172
JK Rowling condemns Lilly Wachowski's claim she's 'funding trans genocide' (www.thepinknews.com)
submitted 2 days ago by [M] to c/fuck_jk@quokk.au
77 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The Sense8 creator said: “JK Rowling funds trans genocide, full stop. So, if you support Harry Potter, you’re supporting trans genocide.

“The money that goes into you enjoying these products, a portion of that money goes to JK Rowling and that money goes into her funding anti-trans legislation all over the world.”

Wachowski suggested that trans allies should boycott work that benefitted Rowling financially, including HBO’s upcoming TV adaptation of the Harry Potter series.

“In the same way that if you are against Elon Musk, you boycott or don’t buy Tesla; and if you’re against global warming/climate change, you try not to buy as much gas, you try to mitigate your use of these products,” she said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 19 hours ago (4 children)

And that looks much worse by percentage. I don't mean to be shitty about it, but I'm not sure of the statistical significance of these percentages.

In the same breath, it is totally reasonable to be transgender but I would not say it is a "totally normal" position to hold. Is there outside influence that drives suicide numbers up? Absolutely. Are there intrinsic correlations between people who are trans and people who commit suicide? Maybe. Should things be better than they are regardless, you bet your sweet ass.

There is nothing wrong with being trans. Women are women, and everyone deserves space to exist.

All that said, you don't get to make trans a "normalized" position because statistically it isn't "normal"! What is the suicide rate among trans people? There is no reason to assume anything that is "for people who are trans" should be an identical or even about the same for people who are cisgendered. It's a crazy minority position which absolutely has confounding factors. You can't PC the math to be the same because that's how you want it.

Posting stuff like this looks really good, but as a hard pill to swallow it's way off base by the numbers. You can't just assert that everyone is equal ergo all stats are equal. That's at best naive and at worst stupid.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (3 children)

    You are definitely crossing the line in several ways here in order to downplay and minimize suffering. Your skepticism is likely hiding an uglier truth.

    As far as dismissing Trans because of their minority status keep in mind red hair, left-handedness, and Type 1 diabetes are also statistical minority conditions, yet none are disqualified from social accommodation, medical standard-of-care, or basic respect due to low prevalence.

    With your questioning of transgender suicide it feels like you are framing that being transgender is inherently unstable or undesirable, while ignoring the established etiology of that distress.

    Mainstream clinical consensus (including the American Psychological Association, American Medical Association, and the American Academy of Pediatrics) identifies the minority stress model as the primary driver of these disparities. Elevated rates of depression and suicidality among trans individuals correlate strongly with familial rejection, discrimination, violence, lack of healthcare access, and social stigma. The very conditions aggravated by refusing to normalize their existence.

    In regards to your statement about identical treatment, advocates for transgender rights generally do not argue that medical or physiological needs are identical to cisgender populations; they argue for equal dignity, civil rights protections, and evidence-based, transition-related healthcare.

    Furthermore, by framing the call for equal human rights as an insistence that trans and cis experiences are mathematically or biologically interchangeable, your statement appears to attack an absurd position that nobody is advancing.

    In respect to your offhand comment about crazy minority with confounding factors you seem to misapply the concept of confounding variables (such as trauma, social isolation, socioeconomic instability) that explain why disparities exist. They do not invalidate the humanity of the population being studied.

    Sound research explicitly controls for confounding factors, and studies consistently demonstrate that social affirmation, supportive environments, and gender-affirming care substantially reduce psychological distress.

    Lastly your comment about PC seems to be your coup de grace, so to speak. It dismisses systemic analysis and ethical considerations as mere political correctness. It presents an illusion of hard-nosed, objective realism while using statistically flawed reasoning to justify exclusion and downplay acute suffering.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 14 hours ago

    I think when they said "normalized," they meant it in the statistical sense. As in normalizing data against a larger set. Whereas you seem to have read it in the sociological sense of "validating." So that could be a potential source of the disconnect here.

    For what it's worth, I don't necessarily agree with them. But I think what they were trying to say is that pointing out the difference in attempted suicide rates between trans people and national averages, is a bit like pointing out the higher instances of glycemia-related medical emergencies between type-1 diabetics and the national average. Of course it will be higher.

    Again, I think it was a hamfisted attempt and not necessarily helpful, especially without diving into the intricacies of correlation and causation; but I don't think their point was that we shouldn't care. It seemed like more of a methodological critique.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 child)

    Whoa now hold on a second. You are conflating different things here that I did not actually say.

