llamajester421

It is not her own personal opinions, but a part of an agenda, for which she is lobbying and towards which she working. It is well documented by now, see the RESIST research program for example. Also watch her chats with transphobe Helen Joyce about transgender eradication. Hate speech is harming people and should not be protected as free speech. On the contrary, bigots have reclaimed the term free speech to silence queer voices, the ones they disagree with. So unless you condemn the surge of anti-transgender legislation that also restricts free speech for queer voices, I don’t think you have much of a leg to stand on.

Cancelling authors is not like banning books. Oppressing transgender voices is instead much like burning and banning books lists, Florida-style. People are very much aware that Martin Heidegger hailed the Nazis and they can read his work at their own risk. This is not the case with Rowling, who people think is reasonably skeptic towards a radical, dangerous idea. At least this is what Facebook, in contrast to Lemmy, would have you believe. If people are similarly aware that Rowling is a holocaust denier, an obsessive hatred monger in disagreement to all major scientific and medical bodies, an accolade of antisemitic conspiracy theories, and a supporter of trans genocide, then there might be a place for her on your fucking bookshelf. You know, when she is history, not a direct threat to democracy, human life and people’s health care and well being.

Bringing up otherkin is plain what-about-ism, so it proves nothing. So much for some second-class Republicans who tried to push the narrative that schools now add special sandboxes instead of toilets to accomodate them. Reproducibility crisis that is an utter joke, especially when you defend the science-denialist position. All major medical organizations recognize the existence and validity of the trans experience. The one’s who don’t are the ones who are usually the science deniers on a range of topics. Scratching homosexuality (like after Kinsey studies) and trans identity from mental disorders was not a politically motivated decision, but reflected development of scientific thought about sex and gender, for instance 1600 biologists condemned Trumps idea that he could define biological sex on the basis of chromosomes and external genitalia at birth, Scientific American has published that biological sex is a spectrum, and that trans girls belong to high school women sports because there is no scientific basis for exclusion. It also deemed theories like “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria” as pseudoscience. So are you reading actual medical organizations or Dawkins Institute shit, because some of them are militant anti-trans agitators, not advocates of science. It is clear from what you write that you read all the wrong things and formed an ill opinion. 4) And most important, cis and trans might not be identical but neither are people within trans and cis categories. Trans people aren’t identical to their birth gender either. And in the end of the day it doesn’t even matter, respecting a trans personality has nothing to do with their biological sex, binary or not, fluid or not. It is an ideological stance (fascism) to not respect people who are not cis and/or straight. Even if it is a hairy, 200-lib pre-HRT bulky trans woman it is still a woman in the eyes of the law, like it or not. Source: Scientific American Trans girls belong to female Sports https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ Scientific American visualizing sex as a spectrum https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ 1600 biologists condemns Trump anti-transgender proposal https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46067559 American Psychological Organization advocates for trans youth https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/07/advocating-transgender-nonbinary-youths World Helath professional Association advocates for transgender adults and youth https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc And as of the last point, if you are out to misgender trans people on the basis of your dogmatic chromosomal determinism and half-baked scientism, here is what happened in the past: “if part of the belief necessarily will result in the violation of the dignity of others, that is a component of the belief, rather than something separate, and will be relevant to determining whether the belief is a protected philosophical belief,” which is from https://criticallegalthinking.com/2021/06/29/not-a-nazi-but-forstater-v-cgd-europe/ .

[1] If this issue is so clear cut, then I wonder why like any guidance by medical organizations for transitioning people state clearly “expect muscle and strength loss at the level that it might affect your grocery carrying experience” (like this https://www.wpath.org/publications/soc ). [2] Don’t forget junk science has targeted women of color, intersex women, and even normal women with high testosterone levels https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2021/07/sport/athletics-testosterone-rules-negesa-imali-running-as-equals-dsd-spt-intl-cmd/ for exclusion from female sports. [3] Now to your “academic” points. Your first reference is written by an inarticulate person reciting long debunked gender stereotypes in some third-world journal, without even backing it up. Low quality article all around, appears like a targeted attempt to give academic substance to age-old stereotypes. In contrast Scientific American has published that “trans girls belong to women’s sport” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/trans-girls-belong-on-girls-sports-teams/ since “there is no scientific case for excluding them” and “a visualization of sex as a spectrum” https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sa-visual/visualizing-sex-as-a-spectrum/ which I guess debunks all certainties of the said article. [4] Your second reference is a cherry pick from an article that states exactly the opposite “The 15-31% athletic advantage that transwomen displayed over their female counterparts prior to starting gender affirming hormones declined with feminising therapy.” (from the abstract), so what you have written might be just a little bid …dishonest? [5] And the third is a N=1 case study of one champion? It compares a single person before and after hormones to the “established sex differences”? Come on! I could even bring in articles on your side of the argument that could be more hard to debunk. The Karolinska Institute study is one for example http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/782557, who went to great lengths to skew the sample to make a seemingly neutral contribution. [6] Look for systematic studies, cherry picking is cheating: Here is a systematic review https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5357259/ It is inconclusive whether testosterone drives athletic performance, and studies are inconclusive about trans women having unfair advantages. But they do point out that prejudice stigma and violence is a factor for transgender athletes. If anyone wants to be fair has to factor in the shit trans women will take in male sports, plus that some male athletes may find it unfair to compete them in case they recognize them as women. Also some athletes and commentators have switched sides about their prior strong rhetoric on the matter https://www.thedailybeast.com/mma-fighter-rosi-sexton-apologizes-to-fallon-fox-for-transphobic-comments and I think Joe Rogan himself apologized to.