site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   32403 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of January 23, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

13
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I once had a post written about JK Rowling and her most recent book, The Ink Black Heart, and then decided it was too nerdy and never posted it. Thanks for this - coincidentally, I had another effortpost written and almost ready to go, and then thought it was maybe Too Online and nerdy to post here. But since you led the way, I will post it shortly.

Now - I have been following the Rowling/TERF wars for a while now, and I have to take issue with a number of points in your narrative.

Disclaimer: I am kind of a fan of Rowling. Both for her books (yes, I came late and old to Potter fandom and still liked them - sue me - but I also like her Cormoran Strike novels and I even think The Casual Vacancy was pretty good), and for her principled stance and willingness to take the immense amount of shit she's taken without backing down or turning nasty and bitter.

Now, just for starters, I realize this is a semantic battle that's lost, but I will nonetheless keep pointing it out: "TERF" at least originally meant Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Radical feminism is a specific school of feminist ideology, it doesn't just mean "feminists who are really zealous and strident." It's actually quite fringe in modern feminism. Rowling is a feminist, and could probably be described as a Second Wave feminist, but she is certainly not a radical feminist.

I would also dispute the "Trans-Exclusionary" label, but that's somewhat more subjective, depending on what you mean by "exclude."

Criticism of Rowling began in 2020 when she exposed criticism of certain linguistic tendencies that she had progressively seen engross within her social circles. An article was posted on Devex with the headline…

Actually, it began earlier than that. At one point she "liked" a Tweet by an actual TERF, got called out on it, and sort of walked it back, but there had been hints earlier. 2020 was when she basically went "mask off."

She had become more fervently anti-trans since then, to points which are often hilarious.

I have been following Rowling on Twitter since before she got Voldemorted, and I actually do not think she is "anti-trans" except in the sense that no, she does not believe that TWAW. Of course this is enough to make her a transphobic bigot who is Literally Killing People, according to trans activists, but her actual position, every time she talks about it, is basically standard old school liberalism. She does not hate trans people or want them back in the closet or legally denied the right to live as women, and I think "anti-trans" is frankly a lie that trans activists keep pushing despite her actual words on the subject.

Has she become increasingly more willing to snap back at people who are taking shots at her? Yes. I have yet to see her actually say anything that could be called "bigoted" in good faith.

But it is important to point out that J.K. Rowling is a legitimate opponent of transgender ideology.

This is true, but again, I think some clarification is called for. "Opponent of transgender ideology," especially here, can sometimes be read as "Thinks trans people are gross and mentally ill," or even suggests that she's some sort of tradcon. She is definitely not. She's an opponent of the excesses of the modern trans movement, and putting trans women in women's shelters and prisons, etc. She is not an opponent of trans people having civil rights, being free to live their lives as trans people, etc.

Her most recent books have delved into themes that are consistently similar to the themes she has espoused. One book is literally about a detective trying to solve the case of a male serial killer who dresses up as a women in order to fool and kill biological women.

Okay, that book is Troubled Blood, and I've actually read it. I'm afraid you are just repeating a lie that her critics (most of whom did not read the book) made up. There is a single scene in that book where the serial killer dresses as a woman to avoid detection and escape. He is otherwise a plain old straight dude who likes killing women, but it is never implied that he's trans, or even gay, and dressing as a woman is not a recurring MO of is.

Rowling gives extremely large donations to many charities who are their ideological enemies, as well as essentially banning transgender people from using any of her own charities that help victims of female abuse.

She funded a women's shelter specifically for biological women. So far as I know, she has not otherwise "banned transgender people from using any of her own charities that help victims of female abuse," and I doubt she even has the power to do so.

Now, I'm off to finish my somewhat related post about another famous fantasy author and fandom.

This post is on point.

The Nuanced Steelman of Rowling's position is, to my view, this:

'Women' are a subcategory of humans, having similar characteristics, which includes having a uterus, which usually means the ability to get pregnant and to menstruate, and likewise having a physiology that tends to be physically weaker and less massive than the average human, and if you will, a psychology that is less prone to violent outbursts. Note that this definition is mostly inclusive, such that having/not having a uterus won't necessarily exclude you (e.g. if a biological woman has a hysterectomy).

