[News] A woman is a woman.

[DJ NOBO]

You don’t think it’s an issue she posted all that stuff about the Olympic boxer Khelif, who was never a trans woman? At best Khelif was accused of being intersex, which is a completely different thing.

Yet Rowling posted online about “him” enjoying punching a woman in the head. I utterly can’t fathom how you could defend that or consider her harmlessly defending women’s rights.

I’ll add, I am a woman and complete ***** like her will never speak for me.

From memory there was quite a lot of confused reporting about that boxer.

What We know for sure is, she absolutely hates the principle of biological men in women’s sport .
Does that go down well in all quarters? most definitely not.
Do some interpret it as her hating trans people ? clearly.
Is that justified? opinions differ.

 

[Littlemo]

From memory there was quite a lot of confused reporting about that boxer.

What We know for sure is, she absolutely hates the principle of biological men in women’s sport .
Does that go down well in all quarters? most definitely not.

I don’t agree with it necessarily either, I said that earlier. There’s definitely a need to look at that.

It’s how you do it though, dog whistling around stuff like this isn’t it. She has a platform, she has to have a higher standard than “accidental” retweets and causing a pile on to someone who isn’t even attempting to be trans, she fully knows what she is doing and always has done.

 

[DJ NOBO]

I don’t agree with it necessarily either, I said that earlier. There’s definitely a need to look at that.

It’s how you do it though, dog whistling around stuff like this isn’t it. She has a platform, she has to have a higher standard than “accidental” retweets and causing a pile on to someone who isn’t even attempting to be trans, she fully knows what she is doing and always has done.

I share JKR’s fundamental belief that you can’t change sex. And imo she is intelligent and has an amazing way with words. I also believe she has done a lot of good in exposing quite a lot of bs.
i don’t believe she hates trans people for hates sake.
However you and a few others come across as sensible and reasoned people.
I will take a more sceptical view of JKR‘s platform and how she uses it in the future.

 

[m20gull]

You don’t think it’s an issue she posted all that stuff about the Olympic boxer Khelif, who was never a trans woman? At best Khelif was accused of being intersex, which is a completely different thing.

Yet Rowling posted online about “him” enjoying punching a woman in the head. I utterly can’t fathom how you could defend that or consider her harmlessly defending women’s rights.

I’ll add, I am a woman and complete ***** like her will never speak for me.

Posting about Khelif was consistent. Rowling supports women's rights and doesn't think male athletes belong in female sports.

 

[Littlemo]

Posting about Khelif was consistent. Rowling supports women's rights and doesn't think male athletes belong in female sports.

Khelif isn’t and never was a male. As I said, the Russian boxing authorities said (somewhat dubiously) that they were possibly intersex - so this is nothing to do with being trans and there’s nothing that said she was male.

 

[m20gull]

Khelif isn’t and never was a male. As I said, the Russian boxing authorities said (somewhat dubiously) that they were possibly intersex - so this is nothing to do with being trans and there’s nothing that said she was male.

Other than the description of medical treatment by Khelif's trainer that appears only consistent with a male DSD condition. There has been no published evidence consistent with Khelif being biologically female, and nor did there have to be to compete in the female class at the Olympic boxing.

All that aside my point was about Rowling's consistency. If Khelif is male, which is what was being reported.

 

[jcdenton08]

I have my views, but as I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’ve not commented.

However, I’m annoyed about the defacing statues and general thuggery on hand from some (not all). Much like JSO, I can understand the message and even sympathise, but lose a lot of good will when people do stupid things in the name of their cause.

 

[Sussax]

I have my views, but as I don’t have a dog in this fight, I’ve not commented.

However, I’m annoyed about the defacing statues and general thuggery on hand from some (not all). Much like JSO, I can understand the message and even sympathise, but lose a lot of good will when people do stupid things in the name of their cause.

Trans right activists (TRAs) don’t help the trans community imo - much like JSO some of there ‘tactics’ are militant and often aggressive towards women they think are TERFs.

Like others have said, a bit more tolerance and understanding from all sides would go a long way. Unfortunately in this society on almost any subject its severely lacking.

 

[Goldstone1976]

I have found the last few days informative and perplexing.

I’ve read the full SC 88-page judgement and the three key primary pieces of legislation to which the judgement applies (EA2010, GRC2004, and SDA1975 [and SDA1984, insofar as it relates to the subject under discussion]).

This is an extremely complex topic.

There is compelling evidence that the SC have ignored strong evidence that the drafters of EA2010 intended the definition of ‘women’ to be the opposite of what they have concluded.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...th-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant among many others.

