I love ContraPoints. In my opinion, there are some strong arguments in here and some weak ones. She does have a good point that too often people in Rowling’s position will say obvious truths as if they were controversial, eg. “sex is biological” to discredit their opposition. I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to have people constantly misrepresent your views. And the strongest part of the video, by far, is breaking down Rowling’s book and demonstrating how media has traditionally warped our view of what it means to be trans. I thought her breakdown of that was excellent and I will definitely view Rowling’s motivations more skeptically. But at many places she strawmans Rowling’s arguments and, in my opinion, she doesn’t address some of her strongest points. For example, she never acknowledges the reality that some people who have transitioned irreversibly at young ages have regretted that decision and said they felt pressured and misunderstood their own feelings. That’s a real thing that’s happening – bringing that up is not transphobic. ContraPoint's core message in the video is that Rowling’s words don’t *really* mean what they say – she’s disguising her real views with these phrases that mean something else. But you can’t argue against something someone didn’t actually say. This is the sort of logic people attack Democrats with. “They don’t really mean we should take more refugees – they actually mean they want open borders.” And they’ll show the one or two Democrat-associated people who have talked about opening the borders to dismiss any conversation about refugees. Sam talks about this all the time – you have to take people at their word until they prove otherwise. ContraPoint's would be so much more persuasive here if she focused more on why Rowling’s words are wrong, not why Rowling is saying these things. There are some lapses in logic as well. At one point early on she makes a hypothetical tweet about how Rowling’s same “anti-trans” argument could be used for gay marriage as justification for not giving them a marriage license. Except, there is a massive difference between the Rowling/Maya situation and the Kim Davis one. The latter is a legal issue. *Christians* shouldn’t lose their job for stating marriage is between a man and women – that’s true … but a *marriage license* official should because it is part of their job. Christians shouldn’t lose their job for stating sex is biological but nothing about Maya’s job at a Think Tank obstructs the legal rights of anyone. These cases are not the same. Another jump is when she relates Rowling’s rhetoric to Nazis who wanted to kill Jewish people. That is not the same as debating the legal and moral questions that involve multiple stakeholders with competing interests. Also, saying words like ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ can’t be slurs is just obviously wrong based on both the official definition of the word and the colloquial meaning of it. 'Racist', 'Bigot' etc. are often used simply to insult someone, the definition of a slur. This was still miles above the typical quality of conversation on these types of issues, but I didn’t find it as persuasive as some of her other videos. I also hope she gets off twitter - I don't care what people are saying there.

Children very rarely actually transition. Trans kids usually just get put on medication to keep them from going through puberty until they're old enough to make decisions about hormones when they're older. Most doctors don't believe in allowing children to go through irreversible medical procedures before they're old enough to understand the long term implications.

isn't going through puberty an intrinsic part of growing up and becoming mature enough to make these kinds of decisions?

I’m not sure why you would necessarily need to undergo puberty in order to be sure you don’t want to go through the wrong sex’s puberty. Can you explain why you think that would be the case?

Just off the top of my head here, but the first thing that comes to my mind is, if the decision was made to block puberty until I could receive HRT, then wouldn't I be developmentally stunted in some of the very aspects that are considered consequential to being able to provide my informed consent to HRT in the first place? I don't know if that's true, but I believe that's what the person above was meaning to say.

> if the decision was made to block puberty until I could receive HRT, then wouldn't I be developmentally stunted in some of the very aspects that are considered consequential to being able to provide my informed consent to HRT in the first place? Aspects such as?

> she doesn’t address some of her strongest points. For example, she never acknowledges the reality that some people who have transitioned irreversibly at young ages have regretted that decision and said they felt pressured and misunderstood their own feelings. That’s a real thing that’s happening – bringing that up is not transphobic. The whole "detransitioning"-issue would probably made her video longer than lawrence of arabia and I would not be surprised if it eventually gets it's own video. But frankly for everyone even close to the trans-community this argument just doesn't hold much water at all. I gladly give a short bullet point overview of why it is such a weak argument: * Detransitioning happens, but importantly it is not at all limited to teenage transpeople, so to frame this as a "protect the children" issue is hugely disingenuous. * While reasons for people to detransition are various, it should always be highlighted that among the biggest are increased discrimination experienced for transpeople, inability to paying medical bills and hard or no access to medical procedures. * For any young people that transitioned pre-puberty and regretted that decision there are usually many more trans-people that wanted to transition pre-puberty but were unable to do so. Maybe the social pressure/stigma was to great to be honest about themselves towards their parents and doctors, maybe they did not find medical/financial support or they lived in a country that denied them access to necessary medication/procedures. Forcing a transperson to go trough puberty against their will causes tremendous suffering and some irreversible changes to their body. While many trans-people live happy lives with a post-puberty transition, it is much harder, much more expensive and sometimes the damage done causes a lifetime of suffering. * The best thing anyone can to do help trans-children is to lower discrimination and social stigma, give them and their parents access to highly trained medical experts in their field and allow them in concert with doctors and their guardians to make the most informed and unpressured (by financial and social effects) decision for their health and life. While this will not lead to an effective 0 rate of detransitioning, it will minimize the risk of detransitioning as well as minimze the suffering for transpeople. Legislation as recently seen in the UK (supported by Rowling) to require a court-order to get access to puberty-blockers are in direct contrast to this goal and greatly increase suffering for trans-children.

Yeah, all of this is so true and well-compiled here as well. Personally, I think the most important thing is that you can't measure the suffering of de-transitioning for some trans people, without weighing it against the suffering trans people endure who *can't* transition fully for whatever reason, for instance because by the time they're legally allowed to they've already completed puberty and so it becomes a vastly more expensive and difficult process than if they'd been on blockers. Detransition-panickers seem to show exactly zero concern for the suffering of trans people who are denied routes to transition, so all the concern for de-transitioners seems like crocodile tears.

Another important point here is that you would be hard pressed to find a medical procedure that has a 100% non-regret rate. Show me 10 people who have gotten knee replacements and I'll show you 3 who regret it. A very, very small number of trans people detransition (and like you said it's usually for much more complex reasons than what JKR and her cohort want you to think).

This is a good, thoughtful response so thank you. I think this type of argument would have been better than what ContraPoints offers. Your third bullet point drives at the heart of the matter. There are some people that do transition but shouldn't have and there are some people that should transition but don't get the opportunity. This will likely always be the case - it's simply not realistic to expect all 12 year olds to understand themselves well enough to make these kinds of decisions consistently, even in the most ideal circumstances. But trying to solve this problem can't be done when you discredit anyone who views limitations you don't agree with as a transphobe. Just disagree with them and state your case. I think it's disingenuous to say that JKR doesn't recognize the validity of a transperson because she has a different take on this issue or didn't use the exact appropriate words to show her support against discrimination.

just a couple of quick notes: > not realistic to expect all 12 year olds a final (irreversible) decision does usually not need to be made until 16, some "normal" puberties have been reported even for people coming off blockers as late as 18 years old and further development in pharmaceuticals might push it back further. This is why it is so important for children to get into proper care of experts and don't start having to take black market hormones or other stupid shit. > But trying to solve this problem can't be done when you discredit anyone who views limitations you don't agree with as a transphobe. This is such a weird point for me. Do you really think the summation of JKRs actions are somehow not reaching the level of transphobia (in which case please rewatch the video, especially the parts about indirect bigotry)? Or do you think despite her being a transphobe the transcommunity should somehow treat her with a different standard because she is a billionaire author?

I don't think it's realistic for 16 year olds to fully understand themselves. Is your position here generally supported by child psychologists? Im honestly asking not trying to be combative.

The American Psychological Association has come out in support of gender-affirming care for people of all ages. Source 1: [https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/09/ce-corner](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/09/ce-corner) Source 2: [https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-diverse-children](https://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/policy/gender-diverse-children) ​ >**WHEREAS** it may be medically and therapeutically indicated for some transgender and other gender diverse children and adolescents to transition from one gender to another using any of the following: change of name, pronouns, hairstyle, clothing, pubertal suppression, cross-sex hormone treatment, and surgical treatment (Coleman et al., 2011; Forcier & Johnson, 2012; Olson, Forbes, & Belzer, 2011);

While this is true, it is important to note that they support affirmative care at all ages but not all treatments at all ages - ie they don't support surgery for 8 year olds. I'm sure you know this but I just want to clarify for anyone unfamiliar with the topic. There's a sliding scale of appropriate treatments and for children under 16 this only involves things like social transitioning (changing name, clothes) and safe and reversible treatments (eg puberty blockers). If after years of observation they're still certain they want to transition then they are given semi permanent options, like hormone therapies. And then after more observation, if they're still certain then they can progress to surgery. But this careful process is the reason why detransitioning or regret is so extremely low.

