Mermaids organisation suggests J K Rowling caused suicides

submitted by turtleduck23 from mermaidsuk.org.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ArthnoldManacatsaman 67 insightful - 2 fun67 insightful - 1 fun68 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This is the tactic of the abuser.

Don't leave disagree with me, I'll kill myself!

Edit: I'm going to keep going because soapbox.

We are aware through our work with families that there have been cases of self-harm and even attempted suicide following J.K.Rowling’s statements and the public response on social media and in the press. Surely this must cause us all to pause and question the way young trans lives are being debated in public.

Call me a heartless monster, but that is nobody else's responsibility but their own. Yes, it's awful when anyone self-harms or attempts suicide, but if people are so fragile they are going to self-harm over something they read in the newspaper then that tells me that they are in desperate need of psychiatric intervention, not that the debate that offends them is upsetting. Exposure to issues that offend or upset you builds character, and strengthens or challenges your own convictions. Mermaids should be inveighing against the lack of mental health resources available to these people, not JK.

Trans people are far from being accepted by society and suffer real life discrimination, including physical violence, employment discrimination and everyday harassment on the street.

But so do plenty of people. This is something societies need to work on, but if a woman killed herself because she was refused the CEO role she really wanted, most people would probably rightly come to the conclusion that there were other demons lurking under the surface.

Therefore, as a woman of great power and someone sympathetic to trans young people, we ask her to acknowledge the many young people around the world who fundamentally disagree with her position on trans acceptance and we beg her to at least consider the possibility that trans young people are able to express who they are for themselves.

JK Rowling doesn't have to do shit. 'I am aware people disagree with me, but honestly, fuck them right?' - would that be fine then? JK isn't stupid enough to think that people don't disagree with her. The fact that she has doubled down in spite of massive disagreement makes her statements all the more profound. She has not been cowed into silence or retraction.

She's not denying that trans people can't express who they are for themselves. A tweet of hers literally says 'wear a dress, call yourself what you want' - what is that if not 'considering the possibility'? What they mean is 'come round to the pov that...'.

J.K. Rowling rightly speaks of brave ‘detransitioned’ young women. Yet, does she consider trans people, living openly in spite of public hostility, less brave? Are those who have fought for decades to be treated with respect and dignity in a society that ridicules and demonises them, less brave? Are those children and young people who state their true gender in the face of rejection from family and friends less brave? At Mermaids, we support people no matter the path they take and that of course includes those who transition, detransition or retransition.

It doesn't matter how brave she thinks they are, bravery and being right aren't mutually exclusive options. You can be brave and wrong, and cowardly and correct.

J.K. Rowling may see that as part of a ‘radical trans rights movement’, we see it as our duty. If we are considered radical by some, then we will accept the badge and wear it with pride. We do not consider it radical to listen to young people and support them without prejudice. We do not consider it radical to believe that trans adults were once trans children. We do not consider it radical to believe that children and young people know who they are, for themselves, without arbitration from strangers. If standing beside trans young people and their families is radical, then please J.K. Rowling, be radical.

JK does not consider it radical to stand up for the sex-based rights of women and girls. JK does not consider it radical to believe that 'trans children' deserve psychiatric intervention and protection from invasive, irreversible medical procedures. If standing up for women and girls (and many others groups besides) is radical, then please, JK, be radical.

We hope people will soon see the damage being done to vulnerable people by the nature of this polarised, misinformed ‘debate’.

/r/selfawarewolves

We repeat our call for people of all perspectives to refrain from threatening and aggressive behaviour and we utterly condemn anyone sending threatening or abusive content to J.K. Rowling. We ask J.K.Rowling to make a similar appeal to those using her name in their profiles whilst threatening and abusing trans people and their friends, supporters and families.

That is fair enough, and I think JK herself (without wanting to put words in her mouth) would condemn in the strongest possible terms anyone who used her name to threaten or abuse anybody else.

Again, as we have asked before: please, do not speak about trans children and young people, until you have listened to them first.

I agree in principle that people shouldn't spout off about things about which they know nothing, but a larger part of me just wants to tell these people to fuck off.

[–]endless_assfluff 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fantastic. I dropped by to say most of those things.

