimony dispute) due to her injuries suffered at the hands of that boyfriend...and because she didn't get around to informing them she had to spend a weekend in jail because the court refused to hear that there were extenuating circumstances. My dad even surprisingly went to bat for her saying that he heard what happened to her and understood why she didn't show or let them know in time...but the judge was not having it anyways. I carry that memory with me of my sweet mother having to be in jail for 3 days because her boyfriend beat her up and the courts didn't charge him, but put a stain on her record that was never removed. I can't explain how DEEPLY that experience sours me on our legal system. Now, that's not a 1-1 comparison, but I could find you whole SWATHES of progressively-minded people without such lived experiences who would say our legal system is too harsh on most people, so they think me cold when I say what I say about it. I'm not cold, I just carry trauma. This doesn't excuse JKR for some of the stuff she's said...but it needs to be part of the conversation in understanding why she's dug her heels in.

[polishgenius]

I think the point of 'she doesn't mean it aggressively' is long past tbqh. She may well have a trauma we can't dismiss- she's not entitled to push it on to others. And she is. I think she was over that line a long while ago, but I feel like the moment she gave oxygen to Matt Walsh was when that rubicon was definitively crossed. She can't give props to him and then claim it's just concern.
That would be true even if she was reflecting abuse on to people of the same group she was abused by (like how we didn't accept Liam Neeson's line about how a friend of his was raped by a black guy so he went around town looking for trouble with any black person he could find for a bit). But, assuming we're talking about her abuse at the hands of her ex, she's not even doing that.

[Mezla PigDog]

I haven't read the whole thread. Couldn't give a monkeys about a video game. JK Rowling isn't all that talented and got lucky with how well Harry Potter took off. Trans people have a bloody tough life and society treats them like shit and they should absolutely be fighting for their rights.

But.

It's not just JK Rowling who is giving grief to trans people in the vein of disagreeing with the statement that 'trans women are women'. Second wave feminists are openly struggling with it. And the real shame is that in all the shouting, what is a valid message on both sides is being lost. I'm 100% on board with trans women needing protective rights due to a wealth of evidence showing they are one of the most marginalised sets of people out there. I'm also 100% on board with people who are born biologically as women (of which there are a lot) needing protective rights due to another wealth of evidence showing they are consistently denied specialist rights they deserve. It's easy to reel off a few. Abortion access and care, menopause health, access to contraception. We can't deny that 50% of the population needs some specific healthcare due to their internal organs and that it has wide ranging impacts on the way biological women experience life and politics.

I wish I could say there must be a way to see all kinds of woman get the care and protection that we need. But centuries of white patriarchy has us fighting over scraps. It would be great if the two sides could unite and fight for each others very valid issues.

Having re-read, I should add the disclaimer I haven't followed everything that JK Rowling has said about the trans community so I'm not agreeing with anything specific - I'm assuming she has delivered some low blows given the vitriol. But I have read some well reasoned essays about why second wave feminists are struggling with the 'trans women are women' statement and my lived experience as a biological woman who has needed some very specifically gendered healthcare in my 40-something years. And I'm pretty privileged since I've never suffered any violence or abuse. I feel like if even my lived experience can see it then there is some validity to the issues raised.

This post has been edited by Mezla PigDog: 07 March 2023 - 10:44 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Mezla PigDog, on 07 March 2023 - 10:36 PM, said:

I haven't read the whole thread. Couldn't give a monkeys about a video game. JK Rowling isn't all that talented and got lucky with how well Harry Potter took off. Trans people have a bloody tough life and society treats them like shit and they should absolutely be fighting for their rights.

But.

It's not just JK Rowling who is giving grief to trans people in the vein of disagreeing with the statement that 'trans women are women'. Second wave feminists are openly struggling with it. And the real shame is that in all the shouting, what is a valid message on both sides is being lost. I'm 100% on board with trans women needing protective rights due to a wealth of evidence showing they are one of the most marginalised sets of people out there. I'm also 100% on board with people who are born biologically as women (of which there are a lot) needing protective rights due to another wealth of evidence showing they are consistently denied specialist rights they deserve. It's easy to reel off a few. Abortion access and care, menopause health, access to contraception. We can't deny that 50% of the population needs some specific healthcare due to their internal organs and that it has wide ranging impacts on the way biological women experience life and politics.

I wish I could say there must be a way to see all kinds of woman get the care and protection that we need. But centuries of white patriarchy has us fighting over scraps. It would be great if the two sides could unite and fight for each others very valid issues.

