Current Events > rowling says she would hapilly do prison time over her bigotry

(+) Yeah! (+)

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Plus how many people echoing Rowling's apparent concern would disagree with children being made to go into religion (Mind you I have no regrets going to well the churchs I did)?

Besides say having to be denied holiday or birthday celebrations depending, there's also some cases where parents will forbid medical treatment for anyone under their roof. So if one was to okay that, then I would say they are disqualified on LGBT related discussions.

Kind of like laughing it up with Trump's comments about his own daughter, but voting yes on "Don't say gay".

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I did dirty math when somebody tried using detransitioning as "proof" that transitioning was not the best practice.

And being super generous in rounding and giving benefit of situation to equate every case of detransitioning not listed as not having a support structure or fear of shitty people to be "getting it wrong" do you know what super beneficial to the argument of "but detransition" percentage I got was?

3%

Make it a reality.

GetMagnaCarter posted...

As there are instances of this (reportedly, especially from gay boys) it cannot be dismissed entirely.
Whether the number of instances is enough for concern is open to debate or argument

This is plainly false and harmful misinformation about gender affirming care. Do better.

There are no known cases of cis people who were tricked or pressured into transitioning against better judgement. Its a flat out lie.

Antiyonder posted...

4. The bathroom concern. Wanting space from those who would be attracted to you, fair enough I suppose.

...do you think homosexual people aren't allowed to use public restrooms?

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

List some.

If it's such a concern, I'm sure you can find a few legitimate examples.

Detransitioner concern trolling is genuinely disgusting. The people who do it don't actually care about people who detransition, they just want a gotcha to throw at trans people.

Ask the vast majority of people who do detransition and you'll find most commonly it is because they couldn't handle the abuse and discrimination being openly trans brought them.

DrizztLink posted...

...do you think homosexual people aren't allowed to use public restrooms?

Nope. But yeah I would say that if gay people can use the bathroom of their gender then arguably a reason for consideration on trans.

I mean I think some people are or claim to be for gay rights while being vocal against trans. Would I be correct or no?

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/01/trans-detransition-facts-research-study-atlantic.html

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


What's your confusion?

Antiyonder posted...

I mean I think some people are or claim to be for gay rights while being vocal against trans. Would I be correct or no?

Can't really determine whether or not you are correct because this is completely incoherent.

Shadow_Don posted...

Can't really determine whether or not you are correct because this is completely incoherent.

I don't see how. I'm asking if many people who profess to be gay rights are anti-trans.

Highlighting the fact that a subset of gay people are against trans rights is not a coherent argument against allowing trans people to use public toilets.

Thats not how any of this works.

Humble_Novice posted...

What did transgender people ever do to her to begin with?

it's an extension of her misandry.

While ultimately toxic and harmful, it's understandable that she has an unhealthy negative view of heterosexual adult men in general, given what i recall hearing about some of her life experiences with abuse.

This view of all men as inherently predatory and a threat combines with her refusal to view trans women as women, to create a genuine belief that trans women are all "wolfs in sheeps' clothing", predatory men disguised as women to hide their predatory intentions until it's too late.

It's the bathroom drama we hear politicians fake outrage about but she genuinely believes it.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]

I couldn't fix the HTML but I think I got the point across.

[LFAQs-redacted-quote]


Basically even if you minimize concerns about predatory behavior, some people (Het) want to use a bathroom not shared with the opposite gender. So a trans woman using a woman's bathroom is to them about the same as a guy using a woman's bathroom.

Going with that concern you would have to ban a gay woman from using the gender appropriate bathroom right?

@Gremlynn

It's the bathroom drama we hear politicians fake outrage about but she genuinely believes it.

So she doesn't believe that women can be predatory to other woman? Cause I think she at least claims to be for gay rights.

Antiyonder posted...

I don't see how. I'm asking if many people who profess to be gay rights are anti-trans.

Why would that matter?

@Shadow_Don

Why would that matter?

Cause (Using Rowling's concern for an example) then wouldn't some women be uncomfortable with a gay woman sharing the bathroom with them?

Antiyonder posted...

So she doesn't believe that women can be predatory to other woman? Cause I think she at least claims to be for gay rights.

Most likely correct. In her eyes, it's about the view that men are inherently the predatory sex.

Antiyonder posted...

Basically even if you minimize concerns about predatory behavior, some people (Het) want to use a bathroom not shared with the opposite gender. So a trans woman using a woman's bathroom is to them about the same as a guy using a woman's bathroom.

Going with that concern you would have to ban a gay woman from using the gender appropriate bathroom right?

Youre not making much sense. There is no predatory concern, in fact, trans people are over 4x more likely to experience violent victimization compared to cisgender people.

Using your logic here, this would also be an argument in favor of racist people who view others as subhuman or otherwise not comfortable to be around. We dont cater to such discriminatory practices or beliefs anymore (eg. ending racial segregation.)

I think Antiyonder is trying to argue that trans people should NOT be banned from using their bathroom of choice and neither should gay people. I could be wrong.

