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

[celedhring]

Still remember when, 20 years ago, the managers of the gym I went to forced a trans woman to use the men's dressing room. It was quite uncomfortable for everybody involved and quite pointless. 

[Sheilbh]

But that's the rub. The existence of the signs don't mean the owners are going to pursue trespassing charges.

They have indicated a women's restroom and a men's restroom but not that it will be illegal to enter one of the other gender. After all, some clearly let their employees go in opposite restrooms.

So isn't it really down to whether or not you have been ordered not to do so? Down to the discretion of the owner?

Which is then the precarious choices that transpeople face. Do I use the bathroom that fits my gender with the concern that I'll be considered trespassing?

Rowling would then have that made even more difficult for such individuals despite providing no evidence that restrictions are necessary.

And even then it isn't at the discretion of the owner if that's discriminatory (in the UK you can't discriminate against people based on gender re-assignment, but you can refuse services if that's a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim), so the only case I'm aware of in England on this was that pub I mentioned earlier. That involved a trans woman who had lived in her gender for twenty, had gender re-assignment surgery - it's not clear if she had a GRC. The court found that the pub had discriminated against her in telling her to use the gents.

[grumbler]

But that's the rub. The existence of the signs don't mean the owners are going to pursue trespassing charges.

They have indicated a women's restroom and a men's restroom but not that it will be illegal to enter one of the other gender. After all, some clearly let their employees go in opposite restrooms.

So isn't it really down to whether or not you have been ordered not to do so? Down to the discretion of the owner?

Which is then the precarious choices that transpeople face. Do I use the bathroom that fits my gender with the concern that I'll be considered trespassing?

Rowling would then have that made even more difficult for such individuals despite providing no evidence that restrictions are necessary.

The laws of trespass are not nearly so arbitrary as you seem to believe (though it is a step forward that you now seem to realize that they apply).  Like almost all laws, it comes down to the intent of the actor. 

If the actor sincerely believes that they are entitled to use a restroom marked "women" because they consider themselves a woman, then they are not trespassing, regardless of what people on the internet (or even the owner of the restroom) believes.

So the question becomes:  how do we test the sincerity of the motives of an XY entering an XX dressing room?  It seems to me that the willingness of the XY women to risk being challenged on trespass grounds (which really shouldn't happen but there's no real way to tell an actual transwoman from a pretending predatory male) has been a pretty good deterrent so far.  I don't think that someone should be cancelled for asking if that is enough, however.

I don't believe that Rowling has made anything more difficult for anyone.  I believe that cancel culture has made addressing the problems around trans use of facilities much more difficult though, by, for instance, insisting that no laws exist today and so no law need ever exist.  It would be better to admit that laws do exist and that they may need to be modified in the face of changing circumstances.  I'd not California's law on single-person bathrooms as an excellent example of sensible law changes that can be undertaken once people acknowledge that laws do exist.

[grumbler]

And even then it isn't at the discretion of the owner if that's discriminatory (in the UK you can't discriminate against people based on gender re-assignment, but you can refuse services if that's a proportionate way of achieving a legitimate aim), so the only case I'm aware of in England on this was that pub I mentioned earlier. That involved a trans woman who had lived in her gender for twenty, had gender re-assignment surgery - it's not clear if she had a GRC. The court found that the pub had discriminated against her in telling her to use the gents.

The owner has the discretion to challenge suspected trespassers but, as the case you cite demonstrated, it is the motive of the suspected trespasser that counts, not the motive of the person challenging the alleged trespasser.  That's how trespass works.

[Syt]

Damn, this cancel culture is brutal.

[Eddie Teach]

Free publicity.

[mongers]

Damn, this cancel culture is brutal.

So it was all a plug for her upcoming book. 

[Valmy]

Cancel culture has much more success in bullying nobodies.

[Josquius]

Was there a campaign amongst far right types to buy it?

Though to be fair surely any book by her would go to number 1 straight away?

[HVC]

Most people probably don't care one way or another about trans people. So to them its just a new Rowling book so they bought it.

[chipwich]

It's clearly written by Robert Galbriath.

[Sheilbh]

Meanwhile in the "cancel culture" perpetual motion machine, OfCom have announced that they receive 1,900 complaints after a judge on Britain's Got Talent wore a BLM necklace. The show normally gets 9 million viewers.

Now people on the internet are discoursing about the 1,900 complaints which is also getting media coverage. Then OfCom will reject the complaints and we'll go into another cycle of pieces in the newspapers and the discourse.

On we go.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Aside from your assertion that it is true, do you have any actual evidence of such a case happening? A dozen? A hundred? Thousands? If it is not illegal currently to do so in places and there are "significant numbers of high school boys" who would engage in such an act, there must be mounds of evidence and a plethora of examples to showcase. I look forward to reading through your damning evidence and examples. 

I bolded the part that makes the rest of your statement null and void.  I know of nowhere where that would be legal, and have only the self-serving claims of two non-legal-scholars to indicate that it is perfectly legal for boys to enter the girls' locker rooms in the UK and Oregon.  I'm willing to bet that those places have trespass laws as well.

Yes. Looking up laws online requires a law degree. I think you're confusing "legal" with "against the rules".

He could start by looking up what "null and void" means.

[DGuller]

Sniping from the sidelines in third person is really not a good look.

[Eddie Teach]

While that's true, does anyone on Languish still care how we look?