TMV
Unusually stupid.
How did Rowling attack “the most vulnerable population in the world”?
So…rapists who identify as women are the most vulnerable population in the world? No, I don’t think that can be right. There’s the being a rapist bit first of all – raping isn’t being vulnerable, it’s being raped that’s being vulnerable. Then there’s the part about being a man. Men who rape: most vulnerable in world? No, I’m not buying that.
Let’s think of some genuinely vulnerable populations in the world. Women in Afghanistan, there’s one. Then you can add women in a long long long list of countries – women are vulnerable because of religious misogyny, because of poverty, because of violence, because of preferential treatment for sons and brothers, because of tradition – the list is long.
Uighurs. People in Somalia, people in Syria, people on Pacific islands that are disappearing because of climate change, people in countries torn apart by war, people in authoritarian countries, people in areas ruined by drought, people who have lost everything in wild fires – I could go on like this for hours. There are literally billions of very vulnerable people in the world, and I don’t think for one second that men in prosperous countries who identify as women are anything like as vulnerable as that. Many are subject to ridicule or hostility or both, I don’t doubt that, but the hyperbole that’s built up about how “vulnerable” they are is ludicrous. And as for rapists – which was the subject of Rowling’s tweet – how about the vulnerability of the woman raped? Eh?
AngryBlackLady full of shit on this one.
If this is the same AngryBlackLady who was/is a guest poster at several blogs that I formerly respected but now think are full of crap, then yeah. She’s a big reason why I stopped reading at least one. She could use a little less misplaced anger and a little more reflection.
TRA logic:
1. Women are very very vulnerable, we agree on that.
2. TWAW.
∴
3. Transwomen are very very vulnerable. Sorry, trans_women, with a space.
Interesting how her comment on the actual use of state power to coerce women into aquiescing to a blatant falsehood was read as a comment about trans identified males. Funny how her critique of truly Orwellian thinking was seen as an attack on trans identified males. Telling how her siding with women in being able to accurately sex their rapists is interpreted as a dog whistle against trans. Where does she mention “trans” here? She is having a go at the police services, who are going to trash crime statistics by accepting self-ID from rape suspects, and, as they move through the criminal justice system, as they become convicted rapists, and jailed rapists, sent to women’s prisons. It was the coppers wot mentioned trans. She was just pointing out the sinister implications of state-enforced untruth, and the price women have paid, and will pay, for that enforcement. This clever tar-baby has brought out trans activists willing to side with rapists against women.
Is their some term for this reverse projection, an “anti-DARVO, if you will.
I love Eliza Mondegreen’s take on this (discovered via lascapigliata’ twitter feed:
https://mobile.twitter.com/elizamondegreen/status/1470449682971254785
YNnB
And once again TRA logic exactly parallels MRA logic (which makes sense since for obvious reasons):
• On the one hand “Not all Men”.
• On the other hand any talk of sexism and misogyny is taken as an attack on all men.
It’s always the shittiest people who group people into economic categories and make false generalizations about them. It’s called bigotry.
YNNB #3 wrote:
But it is. As many GC have pointed out, attacking the legitimacy of ANY trans person is an attack on ALL of them because there’s famously no possible way to tell “true” trans from “false, or “being transgender” from “believing you’re not the sex you really are.” The entire thing is a house of cards. Make exceptions on which self-identified trans people don’t merit being being treated as the gender they identify as and their entire Brain-Based Mismatch argument starts to crack.
They stand together or fall apart.
I can sort of see the reasoning that JKR’s statement is an attack on self-ID, or perhaps a statement that someone accused of sexual assault loses rights to a “gender identity” or some such. I cannot figure out any way to morph her statement to say “transwomen are dangerous” or “all transwomen are rapists”, which seems to be some of the pushback. Except perhaps the usual Let’s Make Stuff Up About Critics.
I’ve heard that JKR actually is no longer a billionaire, because her contributions to charitable efforts have been sufficiently high to bring her net worth below a billion, and she also has made no effort to evade the high UK taxes on high-income people.