The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[Gups]

Rowling isnt the worst of the bunch. Her role is more in being a rich and famous supporter of the biggest scum.
She does seem to be degrading and getting worse year by year however.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/10/what-has-jk-rowling-said-about-transgender-people/

After reading your link I still don't see what fundamental trans rights Rowlings wants to roll back.

Not according to the trans dogma that Rowling blasphemed against.

Frankly, like most issues, I don't really understand what her views are. She talks like all men, or XY people or whatever, are inherently dangerous and sexually predatory and therefore need to be kept away from women's bathrooms or shelters lest we rape and attack. But...come on. That seems to be a very specific kind of person who is law abiding enough to stay out of designated areas but law breaking enough to commit violent crimes. Especially these sorts of public places. Besides if you look enough like a woman I am pretty sure you could always pass enough to get into a woman's shelter or bathroom. It's not like they are out there with DNA tests or something or asking you for your gender identity. It has always been an honor system. Just specifically excluding trans people isn't going to stop this very specific and unlikely scenario from playing out.

She is very specifically aiming at Scotland's proposed self-identity legislation. I personally can't understand why it is not blindingly obvious that abusive men will be given the opportunity to easily "game" their way into women only spaces by simply declaring that they are a woman and waiting three months. 

[Josquius]

She is very specifically aiming at Scotland's proposed self-identity legislation. I personally can't understand why it is not blindingly obvious that abusive men will be given the opportunity to easily "game" their way into women only spaces by simply declaring that they are a woman and waiting three months.

You'd think it seems like such an obvious trick that someone is bound to do it....
Yet it has never happened in those places which do have simplified gender switching laws.
Think about it logically, there's nothing really stopping an absolute shitbag from storming into the women's changing rooms as things stand. That he has a bit of paper that declares he's a female isn't really going to change much about that.

Trans women are women.

If they were women they wouldn't be trans.

So all gay men aren't men? All Swedish women aren't women? All Indian elephants aren't elephants?
Adjectives usually don't eliminate the core thing they're modifying.

At most they're men that have been surgically altered to look like women, but biologically (and at the end of the day it's the only thing that matters) they're still men. All the rest is technology and society being nice (which is proper).
(And vice versa for women).

Define men. What makes someone a man?
Modern science accepts that the idea of sex as a strict binary is a gross over-simplification.

What you have, however, is a very loud and obnoxious minority of what basically amounts of alphabet-fascists screaming at the top of their longs in an attempt to bully the entirety of society to conform to their faulty views, thus ruining it for the rest that just want to live their lives in peace and quiet.
People don't like bullies, not even when they claim to be 'progressive'.

Its always funny when folk point the finger of blame at loud mouths with views they don't like (so irony of irony call them fascists, playing right into one of their typical lines) and ignoring that a key reason these activists are on such a hair trigger is that opposing them you've a broad and prone to violence group that involves actual fascists.

In general, in western societies, lgbt have acceptance and tolerance. They don't require society to cheer them on, as that is not part of tolerance (just like you couldn't demand the catholics cheered on the protestants when the original Edict of Tolerance was proclaimed).
There are, however, a great many countries and societies where coming out means at the very least ostracisation and at worst a death penalty. Maybe the energies of those ideologues would be better focused there, where there's real difference to make. But that's much harder of course, requires putting some real skin into the game.
(same for the virtue-signalling companies with their rainbow-flags... but only in western countries! Hypocrites.)

The reason why people will focus on issues closer to home than screaming at Saudi Arabia to be nice are myriad and mostly pretty common sense.
By the same token we might ask why the transphobes are so concerned about minor changes in the law at home and not the far more pro-trans laws in other countries... but then this "What about X-land" is a typical distraction tactic of the far right rather than a good faith suggestion.

another obvious conclusion is that social media (tiktok and twitter especially) are tools of the devil. Not a place for anyone under 30, basically.

On this bit I agree.

[Tamas]

You'd think it seems like such an obvious trick that someone is bound to do it....
Yet it has never happened in those places which do have simplified gender switching laws.

I mean... it didn't take long in Scotland for one particularly nasty bastard to have a go at it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon

He raped two women, got arrested, figured actually he was a woman, and was about to be sent to women's prison before -as I understand- Sturgeon intervened personally to make a mockery of the fresh law she was just pushing.