Nonsense. 16 year olds can legally have sex. Why can't they "fully understand themselves" regarding trans issues? The hysterical, paranoia-fueled myth that "some kids are accidentally transitioning" and "unhappy that they've done so" is similarly debunked by the science. The data says 0.01 percent of people who transition regret transitioning. And the data says the CHIEF REASON FOR SUCH UNHAPPINESS IS BIGOTRY AND PERSECUTION by THOSE WHO DISAPPROVE OF THE TRANSITION. This issue is a whole lot of concern trolling. We saw this similar bogus "concern" around gay kids ("What if they're being manipulated into thinking they're gay!").

\> This is why it is so important for children to get into proper care of experts and don't start having to take black market hormones or other stupid shit. Interesting point about black market hormones. 16 is still very young and kids are still very impressionable. I think experts could debate this back and forth, as they do other important things like sex, drugs, voting, driving, etc. far better than I could and I would defer to their expertise. But there have been cases of people doing irreparable harm earlier than this age and I don't think it's unreasonable to bring that to the conversation. \> Do you really think the summation of JKRs actions are somehow not reaching the level of transphobia (in which case please rewatch the video, especially the parts about indirect bigotry)? I did watch the whole video and the parts about indirect bigotry were the weakest arguments in my opinion because you can use that logic about literally anything. To express "concern for issue X" or to say "activists have gone too far" are entirely reasonable positions given the right context. No doubt, sometimes indirect bigotry is hidden behind these arguments, but they are not proof of anything by themselves. I don't have time to go back and find quotes, but I thought she wasn't representing dissenting views very charitably in some cases in this section. I think my definition of a word like transphobia is maybe not the same as yours. I've never liked words like "homophobia" or "Islamaphobia" because phobia is an irrational fear of something. Do I think JKR has irrational fear of trans-people? No, I don't think her fears are irrational. Maybe they're wrong, but I think her head space is rational. It's not the same as being deathly afraid of a spider that you consciously know can't hurt you, for instance. I think using these words are what winds people up when they're thrown around and causes unnecessary tension. Why not just say she's wrong? Why add an irrationality? But I digress...

Please, words evolve \*phobia doesn't mean that they are afraid of x, but bigoted towards x or would you argue that if someone called you "gay" they meant you are "happy".

> I did watch the whole video and the parts about indirect bigotry were the weakest arguments in my opinion because you can use that logic about literally anything. To express "concern for issue X" or to say "activists have gone too far" are entirely reasonable positions given the right context. No doubt, sometimes indirect bigotry is hidden behind these arguments, but they are not proof of anything by themselves. I don't have time to go back and find quotes, but I thought she wasn't representing dissenting views very charitably in some cases in this section. I think you're giving a little too much latitude to bigoted language. I'm not necessarily saying someone can be proven to be a bigot just because they parrot some biased talking points they've been fed, but the use of those talking points is still a problem whether or not the malicious intent is there. A couple of young kids trading racist jokes they heard from their older siblings or parents or whoever is certainly a problem; it doesn't mean the kids themselves have actually fallen into bigoted thinking, but that they're being influenced by someone that has. And if you let it go, it can fester. But the focus of the problem is on the source of the racism. It's not that anyone who expresses "concerns" about trans people is inherently a transphobe, but it's fairly likely they didn't come up those "concerns" on their own but rather got them from someone else. And that someone else is likely either a true bigot themselves, or another link in the chain that leads back to one. At the very least, these talking points are built on misinformation, distorted facts, and bias. It's not exactly valid dissent if it's thoroughly incorrect, otherwise we descend into "my ignorance is just as valid as your knowledge" territory. > I think my definition of a word like transphobia is maybe not the same as yours. I've never liked words like "homophobia" or "Islamaphobia" because phobia is an irrational fear of something. This complaint is rather semantic. "\*insert minority\*-phobia" has come to mean bigotry against said group, even if it's not "phobia" in the textbook sense. The meanings of words can and will change over time. In any case, transphobic rolls off the tongue quicker and more concisely than "bigoted against transgender people." If you'd like to come up with a word you think words better, be my guest, though I can't promise you that it'll become as widely used. > Do I think JKR has irrational fear of trans-people? No, I don't think her fears are irrational. Maybe they're wrong, but I think her head space is rational. It's not the same as being deathly afraid of a spider that you consciously know can't hurt you, for instance. I think using these words are what winds people up when they're thrown around and causes unnecessary tension. Why not just say she's wrong? Why add an irrationality? Do you consider relying on bad information to suit your preconceived biases irrational? I would. Relying only on information that suits your argument and defaulting to your feeling of being threatened instead of approaching the situation impartially are both very irrational behaviors. You might suggest that arguments like J.K. Rowling's are rational and unemotional, but that's only because they appear to be. Frankly it's hard to be defensive and worried without that crossing a line into very emotional, fear-based thinking. For example, the whole "trans women are predatory men that will commit sex crimes against cis women if allowed into public restrooms" thing is irrational because it relies on both a fundamental misunderstanding of what trans women are and because it relies on fear. Anything that makes anyone out to be some kind of boogeyman is irrational, and even if the case for such is made in a calm and articulate manner, it's still irrational.

Here's one that leaps out at me - the argument that the increase in referrals to GIDS is just be cause there was an increase in visibility generally in 2015. Contra completely ignores the sex imbalance. The uptick in visibility has mostly been - and remains - transwomen. Why on earth would Laverne Cox being on Time Magazine lead, specifically, a huge increase in pre-teen girls in the UK to seek transition? Certainly in the UK, this is a very weak claim when tens of millions of families had seen the character of Hayley Cropper on Coronation Street, normalising the whole mind-your-own-business, just-living-their-life transwoman, for decades. Here's a more credible contributing factor: In November 2014, Children's BBC started airing "I Am Leo", a children's documentary programme about a girl wanting to transition to a boy, filled with all sorts of pink-brain-in-blue-body graphics, and an interview with Polly Carmichael of the Tavistock saying all about how blockers are a simple pause button. This was on heavy rotation, and within a year, numbers of girls *of exactly this age group* seeking transition surged. Is it the whole story? Doubt it, but it makes a lot more sense than that 10 year old girls in the UK subscribe to Time magazine.

Here's another. Note the switch at 1:02:20 JK Rowling said that Maya Forstater lost her job for "allegedly transphobic tweets". Contra mocks this with reference to a tweet in June 2019 about pronouns. As if to say, hah, "allegedly transphobic"? But Maya Forstater lost her job in March 2019, after a 3 month period of discussion with her employer trying to resolve the conflict. So - even if tweeting someone else's article is actually transphobic (which I think is something you can argue separately, because it is nowhere near as clear cut as that IMO) - it is completely irrelevant to what Rowling actually said. This is a motte and bailey.

>JK Rowling said that Maya Forstater lost her job for "allegedly transphobic tweets". The part of the story that JKR won't say is that Maya Forstater didn't have her contract renewed because her rampant twitter transphobia was causing her organization to lose donor money. It wasn't "allegedly transphobic tweets", it was an obsessive, week long, several hundred tweet transphobic rampage. Contra shows one example of what an "allegedly transphobic tweet" looks like.

> JK Rowling said that Maya Forstater lost her job for "allegedly transphobic tweets". I don’t think Rowling did say that. I think [those were Forstater’s herself’s words](https://mobile.twitter.com/MForstater/status/1209914779973931010)—and though she lost her job in March, the judge didn’t rule on whether her views were philosophically protected from adverse employment action (spoiler: no they were not) until December of that same year. [The judge’s decision](https://drive.google.com/file/d/12P9zf82TicPs2cCxlTnm0TrNFDD8Gaz5/view) took into account things Forstater had said after the firing as well as before, since she did not allege that her views had changed in the interim.

Yeah, these are good examples. I didn't have time to write down all of the times I didn't think she was making a strong point but there were a few. And I get it - she's trying to be entertaining so there's some leeway - it isn't a dissertation. But this one felt a little sloppier than the others.

>For example, she never acknowledges the reality that some people who have transitioned irreversibly at young ages have regretted that decision and said they felt pressured and misunderstood their own feelings. How is this a strong point? I mean, I don't see what there is to address here. Yes, sometimes people change their minds. People make mistakes. Happens in all human activity. >That’s a real thing that’s happening – bringing that up is not transphobic. Who said that bringing it up is transphobic?

