Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

NanKate

This is the front cover of our WI magazine for April. The colours of purple, white and green representing the Suffragettes.

No mention that they accept transwomen, without a vote from their loyal members. We are no longer a democracy imo.

As I said before if you feel strongly about it insist it is put to a vote. Make it one of the resolutions taken by the Executive Committee. If you have enough women who object to the inclusion of transwomen and would not attend if they joined you can have them banned.
I doubt if you'd get the support.

Baggs

Paul Embery on Twitter says this (and it's bang on):

"She commendably used her status and influence to throw a protective shield around those who might prove easier pickings for police and politicians. She was effectively saying, "If they don't some for me, thay cannot come for any of us."

"us" of course is anyone who speaks the truth that you can't change sex.

This absolutely!!

Doodledog

*Glorianny*, how do you define ‘misogyny’? How are you making it apply to people not of the female sex? The ‘gyne’ part of the word is the same as in ‘gynaecology’. It relates to female sex.

If, say, a transwoman is attacked because of being transgender, the offence is a hate crime as transgender is covered under the Scottish Act. If a woman is attacked because she is female, (misogyny), however, there is no ‘hate’ element, as women are not protected in the way that transwomen are.

I repeat- a transwoman cannot suffer from misogyny because the term applies to the female sex only. It exists to differentiate between male and female. Why are you pretending otherwise?

If someone is a transwoman do you really imagine that misogynistic practices and language would not be aimed at them? No one can identify transwomen anyway. Some people may claim they can but really can't. It doesn't matter anyway. If say misogynistic statements are made about a transwoman and the same statements made to a natal woman are you really suggesting that this constitutes two different crimes?
So do you believe that a misogynistic man only targets natal women because he knows the origins of the word?

There's no such thing as 'natal women' - just women and not women.

JKR seemed to be able to identify a number of transwomen, but she does have superpowers.

Glorianny if only it was as easy as getting the National Federation of Women’s Institutes to give us a vote on the inclusion or otherwise of transwomen into the WI, but they did this undercover and refuse to give us a vote now.

The Women’s Institute Women’s Declaration has 3,023 signatures on their ipetition asking for a vote. Head office have said categorically they won’t give us a vote.

Many women who have been in abusive relationships have thought the WI was a safe haven and we could now lose loyal long standing members who believe that the WI is for natal women only.

Head office have said if we don’t like the new WI we can leave !!
They have stopped answering my emails now, so I wrote to my County WI and they apologised that they couldn’t answer me as they have been forbidden by Head Office and had to pass the emails to them to answer.

Galaxy

JKR seemed to be able to identify a number of transwomen, but she does have superpowers.

I can identify quite a few people who have had their pictures in the news Galaxy that doesn't require superpowers. If you can in everyday life is entirely another question.
If a misogynistic man would bother to is another.

NanKate

Glorianny if only it was as easy as getting the National Federation of Women’s Institutes to give us a vote on the inclusion or otherwise of transwomen into the WI, but they did this undercover and refuse to give us a vote now.

The Women’s Institute Women’s Declaration has 3,023 signatures on their ipetition asking for a vote. Head office have said categorically they won’t give us a vote.

Many women who have been in abusive relationships have thought the WI was a safe haven and we could now lose loyal long standing members who believe that the WI is for natal women only.

Head office have said if we don’t like the new WI we can leave !!
They have stopped answering my emails now, so I wrote to my County WI and they apologised that they couldn’t answer me as they have been forbidden by Head Office and had to pass the emails to them to answer.

There are 190,000 members . Getting more signatures would help I suppose. Just over 1% isn't enough really is it? Could it be that most don't mind?

No I think it is that most WI members don’t know. I have mentioned it to 4 women I know in other WIs and they were very surprised.

Of course some members are ok with transwomen in the WI.

we are only asking for a Vote and I would stand by the result.

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny, how do you define ‘misogyny’? How are you making it apply to people not of the female sex? The ‘gyne’ part of the word is the same as in ‘gynaecology’. It relates to female sex.

If, say, a transwoman is attacked because of being transgender, the offence is a hate crime as transgender is covered under the Scottish Act. If a woman is attacked because she is female, (misogyny), however, there is no ‘hate’ element, as women are not protected in the way that transwomen are.

