The Rowling vs. Trans People Hijack

[Admiral Yi]

Nobody is talking about sending JKR to prison here though.
Instead what we have is trans people writing articles saying you shouldn't buy Harry Potter Legacy because part of the profits go to a woman who has a history of saying hurtful things about trans people and funding hate groups.
Whether you ultimately do buy the game or not is up to you. That they've got this view on it though...Well, totally understandable.

Buy the game or not is not the choice we are faced with.  Rather we can say Rowling is not a transphobe and be bad people, or we can agree with something we don't believe is true and be good people.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/P2aij3nURcA

Kicked out of women only gym.

[Josquius]

Nobody is talking about sending JKR to prison here though.
Instead what we have is trans people writing articles saying you shouldn't buy Harry Potter Legacy because part of the profits go to a woman who has a history of saying hurtful things about trans people and funding hate groups.
Whether you ultimately do buy the game or not is up to you. That they've got this view on it though...Well, totally understandable.

Buy the game or not is not the choice we are faced with.  Rather we can say Rowling is not a transphobe and be bad people, or we can agree with something we don't believe is true and be good people.

Or option 3. No comment. This doesn't interest me.

A) You don't want that to happen in the first place, if possible.
B) When it does happen, as a shelter, that last thing you want is to have a bunch of activist protest against you and call you transphobic for refusing to shelter trans people who create problem.  It's supposed to be a shelter where damaged women will find peace and quiet from a turbulent life.  It's not the same as an hotel were vacationers will have experienced some minor discomfort due to a traffic accident.

So might as well strip trans people of their rights on the very remote chance (0 incidents in the last 2 decades) a dishonest guy posting as a trans woman could manage to evade all safeguards and talk their way into a women's shelter where all they do is try to cause trouble?

It's not 0 incidents.  It has happened, it happens and will happen again.  Better to segregate them in this case.

There was just this case recently, in Quebec, where a repeated offender now identifies as female so he can better pursue his victims.  It's one more down the list. Shelter also have to deal with violent trans that attack other females in their care.  You can be both victim and aggressor.

If we listen to activists, we protect these criminals before protecting the victims because many trans persons are victims too.

Except actual data in the UK shows- no it doesn't. There have been precisely 0 incidents since 2004.
I won't comment on Canadian politics as I've no idea there,

This is emphatically not the case and you must surely know that.

If the rights had already been in existence "for a long time" then why would there be any need to change the law?

The changes that Rowling and co. are campaigning against are self-identification being sufficient as a matter of law to allow the claimant access to women's only spaces. That is regarded by them as a significant step change in access to women's only spaces.

It emphatically is the case and if you do a bit of research you'd see that.

Why is the law changing the law in Scotland?

1: Primarily politics. Look at how wonderful and progressive Scotland could be/lets draw Labour into a culture war trap they've been trying to avoid.

2: Book keeping. In many ways its just a common sense tidying up of existing laws and legal rulings.

3: The NHS is collapsing and the previous law asks for OTT bureaucracy. There's been several cases of people killing themselves after being stuck on waiting lists for gender dysphoria treatments.  I actually probably wouldn't agree with totally removing the medical side but that the previous law is too onerous I don't think anyone could in good faith disagree with.

Key point however- this Scottish law change isn't the issue here. This came long after Rowling endeared herself to the trans community.
When the TERFs talk about how this law allows trans people access to womens spaces they are either.

1: Knowingly lying and trying to decieve.
2: Betraying that they haven't a clue what they're talking about.

You keep saying "trans women are women" but do you really believe that? As others have pointed out there is an inconsistency between that mantra and the existence of protections you allege to be in place to prevent abusive men gaming the system.

You would agree that cis-women are women yes?
Is it somehow inconsistent with this 'mantra' that there are protections in place to prevent abusive women from gaming the system?

