Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

Glorianny

Katek

I'm with JKR all the way. We have seen the extreme outcome of remaining silent.

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Where do you see transpeople in that poem?
You plainly have no idea of their history.
The first transgender clinic was in Berlin in the 1930s. Those people were amongst the first sent to camps. Nazis hate transpeople.

Good grief - you don’t even understand the poem

Katek

I'm with JKR all the way. We have seen the extreme outcome of remaining silent.

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Where do you see transpeople in that poem?
You plainly have no idea of their history.
The first transgender clinic was in Berlin in the 1930s. Those people were amongst the first sent to camps. Nazis hate transpeople.

RosiesMaw, that Glorianny might like to start threads about African athletes or whatever has already been suggested on this one, but ignored - doing so wouldn't divert this one away from the awkward truth that the Scottish legislation is not working, and that JKR is a heroine. The dance can't end until all deviation bases have been covered.

Glorianny, the only part of my post that was directed at you personally (and hardly 'an attack') was the bit about African athletes and how you speak for all black women. AFAIK you are the only person to drag this tangental topic into threads about trans issues - are you saying that is not true? It is not being personal to mention that, surely? A personal attack is calling someone's post 'pathetic', saying that their beliefs amuse you and so on. A factual mention of something you have brought into the discussion is not a personal attack.

As for your not bringing things up - I predicted that response in my last post, too. As soon as anyone mentions something - as an example, a parallel, or (heaven forfend) an analogy - it is pounced on and worried as a dog worries a bone. As I keep saying, that tactic moves the conversation from the awkward questions (see previous post for the oft-repeated list) and instead goes round in circles about leggings or athletes or suffragettes.

Smileless2012

It would depend on the context Glorianny. If the implication was that all black men are rapists then yes it would be racist, but no one's suggested that all trans women who wear pink leggings are sexual offenders so what's your point?

The idea was introduced when we were discussing if transwomen are easily identifiable that's the point. The implication is there. Can you identify a transwoman? - Here's one in pink leggings (oh they're a sex offender)
It's simply because the argument is unsupportable of course you can't always identify a transwoman, and trying to do so will be harmful to all women. But that means admitting something doesn't it?

I'm with JKR all the way. We have seen the extreme outcome of remaining silent.

"First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me"

Pastor Martin Niemöller

GrannyGravy, sadly you aren’t going to get an answer to that question that doesn’t involve TIM having rights to the detriment of females. Either that on no answer at all.

I’m sorry Gloriany I did not realise that you had directed the thread via the scenic route to an entirely different destination of your own choosing to reinforce your as ever predictable argument.
In my innocence I was still addressing the points raised in my original post.
Might I respectfully suggest that if you want to discuss something else, you start another, more relevant thread.

It would depend on the context Glorianny. If the implication was that all black men are rapists then yes it would be racist, but no one's suggested that all trans women who wear pink leggings are sexual offenders so what's your point?

Doodledog

Callistemon21

Oh dear, you sound as if you're losing non-existent arguments, Glorianny 😁

This is exactly what's happening, and what usually does. It is like a dance, with the same steps choreographed every time.

Someone starts a thread about a news item concerning transpeople - not a generalised 'we don't like transpeople' thread, but a response to something that has happened.

All goes well for a while, with the matter being discussed. Ultimately, however, it usually comes down to the fact that with the best will in the world, any sort of compulsion or coercion of the population to pretend that men can become women is (a) flawed (b) totalitarian (c) dangerous (d) anti-feminist and (e) cruel to children who are also being encouraged to believe in 'wrong bodies' and 'gender' stereotypes. This is pointed out.

Then the accusations start. We are transphobic, racist, pathetic, amusing, in favour of genital checks at the entrance to venues - and if we don't agree that TWAW there is nothing to be done for us, as we are beyond hope.