@KitKats
My argument is the other way around. You know why trans should be able to use the bathroom of choice, but this confusion is why I was hesitant to comment on the matter of some finding it awkward vs threatening.

Now the predatory concern (sexual harassment or rape), that's another matter. I feel the solutions to that is:

A. Not hesitating to inform kids of taking to for an answer. None of that "Boys will be boys" or any equivalent. And.....

B. Remind people that sexual predators aren't victims in their own right, but the ones in the wrong VS the victim for being too sexy. In short victim blaming is a predator enabler.

This won't necessarily stop such altogether but these are the real source of predatory behavior, plus the person feeling entitled.

@Garabandal

Yea, thanks.

I felt more comfortable discussing the issue in regards to predatory behavior, but the concern about awkwardness I had to wing it.

It's like I take people at their word that being gay isn't a choice, but:
A. I lack the insight to feel qualified to tackle that aspect. And....

B. I would say even if otherwise, that shouldn't be a factor for ban.

Antiyonder posted...

@KitKats
My argument is the other way around. You know why trans should be able to use the bathroom of choice, but this confusion is why I was hesitant to comment on the matter of some finding it awkward vs threatening.

Now the predatory concern (sexual harassment or rape), that's another matter. I feel the solutions to that is:

A. Not hesitating to inform kids of taking to for an answer. None of that "Boys will be boys" or any equivalent. And.....

B. Remind people that sexual predators aren't victims in their own right, but the ones in the wrong VS the victim for being too sexy. In short victim blaming is a predator enabler.

This won't necessarily stop such altogether but these are the real source of predatory behavior, plus the person feeling entitled.

The solution in the context of this conversation is a combination of robust legal protections and public policy for vulnerable and marginalized LGBT+ minorities, with increased awareness, inclusion, and public education in schools on LGBT+ people and our history. Remove the stigma surrounding us.

KitKats posted...

The solution in the context of this conversation is a combination of robust legal protections and public policy for vulnerable and marginalized LGBT+ minorities, with increased awareness, inclusion, and public education in schools on LGBT+ people and our history. Remove the stigma surrounding us.

That too. Heck it seems like any other form of bigotry, the problem is people trying to achieve something in a manner they deem easy than willing to push themselves for a better course of action.

And yeah just for anyone, am I misinformed or correct on Rowling supporting Greg Ellis? I think that alone would call into question that she is just looking out for non-trans women.

Antiyonder posted...

@Garabandal

Yea, thanks.

I felt more comfortable discussing the issue in regards to predatory behavior, but the concern about awkwardness I had to wing it.

It's like I take people at their word that being gay isn't a choice, but:
A. I lack the insight to feel qualified to tackle that aspect. And....

B. I would say even if otherwise, that shouldn't be a factor for ban.

I mean, do you choose who you are attracted to or not attracted to? Theres your insight right there, regardless of your sexual orientation.

Heterosexual is a sexual orientation, too!

So you dont have to take gay people at their word anymore than someone has to take your word that youre straight (or asexual.)

And if you want to make an argument for choice, that is possible, however the problem inherent is you automatically open the door for people to equally argue it is a wrong or bad choice. This is an important facet.

KitKats posted...

I mean, do you choose who you are attracted to or not attracted to? Theres your insight right there, regardless of your sexual orientation.

Heterosexual is a sexual orientation, too!

So you dont have to take gay people at their word anymore than someone has to take your word that youre straight (or asexual.)

True. And like I said, I don't see why the assumption of it being a choice should factor in the attempts to have gay bans.

It's actually why I can't even agree to disagree with homophobes. Every argument they toss can easily be invalidated and thus really more a reason to legalize gay relationships all around.

So even if it was choice that just seems like a so what when other failed arguments are factored.

My favorite to debunk is people playing the unnatural card:

1. We live the least natural life to begin with. Especially damning when a person uses tech to give their argument.

2. You point out other creatures who will engage in such, then suddenly being natural isn't good. Go figure.

It doesnt factor into the equation because we know sexual orientation isnt a choice. Theres tons of scientific research on this and its not something up for debate. Now, we may not fully understand every nuance involved but we know it develops early in life, as well as aspects of sexuality being fluid in some cases.

Antiyonder posted...

My favorite to debunk is people playing the unnatural card:

1. We live the least natural life to begin with. Especially damning when a person uses tech to give their argument.

2. You point out other creatures who will engage in such, then suddenly being natural isn't good. Go figure.

Reminds me of this

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/9/8/AAcv9ZAAEh6q.jpg

Well in that cause, being natural, bad.

And yeah the whole you have to respect a Christian who refuses to serve a gay person or couple (Might extend to trans).

In the first place, would they refuse to or chose to serve a person who is a divorcee (Not a divorce in response to an abusive spouse)?

Or would they extend the same respect to say a Jehovahs Witness who refuses to sell food if it is used for holiday celebrations?

Or a Hindu who won't prepare a wedding cake at a wedding with meat being served?