If (a) self-identification is sufficient to to secure gender change recognition so that if a person declares themselves to be a trans woman then they are a trans women with no third party certification 
and (b) trans women are women
then (c) on what basis can any safe guards be applied to a subset of women requesting use of women's only spaces?

None.
These safe guards are applied universally.
Abusive lesbians are a thing that exists.
If a man is claiming to be a woman to gain access... well then that's not a trans woman is it?

Finally, you have have said on several occasions that a majority of women are supportive of self-ID.

No I haven't.

Which hate groups does she fund?

The LGB alliance is one I recall.

I note that you have downgraded your accusation of her views from "transphobic" to "saying hurtful things"

Not really.
"You're such a chodder you have moons"- fatphobic is just the flavour of hurtful.

Yet again, Rowling is campaigning against a change in the law not campaigning for the law to be changed. The grant of a new means of accessing rights, not the stripping of existing ones. The removal of exiting safeguards not the provision of new ones.

Nope. As said this goes back much further .

The efficacy of the existing safeguards is not a strong argument for removing them as you seem to think.   

Interesting.
You're seeing the current medical safeguards against a person making the wrong decision for themselves as being safeguards of others.

[Admiral Yi]

Or option 3. No comment. This doesn't interest me.

That's a variant of #2.

[grumbler]

Or option 3. No comment. This doesn't interest me.

That's a variant of #2.

So you accept that this isn't an issue that interests Josq?  Despite the vast mountains of evidence to the contrary?

[Sheilbh]

Except actual data in the UK shows- no it doesn't. There have been precisely 0 incidents since 2004.
I won't comment on Canadian politics as I've no idea there,

In women's prisons in the UK in the last three years there have be 7 sexual assaults by trans prisoners - 6 as the instigator and 1 as a perpetrator but not the instigator.

However across male and female prisons on average there are around 10 assaults (sexual or otherwise) per year where trans prisoners are the victims.

3: The NHS is collapsing and the previous law asks for OTT bureaucracy. There's been several cases of people killing themselves after being stuck on waiting lists for gender dysphoria treatments.  I actually probably wouldn't agree with totally removing the medical side but that the previous law is too onerous I don't think anyone could in good faith disagree with.

This is not relevant to the Scottish law.

There is no requirement whatsoever in UK law for an individual to receive any treatment in relation to their gender.

The current requirements are:
You're over 18;
You've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK (but this is the extent of medical requirements) - as the Gov site makes clear "you can apply even if you have not had any gender affirming surgery or treatments, or you do not plan to have any.")
You've been living in your affirmed gender for at least 2 years; and
You intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life.

This is subect to approval by a Gender Recognition Panel (technically a judicial tribunal) with civil service support in helping people make applications, and decisions can be appealed. Typically it takes about 3 months to issue a decision and over 90% of applications get approved in the first instance.

Under the Scottish gender recognition reform, the requirements are:
You're over 16;
You've been living in your affirmed gender for three months;
You intend to live in this gender for the rest of your life; and
You have a mandatory three month reflection period  after which you must confirm that you want to make the application.

The removal of the requirement for a gender dysphoria diagnosis relates to the intent of de-medicalising trans people, rather than NHS shortage - as it is not  requirement for any form of treatment. The other objective is to move from a quasi-judicial process involving an application and a decision, to an administrative process.

There is an entirely separate (and I think quite different) process for people with intersex characteristics. In addition it is not necessary to get a GRC in order to change your name, your identity documents (passport, driving licence), bank details, healthcare details, how you're addressed at work etc - in fact changing those things are probably necessary to acquire evidence that you've lived in your affirmed gender for the last two years. The GRC allows you to change your gender on your birth, death and marriage certificates.

It is also worth saying that in the UK as a whole (stats on this are not devolved - they would be following the Scottish law) relatively few people apply for GRCs. Advocates of reform argue that that is because it is medicalised and quasi-judicial - it is too high a burden. However it has also been argued that it's because it doesn't change much - you do not need a GRC to change your gender in most of your life or to be protected by anti-discrimination or equalities law under the protected characteristic of "gender reassignment" (an out of date phrase) which is explicitly not related to GRC-status and has been interpreted by the courts very broadly to basically include non-binary as well as trans identities.

Separately there is a wider issue around lack of resourcing and access to specialist care on the NHS - and significant regional variations in approaches and standards of care. But that is entirely separate from the Scottish law or existing law. There is no link whatsoever you are not required to be having any sort of treatment whatsoever and the diagnosis can come from any doctor or clinical psychologist provided they have some experience in working in the field of gender dysphoria.

Key point however- this Scottish law change isn't the issue here. This came long after Rowling endeared herself to the trans community.

The Scottish law is an adaptation of the gender recognition reform legislation proposed by Theresa May.

The Women and Equalities Select Committee heard a lot of evidence in 2016. Theresa May announced that she would be proposing gender recognition reform in 2017. I think the draft legislation was around 2018-19. The Maya Forstater case was in 2019. The Scottish bill is the latest of an argument around the same issue for the last 6 years.

I think Rowling first commented in 2018/9 according to that Pink News piece. So yes she wasn't directly prompted by the Scottish law but there was a context of proposed changes to UK law and the firing of a woman for gender critical comments on social media (subsequently ruled as unlawful discrimination by the Employment Tribunal).

If a man is claiming to be a woman to gain access... well then that's not a trans woman is it?

Right - but how do you identify that, especially if the requirement for a diagnosis is removed from a process that changes your legal sex?

Interesting.
You're seeing the current medical safeguards against a person making the wrong decision for themselves as being safeguards of others.

I don't think the existing requirement to have evidence of a diagnosis was ever about stopping a person from making the wrong decision.

[Josquius]

In women's prisons in the UK in the last three years there have be 7 sexual assaults by trans prisoners - 6 as the instigator and 1 as a perpetrator but not the instigator.

This was about women's shelters.
Sounds like the last year has been quite exceptional there as previous prison stats were 5 incidents in 10 years.

There is no requirement whatsoever in UK law for an individual to receive any treatment in relation to their gender.

The current requirements are:
You're over 18;
You've been diagnosed with gender dysphoria in the UK (but this is the extent of medical requirements)

Right. This is precisely it though. Even just getting that initial diagnosis is apparently quite a nightmare - which given the state of the nhs in general and mental health treatment in particular is no surprise.

Right - but how do you identify that, especially if the requirement for a diagnosis is removed from a process that changes your legal sex?

This is where sweeping one size fits all laws to just unthinkingly bar trans people show their fundamental flaw.
With something so fluffy and hard to define as who is a woman you're going to need a lot of case by case judgement - hopefully with border cases they'd go for benefit of the doubt but when it's clearly just a guy with a bit of paper....

I don't think the existing requirement to have evidence of a diagnosis was ever about stopping a person from making the wrong decision.

Under what reasoning?
This is the logic under which any other medical condition is treat. You can't just tell the doctor you're bipolar. You need a diagnosis.

[Gups]

Until you actually provide linked quotes to what Rowling has actually said that makes her transphobic and/or which of her arguments you dispute, I'm out. Further, I simply don't understand what your position is on self-ID which is the main issue that Rowling has been campaigning against. Some of your comments indicate support, while in others you don't think a piece of paper is sufficient and it will be for others to decide whether someone is trans on a case by case basis.

[Sheilbh]

This was about women's shelters.
Sounds like the last year has been quite exceptional there as previous prison stats were 5 incidents in 10 years.

That was 2016-19 out of around 100 sexual assaults recorded - I think out of a FOI request.

Right. This is precisely it though. Even just getting that initial diagnosis is apparently quite a nightmare - which given the state of the nhs in general and mental health treatment in particular is no surprise.

You do not need to get a diagnosis from the specific gender clinics though.

