The law as it stands on sex, Part 2

Of course it would be appalling, either way. Especially with a named real person being killed.
Even as part of a dystopian story, I don't understand how that is being allowed.

VioletSky
No I hadn't heard of this book.
Me neither till this am.

No I don't think its ok in any way.
Glad to hear that.

Doodledog

This also happened. I think it’s an ad for watches, but it says it all, doesn’t it?

Egard also published this parallel ad in 2019. www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_HL0wiK4Zc

It ends with the words "We see the good in men" (it was in response to a Gillette ad which seemed not to)

I think that needs emphasising. Those who can see the loopholes in trans ideology that needed plugging are not pointing them out because they see only the flaws in some men, and in some trans women. They see the good too, in the many men we love and cherish, who have all the qualities celebrated in this ad.

However, laws are devised to curb the baser desires and instincts of the few, and the distribution graph of trans people from angels at one end to devils at the other is the same as the graph for people of their birth sex. The data shows that statistically, men and women are not identical. Not all men are at the angelic end of the spectrum, and neither are all men who have decided that they would rather join the opposite sex A law which takes no account of the statistics of these variations and insists that a trans woman is identical to a non-trans one, and that no-one may question that, is not a good law.

Well, reviewer chaos broke out on Amazon (from both sides), and Amazon are now restricting reviews of it.

However, professional and other reviewers do agree that, as an author/writer, this person fails miserably. The book is badly constructed and badly written.

So, I assume this author does understand that there are only two ways for a book to hope to succeed:

1) For the story and the craft of storytelling to be really good, and people actually want to read it.

2) If it will fail on number 1, because the penmanship is so trite it's unreadable, then it needs to attract loads of publicity and debate.

I just think the books reflects on the character of this "author" and the cheerleaders of the author.

To be honest, I would have felt the same if this crap had been written with the opposite scenario, of biological women hunting down and killing TW. Especially if the name of a living person, who had already received, and still receives, numerous death threats, had been used.

Vile. ?

No I hadn't heard of this book.

No I don't think its ok in any way

No you cannot speak for me or anyone else

DiamondLily

Do the "kind" ones on here think that this new book, being very clear it's about JKR, is very kind?

What do you think?

JKR said the truth, that males cannot be female.

If they lie to themselves and to others as TW and their allies do about males becoming female, the truth has to be denied in order to validate themselves.

The negatives about this book need no explanation, but the positives start with

*Support for the fact that TW can be dangerous to AHF, which we have been saying all along.
Although this level, of even fictional violence, is over and above what I expected from them.*

Support for the fact that they will go to any lengths to perpetrate that harm and boast about it in the media, which TRA and allies have already been seen to do, though this reaches a new low, even for them.

I’m only puzzled by the fact that a real person has been used. In most books there is a declaration like this, to avoid being sued.
This is a work of fiction.
Names, characters, organisations, places, events, and incidents are on the products of the authors imagination.

But then maybe trans and their allies believe themselves above the law?

I’m not surprised at Macmillan. It’s a moneymaking exercise, which is their job.

"But the novel – produced by an imprint of publishing giant Macmillan – has also been panned as ‘misogynistic bile’ from an ‘unhinged’ writer."

That novel sounds vile.

I'm amazed by that advert. I thought it must be a political one, but it does seem to be from a watch company.

They're taking the piss.

Do the "kind" ones on here think that this new book, being very clear it's about JKR, is very kind?

It's written by a trans person. Of course it is fiction, but it is very rare to actually use a living person in this sort of scenario.

'Characters hunt down and kill TERFs – trans-exclusionary radical feminists, a term which has been used against Miss Rowling in the past – who are referred to in the novel as the ‘Knights of JK Rowling’.

The book reads: ‘Have the new girls heard what happened to the Harry Potter lady?... Okay, so, first off she ended up being a crazy TERF, like, super intense.’

The author then explains how she took her ‘rich’ TERF friends to a castle in Scotland where one of the characters ‘flips in the middle of the night and starts ripping into the other guests before someone knocks over a lamp or something’ leaving people to ‘burn alive’ before ‘finally the whole castle collapsed’.

The TERFs also use a war ship called the Galbraith, a reference to Miss Rowling’s pseudonym Robert Galbraith.

Manhunt is published by Tor Nightfire, an offshoot of Macmillan which claims to publish fiction that ‘unsettles and delights’. It is available as a paperback or ebook on Amazon. Miss Felker-Martin has tweeted frequently about Miss Rowling’s death in the novel."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10737117/Trans-authors-book-kills-JK-Rowling-Backlash-Harry-Potter-writers-fictional-death.html

This also happened. I think it’s an ad for watches, but it says it all, doesn’t it?

FarNorth

This just happened.

Good news! Fingers crossed that this crosses the Atlantic.

Rosie51

It's grotesque, the stereotypical poses etc. He is playacting a woman. It's insulting and demeaning to real women. Anyone genuinely conned by this performance has no business being employed in a role that is supposedly "safeguarding women"

It really is.