Having re-read, I should add the disclaimer I haven't followed everything that JK Rowling has said about the trans community so I'm not agreeing with anything specific - I'm assuming she has delivered some low blows given the vitriol. But I have read some well reasoned essays about why second wave feminists are struggling with the 'trans women are women' statement and my lived experience as a biological woman who has needed some very specifically gendered healthcare in my 40-something years. And I'm pretty privileged since I've never suffered any violence or abuse. I feel like if even my lived experience can see it then there is some validity to the issues raised.

I've bolded this because ultimately your sentence there hits the nail on the head, drives it in and then the nail is in so deed there ain't a claw hammer in the land that can get it out.

Women being empowered threatens the white patriarchy. It relies on defined gender roles to keep old, rich white men in the institutions of governance and where they have power to shape the direction of society as they want. And it's the same reason they're so threatened by transfolk and those who exist outside of what I'll call Abrahamic gender binary (if there's another term feel free to correct me there) and lash out at them. And in a slightly roundabout way, the workers of the world should be stood side by side with BOTH groups because that selfsame white patriarchy is reliant on the worker being kept in their place and downtrodden.

[Mezla PigDog]

You won't find anyone who hates defined gender roles more than I do. Yet there are some distinct biologically gendered differences that do mean people with certain bits and bobs in the underwear region need specific protections. And that unfortunate truth is what the trans debate is getting so hung up on. You have your second wave feminists (and those raised by them) who are absolute bad ass women with what I regard as very noble agendas using not very nuanced language to discuss the issue and trans activists leaping on every poorly chosen word. It's creating such a scrap. It's a real shame. I do think the trans rights activists need to listen and understand. It's not like biological women are sitting in the land of plenty and blocking access to trans women. We're sitting in the barren desert of centuries of struggle with little progress. Yet even that desert is immensely privileged compared to trans womens lived experience.

I'm buggered if I know how to solve it!

I'm annoying myself referring to second wave feminists. Hopefully you get my drift. I mean the cohort of women who fought the basic fights for workplace equality, abortion and contraception access, safe places for women. And mostly failed, it should be noted - white western women got the veneer of equality but actually now we just act both as professional AND home maker at the same time and are meant to feel grateful. Nevermind being routinely murdered and brutalised by biological men. No wonder they are pissed off and not choosing their language carefully, frankly.

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Quote

'"My feminism must remain grounded in the sex class and the oppressions my sex class suffer," Rowling says. "That's the basis of our oppression. That's my understanding of why certain things have happened to me."'

'"a lot of feminists [...] feel[...] aggrieved at people constantly saying 'If you don't recognize me as a woman, I'm going to rape you.'"'

'The ["Witch Trials of J. K. Rowling"] podcast features a couple of trans people as expert sources, but seemingly only when their views support those of its subject. (One of those experts, the YouTuber ContraPoints, disavowed the podcast before its premiere.) [...] trans psychologist Erica Anderson, who told the Washington Post in 2018 that she's concerned teens are exploring their gender identities because it's "trendy" right now.'

'[...] takes great pains to distinguish between Rowling's polite worries about trans people being able to use the bathroom they want and the right-wing anti-trans vitriol that has spread through legislatures across the world in recent years.

[...] Should the fact that in 2018, one trans person admitted to sexually assaulting female inmates at a women's prison preclude all trans women from being housed in women's prisons or even using women's public restrooms?

[...] the risk does not seem to be supported by data—only by anecdote and personal fear. A 2018 study from [...] at UCLA School of Law found no link between trans-inclusive policies and bathroom safety, and a 2019 American Academy of Pediatrics study did find that restrictive bathroom and locker room policies may be associated with higher risk of sexual assaults against trans youth.'


https://www.thedaily...n-and-terf-wars

It seems like most of the issues she raises are not completely groundless, but she's discounting the statistics and exaggerating the probability of negative outcomes (beyond discomfort or linguistic inconvenience). Of course the worst negative outcomes are extremely negative, especially for the individual, and the potential fear and anxiety caused by them, or related trauma, can be pervasive.


By publicizing her fears about how bad actors could exploit access to women's shelters by pretending to be trans, she may actually be making it more likely to happen....