I repeat- a transwoman cannot suffer from misogyny because the term applies to the female sex only. It exists to differentiate between male and female. Why are you pretending otherwise?

If someone is a transwoman do you really imagine that misogynistic practices and language would not be aimed at them? No one can identify transwomen anyway. Some people may claim they can but really can't. It doesn't matter anyway. If say misogynistic statements are made about a transwoman and the same statements made to a natal woman are you really suggesting that this constitutes two different crimes?
So do you believe that a misogynistic man only targets natal women because he knows the origins of the word?

no one can identify trans women anyway. Some people may claim they can but they can’t.
Which planet are you living on Glorianny? Transgender men and women are all too often easily identified. As yiu add “nit that it matters’.
Misogynistic men are on the rise. They’re not likely to become less dangerous or disgusting if we go woo woo on biological sex.

Also, if I can go back to an earlier post, from Glorianny at 11.09 on 04.04.24. in the US the rape can be a female crime. Is it less traumatic for someone to have an object violently pushed into an orifice than to have a penis pushed in. You, Glorianny, go in to say I would say it is equally damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the uk it’s designated as assault

Your assumption that what you think might be equally damaging is based solely on your views. Ask the victims - those of us who have done that would never assume, or decide we know best. Your assumptions on many issues relating to sex/gender/abuse/so called rad70’sfems who are bigots - leave me between fury and despair

Iam64

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny, how do you define ‘misogyny’? How are you making it apply to people not of the female sex? The ‘gyne’ part of the word is the same as in ‘gynaecology’. It relates to female sex.

If, say, a transwoman is attacked because of being transgender, the offence is a hate crime as transgender is covered under the Scottish Act. If a woman is attacked because she is female, (misogyny), however, there is no ‘hate’ element, as women are not protected in the way that transwomen are.

I repeat- a transwoman cannot suffer from misogyny because the term applies to the female sex only. It exists to differentiate between male and female. Why are you pretending otherwise?

If someone is a transwoman do you really imagine that misogynistic practices and language would not be aimed at them? No one can identify transwomen anyway. Some people may claim they can but really can't. It doesn't matter anyway. If say misogynistic statements are made about a transwoman and the same statements made to a natal woman are you really suggesting that this constitutes two different crimes?
So do you believe that a misogynistic man only targets natal women because he knows the origins of the word?

no one can identify trans women anyway. Some people may claim they can but they can’t.
Which planet are you living on Glorianny? Transgender men and women are all too often easily identified. As yiu add “nit that it matters’.
Misogynistic men are on the rise. They’re not likely to become less dangerous or disgusting if we go woo woo on biological sex.

Also, if I can go back to an earlier post, from Glorianny at 11.09 on 04.04.24. in the US the rape can be a female crime. Is it less traumatic for someone to have an object violently pushed into an orifice than to have a penis pushed in. You, Glorianny, go in to say I would say it is equally damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the uk it’s designated as assault

Your assumption that what you think might be equally damaging is based solely on your views. Ask the victims - those of us who have done that would never assume, or decide we know best. Your assumptions on many issues relating to sex/gender/abuse/so called rad70’sfems who are bigots - leave me between fury and despair

Feel furious or desperate as you choose .
Of course my views are based on what I believe.
So do I think a woman who has a bottle or broom stick shoved into her suffers as much as a woman who has a penis inserted, of course I do. Would most people regard assault as a lesser crime than rape. I think they would. Can a woman commit rape well if she uses an implement on another woman I think so. What if someone goes into a police station and reports assault? Will the rape support team swing into action, well I very much doubt so, not until she has given some details, whereas going into a police station and using the word rape will result in an immediate reaction. It's fine to say the law deals with the crimes, but shouldn't the same reaction happen? But how can it?

I love the fact that some people think they can always identify transwomen, sadly though it isn't true, and it can be harmful.

In addition the WI says they accept transwomen who have not completely transitioned, in other words wearing female attire but still having male genitalia 😳 And then they have the bl**dy cheek to say they must be called women ! How many women do you know with a penis ? The NFWI have lost their marbles.