BECAUSE of these shared characteristics, people who fall in the subcategory of 'women' are faced with various social and physical 'threats' that 'nonwomen' do not face. That includes dealing with pregnancy and the health issues this implies, a higher vulnerability to being physically attacked, a greater likelihood of being raped (and then facing pregnancy), and more difficulty with intense physical labor. Also the whole sports thing, where they can't measure up to the performance of elite athletes. Or, sometimes, adolescent males.

BECAUSE of these specific challenges/threats, it is worth drawing drawing a circle around the group of people who cluster around the characteristics of 'women' and treating them as a 'special class' who need certain sorts of accomodations and protections due to their particular vulnerabilities. This can include separate locker rooms, specific shelters for solely their use, separate sports leagues, and maybe some special rules/laws which afford them some advantages based on their sex. Abortion rights are obviously tied up in this too.

If the category of 'women' is broadened to include more and more people who DO NOT share the aforementioned characteristics and thus DO NOT face the same challenges/threats, this begins to defeat the purpose/use of having special accommodations and protections for women. If women need to be protected from physical violence due to their smaller/weaker physiology, allowing someone with a larger physiology (thanks to testosterone) into a women's shelter very directly defeats the point. If women prisoners need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy, allowing an inmate with a functional penis into a women's prison very directly defeats the point. That situation is NOT hypothetical. If women need a separate sports league due to their overall lower athletic ability, allowing someone who has been through male adolescence (see above example with soccer for why this matters) to compete very directly defeats the point.

If the category of 'women' is defined entirely based on what gender the individual identifies as, then the entire edifice of treating 'women' as a special subcategory of humans goes out the window, AND THIS WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH THE AFOREMENTIONED CHARACTERISTICS as they now don't get the same accommodations or protections that were previously set up for them, and can't do anything about it.

As a third-wave feminist, J.K. Rowling correctly sees how this detrimental effect could harm 'women' (as she defines them) and thus is remaining consistent in her belief that 'women' need to be defined by physical characteristics and need to be given certain accomodations and protections by dint of those physical characteristics, and to allow the category of 'women' to be eroded is a betrayal of all the work they've done to acquire those special protections and accommodations.

If this makes her a TERF, so be it. It doesn't change the fact that people with these characteristics need someone to stand up for them.

I honestly think J.K. Rowling believes things VERY SIMILAR to the above, but obviously that can't be explained easily in a tweet, and her opponents wouldn't listen in good faith anyway, so much easier to just be snarky and stand your ground.

I also don't see good evidence she's "anti-trans" in any way other than rejecting a trans women's claim to 'womanhood' based on the above logic and thus being unafraid to hurt a trans person's feelings by not validating their identity if said identity encroaches on/erodes the category of 'woman' as defined by her.

If women prisoners need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy, allowing an inmate with a functional penis into a women's prison very directly defeats the point. That situation is NOT hypothetical.

The linked article says:

It was initially reported by DOC officials that Minor [trans woman] had impregnated two inmates after engaging in “consensual sexual relationships” (...)

“One was absolutely consensual,” said Demeri [Minor's lawyer]. “But in the other case, Demi [Minor] was a victim of coercion.” Demeri said that the second woman, who was jealous of Bellamy, snuck into Minor’s cell and threatened her into having sex, saying “I’ll beat your bitch up.”

So the situation is in fact hypothetical.

Also, female prisoners don't "need to be protected from rape due to the possibility of pregnancy". They need to be protected from rape because rape is bad. And this applies to all prisoners, not just women.

I thank you for your clarifications and i apologize for any wrong information in my post. I will admit i am not really an avid reader of hers, and have never even read any of the Harry Potter books at all, and am simply observing what i see from the outside and attempted to get a grasp of the intricacies from the position i am perceiving them. I do keep up to date on game news and the topic is unavoidable in the communities at this point.

