billvon:
Nope. Death threats are unacceptable.
I'm glad we agree on that much. On this point, you and our friend parmalee are not on the same page, which speaks well for you and poorly for him.
But you were not talking about whether she is being treated unfairly - you are talking about her being "cancelled" which means removed from public discourse through boycotts and censorship.
What I wrote was "Think what you like about trans people. However, the
attempt by the rabid mob to cancel JR Rowling and anybody else who isn't on a particular ideological bandwagon actually raises important questions of freedom of speech and the importance of being able to have discussions."
I did not claim that Rowling has been removed from public discourse. It's not for lack of people trying to intimidate her into removing herself, though.
I also wrote: "Anybody who resorts to violent acts to try to prevent thoughtful people from speaking is a danger to civil society. Trying to shut down discussions you'd rather not have is not the way to go about changing hearts and minds. It's what fascists do."
Do you agree or disagree?
Again, such threats are not OK. I have not heard Rowling herself receiving such threats.
If you're interested, I urge you to listen to the podcast I mentioned. You can hear it from Rowling herself.
The only references to that I've heard are vague fourth person accounts (from Rowling) who said that "she had been "appalled" to hear from various women who had spoken out on transgender issues, including those with no public profile, and suffered abuse including threats of rape."
Are you saying you don't believe that Rowling is telling the truth when she reports that she has heard from other women who have received rape and death threats? Do you think she is just lying? Do you think she is unfairly demonising the kind-hearted souls who are trying to shut down speech about "trans rights"?
What would it take for you to believe that, in fact, other women
have received such threats? I'm sure that first-hand accounts wouldn't be hard to find, if you were motivated to go look for them. Would you prefer to pretend it isn't happening?
Those are two different things.
1) Shutting down debate. That has not happened, as this thread exemplifies.
Like I said, it's not for want of trying on the part of radical "trans activists".
Any woman who voices similar concerns to Rowlings is labelled a "TERF", which stands for "Trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Protesters turn up to events organised by concerned women and literally kick up such a fuss that nobody can speak.
There has been literal instances of book burning over this (e.g. copies of
Harry Potter). Calls to boycott Rowling and anything she supports. And the threats I have already mentioned, including ones considered by the British police to be credible physical threats against Rowling and her family.
The aim of all of this is to shut down certain speech.
2) Yes, a lot of people aren't interested in hearing her out.
And that includes you, does it? You assume you already know what her opinions and concerns are, without hearing what she herself actually has to say? And you're willing to pass judgment on her on the basis of what you've read about her, including the deluge of hate on the interwebs?
I am not interested in hearing a great many people out, for example, like Nazi sympathizers and Holocaust deniers.
How do you go about determining whether somebody is a Nazi sympathizer or a Holocaust denier? Second-hand rumors?
I suspect you feel the same way.
Not when it comes to judging people based on what a mob shouts about them.
Sure. She equates gender-affirming care to "conversion therapy" where gay people are threatened/abused/tortured to make them straight.
Does she?
Can you quote something from her in which she did that? Or is this just from the rumor mill?
She has claimed that allowing trans people to live their lives is the same as "erasing sex."
Quote, please.
One thing she
has said (I'm paraphrasing here, to be clear) is that accepting that
any man who self-identifies as a women must be a woman is effectively "erasing sex". One of her concerns is that there was legislation in front of the British parliament that would have let anybody calling themself a woman use woman's changerooms and restrooms, with no requirement for any medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or any medical interventions, hormone therapy, transitioning or anything else. Just the person's say-so.
Such a law would allow a male sexual predator to enter women-only spaces with impunity, if he were willing to say "I am a woman". And in case you imagine there have been no cases of men who identify as women sexually assaulting women in restrooms, I'm here to tell you that there have been (and Rowling is, too).
Perhaps you think that concerns for the safety of women in such spaces are just "loudly complaining" and that they shouldn't be taken seriously? People certainly shouldn't be allowed to discuss them publically, without being shouted down by a mob. Right?
On the broader issue, can I ask you: are sex and gender different? Has your personal Overton window moved to the position where you think sex is an outdated and irrelevant concept, such that we should dispense with it and just use gender, exclusively? That's what the radical leftist trans activists are arguing for, in effect.
What that would mean is that if one's self-proclaimed gender is male, then it doesn't matter if you have ovaries and a vagina and you menstruate and you can become pregnant. You're male because you say you are, and there's nothing more to be said. You're just a male who happens to have a vagina, etc.
Is that your position on these issues? Sex is redundant, passe, outdated and irrelevant?
If, on the other hand, you are not with those who want to "erase sex" and just have gender instead, then do you think that, perhaps, Rowling might have a point you haven't yet considered? Maybe you
should hear her out.
Again, a similar claim would be to claim that allowing people to marry other races "erases race."
A similar claim would be me - a white dude - self-identifying as an African American man. If my self-identification is all that matters, how would this kind of thing
not erase race"?
You probably think that "cultural appropriation" is a bad thing. If I were to "pretend" to be African American, you would probably have all kinds of concerns about that. But when it comes to men pretending to be women, you apparently don't have the same concerns. Why?
Many older people have trouble adjusting to the times; I've known several of them, including people in my family. Their Overton window simply cannot move that far. Younger people were born during a time when the Overton window has already moved; they grow up in a world where gay marriage and interracial marriage are simply the norm. Older people do not have that luxury.
To be clear: I'm only a few years younger than JK Rowling. I voted to legalise gay marriage in my country. I have never had any issues with interracial marriages. I also support trans people being able to live their lives in peace without fear of unfair discrimination.
I don't believe that sex and gender are the same thing.
You should not assume that everyone over a certain age is a conservative bigot. That's a big mistake to make.
