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

[viper37]

Calling someone a fascist over petty politics should be considered Holocaust minimization.

Half the politicians in the world should then be jailed along with half of their supporters.  Lots of Democrats and people on the left where calling Bush a fascist, IIRC.
It's stupid, but not criminal.

I don't remember actual officeholders using the f word, primarily because it is not ethical to.

It's a forum for online friends who've known each other for 20 years.

And I can assure you the accusation of fascism are often heard outside of parliaments by all kind of politicians.  In office, it's different, there's a moderator to make sure everyone stays basically polite.  Languish is closer to a pub than a moderated parliament.

[viper37]

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.

hmm, there is a huge problem of perception with this movement.  And even among BLMers, I think many would not adopt this definition.
When they say "Black Lives Matter", I hear it wrong.  First, because it sends the message that only their lives are important, not those of the presumably white police officers.  Looking at the movement, it's as if every single time a black person is shot by police, without exception, it was a racist act, a lynching motivated purely by the color of their skin.

Secundo, I don't think blacks are the only ones being shot by police, or having any kind of problem with police.  By its definition, the movement is not equalitarian, it's essentially saying a big fuck-you-you're-on-your-own to anyone who does not identify as black.  Like half latinos-black person.  Or whites getting shot by "accident" (at the rate it happens in the US, I believe it's a matter of training and selecting the right candidate to begin with).  The movement should be reframed against police brutality in general, not just toward black victims.  It feels like other victims are totally ignored because they don't matter...  Ironic, isn't it?

Thertio, I don't think black men are shot because the officers judges their lives is irrelevent anyway.  I think it's more a question of training and cultural upbringing.  Even here I've heard lots of people, mainly women, over all my life, telling me how black men are all dangerous.  Police are trained to react to perceived danger: a) to themselves b) to their colleauges and c) to society.  Black men are seen as dangerous and they get shot because of this flawed training: shooting prehemtively is a good defense to neutralize a potential threat.  Add to this that there are often no consequences for the shooters, there is no pressure for reform.

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.

Well, huh, I don't know.   
How would you define the characteristics necessary for someone to use the ladies bathroom?
I kinda figure that the law requirement she's asking is basically a way to assure herself that the individual really feels like women, behaves like a woman and is not a voyeur or criminal in disguise.  Having gone through the extensive process to become legally female clarifies the issue, as it's too much of a burden for a simple criminal.  I don't think she literally requires an id to enter the bathroom.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure that the argument "I'm not worried about it" really solves the problem of men being able to enter women's locker rooms at will.

JK Rowling's point that women's spaces won't be safe from predatory men if men are allowed to use women's restrooms, locker rooms, and the like simply by saying that they are trans is so obviously true in my mind that it baffles me to hear people claim that it is simply false because they desperately want it to be false.  I can absolutely guarantee that there are significant numbers of high school boys that would be willing to claim they are trans women if it allows them to go into the girls' locker room and see their female classmate naked.

So, while it would be inconvenient for the trans women to create some sort of gatekeeping mechanism to ensure that the XY types allowed to use the facilities of XX chromosome types (and vice-versa, to some extent), I think it is terribly naive to believe that it is not needed (and, indeed, to think that people who think it is needed are horrible people who should be "cancelled).  Even if you don't think that you, yourself, would be bothered.  The nature of some men ensures that it is needed.

[merithyn]

If you're requiring documentation that everyone is a specific gender, then great. If not, then it is an anti-trans rule. I don't understand how you can't understand that.

I'm not saying anything about documentation.  I'm saying it an come down to common sense.  If you've got long hair, wearing a dress and makeup you can totally go in the women's washroom - I don't care that you have an adam's apple and stubble (or whatever combination traits you can think of).  But I can totally understand why women would object to a male-presenting individual going into the women's room claiming "I identify as female".

I don't think that's an anti-trans position at all.

I have female friends who wouldn't be allowed into the ladies room then! Any woman with PCOS could fit that bill, right down to the Adam's apple and stubble. What you're doing is saying, "If you present as what I understand a woman to be, I won't call you out for not being a woman."

[merithyn]

But maybe it's different for women.  Would you feel threatened if men at your job were using ladies' bathroom?  As a woman, would you be fine with unisex changing rooms?  If you see a person who obviously looks like a man but is wearing womens' clothing entering your changing room, do you feel insecure about it?  If he undresses and is clearly biologically a male except for the makeup and hairdo, would you accept to also undress as you would in any other situation, to go, say, to the pool or to the gym?  If you still had a teenage girl, would you be ok with having a boy declare he is female one day and wish to use the girls' changing room?  At what point would you be ok to let him in?

It wouldn't bother me at all. I just don't care. My daughter is only 21, so barely out of her teen years. She doesn't care, either.

It's not about "did they use the right bathroom?". It's about "are they going to leer/attack me?" The complete lack of that happening now says there isn't anyone doing that kind of thing. Like garbon says, there are zero laws in place right now regarding who is allowed to use which bathroom. It's just not a thing. It only became a thing when people got pissy about transfolk.

[DGuller]

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.

I think there is more to it than that.  There is always a context behind a truism, otherwise there is no point in making a point about it.  When you say that black lives matter, you're not just saying that black lives should be granted the same respect as white lives, but you're also saying that currently they are not.  If you don't think that context should be part of agreement or disagreement with a slogan, then why take exception to "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter"? 

[merithyn]

hmm, there is a huge problem of perception with this movement.  And even among BLMers, I think many would not adopt this definition.
When they say "Black Lives Matter", I hear it wrong.  First, because it sends the message that only their lives are important, not those of the presumably white police officers.  Looking at the movement, it's as if every single time a black person is shot by police, without exception, it was a racist act, a lynching motivated purely by the color of their skin.

Secundo, I don't think blacks are the only ones being shot by police, or having any kind of problem with police.  By its definition, the movement is not equalitarian, it's essentially saying a big fuck-you-you're-on-your-own to anyone who does not identify as black.  Like half latinos-black person.  Or whites getting shot by "accident" (at the rate it happens in the US, I believe it's a matter of training and selecting the right candidate to begin with).  The movement should be reframed against police brutality in general, not just toward black victims.  It feels like other victims are totally ignored because they don't matter...  Ironic, isn't it?

Thertio, I don't think black men are shot because the officers judges their lives is irrelevent anyway.  I think it's more a question of training and cultural upbringing.  Even here I've heard lots of people, mainly women, over all my life, telling me how black men are all dangerous.  Police are trained to react to perceived danger: a) to themselves b) to their colleauges and c) to society.  Black men are seen as dangerous and they get shot because of this flawed training: shooting prehemtively is a good defense to neutralize a potential threat.  Add to this that there are often no consequences for the shooters, there is no pressure for reform.

Your third point is what BLM fights against. The fact that they are black equates to dangerous to far too many people, and most importantly, police. By doing something that you or I would do without a second thought, they are perceived as "lethal". Not because of what they do or who they are, but because of the color of their skin.

Blacks are unique in that. They are the only race in the US that by its very existence is seen as "dangerous". And so, a movement was born to end that perception: Black Lives Matter. They and they alone have to daily contend with being dangerous for simply being. And that's what BLM is all about. And that is what negates your first two points.

Well, huh, I don't know.   
How would you define the characteristics necessary for someone to use the ladies bathroom?
I kinda figure that the law requirement she's asking is basically a way to assure herself that the individual really feels like women, behaves like a woman and is not a voyeur or criminal in disguise.  Having gone through the extensive process to become legally female clarifies the issue, as it's too much of a burden for a simple criminal.  I don't think she literally requires an id to enter the bathroom.

How about we don't define it? How about we allow others to decide for themselves where they are most comfortable going pee?

I have female friends who are regularly mistaken for men. One was yelled at in a public bathroom for trying to pee in the ladies' room. Born, raised, and identify as women. But they do not adhere to what you and BB consider women. They don't wear dresses, make-up, or do their hair like women. They wear jeans, t-shirts, and have short hair cuts. They're bigger women, so it's harder to tell if they have breasts; could just be a man with a fatty chest.

Who gets to decide for them where they belong?

I also had a friend in high school who was hella' fem and very flamboyantly gay. He never went to the men's room because he was far more likely to get his ass kicked there than in the girls' room. So he always went into the ladies' room with us. No big deal. There were stalls with doors. He couldn't have cared less if we were half-naked. Why does it matter if he's in the ladies' room? Where is the threat there?

