Jobs & Education3 mins ago
Why Is Anything Short Of 100% Enthusiasm For Transexual Issues Considered "Transphobia"?
26 Answers
surely a phobia is an irrational fear of something. I don't think JK Rowling is afraid of transexuals.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Kardashev. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
A few of the salient points:
1. Rowling and other gender-critical feminists tend to attack an argument that no trans person is seriously making. If you misunderstand (or even deliberately misrepresent) a person's position, that's a bad start.
2. By extension, Rowling seems to frame trans identity as a "choice", eg in a 2019 tweet she wrote "call yourself whatever you please/dress however you like." This isn't supportive, however, because it's mistaking something that is, or feels, innate, for something that can be switched on and off on a whim. Trans people aren't "acting" as trans; they *are* trans. It would be similar to reducing homosexuality to a choice (and then insisting that it's a choice that should be kept private, ie separate from the rest of normal society, which is a homophobic attitude even if it's superficially supportive).
3. It also is often expressed as a "think of the children!" argument: the idea that, if children are exposed to "trans ideology", they might "mistakenly" think of themselves as trans, and so take decisions they'll regret. Framing it this why, transgender identity is something to in a sense "protect" children from. What are they being protected from, exactly? You only need protection from things that are in some sense dangerous.
I suppose what I'm saying is that there's often an undercurrent of transphobia in people who aren't 100% supportive. Not full-on transphobia, but something more subtle: presenting trans people as "the other", who present a threat to established norms, and who therefore must in some sense be curated to ensure that they interact with society properly. But that isn't trans equality. It's presenting a type of person as "a threat until proven valid".
1. Rowling and other gender-critical feminists tend to attack an argument that no trans person is seriously making. If you misunderstand (or even deliberately misrepresent) a person's position, that's a bad start.
2. By extension, Rowling seems to frame trans identity as a "choice", eg in a 2019 tweet she wrote "call yourself whatever you please/dress however you like." This isn't supportive, however, because it's mistaking something that is, or feels, innate, for something that can be switched on and off on a whim. Trans people aren't "acting" as trans; they *are* trans. It would be similar to reducing homosexuality to a choice (and then insisting that it's a choice that should be kept private, ie separate from the rest of normal society, which is a homophobic attitude even if it's superficially supportive).
3. It also is often expressed as a "think of the children!" argument: the idea that, if children are exposed to "trans ideology", they might "mistakenly" think of themselves as trans, and so take decisions they'll regret. Framing it this why, transgender identity is something to in a sense "protect" children from. What are they being protected from, exactly? You only need protection from things that are in some sense dangerous.
I suppose what I'm saying is that there's often an undercurrent of transphobia in people who aren't 100% supportive. Not full-on transphobia, but something more subtle: presenting trans people as "the other", who present a threat to established norms, and who therefore must in some sense be curated to ensure that they interact with society properly. But that isn't trans equality. It's presenting a type of person as "a threat until proven valid".
There are two kinds of responses to JK Rowling, though, and not all of them are attacking her as a person. It goes without saying that the abuse she's received, the rape/death threats, etc., is abhorrent. But that doesn't mean her views, which as I said often misrepresent and mis-frame the topics she's talking about, can't be criticised. Sadly, she's mistaken, and it's worth asking why.
Also, one of the aspects of the video I linked to that is worth taking note of in general is that we are too quick to think of bigotry in general as something that's obvious and overt. But it is rarely so helpful in being obvious. Many bigots are perhaps not even aware of why what they are saying can be harmful or bigoted: they see themselves instead as the oppressed, or as speaking for the oppressed, and who wouldn't want to fight in that position? The problem comes when they are simply wrong to think that way.
Also, one of the aspects of the video I linked to that is worth taking note of in general is that we are too quick to think of bigotry in general as something that's obvious and overt. But it is rarely so helpful in being obvious. Many bigots are perhaps not even aware of why what they are saying can be harmful or bigoted: they see themselves instead as the oppressed, or as speaking for the oppressed, and who wouldn't want to fight in that position? The problem comes when they are simply wrong to think that way.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.