She is definitely not. She's an opponent of the excesses of the modern trans movement, and putting trans women in women's shelters and prisons, etc. She is not an opponent of trans people having civil rights, being free to live their lives as trans people, etc.

While i understand your point about this i still remain very skeptical. I believe Rowling holds far more politically incorrect views about trans people than what she espouses but understands that she is already edging on politically dangerous waters, although that is a strictly personal perception and i can't prove that either way. I have just noticed that most who demonstrate politically incorrect views usually hold far more hard-line opinions than they usually let on in public.

As someone who's followed her for a while, as I said, I can't claim to know her personally or have any deep insight into her inner thoughts, but if her public persona is a mask and she's going Full TERF in private, she's doing a really good job of maintaining the public front.

I have just noticed that most who demonstrate politically incorrect views usually hold far more hard-line opinions than they usually let on in public.

For instance?

I feel like the vast majority of people are going to conceal the true extent of their politically incorrect beliefs since it's socially advantageous.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree, but a few specific examples would be appreciated. Can you name any specific individuals who expressed some mildly non-PC opinions in a public forum and were then "outed" as having expressed much more extreme opinions in private?

But that holds true for everyone. Even people who espouse politically correct views in public.

Now, just for starters, I realize this is a semantic battle that's lost, but I will nonetheless keep pointing it out: "TERF" at least originally meant Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Radical feminism is a specific school of feminist ideology, it doesn't just mean "feminists who are really zealous and strident." It's actually quite fringe in modern feminism. Rowling is a feminist, and could probably be described as a Second Wave feminist, but she is certainly not a radical feminist.

I would also dispute the "Trans-Exclusionary" label, but that's somewhat more subjective, depending on what you mean by "exclude."

I've shifted to "trans-critical feminist" for the same group. I feel like "gender critical" is confusing terminology, in that it really is transgender critical, but "critical" is more accurate these days than "exclusionary", and, as you note, a lot of these people are not radical feminists.

(I think the "TERF" terminology was originally more accurate -- the split started with radical feminists who distrusted men and therefore wanted to exclude trans women from certain kinds of feminist events. But the usage has broadened to the point where the wording needs to be improved.)

I feel like "gender critical" is confusing terminology, in that it really is transgender critical

I don't agree, though I'm confused because there are so many definitions of "gender".

The ideologies that sprung up around this word, in living memory, have various implications that I and others disagree with. Only one of these implications is proposition 1 - that it's actually possible to be a woman in a male body.

Whereas I and many others have no problem with proposition 2 - that some people with male bodies really wish they were women, and will behave in ways more typical of women where doing so causes no harm to others (in the usual classical liberal sense).

I am 100% accepting of proposition 2, so the only aspect in which I am "transgender critical" is in the gender aspect. I'm critical of those ideologies around "gender" that endorse proposition 1, and have other implications I don't like.

As I understand it, the word "transgender," in current usage, specifically means someone who considers themselves to actually be a gender that is incongruent with the one they were initially sorted into. So, you've got no problem with trans people's gender expression. The thing you have a problem with is that they are transgender.

How society treats people mostly doesn't depend on whether they're a man or a woman, because that mostly doesn't matter. Where it does matter (prisons, sports, changing rooms, healthcare, etc.), it's almost entirely an issue of sex, not any of these new conceptions of gender.

Consider proposition 3 - that it is immoral not to replace sex with some conception(s) of gender, in the above contexts.

Perhaps the biggest sense in which I'm "gender critical" is that I'm critical of proposition 3.

The thing you have a problem with is that they are transgender.

This doesn't seem correct. I have a problem with people who push proposition 3. Most of those people are cisgender. Some of the people on 'my side' are transgender. (For all I know it could be a silent majority of transgender people who are on 'my side'.)

I think there just needs to be an acknowledgement that when people talk about TERFs, they are conflating two distinct, though thus far allied, categories. Quoting myself from the old forum:

I think the thing is that there are really two categories - let's call it TERF 1 and TERF 2 - which are obviously related but still separate.

