Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
Similar to the recent question about artists where you can successfully separate them from their art. Are there any artists who did something so horrible, so despicable, that it has instantly invalidated all art that they have had any part in?
I looked up all her tweets, and I don’t see much to disagree with.
If you go to Thailand, trans men are called ladyboys and if you ask them if they are women, they say, no, I’m a ladyboy. There’s nothing wrong with having the opinion that trans women will not be real women. She’s not saying she hates trans people, just that they will never be the same as biological women.
Yes, but Thailand is not the entire world, nor was it even the target audience of those tweets.
In the west, when you transition to another gender, it is because you want to identify as that gender. Thus when you say shit like ‘trans women aren’t real women’ you’re denying the identity of thousands of women worldwide.
But… the west isn’t the entire world either.
I think that’s the point. That culture matters and there’s not a one-size-fits-all interpretation or response that satisfies all of them.
People in the west want to believe their culture is the best and all others should follow, but that simply isn’t how the world works. That won’t stop them from getting mad over it, though.
We are talking about a western author broadcasting on a western platform in a western language, often directly in response to other westerners or western ideas of transsexuality. Makes it pretty clear who the target audience and culture is.
This may come as a shock to you, but a lot of westerners don’t believe in transexuality either.
Hey, we’re talking about one right now!
This is what I mean by thinking your culture is the best and all others should follow. Do you think Rowling would be justified if she tweeted in Thai? Lol. If not, then she isn’t unjustified for engaging with westerners.
Try to understand your way of life is not the only, or even the best, way of life.
No, they believe that transsexuals are heathen abominations that should be stripped of all human rights and dignity. There is a difference.
Try to understand that your way of life should not get in the way of others trying to enjoy theirs when it doesn’t harm other people.
Some of them, sure. But some just disagree with the notion that trans-X are identical to their cis counterparts.
I totally agree.
It’s never been about proving trans and cis folks of the same gender are “identical”, no one is arguing that, obviously there are some physical, biological differences. Differences that trans folks are painfully aware of, and that take a lot of time and effort to mitigate for many them to feel like themselves.
It’s just about being accepted as, being seen, and talked to as the gender of your choosing.
People like Rowling who argue against the existence or the rights of trans folks overwhelmingly do so out of ignorance, fear, or simply malice. It’s not a philosophical question, it’s not up for debate whether trans people “exist”, if you don’t believe in them then you’re just objectively, provably, scientifically wrong.
And if you agree they exist and still want to make their lives miserable, then you’re just an asshole.
Speak for yourself, I see people arguing it all the time.
Yeah, just like if you don’t believe homosexuality is a mental disorder in 1952 then you are “scientifically wrong.” Soft sciences aren’t ‘objective’ like hard sciences, which is why they are currently having a reproducibility crisis.
Do you believe in otherkin? I’m sure they would react identically as you towards people who don’t see them the way they want to be seen.
I am in the west and don’t think we have the best in every way culture. The more I travel the more I am aware of where we have plenty of room for improvement. I prefer living here, most people given the choice would as well, but that doesn’t mean best.
Just because one group that has a passing resemblance to another group says something doesn’t mean that it applies to every group with a passing resemblance. Especially when the group is from a completely different culture.
What’s a biological woman?
What is a human? What is knowledge? What is virtue? What is justice?
We have known for 2500 years that some words are very difficult to define in such a way that every single edge case is handled, it is complete, and short. The most famous example, 2500 years ago, was an academy defined human as a featherless biped. The next day someone released a plucked chicken.
For those words that are very difficult to define we develop criteria and gradually alter the criteria as time goes on, mostly based on the idea of ordinary language.
They mean people born with female bodies. So Cis women or FtM men.
I want him to define it.
Even cis women might not be ‘biologically female’
It comes from a high school level understanding of genetics.
I do get what you mean, it’s oversimplifying a complicated subject.
A major issue is that she isn’t loyal and has her own opinions on the matter.
Independents are seen as enemies in the eyes of tribalists. Eventually, they become enemies.