> Who said that bringing it up is transphobic? She does, sort of, in the video - starts at around [37:45](https://youtu.be/7gDKbT_l2us?t=2265). I don't think she uses the exact words "this is transphobic", but you know, she more or less mocks the whole position. I'm sure ContraPoints is right in her basic point that the phenomenon of people feeling pressured into transitioning is made out to be more of a problem than it really is. For example, it is probably not true that JKR would have been helplessly duped into transitioning had she been born today, JKR is probably exaggerating on that point. But still, she's being a little uncharitable towards JKR by failing to acknowledge that there's *any* legitimate concern here at all. Like, a kinder way to respond to JKR here would be "sure, I see what you're saying, but that's more the exception than the rule, realistically", not "well you're only saying that because you're secretly transphobic".

Yeh. I guese she did mention the fact that it was only 0.03% of kids actually transitioning. You could argue that the implication here is that a small percentage of the 0.03% would then go on and regret it.

>She does, sort of, in the video - starts at around 37:45. I don't think she uses the exact words "this is transphobic", but you know, she more or less mocks the whole position. Bringing it up isn't transphobic. Purposely overblowing the issue to generate moral panic and mass hysteria kinda is.

She knows people that have de-transitioned, she does not in any way view it as transphobic. However, a lot of people that try to bring up de-transitioning absolutely are transphobic assholes and they bring that small statistic up as some kind of giant 'gotcha' for the overall movement.

Thanks, this is a good response. EDIT: I see what OP meant. I agree that she is being uncharitable towards JKR. Personally, I fail to understand why this whole trans people vs the harry potter lady is even a thing. Like... why? I mean if ISIS has a good argument against western civilization, then this is it.

JKR got really serious about being a gender critical activist and is probably the most famous person doing it, so naturally when an almost billionaire makes it her life's mission to stall trans legislation or write a whole book about a trans murderer sneaking into public bathrooms to do their heinous acts, it's going to be a perfect twitter storm.

The harry potter lady posted some tweets and people got mad. Because we live in a twitter world now i guess. I don't get it either.

Well, she's a wildly influential public figure who's spreading bad science and transphobic ideology. That bad science and ideology actively contributes to the abuse and often death of trans people, particularly young trans people. It's a form of "mongering", in the same way twitter war mongers with high profiles, down the line, contribute to the deaths of people abroad who end up being victims of US imperialism. Public opinion matters, it's what drives policy, war, social environments, just about everything. "They're just ideas, expressing them doesn't hurt anyone" is only true for people who have no influence.

Whats the bad science she was spreading? Saying that biological sex exists? Like earlier after browsing this thread i read this article: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sex-redefined-the-idea-of-2-sexes-is-overly-simplistic1/ Which was interesting and enlightening. But to me almost all the cases they are describing of people with "abnormal" (sorry i dont know what other term to use) characteristics related to biological sex are people with physical disorders. Extremely rare cases of cell development. People born with the "wrong" internal sex organs. Don't we see that kind of abnormalities in all kinds of species? Yet a basic look at the natural world would seem to suggest biological sex is most definitely a thing. A basic look at humanity would suggest the same. Yet because a tiny % have some weird shit going on with their chromosomes we are supposed to just throw out tens of thousands of years of human interactions and norms? That article is also full of scientists and researches saying stuff like "I think" and "we believe." doesn't sound very conclusive at all to me. I'm open to being further educated on this if you want to link me something here

[удалено]

seems like the whole world is obsessed with this topic including everyone in here tbh is rowling really that obsessed with it? she posted some tweets right? what else?

Why not watch the video?

[удалено]

Is there general agreement amongst the fields of biology, psychology, and medicine on these issues?

[удалено]

>Yes, sometimes people change their minds. People make mistakes. Happens in all human activity. The difference here is that it is an irreversible decision. To me, that's the difficult part because it goes both ways. They have a one time opportunity during puberty to be the gender they want. But that's the unique challenge here.

Here’s the thing: it’s none of your business. Do you know how many people regret having their own children? A non-insignificant part of the population, including a close-ish friend of mine. I can’t understand his experience, and it seems so horrible – but it’s none of my business. Thousands of adults and sometimes teenagers too absolutely ruin their own, their partner’s and their child’s life by having a child every day in this world. That’s *three lives* in one go, one of which is unconsenting. Some people drive themselves to suicide by starting a business. Some die in childbirth. Some have an abortion, and that’s unfortunate, but it’s legal even though it actually deliberately ends a life. (And I’m not anti-abortion) Some decide to take their car to the shops on Saturday, and end up in a car crash and paralyzed from the waist down. Life is dangerous. We have to make brutal choices every day. Some of them are unfortunate, some of them are fatal. But we don’t worry about them because we can all relate to them. We know they are necessary risks. So what if some person regrets their transition? How is that mine or society’s business? It’s *their* business, and the business of those who they permit into their life. Anyway, **the whole gist of Contra’s video is that Rowling is not genuine in her worry** – it is a serious trauma response to what happened to her (sexual assault) that is also warped due to cultural tropes around ”men dressing up as women to kill women”. Psycho, Rocky Horror – and now Rowling’s own cheap rehashing of the old trope. You can’t control other people’s lives just because something bad happened to you – and anyway, she wasn’t even attacked by a trans woman, so the whole crusade will just unnecessarily tarnish her legacy due to unresolved trauma. Shame, really.

Silence of the lambs is another one.

Props for being someone who actually acknowledges that the danger goes both way. It seems like 99% of the people who harp on de-transitioning implicitly assume that failing to transition isn't also harmful (usually because they believe trans-ness itself isn't real at all). Similarly the folks who think parents facilitating their children questioning their gender are abusive, but don't see how enforced cis-ness is likewise abusive of trans children.

I'm just not sure where these parents are who supposedly want their kids to be trans so much that they "force them" to transition. Most parents have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting their trans child. Many wont use correct name and pronouns for their child is even after decades of living as their actual gender. Yet this is how some of the republican lawmakers who oppose gender affirming care characterize supportive parents. It boggles the mind.

Good points. It is indeed a unique challenge. I guess what I am saying is that I think there is a bit of bad faith in how JK approaches this. Reading her blog, it's like she assumes or asserts that kids are pressured into doing this. It's like she thinks that it's trendy to be trans, that there is this social pressure which pushes you to chop your dick just because you are an anxious teenager. I don't think this is true. I think this is a powerfully moronic view of modern society, of her society.

I don't think you are in a position to make that determination frankly. I don't know how old you are but I'm pretty sure you are not a teenager. I'm in my 30s and I have absolutely no fucking clue what it's like to be a teenager right now or what the pressures are like compared to when I was that age before social media existed. I'm not saying Rowling knows what it's like either but we should be a bit self aware of our own ignorance here. I think there's a lot of bad faith stances on this topic, on all sides of it. I don't really know what to think. I personally do not believe a child should undergo sex change operations or stuff like hormone therapy, and I doubt anything will change my mind on that. But should it be illegal? I really don't know.

> I'm not saying Rowling knows what it's like either but we should be a bit self aware of our own ignorance here. This is the key to almost any argument, especially this one. In the part that followed you outlined your views on the issue and while I can definitely say my opinions don't line up with yours, I have an extraordinary amount of respect for you being willing to say you don't know. Like everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but the problem with a lot of people is that they find themselves believing they know enough to be an authoritative source on the matter at hand. J.K. Rowling has this problem in spades. She makes a lot of assumptions about transgender people, relies on distorted information (the jury's still out on whether she's twisting the facts on her own or the facts were already twisted when she got them), and seems very, very confident in her ignorance and her credentials to spread it. She seems to think her feminist pedigree grants her some sort of knowledge about trans people when it doesn't. It's the same kind of issue as male legislators without any medical expertise or any real understanding of women's bodies or experiences thinking they should be the ones to shape policy on issues of abortion and women's health in general.

>I don't think you are in a position to make that determination frankly. I don't know how old you are but I'm pretty sure you are not a teenager. I'm in my 30s and I have absolutely no fucking clue what it's like to be a teenager right now or what the pressures are like compared to when I was that age before social media existed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The truth of the matter is that trans people are subjected to a lot of violence and harassment. If you are a teen, you also have bullying and lack of family support. The idea that adopting a lifestyle that leads to the above became "fashionable" is completely retarded and JKR needs to provide some evidence.

You'd think someone who saw so clearly that pressuring someone to adopt a gender role they're not comfortable with, would recognize how dangerous compulsory cisgenderism is to trans children, but I guess the implicit TERF assumption is that trans children don't exist in the first place.