TERF 1, or actual TERFs, are classic radical feminists who fully share all the viewpoints of the ideology - there are two distinct classes of humanity, men and women, these are defined by their biological features related to reproduction, nevertheless they don't have mental differences and the subservient societal status of women and the related cultural factors are explained by the history of male oppression of women to control their reproduction etc (ie. patriarchy). They usually make zero bones about their absolute opposition to men as a class, tend to advocate female separatism from to as good a degree as possible, and their opposition to trans rights activism flows from their belief that any attempt to obfuscate the biological reality of men and women can only be another facet of patriarchy preventing women from organizing as a class. Or that's how I've understood this ideology, at any rate.

TERF 2, or TE"RF"s, do not actually fully share the previous view. Instead this is an inchoate category of people, in great majority women, who for one reason or another have come to dislike trans rights activism and have latched to the movement established by TERF 1 types since there's nothing better for them.

(The alternatives are religious conservatism which is unappealing if you're not religious, have a liberal religious perspective, have a non-mainstream religion or otherwise don't wish to share the religious conservative conclusions, the sort of far-right nationalist ideologies that just come off as reification of assholishness and are right out if you're an ethnic minority, and Quillette/IDW-style anti-trans rationalism that often just comes off as too autistic for most people and seems like too thin a gruel anyway for someone who wishes for something more solid and uncompromising.)

Even if TERF 2 types might not share the full set of ideas by TERF 1 types - they don't wish to fully separate from men but instead have relationships and even marriages with them, they might browse FemaleDatingStrategy style sites and engage in performative femininity etc. - they can often pick and mix whatever they like, typically related to anti-trans and anti-sex-work rhetoric, and combine it to an unwieldy soup with various bargain-bin liberal ideological shibboleths, the sort of conservative tendencies they might not even admit to themselves, and the sort of "the men are SO stupid" style flippant rhetoric that often passes for feminist analysis even though it's just the sort of a thing women have really talked among themselves throughout the entire history, relating to the fact that men are, indeed, often stupid.

What might also attract TERF 2 types to TERF 1 ideologies is that TERF 1 ideology represents what might be called "ossified progressivism" - it's a veritable historical time capsule of a point of view that was cutting-edge in the 70s, but which the onmarch of progress, so to say, has then bypassed. One can see it easily when browsing TERF forums, there's a constant befuddlement about how feminist movement achieved many of its goals in the 70s but now the new crop of progressives is, from their point of view, throwing them away.

This sort of ossified progressivism might not be big-c Conservative, but since it, indeed, conserves a certain sort of an intellectual output of a previous era, it can appeal to people who feel a (usually unconscious) conservative impulse within themselves, but cannot identify with any actual ongoing conservative movements, for reasons listed above.

TERF 2 types are, for obvious reasons, more populous than TERF 1 types, but since they don't really yet form an organized tendency within the movement, the TERF 1 types still stay in charge and can exert some control over the movement, also of course hoping to affect TERF 2 types so that they can become consistent TERF 1 types. This might change if some group realizes the TERF 2 types are a separate group and manages to create a whole new ideology and movement on its basis. I think the "conservative feminists", for instance, are trying to do just this.

I don't like this defense of Rowling. By the same token the actual position of George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke or William Luther Pierce isn't what their enemies say they are. But everyone on some level understands that these guys are ultimately not on the same team as BLM, the ADL and whoever supports those things.

To play with the context a little bit, and introduce some snark: If I'm not a racist and I fund a homeless shelter for white people only, am I still not a racist? I mean, I have a lot of black friends, and I do want them to have civil rights, just not the same civil rights I as a white person have. I'm just against the excesses of the modern black activist movement.

I think there is a very obvious ingroup and outgroup distinction that people can very obviously see past. It doesn't matter what the fine print says. Ultimately Rowling is not on the 'correct' team. And in the name of the ideological/intellectual wave that carried feminism: Just like a black person need not define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of white people with power, trans people should not need to define what 'acceptable' means by the wants of women with power. Just like, in the past, women said that they need not define what is 'acceptable' by the wants of men with power.

