[News] A woman is a woman.

[pocketseagull]

I don't have a strict definition but I think people who wish to curtail the rights of trans people would qualify.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Personally I'm comfortable with labelling people like JK Rowling and Graham Lineham as being anti-trans. They certainly fuel an anti-trans agenda. We've gone from a trans contestant winning Big Brother to wanting legislation to make things more difficult for a minority. So many of the arguments that are made in the name of safety echo the language that was used to discriminate against gay people.

I am happy to be corrected by facts, but having started doing a bit of research on Rowling all I am seeing is her being gaslighted by militant trans activists, people who insist that a trans woman should be granted all the rights that a biological woman enjoys, including the safe spaces for biological women, with no distinction between someone who had full surgery and hormones 40 years ago, and a bloke in a dress who identifies as a woman.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I don't have a strict definition but I think people who wish to curtail the rights of trans people would qualify.

Curtail what right, though?
The only one that would affect them is the 'right' (which only existed in Scotland) for a biological man to insist he is a biological woman.
If that is the right they want curtailed they are not transphobic.

If they want to stop trans people having access to public facilities they would be transphobic.
Barring a trans woman from a women's changing room and forcing them in with the men is transphobic.
Barring a trans woman from a woman's changing room and campaigning for gender neutral facilities is not transphobic.

 

[The Clamp]

It’s all very confusing.

I’m off to Nando’s.

Bye.

 

[DJ NOBO]

I don't have a strict definition but I think people who wish to curtail the rights of trans people would qualify.

Do you think those people fundamentally do not like trans people ?

 

[DJ NOBO]

I am happy to be corrected by facts, but having started doing a bit of research on Rowling all I am seeing is her being gaslighted by militant trans activists, people who insist that a trans woman should be granted all the rights that a biological woman enjoys, including the safe spaces for biological women, with no distinction between someone who had full surgery and hormones 40 years ago, and a bloke in a dress who identifies as a woman.

Exactly this. JK Rowling may not be everyone‘s cup of tea but there is no evidence that she hates trans people. She just doesn’t buy into the idea that transwomen are actually women, and by extension doesn’t believe transwomen should have access to women‘s only spaces. She is not alone.
As a term “Anti trans“ suggests the prime motivation is a hatred of trans people. This is not the case for all but a very small bigoted minority.

 

[Curious Orange]

A trans women in a refuge would have also been abused. They could have also been raped.

As far as I'm aware Refuge, the charity, are able to accommodate anyone, and according to their specific needs.

Refuge responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling on gender and single-sex spaces

Refuge responds to today’s Supreme Court ruling on gender and single-sex spaces - Refuge

refuge.org.uk

 

[The Clamp]

Me again.

The mistake a lot of people make and the government and media encourage, is that we all have to pick a side.

We don’t.

We can express an opinion, discuss the concepts, misunderstand, ask questions and not have to come to a conclusion.

None of us get paid enough to come up with answers.

 

[pocketseagull]

I am happy to be corrected by facts, but having started doing a bit of research on Rowling

TBH I'm not massively knowledgeable on her so have had to resort to wiki and it's not great.

Rowling was responding to a critic who said they wished she would use her “immense power for good” and labelled her “hateful focus” on transgender children as “hurtful and unnecessary”. In response, the 59-year-old writer posted on X: “There are no trans kids. No child is ‘born in the wrong body’.
“There are only adults like you, prepared to sacrifice the health of minors to bolster your belief in an ideology that will end up wreaking more harm than lobotomies and false memory syndrome combined.”

I mean, the above pretty much invalidates the actual lived experience of trans people I know.

On 1 April 2024, in response to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 going into effect, Rowling posted a Twitter thread in which she listed and misgendered several transgender women.[100][101] The women included several public figures as well as convicted sexual offenders. Clarissa-Jan Lim, a reporter for MSNBC, said Rowling grouping them together was "an apparent attempt to draw a connection between trans people and sexual perversion".[102][103] Throughout the thread, Rowling sarcastically referred to all the people as female, but at the end clarified, "Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren't women at all, but men, every last one of them."[104][105] Rowling said that, if her comments were illegal under the new law, she "looked forward to being arrested".

I think these both cross the line from concerned person to actual bigotry.

 

[Curious Orange]

TBH I'm not massively knowledgeable on her so have had to resort to wiki and it's not great.


I mean, the above pretty much invalidates the actual lived experience of trans people I know.

I think these both cross the line from concerned person to actual bigotry.

This is where it started for JK Rowling five years ago:



I'm not on Twitter, so I can't see the replies, but my understanding is that she may well have received some stick for that post, so that may well have coloured her interactions with some activists subsequently.