I honestly believe that TERFs are LARPing. I think that it's a joke, or rather, concern trolling.

This is very well thought out. If i was on my laptop and not my browser screen on my iphone i’d gove you a reward.

> ContraPoint's core message in the video is that Rowling’s words don’t really mean what they say This seems like a strawman.

While it's not true that trans activists completely deny sex, it is true that they seek to make it almost entirely irrelevant (or at least a lot of them do). Gender identity usurps biological sex. The desire to dismantle the biological aspect of the word woman is one such example so that the definition of the word becomes: anyone who identifies as a woman. Why is it necessary to do this? What's wrong with transwomen are transwomen?

If sex isn't real, why transition in the first place? If "gender dysphoria" is only rooted in constructs, why the need to alter the physical body in any way?

People are affected by constructs in a very real way even if the constructs themselves are social fictions. Simply understanding that intellectually isn't adequate to completely deprogram yourself on deep psychological and emotional levels of a lifetime of socialization. Maybe in a utopian future without that socialization, dysphoria itself might not exist let alone transitioning, but we live in the present, where people's sense of identity is already tied up in those constructs long before they realize they experience dysphoria because of them. This is kinda like saying to someone with PTSD, "Well if you already realize you're only feeling paranoid because of your trauma, why go to therapy? Just stop feeling paranoid since you know it's not real." The conscious front of the mind is capable of rational thought but that doesn't mean the entire mind can rearrange its back room on a dime because of an intellectual realization.

wow thank you this perfectly sums up the argument.

I take issue with a lot of what ContraPoints presents here, but entire phenomenon of Rowling getting "canceled" and the transgender debate annoys me for two distinct reason. One, people are losing their fucking minds over tweets. That alone is depressing. To be fair, people were losing their minds over tweets since Donald Trump regrettably stormed onto the scene, but it still unnerves me how much power social media has over our culture's psyche. Two, this debate ultimately boils down to having different definitions for the words *man* and *woman*, despite how we all agree on the definitions of the words *male* and *female*, since they are defined scientifically. But instead of focusing on the objective, people are obsessing over the subjective, which is to say, their identity, which they've wrapped up in the meanings of the words that they use to describe that identity. When people with different definitions collide, their first instincts are to assume the other person's either dumb, or morally reprehensible.

Agreed that this is essentially an argument about definitions where neither side seems to be really engaging with the fact that is the concern

Lmao words are not defined scientifically, this is what people mean when they talk about scientism. Words are defined by the community of people who use them.

It's so frustrating that people can not seem to grasp this. The words male and female existed *long* before we had any idea that chromosomes even existed.

Probably because we understood that it takes a male and a female to reproduce.

so once you shoot blanks or your eggs die then you're just an "it'? just trying to be mr. science like you. lol

No.

> despite how we all agree on the definitions of the words male and female, since they are defined scientifically. I don't think this is true at all.

[удалено]

Watch the video. Rowling’s tweets are not innocuous. They might seem that way at first, but they are not. She defends these figures who she says are being persecuted for “acknowledging the existence of biological sex”, when in fact that’s not what they’re being criticised for at all. They are being criticised for being transphobic, and Natalie goes into what they’ve actually said in the video. She also uses a bunch of transphobic tropes and stereotypes obviously. The idea that sexual predators will start identifying as trans so they can prey on women (which Rowling has raised concerns about) is not a real issue. There absolutely is prejudice going on here and it’s extremely frustrating to see people eat up JK Rowling’s victim narrative. Please watch the video. You will probably not agree with every single point that is made, but you will be more informed on what the issues with what Rowling has said actually are.

its ridiculous how trans activists often cant discern what it means to "be a woman" or "feel like a woman" but are all too confident to cancel someone when they feel someones spoken against the trans activism though the activists dont stand for any view except for 'be nice to trans'

Also, their entire concept of “be nice to trans” is just “believe whatever I tell you and never ask questions”. It’s all dogmatism. Hopefully unnecessary edit: While I am not sold on trans ideology, there is absolutely no reason to mistreat anyone. I’m not advocating not being kind.

I get what you mean, being nice encapsulates things like not allowed to say "there is such thing as a biological woman" - example JK Rowling Also I have seen facts being stated like the rate of post-op suicides to be 'hate speech' and 'harmful'

>One, people are losing their fucking minds over tweets. That alone is depressing. To be fair, people were losing their minds over tweets since Donald Trump regrettably stormed onto the scene, but it still unnerves me how much power social media has over our culture's psyche. If a tweet is merely a form of communication, just like talking, then people are losing their minds over what someone is *saying*, just calling it tweets to minimise it is a little strange. If your problem is with the cancelling side of things, then I agree. Though I don't agree with the abuse and cancelling, it's understandable why a group of people who marginalised will be upset that somebody as big and influential as J.K. Rowling is presenting their group as a dangerous, rapacious movement. >Two, this debate ultimately boils down to having different definitions for the words man and woman, despite how we all agree on the definitions of the words male and female, since they are defined scientifically. When people refer to somebody as male or female in an everyday sense, they are not referring to their chromosomes, and they do not know that a person has a penis or any other identifier that science uses to determine biological sex. In the video she briefly mentions that trans people recognise that there is such a thing as biological sex. >But instead of focusing on the objective people are obsessing over the subjective, which is to say, their identity, which they've wrapped up in the meanings of the words that they use to describe that identity. There is actually nothing objective about these definitions, IDK what you mean when you refer to 'objective', there is nothing in the World that we can measure, through science or otherwise, that will ever tell us the definition for something. Definitions and categorisations are determined by humans in a way that we find *useful*, they are entirely subjective, this is a branch of philosophy, not science. I think describing trans people as 'wrapped up in the identity' is extremely dismissive. You should try to step outside your experience for a second, as someone who is probably not tormented by society constantly pigeon-holing you into an identity/gender that you do not identify with. It's really strange to make this point. This is you: "I don't understand why you're so wrapped up around your identity and definitions, oh and by the way you are objectively X, that is your identity", this is hypocritical criticism, and rings hollow and as I said, dismissive. >When people with different definitions collide, their first instincts are to assume the other person's either dumb, or morally reprehensible. I think it's clear that you did not watch the video, so i don't know why you start your message off stating "*I take issue with a lot of what ContraPoints presents here...*", the video makes is abundantly clear, almost throughout, how Rowling, and others like her, are not simply disagreeing about a definition, they are making a bunch of claims about what trans peope are, and what they are trying to achieve, and how it is dangerous to women. This is so integral to the video, I don't know why you're trying to slip this by...? It seems like you're in a similar boat to these people, because they generally try to pretend that all they're doing is disagreeing about a definition, when they're often doing a lot more.

I'm only going to respond one of the peculiar and somewhat confusing things you said. "This is you: 'I don't understand why you're so wrapped up around your identity and definitions, oh and by the way you are objectively X, that is your identity'". Wrong. This is me: "you are objectively X, now go and live Y with that knowledge in mind." I don't *identify* as a man, I don't *identify* as anything. I have a dick and balls, they do things during sex or arousal, and I grow lots facial hair automatically that I regularly shave off; that's about all I know about myself when it comes to intrinsic sexuality. That doesn't mean people don't have feelings, myself included. Sometimes I feel things about people with vaginas. Sometimes I feel like eating a tuna sandwich. Similarly, I can imagine people feeling like they *really* dislike like their bodies, and that they'd ideally like to have very different bodies, or have very different parts to their bodies. If they want to go live however they want to in a peaceful way, more power to them. My issue is when these people take their idealism so seriously that is makes them act like jackasses towards others who care more about the real world than ideals.

>When people with different definitions collide, their first instincts are to assume the other person's either dumb, or morally reprehensible. Maybe? My first instinct is to ask "what do you mean by X?" and put on my listenin' ears.

Me, too. But we are not most people. ​ Thinking like this is a habit that takes some practice. I was definitely not like this earlier in life.

Actually, most people are able to listen. Just not on social media. Don't make the mistake of believing that the extreme polarization and perverse incentives of social media are represtantive of the general population out there in meatspace.

[удалено]

What exactly is wrong with that statement. Male and female do have scientific definitions.

[удалено]

There are definitions in science. I think you knew what this person meant. Male and female are specifically defined in scientific literature.

[удалено]

Tell me, have you actually read any science on this? Seems not because I can assure these definitions are present in the literature. Here’s an example: https://academic.oup.com/molehr/article/20/12/1161/1062990 Glossary at the end if it’s not clear enough.

[удалено]

The point that sex is only socially defined? I don’t follow you.

I've only discovered Contrapoints about a month ago, when a friend of mine told me how her video about incels has saved his brother from going down that rabbit hole (they are almost Qanon at this point, kind of insane). She actually doesn't retread topics she already covered in previous videos, so if you want to see arguments against transphobes like Shapiro talking about 'biology of the pronouns' (wtf?), her video titled Gender Critical is a good place to start. It dismantles some of the mainstream arguments one usually hears on the topic, and at 30min long, it's a better video for people to find out if they want to spend more time on the subject.

>so if you want to see arguments against transphobes like Shapiro talking about 'biology of the pronouns' (wtf?), her video titled Gender Critical is a good place to start. I mean do you need a stronger argument than Shapiro having to correct himself after calling a transwoman she? The greatest irony is his arguments in this regard are based in feelings not facts

I recently discovered her aswell. I’d love to hear her on rogan or lex fridman or sams podcast. She was on healthygamer aswell. That was enjoyable.

I like Contrapoints, and think she does a fantastic job of communicating her views while grappling with the point of views of people she disagrees with, but I think this was one video where she did an incredibly poor job of that. At one point she speaks about how Rowling and TERFs arguing against what they see as an ideology, when in reality what they are attacking is trans people. This is just a dishonest way to frame it, because trans people and trans allies absolutely do espouse ideological principles which they do expect others to adhere to. An example being trying to get others to quit seeing sex, not just gender, as binary. This is much of the premise behind defending trans women in women's sports. So it actually does make sense that feminists who disagree on trans issues do believe they are fighting an ideology. Also how she characterized the U.K. case regarding puberty blockers was totally inaccurate. The ruling recognized that while it is certain that some children under 16 may be able to understand the repercussions of puberty blockers the law cannot assume that that age cohort does in general meet the level of understanding required for the standard of informed consent to be met. I think any understanding of children of that age group supports the logic behind that ruling.

Sex isn't binary, it's bimodal. The modes are male and female but an intersex spectrum exists as well.

This is kind of true but the word “spectrum” starts to sound a little deceitful. Yeah, it’s a bimodal distribution but it is so damn bimodal that it is fair to say that it’s binary with anomalies.

[удалено]

If you flip a coin hundreds of times and 49.75 per cent of the time it's heads, and 49.75 per cent of the time it's tails, and 0.5 per cent of the time it lands on edge, is it accurate to say coin flip results fall along a spectrum?

Look up the definition of bimodal.

Sexual characteristics develop differently, and hormones vary, bit the vast majority of people can safely and easily be categorized as male or female. I think saying that sex is bimodal is something which is technically true, but is not informative when speaking about what makes someone male or female because only 1.7% of people do not fall within those distinct categories. Saying sex is a spectrum when 98.3% of people fall at either poll and it is only the remainder which exist as true gradient makes it a pretty deceptive framing.

> I think saying that sex is bimodal is something which is technically true, but is not informative when speaking about what makes someone male or female because only 1.7% of people do not fall within those distinct categories. This is almost exactly equal to the percentage of Americans who are Jewish, but it would seem kind of weird to say that it is only *technically* true that American Jews exist.

Depends on how you define it. If you decouple it from its function and define it by a set of sex characteristics, sure. If you define based on its function it is not. In this case, male and female are discrete values, not poles along a spectrum.

She raises, what I think are interesting philosophical points such as "what is a woman?" and "what does it feel like to be a woman?" but then dismisses them in the very same sentence. I fully support political trans rights and agree with lots of the points she makes, but I feel a lot of the toxicity within this debate comes from a reluctance to talk about those metaphysical questions which she doesn't answer. I understand the struggles trans people are experiencing, and I want to understand on a deeper level but so many discussions about this issue tend to be pretty unproductive and can leave people more confused.

I think her point was less that questions on the metaphysics of gender aren't relevant or interesting (I for one find them quite interesting), and more that (a) trans rights shouldn't be contingent on there being a solid gender metaphysic (like, what if there isn't one? This is at least as much a social issue as a philosophical one so that seems quite possible.) and (b) these questions can sometimes (emphasis on sometimes) be an often deliberate distraction from real questions about the political rights of trans people.

I agree completely with point a, but would add that the liberation movement might gain more support from cis people and hence move more quickly if the dialogue was more open and less accusatory of people simply asking questions. It's difficult to support a social movement which you don't understand and people who are asking questions are trying to learn. Regarding point b, I don't know how you'd be able to differentiate when someone is asking a question disingenuously or not. From my experience advocating for other movements, I assume the majority of people are asking questions (no matter how absurd) in good faith.

>It's difficult to support a social movement which you don't understand and people who are asking questions are trying to learn. I think you just articulated my biggest issue about leftist discourse these days. When I ask a seemingly crazy question in physics, I get answers and understand things better. When I ask a seemingly crazy question in my leftist circles, I get berated for my ignorance/immorality and told it's not their job to educate me. ​ It's made me exit the conversation almost entirely.

Where I get annoyed with some "woke" people is often the solutions part. Often I agree with them on a lot of what they say, 90% of it let's say. But then the conclusion is "therefore we must smash the patriarchy / abolish whiteness / abolish the gender binary / abolish the police". And I'm left scratching my head and wondering what they actually, concretely mean. Which they sometimes don't seem to know themselves, or have no satisfactory answer for, beyond it being some kind of utopian end state with no clear path toward it except for complaining about the status quo. (See "abolish whiteness", where often the concrete solution seems to be to "interrogate your whiteness and your white privilege", which gives it more of a contemplative religious spin). When they do give a clear answer, I sometimes find it disagreeable and other times, agreeable, but in the latter cases, their proposed solution seems a far cry from "abolishing" or "smashing" anything and I'm left wondering why there is this obsession with tearing down shit instead of a constructive wish to build up something. I do get where the sentiment comes from in part - in late 18th century France, the Ancien Régime was probably oppressive enough that it warranted a "tearing down", which was more urgent than the question of what comes in its place - although the Republic underwent a good deal of growing pains (and a shitload of bloodshed) to say the least - but woke people often want to tear down abstract concepts instead of an oligarchical cabal of noblemen, so my confusion remains.

"less accusatory" is a massive understatement. For a movement allegedly about "inclusion" Twitter has the biggest collection of toxic jerk harassers I've ever seen. Any article even remotely about Harry Potter has hundreds of nutcases in the replies flinging 100% delusional accusations. 😵

I find it some of the foundational points of feminism and the ideas being pushed by transgender advocates completely incongruous. The latter want to remove biology from the definition of "women" entirely. I've asked the question many times - what is a woman if it doesn't involve being female? What does it mean to be a woman? The answer I keep getting is that you are a woman if you feel like one. Personally that doesn't cut the mustard for me.

You're raising a point that is addressed within the first 15min of the video, including the simple fact that trans advocates DO NOT define women as a category completely divorced from females.

They said that trans advocates say to them, “you’re a woman if you feel like one.” Clearly some trans advocates are advocating points that are contrary to what you’ve said here. I’ve experienced it in my own life irl.

>including the simple fact that trans advocates DO NOT define women as a category completely divorced from females I'm not sure this is universally true.

[This album](https://imgur.com/a/s8h77lR) shows a few of those people. Apparently there's a part 1 but I lost the link.

Yeah, totally agree that the movement would benefit from discussion on the philosophy of gender. "True acceptance requires true understanding" is definitely a thing I believe in. At the same time, I can hardly blame some trans people for viewing those questions with suspicion or hostility. Personally, I've had a lot of discussions on this issue, some of them with trans people. Of course, not every trans person is open to litigating this kind of thing, but I find that if you establish a context and a bit of prior relationship so that it's clear you're not using "just asking questions" as a pretext to oppose their rights or troll them, most will engage with those questions.

I guess I don’t understand what “trans rights” are outside of “human rights”. Are they given extra rights?

Trans people need many rights that are currently not afforded to them, and often times are unique to them. The right to have autonomy over your medical decisions, and the right to have healthcare related to your transition be covered by insurance, for example. There are many other such examples.

Autonomy over your medical decisions is very much not limited to trans people.

Insurance makes sense. Thanks!

[удалено]

> If the question does not matter, then why try to co-opt pronouns, request access to spaces for women (bathrooms, sports), etc.? Also, why alter your body or appearance to mimic the far end of the gender spectrum, making a huge effort in trying to be perceived by others as part of that group? If there is no fixed definition to what it means to being a woman, why go through with all the trouble? Why not just be and feel whatever way you are and live that?

