Sexuality Has Gotten Complicated

[Huntn]

Not just because I happen to be one, but in defense of my people literally everybody who is outside the group has pulled up their barstool to the grievance bar to hail down complaint missives. It can feel a bit much even for those of us who feel some valid points are being made. Attempted allies get instantly thrown in the same fire or are accused of being helpless brainwashed victims. It’s like being a mall Santa but instead of people telling you what they want for Christmas they’re queuing to tell you, you are guilty of something or benefitting from something they aren’t. That’s a long day.

Having said that, I’ve said previously it’s still nowhere near what people outside my group have experienced for centuries and certainly not as potentially deadly.

Are you saying you or they feel like they are being unjustly attacked because they are white? Not hostile, just looking for clarification.

 

[Chew Toy McCoy]

Are you saying you or they feel like they are being unjustly attacked because they are white? Not hostile, just looking for clarification.

I am, but it's mostly just online behavior. I said in another post that in a way it's karmic justice because now white males have to prove "they are one of the good ones" starting from the default assumption that they aren't.

 

[DT]

The "college degree required" for the majority of jobs that state that has been a joke for decades. "But it's also about the experience and maturity gained" deflection just makes it worse and stupider. College shouldn't be an accepted (or expected) expensive bridge to compensate for our failing k-12 education. And even with that they aren't teaching personal responsibility and work ethic. A college degree doesn't say you aren't a shitty employee.

I think we're totally derailed from the original topic, but figured I'd wade in, discuss a couple of the points above

Totally agree about degree requirement for many jobs, there's a ton of occupations that have some, I guess I'd call it, "degree foundation", but where the majority of the real effective understanding of doing-the-job (the real world skills, etc.) come from somewhere other than college.

There's also a ton of skilled tradespeople, musicians, people that work in the food/beverage industry, and - as something I know pretty well - software development is one of those occupations. Sure, there are some core concepts you should learn, that are taught in school, but if you approach it correctly, they're just as easily picked up without college - the latter offers a lot of theory that you just don't see in real, every day production software development. My #2 company, I did all the technical hiring, college had zero impact on my decision. I also didn't do silly "tech skills" assessments or tests, I don't want people who can recall some implementation detail, I wanted skilled, but adaptable, creative thinkers, who used any available resource to fill the gaps as needed.

Now there are some far more advanced topics, that you start addressing at a Masters level degree, at the big tech schools, where you're interfacing with private sector, grants, have access to resources you can't replicate with a "Learn Python in 30 Days" online course

However, I'd say, re: the point about, "experience and maturity gained", at least in terms of time, age, maturity of many 18-22 year olds - something is needed. I agree that spending a bunch of [your parent's] money and getting a worthless piece of paper isn't a good solution, we need better programs in 9-12 to prep for the real world, more internship options, increased recognition of skills that would be benefit from a vocational type education (post high school).

 

[Huntn]

What is JK Rowling issue with Transgender? I just started a very fun game, based on the Harry Potter book series, Hogwarts Legacy so this bugs me how someone can have such creativity, but come across as a troglodyte. She says she supports transgender, but appears to be mired in tradional views of birth sex is the only real sex, and seems to feel her identity as a woman is threaten by sexual interlopers. I’ll admit, I could be somewhat in error. This is my impression. Then quite boggling is her need to comment about Nazis never persecuting trans-people. Why?
I won’t say that claiming Nazis did not pick on transgender people equates to Holocaust denial, but it is troubling.

J.K. Rowling's Transphobia Hits a New Low With Holocaust Denial

It was only a matter of time before Rowling stopped living around the corner from Nazis and started sharing an address with them.

www.themarysue.com

Yes, JK Rowling, the Nazis Did Persecute Trans People

This conversation is not really about Nazis any more than constant squabbles over gender-affirming care are about children.

www.thestranger.com

J.K. Rowling Says She’d ‘Happily’ Take Prison Time Rather Than Use a Trans Person’s Correct Pronouns

"It'll be more fun than I've ever had on a red carpet."

www.glamour.com

 

[fooferdoggie]

the woman shit on her books.

 

[Nycturne]

I won’t say that claiming Nazis did not pick on transgender people equates to Holocaust denial, but it is troubling.

"Pick on" is a pretty light-hearted term for what was done to trans people during the Holocaust.

As for if her comments are Holocaust denial or not, I think an argument can be made that it is. The destruction of the materials was the tip of the spear that imprisoned and murdered many "sexual deviants" in the camps that would come after the burning of this material, including trans people. The "gotcha" that is being put forward by JK in this case is that Hirschfeld was a proponent of eugenics (which is true), and that those Hirschfeld worked with in turn helped the Nazi regime with immoral experiments and sterilization (also true), including in the camps. But she explicitly points to threads that claim that because of this connection, trans people were not a Nazi target when clearly they were. The whole thing hinges on pushing the idea that Hirschfeld was somehow influential in the Nazi eugenics program, and that influence would mean that trans people were somehow ignored, and that it was really just the homosexuals that were tortured at the hands of the regime. It's erasure of what was done to trans people during the Holocaust. Is that not denial of what the Holocaust did?