The SC accepted evidence from four bodies - three recognised anti-trans lobbyists and the EHRC (at best neutral). They rejected evidence from two trans lawyers who were involved in the actual drafting of EA2010. Why?

Why am I interested?

My daughter is marrying a trans woman in September. Since the SC ruling, they have put their house on the market and are planning to emigrate to Ireland because they are ‘scared’. That has got my attention.

I’m getting up the learning curve asap - as you’d expect.

While you’d expect the Tories to be bad on this subject, both my daughter and her fiancée are card-carrying members of Starmer’s Labour Party, yet voted LD in the last GE solely because of Labour’s stance on Trans issues.

I have a lot of learning to do.

What I have learned so far scares the shit out of me concerning tolerance and acceptance of society and of the two major political parties.

Eees f*cking complicated.

Only… it isn’t really. Live and let live.

 

[Curious Orange]

There is compelling evidence that the SC have ignored strong evidence that the drafters of EA2010 intended the definition of ‘women’ to be the opposite of what they have concluded.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...th-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant among many others.

That directly contradicts Harriet Harman:

UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

Judges say the "concept of sex is binary" while adding that transgender people will still have protection against discrimination.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Talby]

Trans right activists (TRAs) don’t help the trans community imo - much like JSO some of there ‘tactics’ are militant and often aggressive towards women they think are TERFs.

Like others have said, a bit more tolerance and understanding from all sides would go a long way. Unfortunately in this society on almost any subject its severely lacking.

Much of the rhetoric is just sloganeering. It ignores fact or any empathy for others. At its core it’s misogyny by people who think men should be allowed to consider themselves women, by redefining what a biological woman is.

The Equality legislation applies to trans people too, but a trans person who identifies as a woman cannot claim discrimination on the grounds of them being a woman - only on them being trans.

Personally I don’t care care who you are, who you love and how you want to live your life but women have fought for equality for years and the biggest issue with transgender issues isn’t women transitioning to men, it’s men to women.

A bunch of men telling women that they should share their space, have their rights etc. Transition (medically) then ok but looking like Buffalo Bill in a Laura Ashley frock isn’t kidding anyone.

They should stop creating boundaries for others.

 

[Goldstone1976]

That directly contradicts Harriet Harman:

UK Supreme Court rules legal definition of a woman is based on biological sex

Judges say the "concept of sex is binary" while adding that transgender people will still have protection against discrimination.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yep.

Eees f*cking complicated. Only it isn’t. Live and let live.

 

[BadFish]

Long article because there’s a lot of evidence. It really doesn’t take much empathy to put yourself in the shoes of a transwoman for one moment, to deduce that her posts to her millions of followers is denying their existence and cannot be anything other than “anti trans”. I think you’re just arguing in bad faith now.

I don't think he is arguing in bad faith as such but it should be noted that he has been presented with a lot of new information on this thread which doesn't seem to have permeated. His opinions and understanding seem unchanged in the face of new information.

The reasons for this are anyone's guess.

 

[BadFish]

Thanks for that. It certainly explains why Mrs T doesn't like her.
Careless (or willfully insouciant) retweeting is a bad look.
I shall recalibrate my perspective

I had a discussion about Rowling with my son a few years ago and if I remember rightly it was her manifesto thing that caused the beginnings of my recalibration.

 

[BadFish]

Other than the description of medical treatment by Khelif's trainer that appears only consistent with a male DSD condition. There has been no published evidence consistent with Khelif being biologically female, and nor did there have to be to compete in the female class at the Olympic boxing.

All that aside my point was about Rowling's consistency. If Khelif is male, which is what was being reported.

If you have a platform and reach as big as Rowlings you have a responsibility to accurate and factual about what you post.

She was only too happy to dive into the misinformation pit and have a swim.

As others have said she is an intelligent woman but chose not to use that to ensure what she was posting was factual.

This isn't the first time either.

 

[BadFish]

I have found the last few days informative and perplexing.

I’ve read the full SC 88-page judgement and the three key primary pieces of legislation to which the judgement applies (EA2010, GRC2004, and SDA1975 [and SDA1984, insofar as it relates to the subject under discussion]).

This is an extremely complex topic.

There is compelling evidence that the SC have ignored strong evidence that the drafters of EA2010 intended the definition of ‘women’ to be the opposite of what they have concluded.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...th-uk-equality-acts-aim-says-ex-civil-servant among many others.

The SC accepted evidence from four bodies - three recognised anti-trans lobbyists and the EHRC (at best neutral). They rejected evidence from two trans lawyers who were involved in the actual drafting of EA2010. Why?