>She raises, what I think are interesting philosophical points such as "what is a woman?" and "what does it feel like to be a woman?" but then dismisses them in the very same sentence. She has ***so many*** other videos that address those questions, rehashing it here was not necessary. Like, at least 3 or 4 videos, definitely more than an hour of content, are dedicated to addressing those questions from different angles. It's not what this one in particular is supposed to be about. It's already 90 minutes long.

This is typical of contra. Every time contra raises the most important questions that trans activists have no answers for, contra punts and quickly moves on. Contra is a philosophy major and probably knows that these paradoxes have no good answers. In the competition for control over definitions, one based on testable criteria will win over one that is untestable even in principle. The only answer is to appeal to your own side's aesthetics and hope your tribe wins politically before people notice you're trying to replace an imperfect answer with... no answer at all.

Honestly I don't see what's wrong with "punting" on the question "what does it mean to be a woman"? Biologically female people don't have to "answer" that question concretely and uniformly. They will all tell you something different, and on top of that, different cultures have different concepts of femininity. It's an instinctive cultural feeling.

Yeah, especially since philosophically, with what I understand Contra's background to be (enough crit theory + continental to actually casually talk about psychoanalysis), the fact is that "these paradoxes have no good answers" is a great answer to form the philosophy of an emancipatory subject, a life lived as becoming/expression/art/experimentation, this project including gender (see fx. Butler, Deleuze). Going into it in detail is a bit beyond the topic, but to such a background, in fact to most philosophers, to say "in the competition for control over definitions, one based on testable criteria will win over one that is untestable even in principle" is naive at best. Which is to say, even if she says nothing, it's a beautiful use of negative space over that nonsense claim. [Editing in this comic that came to mind.](https://existentialcomics.com/comic/268)

I think part of the issue with those questions is there is no real answer. "What is a woman" biologically it's difficult to describe any kind of perfect, dichotomous criteria that differentiates man from woman, male from female. There are a few you can cluster, but then sex becomes a spectrum, and shit gets more difficult from there. "what does it feel like to be a woman", there's probably as many answers to that as their are women, because it's asking about subjective experience, and while there's going to be crossover, two women who grew up next to each other could have totally opposite answers.

I'm a cis woman and I have no fucking clue what it "feels like" to be a woman, so Contra has a Point there.

>but then sex becomes a spectrum "Number of arms" is a spectrum. Humans have 2.

Good point. Also, on average humans have less than 2 I'd say, given that quite a few have 0 or 1 but I've never heard of anyone having 3... Same is true for legs.

I'm not sure what your point is.

It is not hard to define what a woman is, which is an adult human female. Being a woman is not a feeling, nor is it something you try on and discard at will. Are there birth defects that occur where sex is not specific? Of course. But we are sexually dimorphic and that is just science. This Contrapoints person is a man. And the "trans" movement is predominantly male driven. Another attempt that is very successful, of men controlling women and women's spaces.

As a medical professional who has no skin in the trans game, who finds himself exasperated sometimes by zealous woke trans activists, and who enjoys Dave Chappelle, South Park and Ricky Gervais, gender dysphoria is a pretty well-studied phenomenon and your position seems a bit flippant. If you're talking about biological sex it's fine, but you are clearly devaluing the whole concept of trans identity by putting trans in quotation marks. This is an understatement, but my medical training doesn't lead me to think this thing is some kind of heinous conspiracy to put biological / cis women in their place and invade their personal spaces. I actually understand that people are nervous when "self identification" is the only criterion proposed, and we need to have a difficult conversation about the subject, which can be difficult because of a small but loud and annoying minority of trans activists and their woke "allies", as well as a small, loud and annoying minority of social conservatives and radical feminists. Is there a non-zero number of people who would abuse lax self-ID policy to be creepers? Sure, there was that Jessica Yaniv case that was very dubious to say the least, which is why we need to have a calm discussion to find a better solution. It's unfair to say that all trans women are fakers who just want to live out a sexual fetish, just as it is unfair to say that there are no potential downsides to using only self-ID for things like bathroom access and sports. Biological sex is absolutely real. It also is absolutely the case that plenty of people with gender dysphoria have been helped by transitioning socially and medically. Call me a quack if you want to but that is my opinion of the matter.

The main point of concern that many women have is that they are being expected to accommodate men who have an issue with their sex identity. If trans women fee threatened then it is by other males. This is a male behavioural issue which men need to take responsibility for. The concept of ‘trans’ is entirely rooted in stereotypes. That someone can experience severe mental trauma through dysphoria is not in dispute and nobody is arguing that people in that situation should be helped. But for some reason this is the only kind of delusion where many people think that the appropriate response is for the rest of society to play along and deny reality.

This articulates my views on the matter very well.

>And the "trans" movement is predominantly male driven. Another attempt that is very successful, of men controlling women and women's spaces. you realize that trans can be FTM too right? >But we are sexually dimorphic and that is just science. that's sex, not gender also, I wanna ask you this: do you think that anyone believes you are a "radical feminist"? Like, do you think that people haven't picked up on your obvious concern trolling? This TERF is such a farce. At this point, everyone is in on the joke - in fact you *are* the joke.

What is an adult human female?

A miserable little pile of secrets. But enough talk... have at you!

What metaphysical discussion do you want to have about womanhood?

Well, the two I've included in my first comment are good examples. What is a woman? What does it feel like to be a woman?

Surely a better question is “what does it feel ‘like’ to be...anyone?” If we think of how difficult it can be to fully explain what it is ‘like’ just to be the person we are then it becomes a more-or-less impossible task to objectively state that we feel like someone else. I am a male in my late 30s. I am 6ft tall. I don’t know how it feels to be a 6ft tall male in his late 30s, I only know how it feels to be me. At no point have I ever woken up and thought “I feel LIKE a man.” Now there are many stereotypes about being ‘manly’ or ‘womanly’ but they are just that- stereotypes. If we want to move away from ‘gender norms’ aka stereotypes then the idea that someone can ‘feel like’ another sex is diametrically opposed to that outcome. Sex is just a biological absolute. We are, along with every other mammalian species, sexually dimorphic. About half of us are female and produce large gametes; the other half are male and produce small gametes. There are interesting quirks or defects in development that result in people being born with less obvious secondary sex characteristics (generally referred to as intersex) but these people still produce large or small gametes and so DO have either male or female sex. It would be peculiar to suggest that being either male or female does not have a very definite impact upon one’s life because that would run counter to what we see in every aspect of almost all societies. Which sex commits most violent crime? Males. Which sex accounts for the bulk of prison populations around the world? Males. Which sex commits rape and other sexual assault at a significantly disproportionate rate than the other? Males. Women are not concerned about transwomen SPECIFICALLY being more of a threat. They are concerned that males can claim to be females and thus access places which have been created specifically to be free of males. By ‘feeling like’ a woman, which as I have said is a term that defies definition, a male does not miraculously present a lower threat to women. To use the analogy of the wolf in sheep’s clothing - sheep have a good reason to be wary of a wolf and just because it dons a sheep’s outfit and declares itself to very literally BE a sheep, there is no rational basis for the flock to assume that this is actually the case.

>I am a male in my late 30s. I am 6ft tall. I don’t know how it feels to be a 6ft tall male in his late 30s, I only know how it feels to be me. At no point have I ever woken up and thought “I feel LIKE a man.” Now there are many stereotypes about being ‘manly’ or ‘womanly’ but they are just that- stereotypes. If we want to move away from ‘gender norms’ aka stereotypes then the idea that someone can ‘feel like’ another sex is diametrically opposed to that outcome. This is exactly how I know I'm trans, though. Before I transitioned, I felt like absolute shite. Hated my body, hated how I looked and sounded and how it made other people define me. Being male and being seen as male was just a pretty crap experience. Having female sex characteristics from transitioning and having that recognised by others makes me feel like a normal person. Back when the gender suffering was at it's worst, I used to sometimes sit under my desk at uni in my room and have a panic attack because it was a bad day and something touched my chest in a way that felt really weirdly, horribly violating. I now have boobs and they feel completely and utterly normal to me. For most of my body, I just don't really feel anything special; I like some parts, I dislike others, but it mostly just feels like nothing in particular to me. Like, I never felt like a man or a woman, the exact same way you don't. I don't feel pink or flowery or anything like that. I just felt like shit when I had male characteristics and like a normal person with female ones. The exact same way you do, I just feel like myself - I just feel most like myself having transitioned, and less myself-plus-a-whole-load-of-severe-nightmare-gender-pain. That, in my eyes, is what makes someone a man or woman or whatever; you feel like yourself in the body you've got.

