All I can really say to that is that people disowning the creations of people due to extremist interpretations of their statements is one of the most concerning aspects of our current world for me as a creator...
0
LotBlind53~2Y
Do you mean she's not been done right by those calling her that? Or that you're worried you might be found by someone more extreme (or whatever) than you mean to be in some views?
It seems to me even a slight case of something morally questionable from someone so prominent can only be responded to in a more cautious way. I guess it's an inevitable and necessary concomitant of fame.
Also what exactly do we mean by "disowning"? For me, stopping to feed hateful hands (I think she's badly traumatized isn't she?) is enough. So for me, you can more or less guilt-free buy a book second-hand or something.
1
Tobias 1102~2Y
My understanding of the gist of that situation is that she's basically said women who might have negative reactions to seeing a penis due to past trauma should have a space where they're guaranteed not to see one, where they can feel comfortable, and it's been interpreted as her 'literally killing' transpeople (some of who, based on tweets I've seen, have said many, many worse things about what they'd like to do to her).
It's something that concerns me because of how volatile the current political climate has become; saying something even relatively innocuous or entirely sensible that clashes with some of the extremist beliefs championed by a loud minority sets off some kind of nuclear reaction.
I keep wanting to write about it because even though I don't care about political stuff, I find the psychology interesting - and in some cases baffling or concerning - but I'm afraid that if I even try to I'll just end up losing all my Patreon supporters and being marked as an enemy or something.
I mean it's hardly comparable to the JK Rowling situation since she's one of the most famous people on the planet and I'm not, but I'm still dependent on keeping fans happy to make a living, so it's something I have to think about.
0
LotBlind53~2Y
What's reasonable to cater for people with traumas, I suppose, is a similarly intricate question as with disabilities of all sorts. What's clear is some people take their avoidance much further than is in their own best interests, and of course we have to take both points of view into account (just cause you have a penis should mean what exactly?).
Aside from that, that's by far not the only thing she's said about trans-women!
That's the latest one. It's not even hugely important IMO. (How the police in Scotland log rape crimes). It's just so asinine, a complete refusal to see any aspect of trans-womanhood as unmotivated by evil in almost all cases (the idea is any old Joe will happily go through surgical operations just to get a better chance at ogling at or raping women... does that sound level-headed?. Of course it can get overly emotional for those who feel oppressed as well, so not all their arguments may be valid either, but I think this is by and large a similar issue as how gay people were thought of as sinners and god-knows-what once. And anti-trans stuff is surging in the UK and US and probably other places too recently, so high time to find out something about it.
The problem is the ones who identify as trans (especially women) that you watch on YouTube sound like they're being repressed in a very basic way: a massive amount of disinformation and misunderstandings are out there, as it seems, starting from what it even requires to compete as a trans-woman... but there's also misrepresentations of biology that try to erase all differences. So actually cis-women could stand faced with real trouble if the rules get too lax (or even if they don't).
Most of my information comes from this seemingly unbiased take on the Trans-athletes question if you're interested: [LINK]
And I also read this one: [LINK]@transphilosophr/why-its-fair-for-trans-athletes-to-compete-against-women-bb7a45ef1b42
Sports aside, it goes much deeper than that. JK is going far too far. Anyway, I trust you'll get better-versed than me in all this in a day if you think that's productive for you.
2
LotBlind53~2Y
I found this trans-woman's take on TERFism that acts as an introduction. A large part of my trans-knowledge comes from several trans-women on YouTube who mostly weren't transitioned when I started to watch, so they certainly get a first-hand experience of what life's like before and after.
(Those women I'm talking about, aside from Jessie, are Abigail from Philosophy Tube and Jim Stephanie Sterling of the Jimquisition, who's intersex or something.)
It seems to me even a slight case of something morally questionable from someone so prominent can only be responded to in a more cautious way. I guess it's an inevitable and necessary concomitant of fame.
Also what exactly do we mean by "disowning"? For me, stopping to feed hateful hands (I think she's badly traumatized isn't she?) is enough. So for me, you can more or less guilt-free buy a book second-hand or something.
It's something that concerns me because of how volatile the current political climate has become; saying something even relatively innocuous or entirely sensible that clashes with some of the extremist beliefs championed by a loud minority sets off some kind of nuclear reaction.
I keep wanting to write about it because even though I don't care about political stuff, I find the psychology interesting - and in some cases baffling or concerning - but I'm afraid that if I even try to I'll just end up losing all my Patreon supporters and being marked as an enemy or something.
I mean it's hardly comparable to the JK Rowling situation since she's one of the most famous people on the planet and I'm not, but I'm still dependent on keeping fans happy to make a living, so it's something I have to think about.
Aside from that, that's by far not the only thing she's said about trans-women!
[LINK]
That's the latest one. It's not even hugely important IMO. (How the police in Scotland log rape crimes). It's just so asinine, a complete refusal to see any aspect of trans-womanhood as unmotivated by evil in almost all cases (the idea is any old Joe will happily go through surgical operations just to get a better chance at ogling at or raping women... does that sound level-headed?. Of course it can get overly emotional for those who feel oppressed as well, so not all their arguments may be valid either, but I think this is by and large a similar issue as how gay people were thought of as sinners and god-knows-what once. And anti-trans stuff is surging in the UK and US and probably other places too recently, so high time to find out something about it.
The problem is the ones who identify as trans (especially women) that you watch on YouTube sound like they're being repressed in a very basic way: a massive amount of disinformation and misunderstandings are out there, as it seems, starting from what it even requires to compete as a trans-woman... but there's also misrepresentations of biology that try to erase all differences. So actually cis-women could stand faced with real trouble if the rules get too lax (or even if they don't).
Most of my information comes from this seemingly unbiased take on the Trans-athletes question if you're interested: [LINK]
And I also read this one: [LINK]@transphilosophr/why-its-fair-for-trans-athletes-to-compete-against-women-bb7a45ef1b42
Sports aside, it goes much deeper than that. JK is going far too far. Anyway, I trust you'll get better-versed than me in all this in a day if you think that's productive for you.
[LINK]
(Those women I'm talking about, aside from Jessie, are Abigail from Philosophy Tube and Jim Stephanie Sterling of the Jimquisition, who's intersex or something.)