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

[Barrister]

Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.

Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.

That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.

He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.

Chipwich, please take it from an experienced litigator - calling someone a liar is one of the worst, least productive ways to make an argument.

[chipwich]

Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.

Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.

That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.

Moreover, Tyr's status as a lair is factual and I will not hide from the truth.

He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.

Chipwich, please take it from an experienced litigator - calling someone a liar is one of the worst, least productive ways to make an argument.

You have the advantage that lying under oath is illegal and being caught lying is embarrassing during legal proceedings.

[merithyn]

Don't coddle lairs. They know that what they are doing is wrong. Anyone who has watched a Trump press conference knows that lairs are maggots eating at human civilization and should be treated as vermin.

Interesting that you would equate outright fabrication of facts like what Trump does with an interpretation of a very nuanced topic like Tyr has done.

That, to me, shows how little you understand rather than how wrong Tyr is.

He fabricated it out of thin air. Your failure to accept that shows you are no better than a Trump voter.

No, he didn't, and your name-calling really is not worth my time to respond to. You do you, boo.

[Barrister]

You have the advantage that lying under oath is illegal and being caught lying is embarrassing during legal proceedings.

Lying under oath is called perjury.  It is one of the most difficult crimes to prove - and one I've never been able to prove successfully.  In order to prove perjury you have to do more than prove that someone said something was untrue - you have to prove that they knew it was untrue.  As it's almost impossible to prove what is going on in someone's head, it makes perjury almost impossible to prove.

[merithyn]

Okay, so I'm not quite sure what Chip is talking about when he talks about a "bizarre totalitarian attitude", but I'm equally confused when you say JK Rowling is trying to "deny other's the opportunity to live their lives in their own truths".  That doesn't track with anything she has said.

https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/

So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he's a woman – and, as I've said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth. - JK Rowling

Denying transfolk* the use of bathrooms and dressing rooms that fit with their self-identity is denying them the ability to live their own truths.

What Rowling is saying is that she wants trans people to get a medical certificate before changing their ID (and then presumably using the opposite bathroom).  Which is the law as it exists, or previously existed, in the UK.

You can agree or disagree, but it's a lot less ominous than "denying them the ability to live their own truths".

That's not at all what she said though, is it? What she said is that she takes issue that any man "who believes or feels he's a woman" can use the bathroom of their choosing. Why does that matter? If you walked into the women's bathroom to use a stall, I would mention that it was the women's room in case you weren't aware, and then move on with my life. Why do I care who's in the next stall to me? How does that in anyway impede my life?

And if it did? Then that's on me to find an alternative solution to accommodate myself. Find another restroom. Use the one at home. Or just deal with it, take a squat, and move on.

I have never nor will I ever understand the need to worry over this. It's such a non-issue. And if it did bother me, I would figure it out for myself, not put out an entire group of people just trying to go about their lives in peace.

[Barrister]

That's not at all what she said though, is it? What she said is that she takes issue that any man "who believes or feels he's a woman" can use the bathroom of their choosing. Why does that matter? If you walked into the women's bathroom to use a stall, I would mention that it was the women's room in case you weren't aware, and then move on with my life. Why do I care who's in the next stall to me? How does that in anyway impede my life?

And if it did? Then that's on me to find an alternative solution to accommodate myself. Find another restroom. Use the one at home. Or just deal with it, take a squat, and move on.

I have never nor will I ever understand the need to worry over this. It's such a non-issue. And if it did bother me, I would figure it out for myself, not put out an entire group of people just trying to go about their lives in peace.

That's absolutely the context of what she said - it was about changing the UK gender identity law.  Previously it required a medical certificate, they proposed to change it to just self-identification.  So, theoretically, the biggest, hairiest, most masculine-looking guy you can think of could walk into the relevant government office, get their ID switched to female, and could start using women's washrooms.

I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement.  You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.

[DGuller]

I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement.  You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.

That's what racists, anti-environmentalists, and anti-trans people would say.

[garbon]

As I said before, I don't believe that it is illegal to enter a woman's restroom in the UK as a man.

And if it is not illegal, seems an odd hill to die on.

[merithyn]

I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement.  You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on most of your points here. Sure, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment because that's a policy, and there are differing views on how policy should work.

But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.

And if you are requiring laws be made for one group of people that is not required of others (must have official documentation that one is a specific gender, but only for transgendered people), you are absolutely being anti-trans.

[Sheilbh]

As I said before, I don't believe that it is illegal to enter a woman's restroom in the UK as a man.

And if it is not illegal, seems an odd hill to die on.

Yeah that's my understanding too. I mean this is partly why I feel the whole debate is weirdly unreal.

At the moment in the UK you can change your names and pronouns on official documents, change your gender with your bank or employer and change your gender in passports of driving licenses (none of which require a gender recognition certificate). You can also get access to hormone treatment and surgery without getting a gender recognition certificate.

The gender recognition certificate issues a new birth certificate with changed sex on it - and affects issues around marriage and pension rights mainly. It's a mostly judicial/medical process and the reform proposal is to change it into more of an administrative process (also to remove the spousal veto).

None of that affects single sex spaces which are protected under equalities legislation and the consultation on May's proposal made clear there would be no change to the Equality Act. It is already allowed for servie providers to not allow a trans person to access a separate sex or single sex space or service - on a case-by-case basis - where exclusion is "a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim". The example in explanatory notes is group counseling of rape victims where it is possible that, on a case by case basis, it is appropriate and proportionate. That won't change under current proposals.

This isn't the US so from what I understand there's only been one case about this. A trans woman who had lived as a woman for 20 years and had undergone gender re-assignment surgery was followed into the loo by another woman who told her she should be in the gents. The pub landlord refused to assist, then barred the trans woman explaining that she should use the gents. The trans woman won £1,500 for discrimination. It's tough to see how what happened was for a legitimate aim or proportionate.

[Barrister]

I get that trans people don't like to be "gatekeepered", and I understand how unlikely my above suggestion is, but I really dislike this notion that if you don't fully, 100% buy into a set of public policy goals you're completely opposed to the entire movement.  You can be against Black Lives Matter without being a racist, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment, and you can want people to have a medical certificate before using a bathroom as a trans person without being anti-trans.

Yeah, I'm going to have to disagree on most of your points here. Sure, you can be opposed to the Green New Deal without being anti-environment because that's a policy, and there are differing views on how policy should work.

But Black Lives Matter is a movement that says, "Black lives are as important as White lives, and should be granted the same respect." If you disagree with that, well, then, you are racist. You may disagree with how that movement acts - or players in that movement act - but if you say, "I disagree with BLM", you are saying that you do not fundamentally agree that Black lives are as important as White lives.

And if you are requiring laws be made for one group of people that is not required of others (must have official documentation that one is a specific gender, but only for transgendered people), you are absolutely being anti-trans.

Meri, Black Lives Matter is both a slogan, but also a movement.  And as a movement it has various policy goals.  Same thing with feminism.  Believing that women are equal to men is one thing, but feminism as a movement also has various policy goals attached.

So I believe that Black lives matter.  But I disagree with the Black Lives Matter movement when it says, for example, to defund the police.

So I think I said my piece on bathrooms.  I think that should be very simply resolved on a local, democratic basis that people should use the bathroom that corresponds to their overall appearance.  If you're making an effort to pass as femme I could care less if you have a penis or not in the women's room.  I don't think you need a medical certificate in order to be trans - but I don't think the bar should be so low that self-identification with nothing else should be sufficient.

That's out of step what most trans activists believe.  But I don't think it makes me anti-trans.

[Josquius]

do you think she wrote the book and had it corrected in two months?

Do you think it likely her views have completely flipped in the time period between writing the book and digging herself into a hole? Or is it more likely they happened at pretty much the same time and represent the views she holds at the moment.

Not the same thing at all

Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?

What makes vermin like Tyr think it's acceptable to brazenly lie? Did his mother raise him like that?

Vermin. Gotta love it when boot lickers go all in for using literal nazi language.
All the while making pathetic attempts to gaslight too. Somebody really has personal issues with transgender people.

[Barrister]

Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?

She is a trans woman - her own unique thing.

[The Brain]

Meri, do you think there are any potential problems with transwomen in women's sports? I ask because I didn't really understand people's positions when sports came up earlier in the thread.

I think that it's a very complex and confusing part of transgenderism that is going to require a very delicate touch on how to handle it. I also don't believe that the US has the ability to have that conversation right now given how polarized everyone is. We, as a nation, don't do delicate right now.

I see both sides of the issue, and I struggle with finding an answer. I'm very grateful that it's not my responsibility to do so, because I'm not sure that I could.

How is it complex and confusing do you think? Seems pretty straightforward to just accept transwomen as women.

[Eddie Teach]

Not the same thing at all

Entirely the same thing.
If a trans woman isn't a woman then what is she?

Someone not covered by a binary classification system, perhaps.