[Josquius]

You'd think it seems like such an obvious trick that someone is bound to do it....
Yet it has never happened in those places which do have simplified gender switching laws.

I mean... it didn't take long in Scotland for one particularly nasty bastard to have a go at it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon

He raped two women, got arrested, figured actually he was a woman, and was about to be sent to women's prison before -as I understand- Sturgeon intervened personally to make a mockery of the fresh law she was just pushing.

Thats not what happened there.
As said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).
If this whole thing was a grand scam to abuse more women then more fool her. As a dangerous character with a history of raping women its unlikely they'd have put her in general population if she was placed in a womans prison for her term (IIRC during his temporary holding she was kept separated).
Also worth noting they've clearly gone a whole bunch of steps further than just ticking a box to say they're a woman.

[Tamas]

As said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).

So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?

[Josquius]

As said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).

So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?

More, its ridiculous to enforce a one size fits all rule for a varied group because of the worst of those who claim to belong to it.

[Tamas]

As said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).

So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?

More, its ridiculous to enforce a one size fits all rule for a varied group because of the worst of those who claim to belong to it.

I agree with that, but I am not sure having a set of "you are a woman in X case but a man in Y case" rules is helping transgenders either.

I know I have been an insensitive dick about this whole thing, but things like this is why I don't understand why the preferred outcome isn't to do away with gender as a regulating thing, have sex instead where applicable (prison choices, professional sports etc) ALL THE WHILE leaving people alone to express themselves as they see fit, request to use whatever pronouns they wish, or change their bodies as they see fit.

[Josquius]

As said earlier, trans people in prisons are already handled on a case by case basis, iirc most are in the prison of their original gender (I recall seeing stats somewhere about, I think the BBC published them?).

So in other words biological sex and gender are different and in some cases sex should be considered above gender?

More, its ridiculous to enforce a one size fits all rule for a varied group because of the worst of those who claim to belong to it.

I agree with that, but I am not sure having a set of "you are a woman in X case but a man in Y case" rules is helping transgenders either.

I know I have been an insensitive dick about this whole thing, but things like this is why I don't understand why the preferred outcome isn't to do away with gender as a regulating thing, have sex instead where applicable (prison choices, professional sports etc) ALL THE WHILE leaving people alone to express themselves as they see fit, request to use whatever pronouns they wish, or change their bodies as they see fit.

Theres a lot of problems with just seeing sex and gender as immutably different concepts and drawing up lines on that basis.
Firstly, in most situations they aren't. Traditionally and still in the modern day the two are used pretty interchangeably.  The word gender was introduced to the English language largely because people a century back were uptight about saying sex (it had seen some earlier use in the centuries before by pretentious sorts wanting to sound intelligent and scientific when talking about sex).
I can't understate how weird the irony is that gender in its current form began to be used in the mid 20th century as the field of gender studies developed. Basically it was exactly the opposite people of those who currently strongly insist on gender politics who originally invented it.

Secondly- what is a man? What is a woman? The transphobes think they have easy answers to these questions and apparently its a primary tactic of theirs in debates to ask this question and go "Ha, gotcha! You can't even define something so simple as a woman!". But logically, these are not easy things to define. They're abstract concepts. This goes whether you're talking in terms of 'sex' or 'gender'. For every answer we might think we've found, there'll be an exception. This is where sports bodies have been struggling for so long.

Thirdly- when my son was born and the midwife said "Its a boy", what was she talking about? Was it sex? Was it gender? There was no genetic sequencing involved, she had just seen his willy. He was outwardly presenting as male.... So then doesn't it follow if somebody looks completely male then they're a male no matter what they're born as?
An interesting point here I find from the transphobes is that they don't distinguish between post and pre op transexuals with their arguments which if you're following that logic I'd say you should.... but there again thats over simplifying a broad category. And are dicks really that important?

Last... The big problem with the gender/sex are different push that I see, is that the transphobes want to use this to enforce a sort of apartheid against trans people. A system of "You're perfectly free to call yourself a woman if you want, that's your gender, hurray for you! .... but every single rule governing what women can do should be based on sex."


I'd say on the prisoner issue rather than drawing up rules based on sex and gender everything should be solely based on gender, but then there's a note on that to say that though the default is that all people be treated according to their gender, it should be possible for a special case to be raised to make exceptions where appropriate.

