JK Rowling reveals she is survivor of domestic abuse and sexual assault

[Gups]

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.

[The Brain]

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.

Careful Gups. Reason will get you hated.

[Syt]

Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.

A cursory glance at Trans rights in Britain in Wiki seems to suggest that it's a bit more than just a "self-declaration":

Since 4 April 2005, as per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, it is possible for transgender people to change their legal gender in the UK, allowing them to acquire a new birth certificate. Transgender people must present evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel, which considers their case and issues a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC); they must have transitioned two years before a GRC is issued. It is not a requirement for sex reassignment surgery to have taken place. However, such surgery will be accepted as part of the supporting evidence for a case where it has taken place. There is formal approval of medical gender reassignment available either on the National Health Service (NHS) or privately.

In contrast to some systems elsewhere in the world, the gender recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only to demonstrate to the Gender Recognition Panel that they have suffered gender dysphoria, have lived as "your new gender" for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death.[6]

In July 2018, the UK government started a public consultation regarding reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

Are there any cases in which predatory men have abused this law?

[The Brain]

Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.

A cursory glance at Trans rights in Britain in Wiki seems to suggest that it's a bit more than just a "self-declaration":

Since 4 April 2005, as per the Gender Recognition Act 2004, it is possible for transgender people to change their legal gender in the UK, allowing them to acquire a new birth certificate. Transgender people must present evidence to a Gender Recognition Panel, which considers their case and issues a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC); they must have transitioned two years before a GRC is issued. It is not a requirement for sex reassignment surgery to have taken place. However, such surgery will be accepted as part of the supporting evidence for a case where it has taken place. There is formal approval of medical gender reassignment available either on the National Health Service (NHS) or privately.

In contrast to some systems elsewhere in the world, the gender recognition process does not require applicants to be post-operative. They need only to demonstrate to the Gender Recognition Panel that they have suffered gender dysphoria, have lived as "your new gender" for two years, and intend to continue doing so until death.[6]

In July 2018, the UK government started a public consultation regarding reform of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgender_rights_in_the_United_Kingdom

Are there any cases in which predatory men have abused this law?

Isn't it more helpful to talk about the same legislation?

[Syt]

Sorry missed the "not yet come into force" bit. Is the new legislation available online?

[Gups]

No it was a consultation launched in 2018 which proposed that instead of certification by a medical professional, a person could certify their own gender by statutory declaration and amend their birth certificate. A fee of £140 would be payable. The legislation has not been brought forward yet and this weekend past their has been a lot of speculation that the Government is proposing to drop the self-certification proposal (but it all originates from one reporter in the Sunday Times and I think is denied by the Government).

e.g. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jun/14/trans-rights-government-reported-to-be-dropping-gender-self-identifying-plans

[Gups]

Are there any cases in which predatory men have abused this law?

Obviously, the law is not and may not be in place but this is probably the best known example of what is feared by those who oppose self-certification

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

[garbon]

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

I'm supportive of gay rights but have concerns about gays in the military?

I'm supportive of civil rights but have concerns about black people using the same drinking fountains?

[Sheilbh]

Quite. And what Shelf and Tyr have failed to mention is that Rowling and other so called "TERFs" are complaining about UK legislation (which has not yet been brought into force) which determines gender solely on the basis of self-declaration. This is quite obviously open to exploitation by predatory men who are simply lying. It is perfectly legitimate for women to be concerned than men can get access to women's refuges and changing rooms purely on the basis of them self-declaring that they are women and I find it extraordinary that anyone expressing a concern is dogpiled as a fascist or a transphobe by what seems to me to be a movement with a particularly obsessive and nasty element in it.

Sure - I think the context at the minute is also that the government in England have indefinitely delayed reforms to the Gender Recognition Act and, according to the Times, earlier this year they were polling and focus grouping "culture war" issues like trans rights to see if they could be "weaponised". I don't think it's actually been passed yet.

The old legislation needs updating - you know it requires a medical diagnosis, two years of living with your "acquired gender" pay slips, utility bills etc after which you go to the Gender Recognition Panel (a tribunal of lawyers, psychologists and doctors) for hearings which can run up to 14 days after which they decide whether or not to issue you with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There's also the issue of the spousal veto which is just very, very outdated and still applies in certain cases. But it was groundbreaking at its time, so trans people don't need to have had any hormone treatment or surgery for their gender to be recognised.

The reform is that you will make a statutory declaration - which is the position in, I believe, Spain, Argentina, Ireland, Portugal, Belgium, Norway and Malta. It's not as simple as making a declaration on the spot. But we can look at several years of this sort of law being in place to see if there is a risk. From my understanding that hasn't happened and given the current position includes trans people who've not had surgery or hormones I'm not sure it's a wildly different type of risk.