Rowling, and women, have power. If they are choosing to not lend it to trans women they are doing harm to them. The prison example is especially obvious with regards to this.

I don't think there is an ideological/intellectual tradition worse equipped to deal with trans arguments than feminism. The only way that has been demonstrated is to out yourself as a caricature of a conservative that is pulling the ladder up behind him before the poor people show up. That then mocks them as he is up there and they are down there by telling them to hoist themselves up by their bootstraps.

If I'm not a racist and I fund a homeless shelter for white people only, am I still not a racist?

Literally every other group is allowed segregated spaces, so of course you're not? This kind of thing is allowed to exist, and allowed to grift huge amounts of money from government and charity funds, and nobody considers any of this even remotely racist. In fact you're racist if you question it! (You might remember the person operating this charity as the same one who walks around in traditional African garb and then gets offended when people ask where she's from.) We've seen segregated dorms be allowed and even praised. Why shouldn't this be fine?

To play with the context a little bit, and introduce some snark: If I'm not a racist and I fund a homeless shelter for white people only, am I still not a racist? I mean, I have a lot of black friends, and I do want them to have civil rights, just not the same civil rights I as a white person have. I'm just against the excesses of the modern black activist movement.

I'd say it would be more accurate if you compared it to Oprah Winfrey getting cancelled for opposition to awarding black-only scholarships to transracial people, and donating some of her fortune for a scholarship for "cisblack" people, and then someone making an analogy to Jim Crow in order to attack her.

I'm just against the excesses of the modern black activist movement.

Why would that require creating a homeless shelter for white people only? Black people likely suffer much more from these excesses (and the following actions, like destruction of police effectiveness) than white people. If we lived in a world where major cause of white people's homelessness would be black people - then in that world, having such shelter might make sense, but we're not living in such world.

If they are choosing to not lend it to trans women they are doing harm to them.

That's like saying if you have money and you don't give it to me, as much as I want and when I want, then you are doing harm to me and I am justified in attacking you.

I didn't say that being against the excesses of the modern black activist movement required you to create a homeless shelter for white people only.

The point being made is that you obviously can't display a certain amount of ingroup favoritism for certain groups without that favoritism being framed as bellicose towards the groups not being favored. Even by Rowlings own standard such a thing would be considered wrong. She would, like most people, consider a white only space to be racist. Yet in her defense of herself she plays that exact same scenario out by making trans people the outgroup and women the ingroup. All the while saying, just like all the racists before her, that she doesn't hate anyone, she just wants to protect her ingroup.

If we lived in a world where major cause of white people's homelessness would be black people - then in that world, having such shelter might make sense, but we're not living in such world.

I don't think you have any idea what a world without black people would look like. Considering the massive costs associated with propping up every black population on the planet with the labor of white people. I don't accept your statement.

That's like saying if you have money and you don't give it to me, as much as I want and when I want, then you are doing harm to me and I am justified in attacking you.

Welcome to the feminism Rowling supports. Western society has been gearing themselves towards this exact goal on behalf of women for decades. Your preference for arguments, logic and reasoning is, I'm sorry to say, not relevant. The point here is that Rowling supports this stuff on her behalf. She sees no issues with the logic of men handing women their 'money' and that any man who doesn't accept that is a misogynist. But now that she has 'money' as a woman, she refuses to acknowledge the paradigm she would have been arguing in favor for a few decades ago and balks at the notion of being called a transphobe.

you obviously can't display a certain amount of ingroup favoritism for certain groups without that favoritism being framed as bellicose towards the groups not being favored

Does it work in all directions? I.e. is "promoting women in $thing" obvious sign for hatred of all males? Is NAACP a racist hate organization? Does any affirmative action program have the racial hatred of white people at its core? Is a scholarship available only to women, or only to persons of Native American descent, an obvious mark for hatred of men or all persons who aren't Native Americans? I mean, that's a consistent position, I just want to make sure whether or not it is your position.