 

[Littlemo]

I am happy to be corrected by facts, but having started doing a bit of research on Rowling all I am seeing is her being gaslighted by militant trans activists, people who insist that a trans woman should be granted all the rights that a biological woman enjoys, including the safe spaces for biological women, with no distinction between someone who had full surgery and hormones 40 years ago, and a bloke in a dress who identifies as a woman.

The thing about JK Rowling is that she’s become almost a professional platformer, by that I mean she uses her platform on social media to like, retweet etc the horrible stuff other people say, without putting it directly into words herself and then gets offended when she gets called out for it.

She already had form for doing this during the Scottish independence referendum. Promoted and tweeted hateful content from unionist accounts and then screamed about being abused when she got called out by others. It’s wrong whatever your opinion is on the referendum.

Similarly she attends rallies etc up here that are really very transphobic but it’s others doing it, not her, so she tries to maintain some plausible deniability. She is a throughly nasty, sly, piece of work.

 

[DJ NOBO]

TBH I'm not massively knowledgeable on her so have had to resort to wiki and it's not great.


I mean, the above pretty much invalidates the actual lived experience of trans people I know.

I think these both cross the line from concerned person to actual bigotry.

What does that mean?


BTW I took that JKR quote as her being horrified by children considering making life changing decisions about their bodies, and society’s view on this.

 

[pocketseagull]

What does that mean?

Because trans people will say they knew from an early age that they were trans. She is denying that. The further implication of trans as being an 'ideology' as opposed to innate is the same arguments people made in support of section 28.

 

[DJ NOBO]

The thing about JK Rowling is that she’s become almost a professional platformer, by that I mean she uses her platform on social media to like, retweet etc the horrible stuff other people say, without putting it directly into words herself and then gets offended when she gets called out for it.

She already had form for doing this during the Scottish independence referendum. Promoted and tweeted hateful content from unionist accounts and then screamed about being abused when she got called out by others. It’s wrong whatever your opinion is on the referendum.

Similarly she attends rallies etc up here that are really very transphobic but it’s others doing it, not her, so she tries to maintain some plausible deniability. She is a throughly nasty, sly, piece of work.

You think JK Rowling is afraid to speak her own mind, hiding behind others? That’s the extreme opposite of the truth

 

[Littlemo]

You think JK Rowling is afraid to speak her own mind, hiding behind others? That’s the opposite of the truth

I didn’t say she was afraid, she says what she wants to say but she’s happy to promote the hatred of others. No it’s not the opposite of the truth, I’ve watched it happen more than once.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Because trans people will say they knew from an early age that they were trans. She is denying that. The further implication of trans as being an 'ideology' as opposed to innate is the same arguments people made in support of section 28.

She doesn’t believe men can become women and vice versa. It’s as complicated as that

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I didn’t say she was afraid, she says what she wants to say but she’s happy to promote the hatred of others. No it’s not the opposite of the truth, I’ve watched it happen more than once.

Granted I have not seen everything she said, but what I have seen has not really been hatred/transphobic - happy to be pointed in the direction of this.

I think her point of speaking out was over her history/SNP being ridiculous

 

[Freddo]

Exactly this. JK Rowling may not be everyone‘s cup of tea but there is no evidence that she hates trans people. She just doesn’t buy into the idea that transwomen are actually women, and by extension doesn’t believe transwomen should have access to women‘s only spaces. She is not alone.
As a term “Anti trans“ suggests the prime motivation is a hatred of trans people. This is not the case for all but a very small bigoted minority.

Here’s some evidence for you:

A timeline of JK Rowling's transphobic shift

A list of the "Harry Potter" author's transphobic comments

theweek.com

 

[pocketseagull]

On 1 April 2024, in response to the Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 going into effect, Rowling posted a Twitter thread in which she listed and misgendered several transgender women.[100][101] The women included several public figures as well as convicted sexual offenders. Clarissa-Jan Lim, a reporter for MSNBC, said Rowling grouping them together was "an apparent attempt to draw a connection between trans people and sexual perversion".[102][103] Throughout the thread, Rowling sarcastically referred to all the people as female, but at the end clarified, "Obviously, the people mentioned in the above tweets aren't women at all, but men, every last one of them."[104][105] Rowling said that, if her comments were illegal under the new law, she "looked forward to being arrested".

To be fair to @DJ NOBO if your reaction to the above is a laughing emoji then we're unlikely to find agreement on what constitutes being 'anti-trans' or could be considered as spreading hatred.

 

[DJ NOBO]

Here’s some evidence for you:

A timeline of JK Rowling's transphobic shift

A list of the "Harry Potter" author's transphobic comments

theweek.com

Long article. I wouldn’t call it evidence . Can’t see anything about her hating trans people for being trans, presuming that’s what transphobic means . biological Men claiming they are women - she does hate that , obviously . And biological men in Women’s spaces - yes, she hates that.