And it's less relevant from the perspective of changing rooms, but domestic violence shelters already conduct risk assessments on who they will or won't admit - that won't change. They will still be able to conduct those assessments and refuse entry to people they consider a risk to their residents. The vast majority of shelters who replied to the consultation already take in trans women.

I think it is transphobic to fret about the risk from a community when there is no evidence it actually exists - there are individual cases and anecdata but that's it. But my bigger issue is with just approaching this from a theoretical perspective without addressing the practical solution - what changing rooms should trans people use? Or what's the difference between a real trans person (without surgery or hormones in current situation) and who's a risk (under the new law)?

[The Brain]

That's a good point. But that's already becoming problematic because transwomen are being excluded in many cases. How do we accommodate for that? They are women, though in many cases they had testosterone for long enough to build masculine muscles.

Those kinds of things require careful analysis, discussion, and scientific bases, which the Court of Public Appeal isn't going to give it. For now, it's a wedge issue. But in my opinion, if science says that they don't have a physical advantage, then I have zero problem with them competing with women.

None of this is simple. If it were, we'd have figured it out ages ago. As it is, we're at least having the conversations now. I just wish more people were having it in good faith, and not based on "ew, icky!" or "no change!!"

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

I'm supportive of gay rights but have concerns about gays in the military?

I'm supportive of civil rights but have concerns about black people using the same drinking fountains?

My impression is that it isn't always the case that having any concern means that a person is anti whatever is discussed.

[Barrister]

But that's where we can circle back to Rowling.  She's a pretty "woke" writer, there's no reason to disbelieve her when she says she's generally supportive of trans rights, but has concerns about things like bathrooms and women's shelters.  Yet no, she's getting pilloried from the woke twitter brigade.

I'm supportive of gay rights but have concerns about gays in the military?

I'm supportive of civil rights but have concerns about black people using the same drinking fountains?

So lets look at those.

Gays in the military in particular.  The concern that was expressed was that having gays in the military would affect military cohesion.  I've never served so I have no idea how real that thought was, but it was clearly expressed by a number of people who were serving.  So under Bill Clinton (who was seen as being fairly gay-friendly) they brought in don't ask, don't tell.  That was actually a step forward for gay rights!  And by allowing gays to serve in the military (albeit closeted) for a number of years it showed there was no risk to military cohseion, and the policy was lapsed and gays allowed to serve openly with little complaint.

Drinking fountains... I can not for the life of me imagine any rational objection to using the same drinking fountains as a black person.



So the only time I ever dealt with trans rights in a professional capacity it was in the context of a trans woman alleging she had been mistreated in prison because of her transness.  I dealt with some higher-ups in the jail who admitted this was a new and growing issue, and that they certainly could do better.  For example I actually agreed with her complaint that she should be given women's prison clothing, not men's - there's no operational requirement that would require one over the other.

But they were quite adamant that they would not hose her with the women general population.  She was housed in the medical ward (and not in male general population either).  They specifically cited the safety and comfort of the other female prisoners.

[garbon]

She ain't transphobic though...

https://metro.co.uk/2020/06/29/jk-rowling-deletes-tweet-praising-stephen-king-12917340/

JK Rowling deletes tweet praising Stephen King after he says 'trans women are women'

Stephen King has been dragged into the palaver surrounding JK Rowling, after the Harry Potter creator tweeted, then deleted, praise for the It author amid accusations of transphobia. On Sunday, Rowling posted a lengthy thread regarding Labour MP Minister Lloyd Russell-Moyle, who claimed that the author was 'using her sexual assault history to discriminate against transgender people' – which he would later apologise for. It followed a nearly 4,000-word essay, in which Rowling spoke out about her own domestic violence survival while defending earlier tweets in which she outraged the trans community. In retracting his earlier comment, Russell-Moyle, MP for Kemptown and Peacehaven, said: 'Whilst I may disagree with some of her analysis on trans rights, it was wrong of me to suggest that she used her own dreadful experience in anything other than good faith.'

It's a lot to unpack, but amid the thread, Rowling shared a quote from feminist and author Andrea Dworkin, which King would go on to retweet. Rowling wrote: 'Andrea Dworkin wrote: "Men often react to women's words—speaking and writing—as if they were acts of violence; sometimes men react to women's words with violence." It isn't hateful for women speak about their own experiences, nor do they deserve shaming for doing so.' Of this message, King retweeted it to his own feed (where it remained at time of writing), which appeared to set Rowling off to a place of fawning happiness.

In response, she tweeted: 'I've always revered Stephen King, but today my love reached – maybe not Annie Wilkes levels – but new heights. 'It's so much easier for men to ignore women's concerns, or to belittle them, but I won't ever forget the men who stood up when they didn't need to. Thank you, Stephen.' However, her message was hardly given a chance, after she deleted it when one of King's followers asked him to clarify his stance on trans issues, following the re-tweet, and he replied: 'Yes. Trans women are women.'

