Why Is Anything Short Of 100% Enthusiasm For Transexual Issues Considered "Transphobia"?

[Kardashev]

surely a phobia is an irrational fear of something. I don't think JK Rowling is afraid of transexuals.

[Cloverjo]

She’s not transphobic either.

-phobia can be an irrational fear or hatred. As in xenophobia - xenophobics aren’t usually afraid of strangers, they hate foreigners.

[Cloverjo]

Just to clarify; JKR doesn’t hate or fear transgender people.

[douglas9401]

Unless those transgender people feel feared or hated, then she does. :-(

[Mozz71]

Dictionary definition:

PHOBIC: having or involving an extreme or irrational fear of or aversion to something.

You don't have to by afraid of something, just dislike it to be "phobic" of something.

[Kardashev]

agreed so why is even the slightest deviation from the approved view termed "transphobic" ?

[douglas9401]

I blame the internet.

And vegans.

[piggynose]

14.51.. and people with strange haircuts

[douglas9401]

Cressida Dick?

[jim360]

It's better I think to refer you to a "reply" to JK Rowling. A long video, but probably worth a watch anyway.

[mushroom25]

// A long video //

at 1hr29mn that's something of an understatement.

[Kardashev]

not watching that, what are the salient points?

[Peter Pedant]

homophobia is usually taken as loathing of homosexuals
are we discussing meanings or what she thinks?

[douglas9401]

Or indeed what we think she thinks

[douglas9401]

I think

[Peter Pedant]

yes - or no
I think

[Kardashev]

PP: "are we discussing meanings or what she thinks? " - neither, I am trying to determine why even a slight deviation from prescribed thinking on the subject gets labelled as "transphobia" by the media et al.

[jim360]

A few of the salient points:

1. Rowling and other gender-critical feminists tend to attack an argument that no trans person is seriously making. If you misunderstand (or even deliberately misrepresent) a person's position, that's a bad start.

2. By extension, Rowling seems to frame trans identity as a "choice", eg in a 2019 tweet she wrote "call yourself whatever you please/dress however you like." This isn't supportive, however, because it's mistaking something that is, or feels, innate, for something that can be switched on and off on a whim. Trans people aren't "acting" as trans; they *are* trans. It would be similar to reducing homosexuality to a choice (and then insisting that it's a choice that should be kept private, ie separate from the rest of normal society, which is a homophobic attitude even if it's superficially supportive).

3. It also is often expressed as a "think of the children!" argument: the idea that, if children are exposed to "trans ideology", they might "mistakenly" think of themselves as trans, and so take decisions they'll regret. Framing it this why, transgender identity is something to in a sense "protect" children from. What are they being protected from, exactly? You only need protection from things that are in some sense dangerous.

I suppose what I'm saying is that there's often an undercurrent of transphobia in people who aren't 100% supportive. Not full-on transphobia, but something more subtle: presenting trans people as "the other", who present a threat to established norms, and who therefore must in some sense be curated to ensure that they interact with society properly. But that isn't trans equality. It's presenting a type of person as "a threat until proven valid".

[Kardashev]

ok thanks jim360

[naomi24]

Because sticking unpleasant labels on people who hold alternative opinions to those the woke want to hear is an easy way to silence them. Fortunately they haven’t succeeded in silencing J K Rowling.

[jim360]

There are two kinds of responses to JK Rowling, though, and not all of them are attacking her as a person. It goes without saying that the abuse she's received, the rape/death threats, etc., is abhorrent. But that doesn't mean her views, which as I said often misrepresent and mis-frame the topics she's talking about, can't be criticised. Sadly, she's mistaken, and it's worth asking why.

Also, one of the aspects of the video I linked to that is worth taking note of in general is that we are too quick to think of bigotry in general as something that's obvious and overt. But it is rarely so helpful in being obvious. Many bigots are perhaps not even aware of why what they are saying can be harmful or bigoted: they see themselves instead as the oppressed, or as speaking for the oppressed, and who wouldn't want to fight in that position? The problem comes when they are simply wrong to think that way.