Just a silly wizard show
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 24 points 7 months ago (62 children)

If you take healthcare away from trans people, suicide numbers go up. And she wants to take healthcare away from trans people and shove us back in the closet. She's chosen to attack kids, the most vulnerable of us. I believe she's already taken lives through her lobbying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 62 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (51 children)

    I might be wrong as I haven't looked too much into it in recent years, so maybe her rhetoric has changed, but isn't even that a little beyond what she actually has said? From what I recall, isn't her entire stance just that trans women are not the same as biological women?

    Again, I could be wrong, I might be going off of outdated info, but has she ever actually argued that trans people shouldnt exist, or that they should be denied medical care? From what I've seen, it's all boiled down to not wanting trans women in sports or bathrooms. Which, yea, that's problematic, but that's not the same as saying they shouldn't exist or shouldn't have healthcare.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 51 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (46 children)

    Here's a fun one: She accused cisgender women's Olympic gold medalist in boxing, Imane Khelif, of "being a man". Seemingly just because she's black.

    Anyway, back on topic: https://www.yahoo.com/news/j-k-rowling-uses-harry-175223238.html?guccounter=1

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (25 children)

    Ok, but that article doesn't actually say anything different? She's donating to organizations that are pushing against legislation that say trans women are the same as biological women. They aren't saying trans people shouldn't exist or shouldn't have healthcare. Or am I missing something? Again, still shitty, and it doesn't change my opinion of her either way, but am I crazy to think that's not exactly the same as trans erasure?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Oh, I see the misunderstanding. Affirming a trans person's preferred gender is healthcare. It's a thing society does which improves their health. You know, like wheelchair ramps and flouride in water. Taking away legal recognition is taking away healthcare.

    She's also praised and encouraged the Cass Review, which claimed medical treatment for trans teens isn't safe or effective, and is being used to excuse the new ban on puberty blockers.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -2 points 7 months ago (23 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (22 children)

    People are quite clear in their criticism of her based on the things she says she does. You're trying to shift the conversation to something unrelated.

    If criticisms of Rowling's Transphobia are invalid they should be easy to dispute instead of trying to build an ad hominim Strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (21 children)
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago* (20 children)

    Then once again: that should be very easy to discredit. The fact that you have invented a strawman instead of addressing the criticisms actually being presented speaks volumes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [+] -1 points 7 months ago (19 children)
  • [+] 2 points 7 months ago (18 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (17 children)

    "sure, she has said all these bigoted things, I don't see the problem with it."

    Then I can't help you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (16 children)

    She has been outspoken against anti-hate speech laws that would protect trans people.

    Can you please explain how a reasonable person interprets the phrase "people who menstruate" as an attack on women?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 2 points 7 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [+] 0 points 7 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    A few people have mentioned the young and old women point, I don't quite understand that tbh. They will and have menstruated and that clearly isn't the point she's making.

    Are you purposely being obtuse? If someone is using the phrase "people who menstruate" that is because they are talking about something directly relevant to menstruation. A study about menstruation and its effects on the body is in fact irrelevant to the very young and the very old. "Should we have supplies on hand for people who menstruate" means the very young and very old are not relevant to the discussion.

    She's clearly referencing the point that biological men don't menstruate and never will and so shouldn't be included in that group

    Which is why "people who menstruate" was used. The strawman is treating this like an attack on women instead of a more exact term for the specific people relevant.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (6 children)

    because it denies women’s hard-won sex-based rights.

    It does not do that in any way what so ever. It is a dog whistle, the mask she hides behind to spew her bigotry, and you have either fallen for it or are using the same tactics.

    A sex-based definition clarifies the “people who menstruate” conversation

    No, it doesn't, because of the reasons I said above:

    A study about menstruation and its effects on the body is in fact irrelevant to the very young and the very old. “Should we have supplies on hand for people who menstruate” means the very young and very old are not relevant to the discussion.