Afterall, there are far more assaults on trans prisoners than they assault other people. Its mad to tar with the same brush weirdos like this Ilsa character and somebody who fully transitioned when they were young and has lived most their life as a different gender and there's zero question of whether they're faking it for softer treatment in prison.

[Sheilbh]

I mean... it didn't take long in Scotland for one particularly nasty bastard to have a go at it.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jan/26/trans-woman-isla-bryson-found-guilty-rape-not-be-held-in-womens-prison-sturgeon

He raped two women, got arrested, figured actually he was a woman, and was about to be sent to women's prison before -as I understand- Sturgeon intervened personally to make a mockery of the fresh law she was just pushing.

Sturgeon intervened personally in a way that made a mockery of the existing process which is that the Scottish Prison Service would do a risk assessment and decide based on that which estate that prisoner was sent to. After a couple of days of saying the SPS should be allowed to follow their standard process, Sturgeon shifted to saying that "the individual is a rapist" and rapists should not be placed in the women's estate. I think that undercuts the idea of the SPS being able to do a risk assessment independently and without political direction.

Since 2004 the approach in prisons in England and Scotland was that the prison service would perform some form of risk assessment on an individualised basis which was used to decide where trans prisoners were held (including, for example, non-binary or genderfluid individuals). It was based on the risk presented by that prisoner as well as the risk to that prisoner.

Following the Isla Bryson case both England and Scotland have adopted slightly more blanket approaches. So in England now a person with male genitalia or who has committed a sexual offence cannot be placed in a women's prison. In Scotland trans prisoners will initially be placed in the prison of their birth sex (although, as now, in a secure isolated cell for a day or two) while the SPS conducts a risk assessment, but trans prisoners convicted of violence against women or girls will not be placed in women's prisons.

Sturgeon's law wouldn't really have much of an impact on this. It would be easier for Isla Bryson to obtain a GRC. But there's no right for someone possessing a characteristic to access a single characteristic service (like the prison service). My understanding is that it would mean that if Bryson claimed discrimination under the Equality Act, it would shift from being one of indirect discrimination to direct discrimination which might have an impact. It would also shift legally from the prison excluding Bryson on the basis of sex to excluding them on the basis of "gender reassignment" - if Bryson had a GRC then it's arguable that the courts would decide that actually excluding them is disproportionate compared to other alternative decisions such as increasing security in the prison.

I think the challenge for Sturgeon's law (and possibly for self-ID more broadly) is that I'm not convinced Bryson's trans status is genuine. I don't think Sturgeon thinks it is either and I'm not sure how you can challenge that.

But again a GRC is absolutely not necessary - it allows you to change your birth certificate, marriage certificate and death certificate. But in terms of changing or accessing healthcare, changing your ID documents, changing your bank details, changing your passport, how your employers and colleagues should (and, legally, have to) refer to you etc or (until the Bryson case) which prison someone is placed in - you do not need a GRC.

[Josephus]

What I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"

As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.

Bathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".

[garbon]

What I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"

As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.

Bathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".

 

[Josquius]

What I find silly is I read recently there's these Gen Zedders (and they are the problem, here) who play organized Quidditch who now want to change the name of their sport because they don't want to be associated with that nasty woman Rowling. And I'm like, "um....you do know you play a game where you run around with a broom between your legs and pretend you're flying, right?"

As far as this whole trans thing goes, to me it's a matter of what you have between your legs, and I don't mean the broom.

That is weird. Especially as they insist on keeping the broom. If quidditch wants to be treat seriously as a sport they need to be rid of that. From what I understand it serves no practical purpose in game. Though maybe I'm wrong, its not something I've opened more than half an eye for.

Bathrooms/Changerooms should be labelled "Dicks" and "No Dicks".

Then you'll get people who are obviously women/men being forced into the wrong toilet with all the hilarity that comes from that. And what of dudes who have been in horrible accidents?

[Solmyr]

I don't know about the US, but here there are lots of places with unisex toilets and zero problems.

[Tamas]

Yeah the whole toilet thing is just ridiculous.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah the whole toilet thing is just ridiculous.

Yeah - although I don't really see that come up very much in the UK articles I've read (Suzanne Moore, Hadley Freeman). The focus from what I've read seems to be rape crisis centres, domestic violence shelters, prisons and, to a lesser extent, single sex schools.

Edit: Also a bit on single sex wards in hospitals.