If someone is a transwoman do you really imagine that misogynistic practices and language would not be aimed at them?
I am saying that they are protected by the ‘gender identity’ part of the Scottish act, and that it is not possible to be misogynistic to a man.
No one can identify transwomen anyway. Some people may claim they can but really can't.
It must be remarkable to be able to know what others can and can’t do. I accept that with the right lighting, full make-up and careful camera angles tv and film can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish
male and female characters, but you really are kidding yourself if you think that’s true in real life.
It doesn't matter anyway.
Not to you, perhaps, but to those interested in women’s rights it really does.

If say misogynistic statements are made about a transwoman and the same statements made to a natal woman are you really suggesting that this constitutes two different crimes?
Currently it wouldn’t be a crime at all, as misogyny is not an offence. I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be - but that it is wrong that transwomen are protected and women are not.

So do you believe that a misogynistic man only targets natal women because he knows the origins of the word?
What a strange notion. Who would think that? I don’t think it matters in the slightest- misogynists hate women whether they know the origin of the word or not. I doubt they would call it misogyny anyway - to them it would be some sort of truth. The point (again) is that as misogyny means a dislike or hatred of women, it cannot apply to a transwoman. A misogynist might dislike transwomen for adopting feminine characteristics, but that is not the same thing. It would be a dislike of someone trying to look like a woman. He would probably also dislike the large butch masculine-looking women you often mention - because they are female, however they ‘present’.

Doodledog

*If someone is a transwoman do you really imagine that misogynistic practices and language would not be aimed at them?*
I am saying that they are protected by the ‘gender identity’ part of the Scottish act, and that it is not possible to be misogynistic to a man.
No one can identify transwomen anyway. Some people may claim they can but really can't.
It must be remarkable to be able to know what others can and can’t do. I accept that with the right lighting, full make-up and careful camera angles tv and film can sometimes make it difficult to distinguish
male and female characters, but you really are kidding yourself if you think that’s true in real life.
It doesn't matter anyway.
Not to you, perhaps, but to those interested in women’s rights it really does.

If say misogynistic statements are made about a transwoman and the same statements made to a natal woman are you really suggesting that this constitutes two different crimes?
Currently it wouldn’t be a crime at all, as misogyny is not an offence. I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be - but that it is wrong that transwomen are protected and women are not.

So do you believe that a misogynistic man only targets natal women because he knows the origins of the word?
What a strange notion. Who would think that? I don’t think it matters in the slightest- misogynists hate women whether they know the origin of the word or not. I doubt they would call it misogyny anyway - to them it would be some sort of truth. The point (again) is that as misogyny means a dislike or hatred of women, it cannot apply to a transwoman. A misogynist might dislike transwomen for adopting feminine characteristics, but that is not the same thing. It would be a dislike of someone trying to look like a woman. He would probably also dislike the large butch masculine-looking women you often mention - because they are female, however they ‘present’.

Now who is squirming.
Of course we were discussing a hypothetical law. But it is one I firmly believe should be introduced.
Apparently you are unable to discuss this reasonably.
But I believe you wanted the word "sex" used in the legislation that was passed.
I don't think that is enough to deal with misogyny.
So it seems that for you a misogynistic man would not be brought to justice until he behaved badly towards a natal woman. That seems to me to be unfair both to the transwoman who is mistreated because he thinks she is a woman, and the natal woman who could have been protected had the attitude been dealt with when it was seen in his treatment of the transwoman.
But then inequality is what you get when you start to discriminate

I am not squirming! I am repeating what I have said all along, which is that misogyny can not apply to transwomen without changing its meaning, which is a hatred or dislike of women.

I am, I think, being perfectly reasonable- perhaps you can show me where you feel I am not ‘discussing reasonably’?

It seems to me that you are trying (and failing) to work towards a ‘gotcha’, which is not going to happen, as the facts are what the facts are.

Well said as ever Doodledog the voice of sanity in this strange dystopian world we are in.

Life in the 21st century sometimes mimics Margaret Atwood books.

Doodledog 🌻👍🏻👏

I have huge admiration and respect for JK Rowling. Thank goodness someone has the courage to speak up for women. When a man can rape a woman, claim to be trabsgender, and get sent to a WOMEN'S prison, then decency, commonsense, and sanity have left the room.

Doodledog

I am not squirming! I am repeating what I have said all along, which is that misogyny can not apply to transwomen without changing its meaning, which is a hatred or dislike of women.