It shows his contempt for women, which is verified when he goes on to assault them. How anyone could allow him to stay in a women’s refuge on the grounds that he says he ‘feels like’ a woman is beyond me.

This just happened.

It's grotesque, the stereotypical poses etc. He is playacting a woman. It's insulting and demeaning to real women. Anyone genuinely conned by this performance has no business being employed in a role that is supposedly "safeguarding women"

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-387099-screenshot-2022-04-20-at-23-46-40.png https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/202204/medium-80396-screenshot-2022-04-20-at-23-44-24.png

trisher also keeps berating us for not having faith in the risk assessments of staff in women's refuges.

Seriously, how much faith would you have in someone who allowed an ex con (jailed for domestic abuse) who looks like this into a refuge for women?

That is so depressing to see Rosie.
I honestly don't understand why so many, who should know better, have been captured by this ideology.

Doodledog it was interesting to note that in the link you shared about St Mungo's the spokesman for them said "Trans women are welcome in our women-only services and spaces, in accordance with the law and our values as a charity." This of course is the law as specified by Stonewall, it's not actually the law. As trisher has often said transwomen even with a GRC can be excluded from such places. Maybe it's telling that the very next sentence is "St Mungo’s is a trans inclusive organisation recognised by Stonewall as a top trans employer.”

It's discrimination that my lovely safe husband and sons are barred from places where certain biological males are allowed. In fact my husband and sons wouldn't dream of trying to access those places because they're decent humans who respect women and their right to agency, privacy, dignity and feeling safe. What a shame a certain subset of males feel their wants should outweigh women's needs. It was always thus, men exerting their power, a dominance displayed even when they claim entry to a vulnerable group.

It surely won't be long before non-trans men start to say that they should also be allowed into refuges just like their trans brothers.
That's another reason why it is important to know the difference between a woman, a transwoman and a man in a dress. As I've said, a definition isn't good enough - it is the differences we need to know, as so far we've had vagaries such as 'dysphoria', or 'he's a transvestite', which doesn't answer the question.

I am not asking for the sake of it - I think it's important to know, otherwise you're right - there will be no logical reason why one man in a dress can enter a woman's space and his brother can't put on a dress and do likewise. Or do likewise without wearing a dress on the grounds that women in there are wearing jeans.

Laws simply cannot be based on 'inner feelings'. There has to be no ambiguity, other than 'reasonable doubt' findings in court, otherwise it would be possible for one person to be charged and another not based on 'feelings' that cannot be proven.

As it stands, the law (as opposed to 'guidance') is based on sex class, and if it ever shifts to so-called 'gender' there will have to be clear guidance as to what that means, and who is covered, and how. If a lawyer is reading this (GSM?) it would be good to hear their point of view.

trisher

I don't think any violence against women should be ignored I do think this focus on trans issues is strange and possibly stems from the fact that 50 years after the first women's refuge was started we still have huge levels of domestic violence. I think it's something of a distraction. Because we haven't manged to make the changes we thought we would, some are focussing on irrelevancies and easy targets.

It's irrelevant that domestic violence is still happening.

The no-males rule in women's refuges was intended to give women a breathing space with no males present, however harmless they might be.
So no male service users or staff.

trisher Can you not imagine how distressing it could be, to believe you are in a female-only environment and to then realise that someone "presenting as a woman" is actually a man?

If refuges intend to be mixed-sex, they should make that clear and should stop calling themselves single-sex.
It surely won't be long before non-trans men start to say that they should also be allowed into refuges just like their trans brothers.

You can call me rude as often as you like, doesn’t make it true.
Absolutely VS. So you can.

Damn! I forgot to close the hyperlink brackets.

www.thesun.co.uk/news/8813718/domestic-abuser-kill-lover-womans-refuge/

Try that.

trisher

I don't think any violence against women should be ignored I do think this focus on trans issues is strange and possibly stems from the fact that 50 years after the first women's refuge was started we still have huge levels of domestic violence. I think it's something of a distraction. Because we haven't manged to make the changes we thought we would, some are focussing on irrelevancies and easy targets.

50 years after the first women’s refuge was started, it might be goof to look back and reflect on how [[https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/8813718/domestic-abuser-kill-lover-womans-refuge/ women like Erin Pizzey feel about men being allowed into the places that were created as women-only environments?

Are you saying that ‘focus on trans issues’ is a distraction from male violence? If so, it seems odd to distract from that by adding to it.

When you have to tell me I think, feel or mean something I don't in order to justify saying that I think its pretty obvious where the problem is.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with how I communicate except that you dont like my opinions, which isnt my problem.

You can call me rude as iften as you like, doesnt make it true.

" She was told that 'having sex with a dick is no different from sex with a strap-on', which I'm pretty sure is not remotely true."

It wouldn't matter if it was true or/and if a particular person even liked strap-ons.
If A doesn't want sex with B, for whatever reason, that should be the end of it.