    I'm not dismissing trans people here in any way. I belong to at least one of the minority groups you mentioned and it is great to be seen, but I'm not advocating for writing people off for being in the minority. What I SAID is that statistically speaking a minority position has no business being equated with the "norm". By the numbers, left handers (just for example) are more creative, but statistically don't live as long. I don't know WHY that is, but I know that if my position is "everybody is the same" then I would be wrong here. It doesn't make sense that leftys should live shorter lives, but I surely doubt that it's because the oppression of right handed scissors.

    I don't know about the prevalence of suicide rates among trans people as a sub-population, but I CAN say that it is indeed a minority and under-studied position and there is no reason to assume it is the same as "general population", not as a trivialization of a group, but rather because if you care about the characteristics of a minority, you should STUDY that minority. I am not about to paint trans people as undesirables, but I would go so far as to say that, psychologically speaking, being trans is a situation--WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE NORM--in which the best remediation is to transition (and be respected) rather than a lifelong course of therapy or medication or something else.

    My position, no less or no more, is that you said "40% of trans yout reported attempting suicide in their lifetime. That's nearly 9 times the national average" and I cannot say, and I am skeptical to agree, that suicide risk for people who are trans and suicide risk for people who are not trans should be equal. There are 9x as many apples as there are oranges doesn't make any sense. Both of these numbers should be as small as possible.

    My whole point is that, if you are going to subdivide groups, there IS NO STATISTICAL LOGIC TO ASSUMING THEY ARE THE SAME AS THE MAJORITY GROUP. Here when I say "normal" I mean, specifically and mathematically that we are respecting the norm.

    You can twist your panties as many times as you want, but being trans and being cis don't have the same statistics, and being trans is a much smaller group. Moreover, I DON'T KNOW what a good number is for suicide rate, or happiness rate, or marriage rate, or anything else for trans folks. I hope every trans person gets to have all of these things, but comparing them to a majority cis standard does a disservice to everyone. I can understand that confounding factors presented by the mainstream clinical consensus are all in agreement, but there is nothing there that suggests what rates of occurrence ought to be.

    Your arguments, while heartfelt, are not addressing the statistics I'm trying to get at. I think you're more interested in coloring me a transphobe and moving on. Which if that's the case, just downvote and do it. I don't need you to like me @Doomsider@lemmy.world but you're going to acknowledge my position or block me. My minority is I don't give a shit what you or anyone else thinks but I will comment until we both die rather than just move along.

    Edit: To add and clarify, I LITERALLY don't know if this is resolved statistics. If you say "hey here's a link that resolves it" I will be happy to read it and accept. In the main, generalizing statistical rates from majority to minority groups doesn't make any sense, but most people are bad at statistics it turns out.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 15 hours ago

    I don't need to color you as you did a good job yourself. To be frank, bringing up PC was the red flag that made me realize that you are being a bit disingenuous. The paragraph I focused on was a big WHAT THE FUCK for me. I see that you are sensitive and you should be when you have gone so far out on a limb postulating to the point that you are coming across as wrestling with transphobia. To be clear, I am not saying you are transphobic, but I am suspicious based upon your arguments.

    Having said that the vast majority of what you say is helpful and respectful. I do appreciate that.

    Statistical analysis already takes into consideration your points so I am not sure where you are going except maybe just treading water before you go completely under. It really doesn't matter what you say or think as we already have the empirical evidence. You are welcome to refute it with your own statistical analysis, if not we can just accept it.

    You may be reluctant to say suicide rates should be equivalent, but based on the research I provided you shouldn't be. Statistical analysis already accounts for your misgivings, that is the whole point. While transgender people are a sub population they are not particularly unique by any metric and saying a non-trans person is an Apple and a trans person is a orange (or maybe the other way around) is a comically bad example.

    Assuming trans people are not similar to the majority group conflates demographic distinctiveness with baseline human biology and statistical methodology. In research and statistical modeling, assuming a shared baseline between a subgroup and the general population is standard practice.

    Across the vast majority of biomedical metrics such as cellular respiration, basic pharmacokinetics, cardiovascular hemodynamics, and organ function shows that human beings share identical foundational physiology.

    The differences between transgender and cisgender cohorts generally pertain to specific variables such as exogenous hormone levels, surgical history, or distinct social determinants of health like minority stress. Outside these specific physiological or psychosocial pathways, assuming divergence has no biological or statistical basis.

    Assuming trans individuals are completely distinct across all parameters creates an unfalsifiable exceptionalism that undermines valid comparative research. Meaningful statistical inquiry examines differences where plausible mechanisms exist, while maintaining standard population baselines for everything else.

    The only thing that appears to be twisting is yourself as you have hung yourself (no pun intended) out to dry. I won't be down voting you or blocking you because it is important to address the issues you have brought up not only for your benefit, but also for everyone else who is here. Besides, like I said, you appear to be helpful and respectful. While I do not agree with your misgivings, they are not completely irrational (just mostly).

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent