...and on the subject of Rowling:
'This is what a principled politician looks like'. J K Rowling backs SNP rebel Regan with fresh swipe at Sturgeon
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ns-law-tug-of/
Printable View
...and on the subject of Rowling:
'This is what a principled politician looks like'. J K Rowling backs SNP rebel Regan with fresh swipe at Sturgeon
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...ns-law-tug-of/
JK Rowling has long stood up for woman's rights. Objecting to woman being called people who menstruate is not transphobic. This shows the deep misogyny of trans activists that think they can change language to fit their agenda and anyone who doesn't go along with it can be monstered as a transphobe, TERF or fascist.
The reason trans activists want to call women, people who menstruate is because they think a woman is an identity category they don't believe in the reality of biological sex. They think any man who puts on a dress is a literal woman. This is why they hate women who stand up for their sex-based rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev3iZR3cCkM]
https://archive.ph/bhVB7
First court case someone is charged as a male and female
What has all that got to do with the GRA?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The video link didn't work for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozyhibby
I assume that's what you're referring to?
It's worth keeping in mind that this thread is about Trans Rights and there's more to the subject than the GRA bill.
Rowling claimed she felt the need to speak about the issue of transgender rights because of her own experiences of domestic abuse.
Domestic abuse has nothing to do with trans rights. It's bad but it is totally different to the abuse of transgender people.
You are missing the bigger picture. It's about having woman only safe places.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Lots of men on this thread telling woman how they should feel or not feel.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/i...f-b989709.html
Aye , ok................the lengths some people go to :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
From JK herself
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j...gender-issues/
"Well, I’ve got five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism, and deciding I need to speak up.
Firstly, I have a charitable trust that focuses on alleviating social deprivation in Scotland, with a particular emphasis on women and children. Among other things, my trust supports projects for female prisoners and for survivors of domestic and sexual abuse. I also fund medical research into MS, a disease that behaves very differently in men and women. It’s been clear to me for a while that the new trans activism is having (or is likely to have, if all its demands are met) a significant impact on many of the causes I support, because it’s pushing to erode the legal definition of sex and replace it with gender.
The second reason is that I’m an ex-teacher and the founder of a children’s charity, which gives me an interest in both education and safeguarding. Like many others, I have deep concerns about the effect the trans rights movement is having on both.
The third is that, as a much-banned author, I’m interested in freedom of speech and have publicly defended it, even unto Donald Trump.
The fourth is where things start to get truly personal. I’m concerned about the huge explosion in young women wishing to transition and also about the increasing numbers who seem to be detransitioning (returning to their original sex), because they regret taking steps that have, in some cases, altered their bodies irrevocably, and taken away their fertility. Some say they decided to transition after realising they were same-sex attracted, and that transitioning was partly driven by homophobia, either in society or in their families"
She appears to omit reason five, but says this, which I find quite compelling.
"We’re living through the most misogynistic period I’ve experienced. Back in the 80s, I imagined that my future daughters, should I have any, would have it far better than I ever did, but between the backlash against feminism and a porn-saturated online culture, I believe things have got significantly worse for girls. Never have I seen women denigrated and dehumanised to the extent they are now. From the leader of the free world’s long history of sexual assault accusations and his proud boast of ‘grabbing them by the pussy’, to the incel (‘involuntarily celibate’) movement that rages against women who won’t give them sex, to the trans activists who declare that TERFs need punching and re-educating, men across the political spectrum seem to agree: women are asking for trouble. Everywhere, women are being told to shut up and sit down, or else".
It's clear that Rowling has engaged in some deep thinking about her position and makes an eloquent case, unlike many of the critics, like Radcliffe and Emily Watson, from the "franchise".
But if she is scared now of biological males in traditionally female only places then her opinion is valid to the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Defenders say this isn't effected by gra, others say it does. Gra allows people to change their birth certificate and not allow people to know if it was ever changed. There will be no way to know if someone was born a male, if they say they are literally a female then they are.
I don't think sex assaults will increase in anyway but I'm not a woman so it won't affect me
Worth looking beyond a single throwaway paragraph in that STV report. There's a wider issue here. As others have already pointed out, Rowling's fervent opposition to Sturgeon's bill is rooted in its impact on women's rights. At no time has she expressed any sort of anti-trans views.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Personally I think it's great that as high profile a figure as Rowling has no qualms about putting herself in the firing line here and expressing the concerns of many so eloquenty.
Well, I guess domestic abuse has got something to do with trans rights when women don't want to go to the Edinburgh rape crisis center because the head of the organization is a man who identifies as a woman who say's things like "even bigots get raped". Or when two women become impregnated in an all-female prison in New Jersey by a fellow prisoner.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Quick question. Say I - a heterosexual cis man - seeks access at a women's refuge. The reason could be genuine, it might not be, who knows. I would expect to be refused shelter for the comfort and wellbeing of the women there because as a male bodied person, I represent a particular threat to them, a threat which that shelter primarily exists to protect women from.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moulin Yarns
Say an identical person - my doppelganger even - seeks the same access and the only difference is that they claim a trans identity. No definable or measurable difference, apart from the belief that they have been born in the wrong body, or adhere to an idea of gender separate from sex. Why should the shelter perceive them as any less of a threat? Why would the women in the shelter feel any less uncomfortable?