While she goes out of her way to claim she's not anti-trans---at least not for people with genuine gender dysmorphia as assessed by medical professionals who fully transition---her anti-trans bigotry seemed to show itself clearly early on

Quote

'when Rowling "liked" a tweet that called trans women "men in dresses". [...] A representative released a statement blaming the "like" on what she called a "middle-aged moment" on JKR's part – she'd held her phone incorrectly and had pressed "like" by mistake.'

I'm trans and I understand JK Rowling's concerns about the position of women. But transphobia is not the answer

... and apparently when she 'liked' tweets by people who have posted even worse anti-trans comments? Is there stronger evidence for her being anti-trans? I read the Slate article rebutting the New York Times editorial which claimed JKR is not anti-trans, and the links it provided, but it was not very convincing and blatantly misrepresented what JKR was saying in some instances: for instance the article claims 'She has suggested without evidence that trans women "retain male patterns of criminality,"' but the actual quote that it links to is: 'Yet there is no evidence to show that trans women don't retain male patterns of criminality.'


https://slate.com/bu...s-coverage.html

Quote

'critique of clunky language like "menstruators" and "bodies with vaginas" is fair; as someone to whom both of those labels applied at one point, I find both terms cringeworthy and alienating, as do most other trans people. Even the Trans Journalists Association shuns such language in its style guide, advocating instead for general terms like "patients," "people," and "people seeking abortions."'

https://www.them.us/...ny-trans-rights

... but Rowling's desire to use 'women' to refer to 'people with uteruses' is fundamentally flawed (both for women who have had hysterectomies and for trans men), and more accurate and inclusive language seems more than worth the minor inconvenience (if length and clunkiness are major issues, perhaps neologisms are in order? or maybe we should just simplify all the polysyllabic words in English into something more beautifully monosyllabic, like classical Chinese poetry?).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 08 March 2023 - 01:37 PM

[Maark Abbott]

Mezla PigDog, on 08 March 2023 - 11:04 AM, said:

You won't find anyone who hates defined gender roles more than I do. Yet there are some distinct biologically gendered differences that do mean people with certain bits and bobs in the underwear region need specific protections. And that unfortunate truth is what the trans debate is getting so hung up on. You have your second wave feminists (and those raised by them) who are absolute bad ass women with what I regard as very noble agendas using not very nuanced language to discuss the issue and trans activists leaping on every poorly chosen word. It's creating such a scrap. It's a real shame. I do think the trans rights activists need to listen and understand. It's not like biological women are sitting in the land of plenty and blocking access to trans women. We're sitting in the barren desert of centuries of struggle with little progress. Yet even that desert is immensely privileged compared to trans womens lived experience.

I'm buggered if I know how to solve it!

I'm annoying myself referring to second wave feminists. Hopefully you get my drift. I mean the cohort of women who fought the basic fights for workplace equality, abortion and contraception access, safe places for women. And mostly failed, it should be noted - white western women got the veneer of equality but actually now we just act both as professional AND home maker at the same time and are meant to feel grateful. Nevermind being routinely murdered and brutalised by biological men. No wonder they are pissed off and not choosing their language carefully, frankly.

I think it comes back to education as much as anything else. Sex and gender are conflated but once you separate them it becomes manageable - a lot of the issue boils down to treatment - "you have a dong, you're a man!" - rather than accepting them as women but with starting loadouts. I think that's the solution - take apart the patriarchy, separate the concepts of sex and gender and note that everyone involved just wants to be treated with equality. We should all be punching upwards, rather than anyone punching sideways or at a diagonal.

[QuickTidal]

Mezla PigDog, on 08 March 2023 - 11:04 AM, said:

You won't find anyone who hates defined gender roles more than I do. Yet there are some distinct biologically gendered differences that do mean people with certain bits and bobs in the underwear region need specific protections. And that unfortunate truth is what the trans debate is getting so hung up on. You have your second wave feminists (and those raised by them) who are absolute bad ass women with what I regard as very noble agendas using not very nuanced language to discuss the issue and trans activists leaping on every poorly chosen word.