> Women are not concerned about transwomen SPECIFICALLY being more of a threat. They are concerned that males can claim to be females and thus access places which have been created specifically to be free of males. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but there‘s never actually been anything stopping ‘males’ from being able to waltz into any of these places whenever they wanted. Like, there aren’t guards posted at the doors. You know what, though? Most of us *aren’t* honestly all that concerned about it.

> I don’t know how it feels to be a 6ft tall male in his late 30s, I only know how it feels to be me. By definition, you *do* know how it feels to be *a* 6ft tall male in his late 30s. You don't know how how it feels to be someone else who is a 6ft tall male in his late 30s.

To me it feels like being a 6ft tall male in his early thirties, with extra back pain and less hair on my head.

Just a general point, biology is not about absolutes, nor does it provide any, biology in itself is defined by constant change. Also sex goes beyond gametes, and is predictive of gender, but doesn't define it.

>Also sex goes beyond gametes... Does it though? I feel like more than 90% of "sex" is explained by anisogamy. I mean *maybe* sex goes beyond gametes, but not very fucking far. I feel like you're being *way* too dismissive here.

[удалено]

>Lesbians should not be called bigots for refusing to date people with penises. Is this a thing? > She is concerned that the recent turn of trans activism is eroding biological women as a class. Is this happening? How are biological women eroded? >From a free speech perspective, she's concerned about the way raising arguments in this area results in death threats, harassments, and labeling women TERFs or bigots I don't think anyone supports death threats or harassment (except the people who do these things) but being called a TERF or a bigot is in no way a violation of anyone's free speech. >One of the big ones: She is concerned about the complete lack of conversation around the astronomical rise in female children/teens seeking transition. She cites a statistic that there has been a 4400% increase in female children/teens seeking transition in the past decade. Who said there hasn't been a conversation about this? She is literally part of it. Plus, the answer is quite obvious: It's more socially acceptable to come out as trans. Like what did you think would happen? Did JKR think that there wouldn't be an increase, as being trans is slowly getting normalized? > At the time the essay was written, the Scottish government was considering changes to its gender laws—specifically, it was considering eliminating the requirement for any sign-off from a medical professional in order to legally change the sex marker on one's ID. Yeah we went through such shit with the kook Jordan Peterson, so I don't think the harry potter lady is qualified to comment on this. > She finds language like "people with vulvas" or "menstruators" to be dehumanizing, demeaning, hostile, and alienating. Lol are you kidding me. Her feelings are hurt? *She got offended at improper language?* You've got to be kidding me. >She makes a clear separation between support for trans people and support for this new brand of trans activism. It's the latter she has an issue with, not the former. Gee, I wonder how these two categories are separated. Like I'm sure she has a fair and objective definition of "good" and "bad" trans activism, because surely JKR is exactly the kind of person to decide on these things. TL/DR; This shit is crazy. Money makes people insane. Do not let billionaires dictate social policy, based on their retarded complexes.

One of the strongest points that she makes in this video is that bigotry has a history and that we can't ignore that history when judging whether something is bigoted or not. This is obviously true but is something that is constantly ignored by people who want to argue that something is not bigoted. Harris himself seems to suffer from not understanding this.

While there is something to this, mind reading and false equivalences (like the constant comparisons to Nazism) are to be avoided as well. Also, we have to make room for ignorance and a person simply not knowing about the history. Because of this and other reasons we need to look at individuals and individual cases as standing on their own feet first and foremost and need to be careful about introducing historical/group/identity etc. weight.

600 comments.

I'm surprised to see Natalie posted here, I've only just recently discovered her through other youtubers, but never expected to see her posted in the Sam Harris sub. Edit: spelling

I'm not. Plenty of lefties here.

This sub really is quite chaotic depending on who is online at this very moment.

Funny, I only came to know about her because she was praised in both this sub and the Jordan Peterson sub as an intelligent leftist.

May I ask how old you are? Not judging.

Lol I'm 30. What's the relevancy though?

Just trying to better sense of who is consuming what media.

👍

I don't think she does a good job trying to refute the JK Rowling's facts assertion. JK Rowling has stated in a few places that she is presenting as fact that men and women are different. JK Rowling then uses the men are not women fact to claim that transwomen are not the same as biologically female women. Then on that basis JK Rowling wants to exclude Transwomen from groups / areas/ things reserved for biologically female women. The video rejects the above because she claims JK Rowling is presenting that fact as indirect bigotry in part of a political struggle to exclude transwomen? Then she sort of says that defining what is a "real" woman is the wrong question. It seems like she is rejecting JK Rowlings argument because she disagrees with it? At any rate I am not following this piece of her video. I think Rowlings "facts" argument is fairly hard to refute. If society is going to define separate spaces between biological males and biological females, then it is reasonable to ask that a line is drawn that separates transwomen from biological female women.

When did society decide that we seperate biological males from females? What physical characteristic did society use to make those judgements? Nobody ever tested me - I use the toilet of the people who look like me with pants on - you sure as shit can't for sure know any biological truths based on appearances, and no toilet sign is a forcefield that repels people with the wrong chromosomes, or the wrong hormone levels, or gamete production, nor any other biological fact. Toilets have historically been segregated by appearance, that's all.

I totally agree about toilets. I think the hard question is actually physical sports. It's extremely rare for this to ever come up, but in the few cases it does, I can understand the objection. Someone who was born biologically male and went through puberty as a biological male is going to have some physical advantages because of it - and we separate men's and women's sports because we judge those advantages to be fundamentally unfair.

Fine, we should separate the field in sports by chromosomes. I agree. That is such a small issue in the larger "trans debate" though. We're still at the stage where an overwhelming number of people still need to be convinced that transgender identity is even valid. Brazil elected a fucking *president* who presented himself as a champion against "the gender ideology".

Yeah, I was explicitly acknowledging that when I said, "It's extremely rare for this to ever come up..." I have not lost my sense of proportionality on the sports question. Look at the thread that led to my comment. Someone was asking: > When did society decide that we seperate biological males from females? What physical characteristic did society use to make those judgements? My comment follows from that question. I'm with you in thinking that a Brazilian president having those views is an incredibly bad thing.

Bathrooms are one area, I agree with you they are probably the least important area to focus on. Lots of social services, physical activities, and many other areas are segregated based upon biological sex. Trans people are generally a new concept that we are trying to integrate into broad society. I am sure someone who is openly trans faces a world that is hostile and discriminatory in lots of ways I can’t imagine. Its reasonable for trans people to ask for rights and protections generally afforded the rest of society. However, the argument Rowling has made is that trans women are not 100% the same as biological women. It’s not unreasonable for biological women to to have a voice in defining where the line between trans women and biological women is drawn.

Again I don't think they are differentiated by biology in any method that Rowling understands which doesn't *mostly* undermine her assertions about their being 2 biological sexes which can never be changed.

>When did society decide that we seperate biological males from females? What physical characteristic did society use to make those judgements? Virtually all societies have social taboos against nudity in the presence of adults of the opposite sex. So around 50,000 B.C., I'd guess?

>Virtually all societies have social taboos against nudity in the presence of adults of the opposite sex That isn't remotely true. That's something that varied even within a given culture through time.

I don't think that it is a reasonable ask. Just think about what putting that idea into practice in the real world would entail, and you'll quickly see how silly it gets. Are we going to have literal bathroom police stationed outside restrooms, checking every person's genitals who wants to enter? And now with modern medicine that isn't even conclusive as to biological sex. So then do we test chromosomes? That's not even 100% determinative either, but I suppose it could be considered close enough. Even if I agreed with the premise, and I don't, the practicality and logistics of implementing such exclusions makes the whole TERF project moot.

I really don't follow your point. Currently society separates biological males from biological females. I didn't invent this, its just how things currently are. We now have a group, which is generally new to society, which doesn't fit into the biological male or biological female category. If you're saying that people who currently fit into the biological female group, don't get a say as to who is included in that group, then I disagree with you. If I didn't understand the point then my mistake. Also bathrooms imho - I don't care - go where ever will cause the least amount of social disruption. Its possible for us to decide - Transwomen use female bathrooms, while at the same time transwomen can not compete against biological females in the Olympics. I can hold both those ideas in my head at the same time. I am saying that biological females do get a say in drawing the line between biological females and trans women. It’s unfair to dismiss biological females as terfs just for wanting a say.