    As I said before: The obsession with not allowing the term "People who menstruate" actively harms cis gendered women who do not menstruate, because it says "You are not a real woman." Once again, a bigot has "defended" 'traditional' gender roles so hard they have looped around to harming cis gendered people in their attacks on trans people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (4 children)

    You are moving the argument. I am talking specifically of her complaints about the term "people who menstruate". That is not a "situation in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other", is has nothing to do with women having sex-specific places, nor someone who is biologically male wanting access to one of those spaces. It has nothing to do with protecting women.

    This is all as relevant as saying "She's not transphobic, she is against stealing." That's all well and good, but completely irrelevant to this specific instance of transphobic bigotry that I am talking about.

    Some women don’t menstruate

    Correct

    but a sex-based definition doesn’t exclude them from being “real women”

    Agreed

    They’re just women who don’t menstruate.

    Therefore, if you were using the phrase "people who menstruate" the "correct" term for that would in fact not be "women" because there are women who do not menstruate.

    I will agree with you on one point however:

    You don’t have to agree with her worldview, but it’s overall coherent.

    Correct, it is the worldview of a bigot.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    The whole "people who menstruate" thing is peak idpol and designed to waste our time arguing about it instead of developing class consciousness.

    "She's not a bigot, just a power hungry oligarch?"

    Okay, so we can both agree she's a piece of shit and people shouldn't be helping her acquire more wealth?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (19 children)
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (18 children)

    Not what that article says at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 7 months ago (17 children)
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago (16 children)

    Okay, you've convinced me that the article says something that it doesn't say at all. Good job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 7 months ago (15 children)
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (14 children)

    "I am not a trans woman, I am a girl. I was raised as a girl, I grew up as a girl, the people in my village have always known me as a girl," Khelif said.

    From your article

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 7 months ago (13 children)
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (12 children)

    Congratulations! You're learning that gender is actually a spectrum!

    What you quoted:

    she has the SRY gene

    What you said:

    Some male babies are born with ambiguous genitalia

    But the article did not say anything about her being born with ambiguous genitalia. Did you hallucinate while reading the article or just felt like lying to everyone?

    You don't even understand the basics of what you're trying to argue about. Please, for everyone's sake, educate yourself

    So let me educate you: there are people born with the SRY gene but only female physical characteristics. There are people born without the SRY gene that have a penis. So what defines a male? Is it being born with a penis, is it having the SRY gene, or is it something more complicated than that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (10 children)

    What makes someone male or female is the type of gametes their body is organized around producing.

    Okay, please educate me:

    Person A has the SRY gene but their body does not have any male characteristics, and never did. They were born with a vagina and never had a penis. Are they male or female?

    Person B does not have the SRY gene but was born with a penis. Are they male or female?

    Person C was born with both a penis and a vagina, are they male and female?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    So having never had a genetic test it is impossible for me to know my sex? In fact, for the vast majority of people in the world we don't know their sex at all!

    In that case it seems excessively foolish to have laws and policies based around sex, because 99% of the population have not had the appropriate tests to determine their sex.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    Anyone that has had a child knows what their sex is.

    Clearly not, as you are claiming Khelif's mother did not know the sex of her own child. So how could anybody know without a gentic test?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    So until someone has a child it is impossible to know their sex without genetic testing? Still seems absurd to have any rules or polices regarding sex. How can we separate children by sex if we don't know their sex?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    This is all a digression from the fact that Khelif is self-admittedly male.

    Not what Khelif has said in the slightest. You're trying to distract from your argument defining her as such.

    Khelif made a statement.

    You responded to that with the erroneous statement "that makes Khelif male".

    I've been responding directly to your statemen, and you're saying that's a digression despite it being your entire argument, because you can't actually defend it. You're stating it as a fact, and when questioned claim that it doesn't matter while continuing to assert it as fact.