I'd like to expand this bolded thought into the notion that the whole of GenZ and parts of Millennials have decided that specific language is so important that specific words used in passing are filled with intent and hatred. Sometimes people just say shit inarticulately and use words they don't see any inherent broader statement in. The slow education of ALL of us is just that, slow. Paradigms don't shift overnight. Look at the difference between LGBT content on a show like Friends or Seinfeld VS Modern Family, or Legends of Tomorrow....that alone took 20 years. And with Boomers like JKR, the pace at which she might come around to seeing the other sides POV will be glacial, if the Boomers in my life are any example. Trying to educate them on the nuances of the conversation is difficult, you're often fighting against 65+ years of indoctrination into their way of thinking and viewing the world. My own Father in law rips on Indigenous people and their plight in Canada, and no amount of explaining about Residential Schools, or the Sixties Scoop will sway him from his rather nasty POV...And I doubt even showing him something like Rabbit Proof Fence, or getting him to listen to a Missing & Murdered podcast would shift him off 76 years of what he's been taught are a lazy people who simply won't pull they bootstraps up....no amount of explaining systemic racism to him helps, and the one time I REALLY went in on him, my ex-cop brother-in-law jumped in tp defend him and they brow beat me for over an hour about it, and I gave up exhausted. The funny thing is that all their examples of why they were right...can be rightly explained by Res Schools, Sixties Scoop, Reserves, and how systemic racism never giving them a chance and that it's generational team now...but they could not (or rather refused) to see it.

And sometimes, as an individual, you just need the right thing to REALLY hammer home the plight of a minority group...in my case I don't think I TRULY understood the Trans plight until I watched SENSE8. That show gave me everything I needed to know about the struggles they face in a narrative that made it click. There's a scene between Hernando (Alfonso Herrera) and Nomi (Trans Actress Jaime Clayton) in a museum where they discuss their pasts and lack of familial and cultural acceptance and support and that hit me like a tonne of bricks and it all finally clicked for me. Before that I was largely clueless. And that was a mere 8 years ago.

I'll give you a recent example of the "language/words" thing in Canada. In Canada our Girl Guides are divided into age groups: These were Sparks (ages 5 and 6) (My daughter is in Sparks), Brownies (ages 7 and 8), Guides (ages 9 – 11), Pathfinders (ages 12 – 14), and Rangers (15-17+) . Now Brownies was initially Rosebuds way back when Agnes Baden-Powell created the female group aligned with her brothers' Scouts group, but the girls in her initial groups didn't care for the name, so Baden-Powell renamed them Brownies. Their name comes from the story "The Brownies" by Juliana Horatia Ewing, written in 1870. In the story two children, Tommy and Betty, learn that children can be helpful brownies instead of being lazy boggarts. This name had been in use in Canada from 1910 until this year, when some people raised their hands at the name being considered offensive and a barrier to some girls to entry and feeling safe due to the colour of their skin. So it didn't matter that the term has nothing to do with skin colour, the very word "Brown" became offensive enough to trigger the change to something else. Now, I'm not complaining about this change at all, and in fact the new name for the the group that follows Sparks is now Embers, and that's a wonderfully perfect name for them that fits well, and follows on from Sparks as a notion too...I think it's a better name than Brownies which was the only Guide name that seemed based on a fairytale, VS all the other groups (bearing in mind Sparks is VERY recent addition and Brownies USED to be the entry point to Girl Guides), so it's all great, and I'm happy that those people who felt that the name Brownie was a barrier to them feeling safe in this group will feel better in Embers. My point is just that language and words specifically have become battlegrounds in and of themselves for even connotations that should not be present, but are...and this stems if not from the patriarchy in this case, then the longtime mistreatment of POC in our society. Should the word brown trigger people? No. Does it? Obviously because of lived experience that is not shared by everyone, it does, and no one can fault them for that. But you should see the older generation lose their minds about the change, and again it's just word use....but both sides find it worthy to fight about and both have life experience reasons they feel are altruistic, even if they are not.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 08 March 2023 - 02:21 PM

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

Maark Abbott, on 08 March 2023 - 08:28 AM, said:

Women being empowered threatens the white patriarchy. It relies on defined gender roles to keep old, rich white men in the institutions of governance and where they have power to shape the direction of society as they want. And it's the same reason they're so threatened by transfolk and those who exist outside of what I'll call Abrahamic gender binary (if there's another term feel free to correct me there) and lash out at them. And in a slightly roundabout way, the workers of the world should be stood side by side with BOTH groups because that selfsame white patriarchy is reliant on the worker being kept in their place and downtrodden.

As JKR points out, the relation between gender essentialism and being transgender can be problematic, especially when there is social pressure for gender nonconformists to identify as transgender and take puberty blockers or hormones or receive surgery. Probably the most extreme examples are Islamic countries like Iran where gay people are under immense social pressure to transition and undergo surgery despite not having any gender dysphoria or related body dysmorphia. In the UK, doctors at Gids (Tavistock) seem to have been improperly pressuring children who exhibited some gender nonconformity into taking puberty blockers.