Welcome to the feminism Rowling supports

Did Rowling actually say any man who is not actively working for a feminist movement is doing harm to women?

That's not how it would work for someone like Rowling. Who ingroups women and minorities.

For someone like myself, yes, the NAACP is a racist hate group just as much as David Duke and his former KKK chapter was. Yes, the affirmative action programs have the racial hatred of white people at its core just like Jim Crow laws had hatred of black people at its core. Yes, a scholarship only for women is sexist and hateful towards men just like men only being allowed into school was sexist and hateful towards women. Now, at no time did either side of any of these issues describe themselves as hateful in any way. But that doesn't change the fact that the victors of history describe their defeated foes that way.

To clarify, I would not use the word hate to describe these things, just ingroup bias. But people like Rowling have been using terminology such as 'hate' for a long time. Since they accept the cultural narrative of the victors. I just think it's fair it gets applied to people like Rowling by the same standard.

Did Rowling actually say any man who is not actively working for a feminist movement is doing harm to women?

I doubt I could find a direct quote. But considering the feminism she supports which demands that men do give their power away to women or be branded whatever slur is popular with the feminists I don't see why I would need to. I think it would be a fair statement to say that people like Rowling believe the patriarchy does harm to women. And we can just work our way back from there.

Rowling, and women, have power. If they are choosing to not lend it to trans women they are doing harm to them.

I can't tell whether you're saying this as an articulation of what anti-JK-ists believe, or saying it unironically yourself, but either way, it's inaccurate in the same way that "You have money, by not giving it to me you are impoverishing me" is. Not helping != harming.

Within the context of victimary discourse, which Rowling accepts on her end as a woman, there's nothing inaccurate about it. Feminism says men are obligated to do their part in helping women. You might think that this reasoning is 'inaccurate' and have your own preferred outlook on it but that's just a very obviously not congruent with what is happening in reality. Western society is geared towards this. Laws have been written, action taken and Rowling likes this when it benefits her.

But now that the power is in her hands she is a lot more conservative with who gets to benefit from it. Suddenly women should not be obligated to help trans women.

But now that the power is in her hands she is a lot more conservative with who gets to benefit from it. Suddenly women should not be obligated to help trans women.

Which is a perfectly consistent position if you believe trans women are men. Which, as far as I can tell, she does, and is the belief which gets her the hate.

If that were the position she takes I'd be fine with it. She could just call herself a transphobe and move on. But she tries to wriggle her way out of the derogatory labels through the same kind of nuance David Duke would afford himself if asked if he is a racist who hates black people. Rowling wouldn't accept that gambit on behalf of David. So I don't see why anyone should accept hers.

She could just call herself a transphobe and move on.

People should accept a derogatory and politically damaging contentious label chosen by their opponents....because?

To what end? It's simultaneously possible to be for trans people living as they want where it doesn't conflict with other concerns like safety - and thus not be a bigot by many reasonable people's standards- without accepting the metaphysical tenet that they are women as such, due to the obvious problems it causes.

In fact: this was the sort of tolerance that transpeople got and were happy with until relatively recently when activists thought they'd gained the whip hand.

Except believing trans women are men isn’t transphobic, it’s a definition question. An important definition question, but one nonetheless.

It is transphobic by any mainstream formulation of the trans movement. There is probably a formulation of transgenderism that doesn't require twaw and a dozen people probably can be found who believe in it but when you lose every single main stream proponent of a cause in your attempt to steel man a position and simply stating your formulation aloud would in fact get you canceled publicly by the movement I'm not really sure what you're accomplishing. There is also a formulation of transgenderism run by right wing conservative trans people, but it would be wrong to then conclude that fighting transphobia isn't primarily a cause of progressives.

That requires you to accept the formulation of the trans movement, which is dumb.

More comments

I'm pretty sure she is being called a transphobe precisely because of that belief of hers. Am I missing something?

But regardless of that:

'Believing black people are dumber than whites isn't racist. It's a question regarding psychological matter of fact.'