Why am I interested?

My daughter is marrying a trans woman in September. Since the SC ruling, they have put their house on the market and are planning to emigrate to Ireland because they are ‘scared’. That has got my attention.

I’m getting up the learning curve asap - as you’d expect.

While you’d expect the Tories to be bad on this subject, both my daughter and her fiancée are card-carrying members of Starmer’s Labour Party, yet voted LD in the last GE solely because of Labour’s stance on Trans issues.

I have a lot of learning to do.

What I have learned so far scares the shit out of me concerning tolerance and acceptance of society and of the two major political parties.

Eees f*cking complicated.

Only… it isn’t really. Live and let live.

As you are learning are you able to share the stuff you are reading on here, if not in a PM to me?

I am very interested in this stuff and, like you, am keen to know more.

I am sorry to hear about your daughter's decision too, it is a shame that they feel the need to move because of this. I always feel that it is people who are actually dealing with this stuff that are forgotten in all our discussions of bathrooms and boxers. My understanding from people who are directly affected by this stuff is that they would just like the opportunity to get on with their lives.

 

[DJ NOBO]

I don't think he is arguing in bad faith as such but it should be noted that he has been presented with a lot of new information on this thread which doesn't seem to have permeated. His opinions and understanding seem unchanged in the face of new information.

The reasons for this are anyone's guess.

Firstly, read up the page. It did permeate to an extent, as I wrote. Np if you didn’t get round to reading every last single post though.

Secondly, the challenge was to show evidence that JK Rowling hates trans people for being trans. She Is hardly shy at stating her case, so if she did imo she would just say it. And she hasn’t.
Generally when I read her Twitter I don’t feel she is anti trans per se just pro what she sees as women’s rights. And part of that is pushing back trans activists.
But fair enough, put the ten most extreme of her zillions of tweets together, i can see how others would reach a different conclusion.
Also I can’t say her choice of language when talking abut trans people is always good, but in her mitigation a lot of mud is slung the other way too.

 

[clapham_gull]

Hugely complicated.

What has muddied the water (in my view) is very much a modern day phenomena of believing personal rights are absolute even they infringe on the rights of others.

Can I apologise for using a glib analogy. ?

I hate motorists in London but I equally hate cyclists too. Both infringe (daily) on my rights as a pedestrian. But you know what ? I'm not going to parliament square about it.

However, we now have this thing known as the "floating bus stop" in London. You may have them in Brighton.

It's where you have to cross a cycle lane to get to the bus stop from the pavement. In fact near me there is now a mini pedestrian crossing to cross the cycle lane.

We all know that cyclists ignore anything that tells them to stop and these bus stops have become incredibly dangerous for the blind and partially sighted.

It would appear that cyclists > the blind.

Ok, bad parallel over. But perceived rights are not absolute when they infringe on the hard fought rights of others.

 

[Hugo Rune]

Personally I don’t care care who you are, who you love and how you want to live your life but women have fought for equality for years and the biggest issue with transgender issues isn’t women transitioning to men, it’s men to women.

A bunch of men telling women that they should share their space, have their rights etc. Transition (medically) then ok but looking like Buffalo Bill in a Laura Ashley frock isn’t kidding anyone.

This is nasty rhetoric and transphobic. Stop picking on a persecuted minority you nasty little man.

 

[BadFish]

Firstly, read up the page. It did permeate to an extent, as I wrote. Np if you didn’t get round to reading every last single post though.

Secondly, the challenge was to show evidence that JK Rowling hates trans people for being trans. She Is hardly shy at stating her case, so if she did imo she would just say it. And she hasn’t.
Generally when I read her Twitter I don’t feel she is anti trans per se just pro what she sees as women’s rights. And part of that is pushing back trans activists.
But fair enough, put the ten most extreme of her zillions of tweets together, i can see how others would reach a different conclusion.
Also I can’t say her choice of language when talking abut trans people is always good, but in her mitigation a lot of mud is slung the other way too.

Yep, I did notice the post about you possibly looking at Rowling's tweets in a different light, so maybe the evidence has permeated to an extent. As someone else has suggested also make sure you are noticing what she is retweeting (although often she does this 'accidentally' so it may depend on how much you believe her. Although your second paragraph in this post suggests that it hasn't very much.

The point I was making was about your continuation of the idea that people are changing their sex. The science that contradicts this idea was set out in the first few pages of this thread. Equally, someone as involved in this discussion as Rowling should also better understand this, especially with the size of her platform and influence.