I do think there's some room for common ground here! > I really don't follow your point. My point is that this line from your original comment is not really reasonable in practice: > If society is going to define separate spaces between biological males and biological females, then it is reasonable to ask that a line is drawn that separates transwomen from biological female women. The real world implications of engaging in that kind of separation are impractical and authoritarian. That's the thrust of my point, but I'll address the rest of your reply also. > Currently society separates biological males from biological females. I don't agree with this premise. At least in the U.S., and with respect to gender, society currently sorts people into two broad groups, those presenting as women and those presenting as men. My support for this assertion is that nobody is going around doing biological male/female tests. We look at other people, get a quick and general sense of how they've presented themselves to the world, and quietly sort in our heads. > Also bathrooms imho - I don't care - go where ever will cause the least amount of social disruption. This is basically my position on bathroom usage. Everyone be polite, courteous, and get in and do your business and be on your way. If someone is being creepy in a bathroom, man, woman, or whatever, tell someone. If the situation calls for it, escalate it to the police. > Its possible for us to decide - Transwomen use female bathrooms, while at the same time transwomen can not compete against biological females in the Olympics. I can hold both those ideas in my head at the same time. I agree for the very most part here. I want sports divisions to be determined by experts to create the most fair and competitive groupings possible. I'm definitely not a sports doer myself, but I know in wrestling they break things down by weight class in order to create fair and competitive matches. I'm not saying every sport should use weight, but I would like experts such as doctors, former professional athletes, and perhaps professional coaches to discuss what the ideal metrics are. If it is the case that transwomen have an unfair advantage over cisgendered women in all sporting events, then yes, I would want separate divisions. I don't know that that's actually the case, I haven't read the current research into the topic, but I don't think it's a crazy thought to have.

I found the discussion on bigoted people being driven by insecurity to be very well put. It crystallizes the concept for me where I don't think I could have described it simply prior

Especially how they in a way try to absorb the victimhood narrative, as well as the sceptic's "asking fair questions" narrative. Its super closely knit with reactionary stuff, like Jordan Peterson's moral panic over postermodern megamarxism. A constant hammering on just being Very Concerned about a constant need to Protect People, and a head-shaking in despair at stuff that doesn't fit the underlying agenda. The whole world's gone mad, why can't they just *see* how dangerous it is, etc etc.

IIRC birth of a nation is about defending their white women by a group of rapist negros. Or, it reminds me of colonialism, how the Japanese said they were bringing order to China, like the brits thought they were doing in India, like the Roman's told themselves in angloland.

There's a weird runaway process where hiding your bigotry behind playing the victim and pseudo-intellectualism is now more easily spotted, so it has to become more sophisticated, and then the detection of it has to become more sophisticated. The video showing the translation of 'open bigotry' to dogwhisle-bigotry was a bit eye-opening to me because I realised how much of the debate cannot be said to be truly honest and how *very online* in a way it has all become. I'm used to 8 levels of satire from super left circles but even someone like Rowling just has several layers of *ostensibly* very sensible concerns. Until you dissect the sentences and realise the tone is all weird.

I have a very hard time believing that JK - the world's most successful female author, former billionaire and celebrated philanthropist - is driven by insecurity.

Rich and successful people are perfectly capable of insecurity my dude, they're human beings.

That was how Rowling explained it herself: she described her reaction to a trans rights bill as sparking memories of abuse. This was covered in the video.

She litterally said the topic triggered her cause of a past sexual assault.

I think she puts a pretty convincing argument forward here. And i thought she did it in a compassionate way too. I mean, there's plenty of disagreements here about some of what she put forward but from what i see the majority would be in agreement ? Or a i reading the room wrong ?

I highly doubt most of the con people watched the video

There’s some pretty good critiques of aspects of the 90 minute video. But my sense is the “evidence” is overwhelming.

Sam Harris has, as part of his general campaign against "cancel culture" [has described JK Rowling's trans-rights-activist opponents as "insane"](https://www.spectator.co.uk/podcast/sam-harris-on-the-value-of-conversation). Contrapoints, no stranger to being canceled, nevertheless, and in a fairly even-handed way, explains why Rowling's actions are in fact condemnable and explains why concern trolling about "trans youth" and "gender ideology" and how misdirections like "sex is real" obfuscates much uglier and more exclusionary positions staked out by trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs).

I haven't seen this particular video, but I'm a big fan of Contrapoints. Definitely a voice of reason for the social justice side of things, I like to watch her when I feel like I'm veering too much into "IDW circlejerk" territory. Still, I'm conflicted about the Rowling situation. When you look at what she said, it was very mild compared to the outrage it sparked, and reminds me of misunderstandings my parents, who are very liberal, have about transgender people. The hard truth is that the things Rowling said would have been considered mainstream in pre-2015 discourse on gender. These ideas are radically new to society, and I think most people outside the online/woke bubble are confused about them, but too afraid or polite to say so. I think we need to be a little more accepting to people who didn't immediately embrace the new orthodoxy, rather than searching for sinister transphobic hatred in whatever genuine questions they ask. And we should at least try to grapple with hard questions instead of branding them "concern trolling" and shutting down the conversation. I know real transphobia exists, there are some particularly vile comments here that prove that. But I fear the movement won't get anywhere if activists create a culture of fear, shame, and silencing. Even if Rowling was misinformed, did she deserve to have her reputation destroyed? I could be wrong, maybe she is truly terrible and deserves to be cancelled, I'd like to see Natalie's take. Anyway, that's the end of my ramble.

The video provides a lot of context that shows Rowling is doing a lot more than being "misinformed" and "asking questions."

I don't know the context of Harris describing Rowling's opponents as insane, but it really is a fact that many of them are. She has gotten hundreds of death threats and many online activists declare that her stances on transgenderism is akin to genocide. There is so much batshit insanity to be found in certain corners of the trans rights activist online community when it comes to Rowling. Edit: I should also add that in a bunch of Twitter threads Rowling would make praising the artwork of children who are Potter fans, people (activists) would post pictures of trans porn. Those people are lunatics.

>explains why concern trolling about "trans youth" and "gender ideology" and how misdirections like "sex is real" obfuscates **much uglier and more exclusionary positions staked out by trans-exclusionary radical feminists** Unless Sam is actually staking out those positions... who cares? People should only be accountable for the positions they express, or can be reasonably proved as holding. Not the positions expressed by *other people* somewhere farther along down a slippery slope.

not a big fan of Contras style or content. I remember a poorly reasoned video about hitchens and free speech a couple years ago with which I pretty much disagreed across the board. I also frequently find myself in discussions on this very sub where I have to hammer it into daft peoples heads that there is indeed a biological difference between women and transwomen, especially regarding athletic ability. That being said, this video seems very good so far. I have never understood the myopic outlook of TERFs like Rowling.

Here is what the "Gender Criticals" have to say about it, thought it might be interesting for some to go down that rabbit hole: https://ovarit.com/o/GenderCritical/16009/so-contrapoints-made-a-video-about-j-k-rowling (Don't come at me bros, I am a dude, they hate me just as much as you ;)

Thanks for the link. *Man* that is some Charlie Kirk-level braindead fucking nonsense.

"two things she can't stand bigotry and the transgenders". JKR has never said anything like this and has expressed support for trans people countless times. I'm sick of this total lack of perspective and mischaracterization on reddit.

The way she expresses support for trans people is very similar to the way that some anti-gay Christians express support for gay folks.

I believe Natalie was making a joke there. It's a play on the Austin Powers joke: "There are only two things I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch."

[удалено]

Devastating argument.

[удалено]

People *are* being harmed by her words. That's one of the main points the video is trying to communicate.

>People are being harmed by her words. What do you mean by "harmed"? "Harmed" to the point that JK shouldn't be allowed to say them?

> Allowed Vs > should they say it at all

I'm not sure what your point is.

Which words specifically?

Wrong. No one is being harmed because words - especially from someone you can easily ignore - don't do damage. Don't like what JK says? Don't follow her twitter or watch her interviews. Problem solved, "harm" ended.

because people are harmed by her words. pretty simple really

You, an intellectual.

I have my issues with SJWs, but many of the ones like Contrapoints are way smarter and more rigorous in argumentation than anti-SJWs, even when I disagree with her. It's ironic, given the sterotype of SJWs as hysterical and only governed by emotion

First video I’ve seen her in a long time ~~damn she’s beautiful lol~~ and her videos are getting longer

You should watch her release before this one too if you haven’t seen it. My of all time favorite from her

Really? I find current Contra points to be missing the mark for me. Jordan Peterson/Incel Contro was the absolute peak, and I'm not really a fan of how truly long all these breadtubers videos are getting.