    So far we have determined that according to you the only way for someone to know what sex they are is if they have a child or get genetically tested. What bathroom should I use? Don't know because I haven't had a child. My niece wants to join an after school sports team, guess we better have them genetically tested first so we know what team they are allowed to be on, because unless she gets pregnant there is no other way to tell.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago

    You're spewing lies

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Khelif admitted to being male

    Again, never actually happened. Only under your definition of male that no one else uses because it is completely useless as a classification.

    Giving birth is one way of knowing.

    You've said there are many ways to know, but somehow can only keep giving the same one. As I've said repeatedly: someone who has not given birth cannot know. I guess we should limit women's sports to people who have been impregnated. That is the only logical conclusion I can come to from your arguments. Why else would you keep bringing up giving birth as "one way" (the only way) to know?

    Please stop acting mentally disabled.

    And some abelism for good measure. I'm expect to believe you are rational, level headed, and empathetic when this is how you respond to someone who disagrees with you?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    I haven't looked too much into it in recent years

    "I haven't kept up to date on this topic that you seem to have a lot of interest in, but let me tell you why you're wrong based on my vaguely remembered outdated information"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Did something change recently, or are you just being contrarian? I did a quick search before posting to see if there was something I missed, but I didn't do a deep dive because I have better things to spend my time on. So yes, I based my response on things that I knew while being open to the possibility that I was wrong. What exactly do you want dude?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (8 children)

    So, a common metric people bring up in discussions of trans people that make their way into politics is 'trans suicide rates'. Right-wingers tend to mention it in reference to "We shouldn't let anyone be trans, because trans people commit suicide often," and left-wingers tend to argue "Trans suicide is so high because they get degraded by society, and aren't allowed to express themselves."

    Edit: As for why it gets mentioned, transgenders overall commit suicide far more often than the average population.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago* (6 children)

    Yeah, sure. Here's some research by the government that assessed the impact of gender affirming care and legal recognition on suicidal thoughts. More healthcare meant fewer suicidal thoughts. https://www.aihw.gov.au/suicide-self-harm-monitoring/population-groups/lgbtqia-sb-people/gender-affirmation

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    You want causation? How about a study that looked at the suicide attempts per year before and after anti-trans state laws were passed? https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01979-5

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (3 children)

    good for them for having such a large sample size. i admit i'm confused though, the results are an increase "by 7–72%."? i wonder what is up with this huge range. how can we have confidence in this?

    i wish the abstract explained what types of anti-trans laws were passed, cause of course different laws end up having different effects. that could explain the uncertainty in the results range. in this case we're concerned with how a lack of gender affirming care would directly influence systematic suicide rates, so I'm still looking out for more evidence on that topic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (2 children)

    Well, confidence interval and p value aren't the same thing. They're related, but different. You've identified that there's a big confidence interval. But p value is what's really important, because that tells you if the results are statistically significant. Now here's a maths trick: if the confidence interval of the null hypothesis overlaps with the confidence interval of the result, then it won't be significant. But if the confidence intervals don't overlap, then your p value is smaller than 0.05; it's significant.

    Now here's the data from the study:

    image

    The black circles represent years where the suicide attempt rate was not significantly different from baseline. The white circles are years where there was a significant difference to the baseline rate. So you can see that before these laws are passed, suicide rates are pretty much holding steady, and then on the second anniversary of the law's enactment, it's way up.

    Now here's the trick. That 7-72% is not a confidence interval. So it's not actually related to significance. See, in the first year after the anti-trans laws were passed, for the teenage sample group, there was actually a significant effect. a 7% rise. Just very barely. You can see how the confidence interval line goes nearly all the way down to baseline. Second year, that's way up. 72% up. So that's the 7-72%. 7% is the first year, 72% is the second year.

    So yeah, we're pretty fucking sure this is because of the laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    This data is based on a large number of different laws passed in 15 different states. They started from 48 laws in 19 states between 2018 and 2022, then excluded any passed in the first half of the year, because they were taking measurements in the second half of the year and wanted a whole year to have passed before they took their measurements. These two graphs you see are the composite of around 24 different anti-trans laws, passed in different years. The only common IV is the laws.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)