The mind boggling thing to me is that Hirschfeld was seemingly okay with forcible sterilization of "degenerates", but didn't see the connection that many saw people like him as a degenerate until he was in the last years of his life. That said, Hirschfeld did wind up writing a book exploring racism and noting that he was "numbered among the many thousands who have fallen victim to the practical realization of this theory." He went further to suggest that the Nazi style of racism was simply an extreme version of the prejudices held throughout the west, calling for the end of the use of the word 'race' to describe subdivisions of the human species. This sounds more like someone who by the end, realized what was up, and spoke out about the wider racism/bigotry at play. And he spoke up as the Nazis were coming to power and instituting their earlier policies, as he died in 1935.

So it seems strange to pin this on him or suggest a link that likely doesn't exist, as Hirschfeld would have likely been appalled at what Gohrbandt had done going by his later works.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767928717538644460

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767939048427896900

 

[Huntn]

"Pick on" is a pretty light-hearted term for what was done to trans people during the Holocaust.

As for if her comments are Holocaust denial or not, I think an argument can be made that it is. The destruction of the materials was the tip of the spear that imprisoned and murdered many "sexual deviants" in the camps that would come after the burning of this material, including trans people. The "gotcha" that is being put forward by JK in this case is that Hirschfeld was a proponent of eugenics (which is true), and that those Hirschfeld worked with in turn helped the Nazi regime with immoral experiments and sterilization (also true), including in the camps. But she explicitly points to threads that claim that because of this connection, trans people were not a Nazi target when clearly they were. The whole thing hinges on pushing the idea that Hirschfeld was somehow influential in the Nazi eugenics program, and that influence would mean that trans people were somehow ignored, and that it was really just the homosexuals that were tortured at the hands of the regime. It's erasure of what was done to trans people during the Holocaust. Is that not denial of what the Holocaust did?

The mind boggling thing to me is that Hirschfeld was seemingly okay with forcible sterilization of "degenerates", but didn't see the connection that many saw people like him as a degenerate until he was in the last years of his life. That said, Hirschfeld did wind up writing a book exploring racism and noting that he was "numbered among the many thousands who have fallen victim to the practical realization of this theory." He went further to suggest that the Nazi style of racism was simply an extreme version of the prejudices held throughout the west, calling for the end of the use of the word 'race' to describe subdivisions of the human species. This sounds more like someone who by the end, realized what was up, and spoke out about the wider racism/bigotry at play. And he spoke up as the Nazis were coming to power and instituting their earlier policies, as he died in 1935.

So it seems strange to pin this on him or suggest a link that likely doesn't exist, as Hirschfeld would have likely been appalled at what Gohrbandt had done going by his later works.

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767928717538644460

https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1767939048427896900

It was not intended that I appear to defend her, but give her some benifit of doubt. “Pickin on” is more or less how she would seem to view it. I’m well versed in the horrors of WWII.

She seems to talk out both sides of her mouth. She’ll defend transgender rights, while simultaneouly has problems with acknowledging them as some kind of affront to the concept of locked in biological gender identity at birth. I’m not sure why her accomplishments as a “woman” would feel threatened by transgender identity, unless there is something deeper that is not being said, or it can be concluded she is not being completely honest and forthright in her views.

 

[Nycturne]

It was not intended that I appear to defend her, but give her some benifit of doubt. “Pickin on” is more or less how she would seem to view it. I’m well versed in the horrors of WWII.

She seems to talk out both sides of her mouth. She’ll defend transgender rights, while simultaneouly has problems with acknowledging them as some kind of affront to the concept of locked in biological gender identity at birth. I’m not sure why her accomplishments as a “woman” would feel threatened by transgender identity, unless there is something deeper that is not being said, or it can be concluded she is not being completely honest and forthright in her views.

I mean, on one hand, being a public figure means there's the amplification effect of just so many people being able to get angry and take it out on you that it gets overwhelming. The amplification effect of "Trans person posts a comment and 3 dozen accounts just respond with hate" is something I'm familiar with. So I can kinda get how she decided to double down on this.

But it's hard to say exactly what keeps fueling it for JK specifically, but I can take a guess. There's a few strains of feminism that conflate the system (Patriarchy) with the beneficiaries of that system. So you get thinking that men are an enemy to be vanquished, rather than an unwitting (and sometimes quite willing) tool of the system. It's hard to square that mentality with the idea that "a man" can be the victim of that same system, and in this line of thought, it can be easy to approach a trans woman in particular as a mockery, a type of blackface. I think it's a failure of imagination, and a failure of understanding how the system is really about stamping out non-conformity to the "social contract". Even Gorsuch seems to understand that telling "a male" they can't wear a dress to work (whether or not they identity as a man or woman) is a form of sex-based discrimination.

In this particular case, it seems like there's a bunch of TERFs that point to the erasure of trans history, and poor categorization in the past (Weimar Germany issued 'transvestite passes' for example), as evidence that trans people are "new", or "confused gays" (something also said by some unsavory folks back in the day). They don't subscribe to the intersectional nature of oppression, which isn't super surprising as they are pretty WASPy. Many of them don't like the idea of feminism talking about how black women get treated differently under misogyny, either.

All that said, I think JK's "They can live how they want" stuff is her talking out both sides of her mouth. Because clearly she thinks that "how they want" should be circumscribed to what she approves of.