There is way too much emphasis being put on something that seriously does not matter. Who the hell cares??

[merithyn]

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.

I think there is more to it than that.  There is always a context behind a truism, otherwise there is no point in making a point about it.  When you say that black lives matter, you're not just saying that black lives should be granted the same respect as white lives, but you're also saying that currently they are not.  If you don't think that context should be part of agreement or disagreement with a slogan, then why take exception to "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter"?

I think that's a legitimate point, and worth discussion. That being said, there is far and away enough statistical data out there that says that black people are treated unfairly in this country to make it a very hard point to press, in my opinion. But sure, it's at least a point of discussion.

[grumbler]

Are people saying that there are no laws regarding using the bathrooms, locker rooms, public showers, and the like marked for the other sex because they know that there are no such laws where they live, or because they don't know of any such laws and so assume that they do not exist?

Because "it's okay because there are no laws now and no problems now" ignores the fact that many places have such laws and many places have such problems.  Maybe some places have no laws and no problems, but we'd need to identify what makes this not a problem (e.g. lack of nudity taboos in some cultures) rather than saying "some places have no problems so problems don't exist anywhere."

The ostrich method solves few problems.

[garbon]

Is the UK having problems with men pretending to be transgender and using that as a fig leaf to enter a woman's restroom?

If so, does it make sense to have it illegal to have someone legally considered a man entering a woman's bathroom? Or is the concern about things like lewd behaviour, voyeurism, and sexual assault - things that are already crimes?

[Barrister]

Who the hell cares??

Apparently a lot of people.

[garbon]

Are people saying that there are no laws regarding using the bathrooms, locker rooms, public showers, and the like marked for the other sex because they know that there are no such laws where they live, or because they don't know of any such laws and so assume that they do not exist?

Because "it's okay because there are no laws now and no problems now" ignores the fact that many places have such laws and many places have such problems.  Maybe some places have no laws and no problems, but we'd need to identify what makes this not a problem (e.g. lack of nudity taboos in some cultures) rather than saying "some places have no problems so problems don't exist anywhere."

The ostrich method solves few problems.

Well I have searched a few times since first creating this thread and not been able to find any evidence that it is illegal to enter a bathroom of the alternate sex in the UK.

Looking at California, I mostly see thst à private business could ask you to leave as a result and then it would be trespass if you refuse to leave.

Only one thing I found was that it may or may not have at one time been made illegal to do so in Santa Monica.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-11-01-me-688-story.html

But I guess that speaks exactly to the concerns of transgendered people. How would you possibly know the ins and outs of when you are and are not allowed to use the bathroom of the gender you identify with... and more importantly will the other citizens who might report you know?

[merithyn]

Are people saying that there are no laws regarding using the bathrooms, locker rooms, public showers, and the like marked for the other sex because they know that there are no such laws where they live, or because they don't know of any such laws and so assume that they do not exist?

Because "it's okay because there are no laws now and no problems now" ignores the fact that many places have such laws and many places have such problems.  Maybe some places have no laws and no problems, but we'd need to identify what makes this not a problem (e.g. lack of nudity taboos in some cultures) rather than saying "some places have no problems so problems don't exist anywhere."

The ostrich method solves few problems.

There is a law in Portland saying that men must use the men's restroom and women must use the women's in the city with no definition of "man" or "women". It's also illegal to challenge someone's gender, as it's considered harassment. There are zero bathroom gender laws in Illinois.

I did assume that garbon was correct about the UK. A quick glance says he is.

[Tamas]

I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/

[garbon]

I get it why one wouldn't like Rowling's stance on all this and seeking to profit from the outrage via her new novel is especially nasty (although she was already doing that thing when announced half the novels' cast to be gay post fact), but we have gotten to the point where the makers of a Harry Potter game feel they must distance themselves from the creator of the Harry Potter universe:
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2020/09/17/jk-rowling-not-directly-involved-with-hogwarts-legacy-warner-bros-assert/

Well yes, if you look at any comments on articles about the game, you'll find people who now feel uncomfortable about HP and Rowling and uncertain that they want to support a game she'd profit from. Natural then that the publishers would put out a statement.