'Believing women shouldn't be allowed to vote isn't misogynistic. It's a question of democratic franchisement'

I don't think Rowling would accept that logic. I think she would call anyone who said that a racist misogynist.

It's not about what I, you or any people outside the Overton window think. It's about what Rowling thinks in every other context. This is her world. She broke the rules. And now she wants her case to be heard on grounds she would reject for anyone else.

Why should she accept her opponent's terminology? The term "transphobe" is derogatory, indicating a bigoted hatred of trans people (never mind the etymology of 'phobe').

Because it's not her opponents terminology any more than it is hers. The only problem she has with it is that she is the target. Outside of that she accepts every single premise around such rhetorical devices. Racist, homophobe, misogynist. That's her home. That's how she judges others.

I think Amadan's defense was good from a factual position, but I agree that feminism is ill-equipped to fight off the superweapons it created to gain power. One would hope that people will learn a lesson, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Yes, I should have been more clear about the things I do like vs don't like. It's a good writeup. @Amadan

I don't like this defense of Rowling. By the same token the actual position of George Lincoln Rockwell, David Duke or William Luther Pierce isn't what their enemies say they are. But everyone on some level understands that these guys are ultimately not on the same team as BLM, the ADL and whoever supports those things.

Well, it's more than that. Those guys might not literally want to bring back Jim Crow, but they clearly do/did not like black people and would prefer we live in a segregated society. I genuinely do not think Rowling has animosity towards trans people or wants their rights curtailed except in the very narrow sense of being able to, for example, coinhabit women's prisons.

I don't think "homeless shelter for white people" works at all as an equivalent.

Ultimately Rowling is not on the 'correct' team.

Well, yes, obviously true.

except in the very narrow sense of being able to, for example, coinhabit women's prisons.

Regardless of whether or not transwomen should coinhabit women's prisons, whether or not they do or do not seems like a problem of minuscule ultimate importance. Do you really think Rowling would dedicate as much effort and energy into her activism if she thought problems on this magnitude were the main issues of the trans movement?

Regardless of whether or not transwomen should coinhabit women's prisons, whether or not they do or do not seems like a problem of minuscule ultimate importance.

Then why do trans activists push for it so hard? Just concede it then.

Regardless of whether or not transwomen should coinhabit women's prisons, whether or not they do or do not seems like a problem of minuscule ultimate importance.

Then why do trans activists push for it so hard? Just concede it then.

I should clarify that what I mean is that it seems like a problem of minuscule ultimate importance to a person who claims to care about women's issues generally. It's clear why this would be a significant issue for trans activists, but not clear to me why it should be a problem of similar magnitude to women's rights activists in general, as Rowling claims to be.

To put it another way, trans activists care about issues that trans people face. They believe that one of the main issues that trans people face is the fact that elements of society do not recognize them as their chosen gender. They believe that this lack of recognition is expressed in many ways, for example in the prison system, via being compelled to inhabit the prison of their biological sex rather than their chosen gender. They might also believe that i.e. trans women who are made to inhabit men's prisons suffer greatly at an individual level, and care specifically about alleviating the suffering of members of their tribe. Thus it seems clear to me how this issue slots into the greater project of trans activists of having society recognize them as their chosen gender rather than assigned at birth gender.

However, JK Rowling claims to be interested first and foremost in women's rights in general. If she perceived the most important problem facing society to be the potential advancement of trans rights, and thus stated that her main mission was the frustration of the advancement of trans rights, in just the same way that trans activists have as their central mission being pro-advancement of trans rights, it would make sense for her to care about i.e. 'should they be assigned to the prison of their chosen gender or not' just as much as trans activists do but in an equal and opposite sense. But JK Rowling doesn't claim to be an anti-trans-rights-activist, or proclaim that the potential increase in trans acceptance is of significant importance in general. She even claims to be for trans-rights in some sense. What she most specifically claims to be is a feminist, and that her main mission is women's rights in general. Yet, she makes an almost disproportionate amount of her online presence and activism about combating these specific areas like trans people being admitted to womens prisons and etc.