As I say there's a huge problem here and there's two sides to it. One is for adults where there are very long waiting lists but it varies hugely between different NHS trusts from as low as four months to four years. Worth noting the courts have found the waiting lists and failure to meet the government target (18 weeks to first appointment) have been found unlawful so NHS trusts may reorganise on this.

With young people I think the model the NHS adopted was, in retrospect, a mistake - they went for a centralised, centre of excellence model which has been shut down following the Cass Review (which also found some safeguarding issues) - that review is recommending far more of a regionalised approach with multiple clinicians from different expertise working together more. The centre of excellence model led to a a bit silo-ing and may have worked when they were dealing with a few hundred referrals a year but now they get over 2,000 and it's not suitable.

Funding is also key and particularly for mental health.

This is where sweeping one size fits all laws to just unthinkingly bar trans people show their fundamental flaw.
With something so fluffy and hard to define as who is a woman you're going to need a lot of case by case judgement - hopefully with border cases they'd go for benefit of the doubt but when it's clearly just a guy with a bit of paper....

Right - but under the proposed Scottish system there is no determination. There is no panel or anyone else to decide on border cases.

It is an administrative process - same person who does birth certificates, death certificates etc. The purpose of the law is to remove the element of any judgement - in part, supporters of the law would argue, because it is demeaning for trans people.

So far you think there needs to be a way of making a judgement and possibly a diagnosis - which is the current system.

Under what reasoning?
This is the logic under which any other medical condition is treat. You can't just tell the doctor you're bipolar. You need a diagnosis.

It's not a medical process. You're providing evidence to a judge that you have gender dysphoria to support an application to change your legal sex.

I don't think it's anything to do with stopping someone from making the wrong decision. I think the theory is that it was about providing an objective, evidential basis for an application to change legal sex.

[Josquius]

Until you actually provide linked quotes to what Rowling has actually said that makes her transphobic and/or which of her arguments you dispute, I'm out. Further, I simply don't understand what your position is on self-ID which is the main issue that Rowling has been campaigning against. Some of your comments indicate support, while in others you don't think a piece of paper is sufficient and it will be for others to decide whether someone is trans on a case by case basis.

I've posted a summary of the Rowling situation and why she is reviled earlier in the thread. Maybe more than once?

If it were up to me, which it really shouldn't be, I wouldn't have totally gotten rid of the medical diagnosis side of things. I do think speaking to a professional is pretty important and this is a big decision to go into.
That those who know better than me have decided different however doesn't upset me. I can get where if you are trans it is kind of horrible to have to go through a psychologist gate keeper as if you're mentally ill.

The key difference is I see the goal being in how do we maximise the welfare of the people involved as much as possible.
The rabid opposition have goals that are quite the opposite.

I don't think having a piece of paper by itself is enough to do anything. But then it isn't meant to. It's just one small part of helping trans people be who they are and on its own it won't let an obvious man do whatever he wants as if he were a woman.

[Admiral Yi]

The key difference is I see the goal being in how do we maximise the welfare of the people involved as much as possible.
The rabid opposition have goals that are quite the opposite.

You keep bringing the rabid opposition and the woke brigade into the conversation.  What purpose does this serve other than guilt by association?  I don't see how they are relevant to anything we have been discussing.

[chipwich]

I've posted a summary of the Rowling situation and why she is reviled earlier in the thread.

Post the fucking tweets. Not a "Summary" you've had 3 pages.

[Jacob]

Post the fucking tweets. Not a "Summary" you've had 3 pages.

Use the fucking internet yourself. I googled it and the top hits were all articles with every Rowling tweet and a detailed explanation of why they matter.

[Admiral Yi]

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/jk-rowling-trans-rights-controversy-timeline-b2285947.html

This article is pretty good on verbatim quotes and contexts.

[chipwich]

Post the fucking tweets. Not a "Summary" you've had 3 pages.

Use the fucking internet yourself. I googled it and the top hits were all articles with every Rowling tweet and a detailed explanation of why they matter.

None of those tweets are transphobic.