We push back, and the deviations start. What about African athletes? That one is usually 'backed up' by racist suggestions that all black women think and speak as one, whether they are accountants in London, dirt farmers in Alabama, mothers (sorry, birth givers) in Sierra Leone or any of the countless other possibilities. If they are black, we are told, they think alike, and Glorianny can speak for all of them.

What about butch women? Won't they be molested in toilets if people think they are men? This is never evidenced, but we are supposed to accept that it happens.

We are told that the law says that women's spaces are protected (just rather feebly). And so the dance goes on, interspersed with insults and insinuations.

When that stops, we are told that we think x, y or z, which is another deviation from the OP topic, but often involves Suffragettes, Intersectional Feminism and more suggestions that we are prejudiced, discriminatory and unkind. In this case it is that we think we can tell men from women, which is apparently impossible if they have declared themselves to be female. The dance wanders off into a different direction and we are told we've said things that we haven't (eg that all transwomen wear pink leggings or something equally idiotic). Eventually, either the thread reaches 1000 posts (sometimes assisted by a few one line additions to filibuster it out of existence) or there are flounces and all goes quiet till the next time.

The basic questions of what 'living as a woman' means, how anyone can know that they 'belong in another 'gender'' without having experienced life in the opposite sex, what the difference is between a man in a dress, a drag artist and a transwoman, why it is ok to ban men who say they are men from women's spaces, but not men who say they are women, and how we are supposed to tell the difference (ie where is the threshold of 'presenting as a woman'?) and so on are ignored in favour of manufactured arguments about things like pink leggings. The next stage will be about who 'brought pink leggings into it', which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that an argument has been manufactured around them.

They shoot horses, don't they?

If you care to read back Doodledog
You will find that it wasn't me who introduced other things into this discussion. Although I realise it is much more convenient to blame me for broadening any discussion. Particularly when difficult ideas or questions arise.

I didn't introduce sport I simply answered questions. Including things such as sport in the US where people are being made to compete as their birth sex which has proved a problem.

I didn't introduce the strange posts about dress. I simply said you can't always tell a transwoman. This in response to those who evidently believe there is some way of telling your birth sex . What resulted- why back to a sex offender!

If someone brings strange ideas and discriminatory concepts into a discussion do you expect me to ignore them?

If a law is feeble campaign to change it. Don't blame transpeople for it.
I'm currently involved in getting abortion made a health matter not a legal one. If something offends me I act on it.

I haven't accused anyone of being any of the things you claim. I have asked people to ask themselves relevant questions. If you can show where I have said
We are transphobic, racist, pathetic, amusing, in favour of genital checks at the entrance to venues - and if we don't agree that TWAW there is nothing to be done for us, as we are beyond hope.
I invite you to post the quote.
If not I suggest you withdraw what is obviously a personal attack. I think you are quite aware that this is against GN guidelines but also that I never report posts.
Such a pity your only response is the usual attack on me.

No pink leggings

The only people who say TIM aren’t easily identifiable are those who accept the lie that TIM are women (AHF).

Black men, men with ginger hair, none are welcome in womens spaces. If men with ginger hair were campaigning to use womens spaces I would be discussing the crime stats of men, because ginger haired men are men.

RosiesMaw

Glorianny

Two simple questions to ask yourself.
Why when transwomen are mentioned do my thoughts go to a sex offender in pink tights instead of to a transwoman like Laverne Cox?
And
Why when the discussion is about how easily identifiable transwomen are do I choose to use pink tights as an example, when there is a photograph of one person wearing them, and hundreds of other photographs of transwomen?

Because
I started this thread after reading JK Rowlings “Tweet” and this was one of the sex offending trans women she referred to .
Laverne Cox is not a convicted double rapist nor has she ever
been sent to a womens prison in Scotland after conviction of the sexual assault of 10-year-old in a women’s public toilet , like 6’5” Katie Dolatowski.
Nor has she like Samantha Norris ever exposed her penis to 2 11 year old girls or ever been convicted for possession of 16,000 images of children being raped and sexually assaulted.
Nor is she like Scottish woman and butcher Amy George who abducted an 11-year-old girl while dressed in female clothing. No idea why this was mentioned in court – of course she was wearing women’s clothing, she’s a woman! Amy took the girl home and sexually abused her over a 27-hour period.
Under this new law they enjoy protected status- criticise them at your peril.
The examples were chosen because they highlighted the travesty which is the new legislation in Scotland, the weaknesses, the inconsistencies, the sheer nonsense of framing a law which would render perfectly reasonable observations and comments “illegal”.
You chose to widen the issue, I believe you even chose to introduce a racial element - you created a scenario to justify your own prejudices which seem to be against women-only safe spaces, against fair treatment of women - and I am beginning to wonder, perhaps against women themselves.
Tight leggings over obvious male genitalia were and remain a blatant challenge and two fingers to decent society.

Good try RosieMaw but we had moved on to discussing if transwomen are easily identifiable. Because of course they aren't you immediately resorted to a sex offender in an attempt to justify your view that they are.
As I said consider why
So here's another question if I posted a picture of a black man guilty of rape would you find that acceptable if we were discussing racism?
If not why is it only pictures of transgender offenders you choose to post.
How is hatred fueled?

Doodledog you have the patience of a saint!!

Excellent post. And you did it without exalting yourself above every other poster

Glorianny

Two simple questions to ask yourself.
Why when transwomen are mentioned do my thoughts go to a sex offender in pink tights instead of to a transwoman like Laverne Cox?
And
Why when the discussion is about how easily identifiable transwomen are do I choose to use pink tights as an example, when there is a photograph of one person wearing them, and hundreds of other photographs of transwomen?

Because
I started this thread after reading JK Rowlings “Tweet” and this was one of the sex offending trans women she referred to .
Laverne Cox is not a convicted double rapist nor has she ever
been sent to a womens prison in Scotland after conviction of the sexual assault of 10-year-old in a women’s public toilet , like 6’5” Katie Dolatowski.
Nor has she like Samantha Norris ever exposed her penis to 2 11 year old girls or ever been convicted for possession of 16,000 images of children being raped and sexually assaulted.
Nor is she like Scottish woman and butcher Amy George who abducted an 11-year-old girl while dressed in female clothing. No idea why this was mentioned in court – of course she was wearing women’s clothing, she’s a woman! Amy took the girl home and sexually abused her over a 27-hour period.
Under this new law they enjoy protected status- criticise them at your peril.
The examples were chosen because they highlighted the travesty which is the new legislation in Scotland, the weaknesses, the inconsistencies, the sheer nonsense of framing a law which would render perfectly reasonable observations and comments “illegal”.
You chose to widen the issue, I believe you even chose to introduce a racial element - you created a scenario to justify your own prejudices which seem to be against women-only safe spaces, against fair treatment of women - and I am beginning to wonder, perhaps against women themselves.
Tight leggings over obvious male genitalia were and remain a blatant challenge and two fingers to decent society.

Callistemon21

Oh dear, you sound as if you're losing non-existent arguments, Glorianny 😁

This is exactly what's happening, and what usually does. It is like a dance, with the same steps choreographed every time.

Someone starts a thread about a news item concerning transpeople - not a generalised 'we don't like transpeople' thread, but a response to something that has happened.

All goes well for a while, with the matter being discussed. Ultimately, however, it usually comes down to the fact that with the best will in the world, any sort of compulsion or coercion of the population to pretend that men can become women is (a) flawed (b) totalitarian (c) dangerous (d) anti-feminist and (e) cruel to children who are also being encouraged to believe in 'wrong bodies' and 'gender' stereotypes. This is pointed out.

Then the accusations start. We are transphobic, racist, pathetic, amusing, in favour of genital checks at the entrance to venues - and if we don't agree that TWAW there is nothing to be done for us, as we are beyond hope.

We push back, and the deviations start. What about African athletes? That one is usually 'backed up' by racist suggestions that all black women think and speak as one, whether they are accountants in London, dirt farmers in Alabama, mothers (sorry, birth givers) in Sierra Leone or any of the countless other possibilities. If they are black, we are told, they think alike, and Glorianny can speak for all of them.

What about butch women? Won't they be molested in toilets if people think they are men? This is never evidenced, but we are supposed to accept that it happens.

We are told that the law says that women's spaces are protected (just rather feebly). And so the dance goes on, interspersed with insults and insinuations.

When that stops, we are told that we think x, y or z, which is another deviation from the OP topic, but often involves Suffragettes, Intersectional Feminism and more suggestions that we are prejudiced, discriminatory and unkind. In this case it is that we think we can tell men from women, which is apparently impossible if they have declared themselves to be female. The dance wanders off into a different direction and we are told we've said things that we haven't (eg that all transwomen wear pink leggings or something equally idiotic). Eventually, either the thread reaches 1000 posts (sometimes assisted by a few one line additions to filibuster it out of existence) or there are flounces and all goes quiet till the next time.

The basic questions of what 'living as a woman' means, how anyone can know that they 'belong in another 'gender'' without having experienced life in the opposite sex, what the difference is between a man in a dress, a drag artist and a transwoman, why it is ok to ban men who say they are men from women's spaces, but not men who say they are women, and how we are supposed to tell the difference (ie where is the threshold of 'presenting as a woman'?) and so on are ignored in favour of manufactured arguments about things like pink leggings. The next stage will be about who 'brought pink leggings into it', which is entirely irrelevant to the fact that an argument has been manufactured around them.

They shoot horses, don't they?

Glorianny

Two simple questions to ask yourself.
Why when transwomen are mentioned do my thoughts go to a sex offender in pink tights instead of to a transwoman like Laverne Cox?
And
Why when the discussion is about how easily identifiable transwomen are do I choose to use pink tights as an example, when there is a photograph of one person wearing them, and hundreds of other photographs of transwomen?

I can post literally 100’s of males identifying as females particularly when participating in sports where their genitalia is visible, along with their wide shoulders, extra height, large hands/feet a male with boob implants

There is no point though as you will construct an excuse for every single one.

Do you ever have any thought or empathy for the young women who have trained for years seven days a week only to see their scholarships, places on sports teams along with their rankings plummet due to men deciding that they cannot hack it in the men’s sports arena so swop to the women’s?

As I posted upthread, I have absolutely no problem with men identifying as women and living their lives below the radar, not imposing their wants and needs on the majority. I do have a problem with men pretending to be women and boasting about their girl dick…

They're not actually pink imo ......
More a dark red

I'll fetch me coat.

Two simple questions to ask yourself.

Why when perfectly reasonable and well articulated concerns regarding trans women are presented, do you always make accusations of prejudice?

Why are you obsessed with pink leggings when no one else is?

fancythat

But it seems to me, you do much the same thing but in reverse? [as in lump posters together?]

Only the posters who approved of the pink tights remarks.

Two simple questions to ask yourself.
Why when transwomen are mentioned do my thoughts go to a sex offender in pink tights instead of to a transwoman like Laverne Cox?
And
Why when the discussion is about how easily identifiable transwomen are do I choose to use pink tights as an example, when there is a photograph of one person wearing them, and hundreds of other photographs of transwomen?

But it seems to me, you do much the same thing but in reverse? [as in lump posters together?]

A few posters have said they are biased or prejudiced or whatever.

I am talking about your KP post.

Callistemon21

Oh dear, you sound as if you're losing non-existent arguments, Glorianny 😁

Am I losing? Well prejudice and discriminatory ideas are hard to shift. And at least I never have to resort to personal remarks to make a point. My arguments are too well founded.