[Tamas]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/aug/03/define-what-a-woman-is-organise-politically-suzanne-moore

What is a woman?" This was the question asked of the Lib Dem leadership hopeful Layla Moran late last month, on the radio programme Political Thinking with Nick Robinson. "You talked of giving straight answers to straight questions," said Robinson. "Here's a nice one for you, philosophical: what is a woman?"

There was a pause, before an answer that probably wasn't as direct as Robinson had hoped. "Well," said Moran, "a woman is a gender, it is a way to self-identify and there are lots of genders. There is male and that is biological. There is female, which is also biological. A woman is a gender identity which is more akin to being a man. Those are the opposites and then there is also non-binary, which is people who don't identify with either."

This seemed confusing to me. So being a man is akin to being a woman? How does that work? I asked the same question on Twitter – what is a woman? – and Naomi Wolf, no less, the author of The Beauty Myth and Vagina: A New Biography, answered that a woman is anyone who wants to be one. It is a personal choice. "Many men and trans people have thanked me for The Beauty Myth," she wrote. "I didn't write it only for readers born with uteri."

The confusion continued on Twitter with a row over a tweet from Piers Morgan, in response to a CNN tweet reading: "Individuals with a cervix are now recommended to start cervical cancers screening at 25." Morgan replied: "Do you mean women?", and when Rosie Duffield, MP for Canterbury, liked Morgan's tweet, she was accused of being a transphobe. Duffield then tweeted: "I'm a 'transphobe' for knowing that only women have a cervix...?!" Progressives who presumably want to win back those "red wall" seats called for her sacking.

I am dismayed at the persecution of trans people – and also at the bile directed towards women who are questioning a narrative in which our experience, needs and reality are too often overlooked. Why can't we use the word "womxn", someone asked on Twitter. It's obvious, isn't it? To erase the word "woman" means we cannot speak of our biology and our experience. Leftwing feminists, me included, see women as a sex class. American "choice feminism" was a disaster; feminism repackaged as capitalist attainment. The backlash is now here, and in some cases it comes in the form of an ideology that overrides the demands of women.

We don't talk so much now about the terrible violence meted out to women – the appallingly low rate of rape convictions and the huge and growing incidence of domestic violence – because that would be to see women as still oppressed. And there is a popular narrative now that often says we're not. For some people, victimhood has become the preserve of a tiny percentage of the population – trans and other seriously marginalised communities – who do indeed have a very hard time. But while their difficulties are recognised, women's difficulties are considered merely the bleatings of privileged females.

If we cannot define what a woman is or name that experience, we cannot organise politically. As the radical feminist Andrea Dworkin once wrote: "Men have the power of naming, a great and sublime power. This power of naming enables men to define experience, to articulate boundaries and values, to designate to each thing its realm and qualities, to determine what can and cannot be expressed to control perception itself."

For me, the debate around trans issues is not and never has been about toilets or changing rooms. It is about the right of women to define themselves in a system that is afraid we might do just that.

I will happily respect anyone's pronouns and I ask other people, too, to respect the language that defines my life in a female meat suit. Men are never spoken of as prostate owners, or vehicles for their penises or testicles. I have never yet read a definition of "cis" that I identify with, even though, as a female whose gender expression matches her sex, this is apparently what I am. The fact is, when it comes to my appearance, I started wearing drag – makeup, heels, big hair – as soon as I knew that, in order to use my mind, I would have to appear on the outside entirely different to how I felt on the inside. Gender nonconformity has been an essential part of my life, as it is for so many people, whether this is apparent or not. I always liked the way the Stonewall activist Marsha P Johnson chose to call herself a "street transvestite action revolutionary". She thought of herself not as a woman but as "a queen".

All of us are a combination of biology and history, our bodies situated in a time and a place. I neither want to fetishise and essentialise biology nor deny it. It is different for each of us.

It is often argued on Twitter that the struggle for trans rights is the same as the struggle for gay rights. But, crucially, coming out as gay demands nothing from others but equality. There is now a demand from some activists – many of them not trans themselves; many of them men – that the class of women must be renamed.

I reject this. Am I more than a collection of body parts? Am I allowed to talk of my own life? Am I a woman simply out of choice?

What, then, is a woman? These days, I often find it is simply someone who does not agree to let misogynist men speak for us.

[garbon]

We care about a CNN tweet because...?

[Tamas]

We care about a CNN tweet because...?

I highlighted one of the stand-out points which in hindsight was a mistake as it gave you an opportunity to ignore the overall point of the article.