There's also the issue of relating gender dysphoria to Butlerian feminist theory, particularly the idea that gender norms are essentially performative contingent social constructs. If being a 'man' is essentially behaving like 'a man', then is a 'tomboy' whose behavior matches local male gender norms a 'man'?

The simple answer is to let the person decide, but social pressure to start identifying as a trans man and undergo medical transitioning even without the 'feeling of being in the wrong "gendered" body' is a potential risk.

There's a debate within the trans community itself about whether people who don't experience medical gender dysphoria but want to transition should be considered trans. Some argue that it's based in biology that can't easily be changed, the way homosexuality seems to be, with the brains of trans people more closely resembling those of the gender they identify with even before medical transitioning. But the more open-minded embrace the idea that people should be able to choose their own gender no matter what their motivations may be. I'm tempted to go further and suggest that people---adults at least---should be able to undergo any bodily modifications they want to... but the health ramifications of that are problematic (for example, allowing people who want to be stronger to take steroids, or people who want to be taller to take growth hormones). Some athletes are willing to do almost anything to win---taking PEDs, cutting ridiculous amounts of weight to try to get into divisions where they can more easily win.... And in some progressive social contexts, the only way for a straight white male to claim privileged victimhood status is to declare themselves trans---while under no pressure to medically transition or even put forward a recognizably feminine appearance. Women who are disadvantaged by the patriarchy may feel they would be better off transitioning---JKR claims she herself when she was younger would have considered transitioning for this reason (whether that's true or not is an open question, but other women of similar age have expressed similar feelings---perhaps it's not *as* bad now, and perhaps they're simply wrong about what they would have done... but it's hard to know).

However, JKR is almost certainly grossly exaggerating the extent and magnitude of these issues (outside of certain countries like Iran, which seem unlikely to serve as inspiration even for anti-gay religious conservatives in the United States... though if Christian conservatives get over their transphobia, it's not hard to imagine them trying to replace conversion therapy with pressure to medically transition).

This post has been edited by Azath Vitr (D'ivers: 09 March 2023 - 03:35 PM

[Cause]

I remain very unfamiliar with the transgender debates that happen on the internet. In real life I still dont know a transgender person though I have met a few in passing; waiters, cashiers at the grocery etc. I have no hate towards them, and want them to live their lives happy and free but its an issue I struggle to connect with because of how minor it seems. When republicans want to pass laws about bathrooms which I dont think have any real purpose other than to signal hate I oppose them becuase I oppose hate. In real life I suspect a lot of transgender people use whichever bathroom they want with the vast majority of people never really noticing. I tend to not pay attention to others in the bathroom and dont feel people tend to view me sexually when I expel waste. For the most part I think the reason I struggle to connect with this issue because of just how rare it is. Other than when a politican or celebrity (JK Rowling) uses the issue to signal hate I feel like for most people its a non issue in ther lives. I have met an everyday person who talks about the issue, dont know any transgender people personally, have never been in a restuarant where the bathroom has a sign about transgender use. JK Rowlings celebrity invites the backlash and causes this loud reaction. My father once told me there is a difference between tolerance and apathy. I think this is a case where I seem to be more in the latter camp. Not as an active choice but just by the very nature of how rare it seems to me. I dont know the science and studies on it, I dont know if it improves peoples happiness or not. I sometimes refelct on the issue becuase black civil rights, gay rights and so many others it wasn't enough for people to just say well I dont mind black people, people had to make active choices to fight slavery and pass laws to protect their freedoms. This topic for me however reamins esoteric.

My other thought on the games controversy is for the Goblins are Jewish criticism. I never made the connection myself but can understand it now that is been brought up. However I wonder if its a case of purposeful cruelty by JK Rowling, subconscious bias or possibly worst of all there was no connection at all but people are primed to connect money grubbing bankers with jews without any prompting. Why do Goblins control the banks in harry potter, I dont really know, but golbins are ugly and in any modern depiction I can think of will have large noses or some other horrible feature. Is large noses and works with gold automatically Jewish?

I never saw dwarves in Tolkiens world as supposedly being jewish either but he stated they were. However its a compliment (sorta?). The dwarves can be overcome with a gold lust, in part due to the effect of the 7 rings, but the Dwarves are otherwise highly resistant to evil, masters of their craft etc. Again Tolkien may have some subconcious thoughts but I think a reader could leave with a good or bad impression from the text based on their own pre-existing bias.