The "if you don't accept trans people as their chosen gender, they'll kill themselves" argument is so manipulative and insidious, and it's really all they have. Every libfem I've met recognizes that "if you don't date me, I'll kill myself" is an intimidation. It's clear that (a) the person saying it is using suicide as a bargaining chip to get the recipient to do what they want and (b) that a person threatening suicide is not likely to kill themselves, because people who actually do want to commit suicide don't give others a chance to stop them and see no other options. It's just straight-up emotional manipulation. So they've come up with empowering tactics to counter this abusive trash, not a single one of which involves giving in and dating the guy to keep him happy. But all that great intuition goes out the window when TRAs start threatening suicide if they don't get what they want.

Not only that, but you could rephrase

We are aware through our work with families that there have been cases of self-harm and even attempted suicide following J.K.Rowling’s statements and the public response on social media and in the press.

as

Nobody has killed themselves in response to JKR's statements.

And I also take issue with

J.K. Rowling rightly speaks of brave ‘detransitioned’ young women. Yet, does she consider trans people, living openly in spite of public hostility, less brave?

Their arguments don't so much rely on misinformation (sans the gaslighting about biological sex) as they rely on controlling which narrative the public sees, and here's an example of them using faulty logic to do just that. First, the faulty logic. They seem to have interpreted JKR's statement as "If a young woman has detransitioned, she is brave," and the following paragraph responds to this as if JKR had said "If a transperson did not detransition, they are not brave." That's the inverse. That a statement does not imply its inverse is fifth-grade-level logic. Nothing JKR said actually reflected poorly on transpeople, but they're deliberately misrepresenting her statements to make it seem that way.

And misinterpretation is all they have here because they can't reveal what the actual purpose of this tactic is: silencing dissenters. Oppressors tend to create a one-way system where the oppressed are expected to have empathy for the other party, but they do not have to have empathy for the oppressed; and that the oppressed should be held responsible for their actions, while the oppressors should not. Both parties have emotions and both parties sometimes do problematic things. Someone who cares about truth and can empathize with both sides would readily admit that. A person who does not care and just wants to push their side will be incapable of acknowledging the other party's feelings and incapable of taking responsibility for their wrongdoings. An attractive strategy for these people is to keep drawing attention away from the information that doesn't serve them---the other party's emotions and their problematic actions---and towards the information that does---their emotions and the other party's problematic actions---in a way that looks fair, balanced, and true, but is actually betraying that their position is not based on fact, and that they fundamentally have to ignore information in order to hold it.

Since I used a break-up as an example above, I'll use one here, too. Consider the following exchange:

A: I'm sorry, I don't think we can be together anymore. What you said at the restaurant hurt me too deeply.

B: But my feelings were hurt too. When you broke up with me, it hurt me.

A: I understand that the break-up is emotionally stressful, and it is for me too, but I just couldn't go on.

B: But I'm hurt too. I'm hurt by you painting me as some kind of monster.

A is acknowledging B's feelings; B can't acknowledge A's. A is acknowledging the consequences of their own actions; B cannot. A is able to empathize with B. B is not able to empathize with A. So because both A and B see B's side but only A sees A's side, the narrative will keep getting pulled in B's favor. Unless A exposes what B is doing. (If it's a private discussion, A needs to cut it off because just continuing the discussion itself is allowing B to pretend A can still win, when really nothing A can say will convince B because B's not listening.)

So if we go back to their statement:

J.K. Rowling rightly speaks of brave ‘detransitioned’ young women. Yet, does she consider trans people, living openly in spite of public hostility, less brave?

What is actually happening here is that JKR is saying "We should listen to detransitioned young women" and they are responding with "But what about the people who don't detransition?!" Classic misdirection. JKR has clearly and repeatedly expressed empathy for trans people, so her statement from the beginning has been "We should respect and listened to both transitioned and detransitioned people." And what Mermaids is really saying here is "don't listen to detransitioned people," but because saying it outright makes them look bad, they try to redirect any discussion about detransitioners by interrupting with "but what about US?!"

Because they don't have another choice. Detransitioned teenagers are living, walking proof of their wrongdoing. Even acknowledging their existence challenges their incredibly weak claim that anyone with gender dysphoria is trans. Even if they were to pretend to empathize with detransitioners and say "We know detransitioners have it hard," I can all but guarantee you that the next word will be 'but' and the subject of the next clause will be transpeople.

This paragraph reads alright to most people but clearly exposes that their argument is selfish.

Ugh. I'm trying to write an essay about how crappy these arguments are and how to counter them, and it's so hard to not call them out when they pop up.

[–]leaveandletleave 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a really helpful breakdown, thank you.