A rational person who cared most about women's rights but did not specifically support some areas of trans-rights would still not spend as much time caring or thinking about these specific trans issues as Rowling does: there are bigger fish to fry facing women even in her home country, but especially around the world.

I should clarify that what I mean is that it seems like a problem of minuscule ultimate importance to a person who claims to care about women's issues generally. It's clear why this would be a significant issue for trans activists, but not clear to me why it should be a problem of similar magnitude to women's rights activists in general, as Rowling claims to be.

It reminds me to an old shibboleth called "voting against your interests". The story went all these poor rednecks vote Republican, but Republicans push through pro-business policies, while Democrats would have pushed through welfare, therefore the poor rednecks are voting against their interest. Well, I don't think people should get to claim what is and isn't a miniscule in the name of another group, if the group is loudly claiming otherwise.

To put it another way, trans activists care about issues that trans people face. They believe that one of the main issues that trans people face is the fact that elements of society do not recognize them as their chosen gender.

What you did here ended up being a bit of a sleight-of-hand. Trans women in prison are a specific issue for both sides, but by slipping in "not being recognized as their chosen gender" you're trying to claim it's a general issue for trans people. Well, TERFs can do, and do the same by claiming the general issue is oppression by the patriarchy, and putting trans women in women's prisons is just a specific instance of a general problem.

A rational person who cared about women's rights but did not specifically support some areas of trans-rights would not spend as much time caring or thinking about these specific trans issues as Rowling does

I would imagine that a rational person who cares about trans rights would not spend so much time caring about putting rapists who had a sentencing-day realization they're trans into women's prisons either, yet here we are.

That's not clear at all. The caricature of the racist who blindly hates everyone that's not like themselves is just fiction. Most e-celeb racists I know of make a very clear point of displaying themselves as not being that since it's recognized as a dehumanizing trope perpetuated by their enemies. They'd say they like black people just as much as the liberals who keep moving into areas with 'better schools' which coincidentally leaves them living in ever less black neighborhoods. Even the founder of Volksfront, in an interview, said that they don't hate anyone. That it's all about justice and being able to live in peace.

Hell, you might even say that they like white people like Rowling likes women. And that they dislike black people like Rowling dislikes trans people. It's not that they actually dislike anyone. Rowling just recognizes that men are dangerous to women and that trans women are men. I mean, that wouldn't fly past Rowling when David Duke says it about blacks, but here Rowling is going for that gambit anyway. It's just silly.

On a side note, if you offered racists like GLR or WLP a compromise of being allowed the legal and social privileges to treat black people like women treat men, they'd jump on it.

I don't think "homeless shelter for white people" works at all as an equivalent.

I think it obviously works as a demonstration of bias. You can't deny shelter based on group favoritism without having to answer for the obvious nature of the favoritism. Sure, in modern society you don't have to so long as you favor and discriminate the correct groups. But here in the abstract I think we can recognize the similarity. If you favor white over black or straight over gay or whatever, are you not then, by the vocabulary Rowling would use without hesitation, some sort of -ist or -phobe? I think that by Rowlings position in totality she is by definition a transphobe. A bigot. A hater. And I think it's fair to call her those things considering how she treats her outgroups. It's literally the same script just turned against her.

Even the most comical caricatures of evil racism can rationalize some sort of justifying mechanism or system for why they discriminate against the outgroup. I think people very obviously recognize that sort of thing for the poor cover that it is. Rowling is not an old school liberal just like modern day racists are not 19th century progressives. She is a transphobe like David Duke is a racist.

I'm glad you put this together for context. Actively avoiding author controversies is a (maybe) weakness of mine, and I trust your interpretation a lot more than anything I could find with a casual Google.

Also, please tell me the related post isn't about Sanderson. I don't want to think too closely about his handling of Internet liberalism and mental illness.

Also, please tell me the related post isn't about Sanderson. I don't want to think too closely about his handling of Internet liberalism and mental illness.

I apologize in advance.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats