I’m not sure why she feels that that phrase is an attack on women, you’d have to ask her.
Of course. “Yes it talks like a duck, but we can’t be sure if that’s actually a quack or just a noise that happens to sound exactly like a duck.”
I asked what has she said about trans people?
What do you think being upset about the phrase “people who menstruate” says about trans people? In what world does using the phrase “people who menstruate” instead of “women” harm women? It’s a more precise term, because not all women actually menstruate. Prepubescent girls and post-menopausal women do not menstruate. Are they not women?
“That whistle is broken. Yes, everytime you blow it all the animals near by seem to react, but neither of us actually heard anything so clearly it’s not a whistle.”
If you cover your ears and close your eyes I guess you can convince yourself her complaints about the term “people who menstruate” has nothing to do with Trans People, but in reality that argument is disingenuous as fuck.
The connection in this instance seems clear, but it seems from her point of view that she’s arguing for the rights of cis women, does one person’s rights trump anothers?
She’s coming from a place of “trans bad” then finding an excuse for it (protecting women) while completely missing the point that her argument harms cis women because she is only focusing on “trans bad” and not actually focusing on protecting women at all.
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.
So tbh it just seems like a straw man to discredit her position. She’s clearly referencing the point that biological men don’t menstruate and never will and so shouldn’t be included in that group
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.
J.K. Rowling views it as an attack on women, because it denies women’s hard-won sex-based rights. These rights include women’s spaces that exclude men, such as rape/crisis shelters, changing rooms, sports. She uses a sex-based definition of “woman” unlike the new gender-based definition. You don’t agree with her and that’s fine, but that’s why she views it as protecting women’s rights.
A sex-based definition clarifies the “people who menstruate” conversation, because only women can menstruate. Some women don’t, but they’re still women, because their sex is not defined by whether or not they menstruate.
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.
Of course. “Yes it talks like a duck, but we can’t be sure if that’s actually a quack or just a noise that happens to sound exactly like a duck.”
What do you think being upset about the phrase “people who menstruate” says about trans people? In what world does using the phrase “people who menstruate” instead of “women” harm women? It’s a more precise term, because not all women actually menstruate. Prepubescent girls and post-menopausal women do not menstruate. Are they not women?
“That whistle is broken. Yes, everytime you blow it all the animals near by seem to react, but neither of us actually heard anything so clearly it’s not a whistle.”
So no actual quotes or sources of trans hate from her then?
Just a point that has nothing to do with trans people.
If you cover your ears and close your eyes I guess you can convince yourself her complaints about the term “people who menstruate” has nothing to do with Trans People, but in reality that argument is disingenuous as fuck.
The connection in this instance seems clear, but it seems from her point of view that she’s arguing for the rights of cis women, does one person’s rights trump anothers?
Young women and old women aren’t cis women?
She’s coming from a place of “trans bad” then finding an excuse for it (protecting women) while completely missing the point that her argument harms cis women because she is only focusing on “trans bad” and not actually focusing on protecting women at all.
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.
So tbh it just seems like a straw man to discredit her position. She’s clearly referencing the point that biological men don’t menstruate and never will and so shouldn’t be included in that group
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.
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.
J.K. Rowling views it as an attack on women, because it denies women’s hard-won sex-based rights. These rights include women’s spaces that exclude men, such as rape/crisis shelters, changing rooms, sports. She uses a sex-based definition of “woman” unlike the new gender-based definition. You don’t agree with her and that’s fine, but that’s why she views it as protecting women’s rights.
A sex-based definition clarifies the “people who menstruate” conversation, because only women can menstruate. Some women don’t, but they’re still women, because their sex is not defined by whether or not they menstruate.
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.
No, it doesn’t, because of the reasons I said above:
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.