I am, I think, being perfectly reasonable- perhaps you can show me where you feel I am not ‘discussing reasonably’?

It seems to me that you are trying (and failing) to work towards a ‘gotcha’, which is not going to happen, as the facts are what the facts are.

If say misogynistic statements are made about a transwoman and the same statements made to a natal woman are you really suggesting that this constitutes two different crimes?
Currently it wouldn’t be a crime at all, as misogyny is not an offence. I’m not saying it should or shouldn’t be - but that it is wrong that transwomen are protected and women are not.

I think we are all aware that we were discussing a hypothetical, if desirable, piece of legislation. So essentially you are avoiding the discussion which was about misogynistic attitudes to women and if this would affect transwomen and natal women.
The issue of trans abuse is entirely separate as it constitutes an offense because of the persons trans identity and therefore would involve the trans identity.
So try again if an offense is committed against a transwoman because the offender thinks the transwoman is a woman is it a misogynistic? In other words do you accept male abuse of women because you have a biological definition of women?

Lovely wriggle Glorianny🪱🪱.
TIM are protected where females are refused that protection and this is endorsed by those who support this bill.
The problem is that if the protection of women from the hatred demonstrated by some TIM, also by the TRAs and others who support the lying, cheating and violence offered by some TIM and all TRA had been included, it would have meant having to acknowledge that those TIM/TRA/supporters are actually doing something unacceptable.

NanKate

No I think it is that most WI members don’t know. I have mentioned it to 4 women I know in other WIs and they were very surprised.

Of course some members are ok with transwomen in the WI.

we are only asking for a Vote and I would stand by the result.

Probably you would need to band together with a group of wi members about this.

And then approach the very top[these types of things always come from the very top].
And know the rules and regs of the organisation very well, to be able to challenge.

So try again if an offense is committed against a transwoman because the offender thinks the transwoman is a woman is it a misogynistic? In other words do you accept male abuse of women because you have a biological definition of women?
Ah, you have changed the question. The question did not previously say that the hypothetical misogyny happened because the misogynist thought the transwomen was a woman. This gets more fantastical by the post, although I am pleased that you are finally differentiating between transwomen and women.

The answer to the question as now set is, I expect, that it would depend on the wording of the law. If someone racially abuses another because they think the abused person is black, for instance, is it racism? If they think a ‘furry’ is a cat and abuses them are they guilty of cruelty to animals? You’d need to ask a lawyer. The answer probably has something to do with intent, but I’m not the one to ask, sorry.

Men who don't like / hate women are misogynists.

If this theoretical misogynist attacks a transwoman 'unwittingly' - he is still a misogynist and the transwoman is still biologically a man. The outcome of such an attack if it is a physical one, may not be quite what the misogynist was prepared for and it might cause something of a legislative conundrum for the legal people, but it doesn't alter the basics of misogyny, and the overwhelming majority of individuals who suffer from it are women.

And those women are the millions who have suffered some form of harassment or abuse at the hands of men, often their partners or someone known to them - but not always, particularly in the cases of 'street' harassment.

... and the point is - misogyny is not a hate crime and that is the material point. Once again, women are on the 'back-burner' whereas the rights of the minority transgender community are given precedence.

No one should be the victim of a hate crime for being different to the individual who commits the crime on that basis. But if we are going to start identifying groups who need special protection enshrined in law, then the millions of women who suffer at the hands of misogynists should have been one of them.

The finer points of what happens if a man attacks a transwoman, and-can-it-still-be-regarded-as-misogyny in law really is not a good enough reason to side line women once again.
Nor is the fact that misogyny is so entrenched in society - one of the reasons you gave. If attacks against the transgender community are going to be stopped in their tracks before they too become entrenched - isn't this a good enough reason to now seriously look at misogyny as a hate crime - because it is entrenched?

It’s a derailing attempt, Dickens. The more we discuss hypothetical nonsense about misogynists mistaking transwomen for women and hating them the less time we have to ask questions that can then be ignored.

Good post Dickens, but as Doodledog says it's all an attempt at derailing. When you raise transwomen or men with DSDs competing in women's sports Glorianny offers up a plethora of other problems that should be sorted out before that's considered. Women's needs always, but always take relegation behind men's wants.