In the UK, the prison issue is decided on a case-by-case basis.Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Presumably, the US cases were consensual relationships? If so, I'm not sure relationships of any type inside a prison can be completely avoided.
In your second example, that's already dealt with by the Equality Act. The default is that a trans woman, at any stage of her transition, has access to that space. However, if the current occupants have concerns about the individual, they can refuse her entry.Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
None of that will change with the current proposals.
I'm no fan of her books or aspects of her politics, but Rowling has been very brave in taking a stance. I totally commend her and her right to speak out on issues which are close to her heart.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Nothing she has said can be construed as anti-trans and I would feel pretty confident that she, like most right-minded people, would have no issues with people's who have undergone gender reassignment to it's logical conclusion. Her concerns are based on fundamental erosion of women's rights.
Aside from the vacuous white noise from people like Radcliffe, what I find more worrying is the media clamour to close down people's right to speak out. I understand when we, as a society, want to suppress those who wish to inflame hatred, racial, sexual, or whatever. However, nothing she has said sits in those categories. I don't like the erosion of fundamental democratic rights and wonder where it might end?
Who decides the agenda here? Mainstream media is controlled by some very dubious organisations and have huge power to influence the public, I see it as a distract, divide and conquer issue. Meanwhile our corrupt government carries on screwing us plebs for everything we have. I wish people would waken up and take the blinkers off.
Why is that the default position under the Equalities act? It will surely become the case if GRA is passed in it's current form.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Workers and women who use the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre have very clearly opposed the appointment of their most senior manager. I know for a fact that they have lost staff because of the issue and anecdotally, their key stakeholders (women who have been raped or sexually assaulted) totally oppose Mridul Wadha's appointment. One day I hope the full story behind this will come out, it's a total stich up.
I've been having a think about this from the point of view of major western religions and have come to this conclusion.
If people believe that God, Jesus and some guy called The Holy Ghost are individuals and at the same time are also the same person...
...then surely they can believe that somebody can be a Man as well as a Woman?
:dunno:
I'm not sure I understand the question. That has been the position since 2010 (?) when the Act was passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
There are many exceptions to that basic rule, as there always are.
More here on how organisations can deal with access for trans people:-
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...s-equality-act
The GRA won't change those basic rules and exceptions. What it may do is increase the number of times that an organisation will have to review and apply its own protocols.
I don't know as much as you about the ERCC case. But, in answering the question as to why the Project Manager is still in post, the key may be in that piece above where it says "Under these provisions, your approach must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim...You must then show that your action is a proportionate way to achieve that aim. This requires that you balance the impact upon all service users." One would assume that the Board of ERCC have considered those provisions; if they haven't, that's where any challenge to her appointment would come from.
A lot of what she says is construed as anti-trans. If this wasn't the case, trans people and their allies wouldn't consider her to be extremely problematic.Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
I can't see how saying nothing negative about trans people, just saying there is a difference in biology can be seen as anti trans. Some trans don't like her as their position is trans women are 100% women and to say different is anti trans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble de Thump
I agree that the current GRA reforms aren't the game changers some people seem to think they are, but in the example above it seems like a really weird line to draw. It solely relies on an individuals personal belief which is neither definable or measurable, and I'm not comfortable with that. It's got a very "prayer in school" feel - ie. the insitutional enforcement of spiritual belief.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rumble de Thump
A bit like anti Zionists being accused of being anti-Semitic by militant Zionists then.
If you identify as disabled are you 😲
https://mobile.twitter.com/andrewdoy...04732756922368
In case anyone gets het up about the conversation on the right there, it's a satirical account, written by Andrew Doyle.:greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Stairway 2 7
Yeah it's one of the most popular accounts on twitter, the point is his mad jokes on woke are somehow coming true.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Long-serving Guardian journalist Hadley Freeman in parting shot at paper over trans debate:
https://pressgazette.co.uk/hadley-fr...-sunday-times/
One thing is for sure no woman can get pregnant from a fellow prisoner in a woman only prison if the inmates are woman only. Maybe this would be the best way to protect vulnerable women.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Not sure what you mean by "protect". The relationships were consensual, weren't they?Quote:
Originally Posted by 147lothian
Given the stressful nature prison and the high number of vulnerable women in prison, I think it's difficult to use 'consensual' in the way you would apply outside prison. Here's a case from the Guardian, probably the most supportive on trans issues https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_OtherQuote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I'm not convinced you'd accept that so readily if it were a cis man who got a prisoner pregnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod