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.
You don’t have to agree with her worldview, but it’s overall coherent. There are situations in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other. She thinks that when they conflict, sex-based rights win out. You think that gender-based rights win out.
She cares that women have sex-specific places, like women’s rape shelters. She views “women” as a sex-based definition, and these spaces as a sex-based right. She does not think that anyone who is biologically male, regardless of their gender, is a woman. If someone who is biologically male wants access to one of those spaces, she objects not because of their gender, but because of their sex.
This is not a defense of her views, just an explanation of why she sees it as protecting women. For trans women that need help, she likely thinks “that sucks but not a problem for women to solve”.
because it says “You are not a real woman.”
Well, no. Some women don’t menstruate, but a sex-based definition doesn’t exclude them from being “real women”. They’re just women who don’t menstruate.
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.
There’s several topics here. Explaining her views is responding to this
She’s coming from a place of “trans bad” then finding an excuse for it (protecting women)
She wants to protect women. She thinks that trans women aren’t women. It doesn’t start out with “trans bad”. It starts out with “protecting women” + “woman is defined by sex”. That’s all there is to it. If you don’t like it, convince her that the gender-based definition is better.
The whole “people who menstruate” thing is peak idpol and designed to waste our time arguing about it instead of developing class consciousness. You’re part of the problem. If we spent half the time wasted on this guillotining the ruling class we’d live in a better world already where people who menstruate are materially better off in every way.
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.
You don’t have to agree with her worldview, but it’s overall coherent. There are situations in which sex and gender rights are in tension with each other. She thinks that when they conflict, sex-based rights win out. You think that gender-based rights win out.
She cares that women have sex-specific places, like women’s rape shelters. She views “women” as a sex-based definition, and these spaces as a sex-based right. She does not think that anyone who is biologically male, regardless of their gender, is a woman. If someone who is biologically male wants access to one of those spaces, she objects not because of their gender, but because of their sex.
This is not a defense of her views, just an explanation of why she sees it as protecting women. For trans women that need help, she likely thinks “that sucks but not a problem for women to solve”.
Well, no. Some women don’t menstruate, but a sex-based definition doesn’t exclude them from being “real women”. They’re just women who don’t menstruate.
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.
Correct
Agreed
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:
Correct, it is the worldview of a bigot.
There’s several topics here. Explaining her views is responding to this
She wants to protect women. She thinks that trans women aren’t women. It doesn’t start out with “trans bad”. It starts out with “protecting women” + “woman is defined by sex”. That’s all there is to it. If you don’t like it, convince her that the gender-based definition is better.
The whole “people who menstruate” thing is peak idpol and designed to waste our time arguing about it instead of developing class consciousness. You’re part of the problem. If we spent half the time wasted on this guillotining the ruling class we’d live in a better world already where people who menstruate are materially better off in every way.
“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?
Stop focusing on her. Stop participating in the online hate mob that exists to distract from class issues. Do something useful with your life.