elon musk, mark zuckerberg, J.K rowling! Are the names that come to mind.
3 from different background: a African immigrant benefiting from government spending, an American smart young engineer, and a female English successful writer.
They are no politicians, and cant be accuse of trying to gather some vote. Multi-billions amongst them.
I get they lean to the right to protect their cash, with less tax and regulation. I get they are racist because they fear some poor people will take their cash.
But why the hatred for trans people ? It’s 1% of the population, they cant do anything, dont threaten anyone. There is no rational or psychological reason
Musk: more politically oriented than just money now, had aligned himself with a very large part of the population that thinks at a minimum that even if some people need to transition for their own health, society retains the right to consider their pre-transition history to still be part of reality
Zuckerberg: profit driven, is aligning Facebook etc with the political reality in America and the real prospect of being fined or embargoed by a Trump administration, would flip back if a democrat won in 2028
Rowling: belongs to a British generation of certain age where trans people are superficially accepted BUT regards their pre-trans history to be something still relevant. That’s where this started and it escalated / deteriorated from there E.g. compassionate to a degree and willing to entertain the “fiction” that a biological man is now a women for the sake of that person’s mental health: see them at the shops presenting female? carry on as normal… talk to them? use their current name and pronouns out of politeness… BUT… if they want to access a female shelter, draw a line… if they want to teach young children, risk assess them including their pre-trans gender and history etc. Rowling then got into increasingly fractious arguments on Twitter, largely arising from other people she followed and liked and what the trans community inferred from that. At that point she doubled down declaring advocates on Twitter to be increasingly hysterical and deluded whilst simultaneously insisting she would treat trans people humanely in person. She’s then lashed out in numerous ways including in her writings aligning herself with increasingly extreme anti-trans people. FWIW, I think she would have carried on being a mildly tolerant (if dated) person of a certain age had she just stayed off Twitter entirely. But lashing out, being misinterpreted and misinterpreting others had led her to spiral down into viciousness and bitterness.
I agree with your analysis. I think on Musk’s case there is also his estranged daughter, it has entrenched his position
True
I consider your theorizing of “pre-transition history” being within the “rights of society” to “keep in touch with reality” as misleading and problematic.
In fact, these are the axioms of trans erasure I discuss in my other response. In the core of this reasoning is the idea that “men are inherently dangerous to women” therefore “women must know at all times the biological sex of any person they interact with”.
So you can’t go past the “transition” history for reasons that under all other circumstances you would decry as “misandry”, but only apply this to trans women (victims themselves of cis violence in bathrooms and all other settings). Why? Because you register trans women in the semantics of sexual perversion. Then, the “right” to know anyone’s medical history does not exist, on the contrary people have the right to privacy to medical interventions of any type.
Due to stigma and discrimination trans people are furthermore entitled to hands down secrecy, given that a random bigot can just shoot them down for being trans with zero consequences. But this is also hypothetical now. The amount of cis-passing is different for every trans people.
Some may pass for cis, most don’t. Besides the existential crisis some people experience when they can’t tell a person is trans, in practice stealth trans people are relatively rare, and there is not an iota of evidence that there is any societal harm from stealth cis-passing trans people. So there is no reason behind your purported “societal right to know”, apart from cisgenderist entitlement.
Enforcing such right is not only infeasible, but it sufficiently and necessarily leads to banning public trans life, with no other explanation other than cis people’s uneasiness. The civil rights movement has established that majoritarian uneasiness with minorities sharing their bathrooms is not enough to justify perpetuation of discriminatory segregation practices.
This is textbook transphobia.
I don’t believe that, just to be clear. But I think that’s the view of a lot of people, and that’s what i was outlining. because that was relevant to OP’s question.
I will assume you are not talking about me here as you have no idea of my point of view on the matter. I believe you are talking generically…
even if you are talking generically, i don’t think your assumption here makes sense. many people feel free to discriminate between people on the basis of their biological sex. there are many contexts where (for example) men will accept they are treated differently but will not resort to calling this “misandry”. at least in the settings i’m familiar with and amongst the people i’ve lived alongside here in London, UK. you may have very specific incidence in mind or may not be intending to speak universally, but you said “all other circumstances”, which sounds pretty universal, so i’m just pointing out that’s not correct…
I don’t know where you live, but this is not true in the UK
while I agree with the thrust of what you are saying you have a writing style that puts words and assumptions in my mouth in a manner that comes across an unnecessarily combative. you also use exaggeration to make your point which is itself problematic…
I think Peanuts is speaking from JKR’s perspective, not justifying it
But I also skimmed bits of both of your comments. It’s ironic really, because I’m equally verbose
The wording is such that lends legitimacy to these viewpoints. The breakdown is right there for anyone who want to build upon this discussion, but it would be naive to give the benefit of the doubt to just anyone, when ignorance and misinformation is ubiquitous, nay, institutionalized.
This is the answer. It’s the intersection of those with strong personal opinions and the power (money) to speak their mind without true repercussions, and the power (money) hungry who are following the strongest zeitgeist in the halls of power.
The zeitgeist exists because the entrenched powerful ones are currently using trans people and migrants as a wedge between different parts of the working class. It used to be homosexuals and communists. Or abortions and hippies. Or slaves. Or indigenous people. Ad nauseum. It’s about keeping the working class divided and maintaining power. This is the latest version. And it’s not just in the US BTW
People like Rowling are new money working class that fell for the con