Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

Rosie51

Glorianny As I said if you don't want to listen to black women that is up to you.
What all of them, they all speak with one voice? Except of course the black women who also don't want to race against males. Are they the wrong sort of black women? That's up to you I suppose. You do speak of black people as if they're unable to accept reality. It's very condescending of you, white female supremacy in action.

No Rosie51 white supremacy divides society into groups, insists some groups of people are more worthy of notice than others and. refuses to listen to those it designates as unimportant or unacceptable. It pits one group of people against another and pretends they are the people responsible for the inequality, rather than the system being at fault. Unfortunately some fall in with those beliefs and just advocate for their own group and refuse to consider the views of others.

Glorianny As I said if you don't want to listen to black women that is up to you.
What all of them, they all speak with one voice? Except of course the black women who also don't want to race against males. Are they the wrong sort of black women? That's up to you I suppose. You do speak of black people as if they're unable to accept reality. It's very condescending of you, white female supremacy in action.

My 2yo grandson has no difficulty knowing men from women. He went through a phase of not liking or engaging with men, not even his daddy. He’d happily chatter away to the female staff in our local supermarket but the transwoman? Nope, they’ll get the cold shoulder from him. Out of the mouths of babes…

Galaxy

Oh and if womens spaces are protected but its impossible to identify sex, then those spaces are meaningless. Say Boris Johnson wants to access a womans changing room, how are we supposed to decide if he can, after all we cant know what sex he is.

Oh and if womens spaces are protected but its impossible to identify sex, then those spaces are meaningless

Yes, quite. The complications that arise from glibly rolling-off this 'fact' are summarily dismissed. Yet the theorising about (as Doodledog says) the finer points of Caster Semenya’s medical records are expounded on, in great detail.

Frankly, I don't know how the legislation could / would work - I'm not versed in legal matters, others are paid to do that work.

So - how are these spaces protected if a TIM is legally allowed to use them? The answer is of course, that they are not.

Which leads me to ponder yet again - why can't transwomen be identified as transwomen - not women, transwomen?

There is nothing wrong with aligning your gender to the opposite sex - or even nonbinary, genderfluid, transgender, gender neutral, agender, and pangender, or whatever-gender.

Your inner sense of belonging defines how you feel, but it does not and cannot alter your chromosomes. It's all perfectly understandable, most of us have that 'inner self' that doesn't necessarily correlate with society's expectations of the way we look or behave.

So, again - why cannot transwomen be recognised for what they are - men identifying as women. Why do we have to pretend that a man who has gone through male puberty - and possibly still has his male genitalia (his "girl dick") has, because of his feelings - become a woman.

The last bastion of womanhood is our biological sex. If a man can remove that principle - then men will have complete control of women. The aggressive stance of TWAs demonstrates quite clearly that this is a power struggle.

Rosie51

Glorianny How dare you question my compassion, I have total sympathy with anyone who makes such a discovery. It happens to others not just athletes and is as equally astounding, didn't you know? Should that really mean they be allowed to carry on denying any number of women their rightful success? You have no thought let alone compassion for the athletes who have dedicated their lives to training only to be beaten by somebody with an unfair advantage. For some this will mean college scholarships lost, their only path to further education. Does that not concern you?

Suicide is always a tragedy, but should the threat of it allow someone to override equity to others? In case you didn't know DSDs occur in all races and both sexes, it is not just a condition that affects black people. It's not discrimination against black women it's placing people in their correct competing category, they can carry on living as women in all other areas of life.

As I said if you don't want to listen to black women that is up to you.

This hate crime law will cause more problems than it solves. Already the police are overwhelmed with people reporting hate crime. It will take a mammoth effort to sort through them and decide which are truly crimes. They are already understaffed so other crimes will have to join the queue.
I also believe it will lead to more hatred if people report colleagues, neighbours or others. There is bound to be retaliation.
The fact that misogyny has been left out will also lead to resentment.

Glorianny (I won't do nested quotes). It would have been more helpful to have an answer in your own words, but never mind. The legal position says (in summary) that in order to exclude a transwoman from a women's space there has to be a legitimate aim, which must be objectively justified. Both of those terms seem to rely on the Clapham omnibus test, which is not much help on a Friday night in a city pub, which is where my friend was assaulted by a man in the Ladies, in the days when men were not allowed in. As I have said before, it was only because the fact that a man was spotted going in there that the alarm was raised and he didn't manage to rape her.

Also, women's spaces are not protected by that, unless you believe that men can become women just by saying so. How is it ok to exclude men who say they are men from women's spaces but not men who say they are women? Is it all about the magic words?

So basically, there are no protections for women. Transwomen, yes - women, no.

Why can't I identify as a First Class traveller and have access to the FC airport lounges and turn left on the plane? Is it just about the ticket, or is it that having a FC ticket means that the traveller has paid for the privileges, and it would be both unreasonable and unfair to let anyone, regardless of what they'd paid, identify their way in because they fancy it?

Glorianny How dare you question my compassion, I have total sympathy with anyone who makes such a discovery. It happens to others not just athletes and is as equally astounding, didn't you know? Should that really mean they be allowed to carry on denying any number of women their rightful success? You have no thought let alone compassion for the athletes who have dedicated their lives to training only to be beaten by somebody with an unfair advantage. For some this will mean college scholarships lost, their only path to further education. Does that not concern you?

Suicide is always a tragedy, but should the threat of it allow someone to override equity to others? In case you didn't know DSDs occur in all races and both sexes, it is not just a condition that affects black people. It's not discrimination against black women it's placing people in their correct competing category, they can carry on living as women in all other areas of life.

No she isn't, and there isn't a 'too far' when it comes to ensuring that women and their rights are protected.

I wish I was. She has more courage than I have. She is also funnier.

I am J K Rowling

There's no point in going round in the same old circles, endlessly.

Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

No, JKR is trying to stop the boundaries being pushed even further, trying to stop the tide of lunacy and misogyny that is invading our world with the aid of misguided politicians and people on social media who seem to have their own agenda to push.

We need to stand up and say "I am J K Rowling".

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

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.

I raise what are real problems which a simplistic attitude ignores. Like the problems of black women raised as women in countries with less developed health systems who are then banned from competing and told they are men. Something you find acceptable but the majority of black people do not.
Or the transman in the US forced to compete in a female sport because his state designates your classification by your birth sex. Apparently he just shouldn't compete.
Why do you pretend to have all the answers? Is it possibly because your simplistic attitude ignores a huge number of concerns which you are actually afraid to look at, never mind answer?

Athletes who have a DSD that meant they were raised as female when they are actually male with functioning internal testes and have gone through male puberty with all its advantages aren't banned from sport. They are perfectly able to compete in their correct sex class. The problem is that while they are very successful against females they likely won't enjoy the same success against their fellow males. Why do you think female athletes of any colour should have to accept such unfairness? Are you unaware that black female athletes are also disadvantaged, or don't those black people matter?
A simple one off cheek swab will eliminate any such problems with DSDs in the future but you have opposed this cheap, hardly invasive procedure. I have said I feel sympathy for anyone who makes this discovery, but sympathy shouldn't endorse what is effectively cheating. You take the opposite view and would allow a male to carry on defeating females.
I don't pretend to have all the answers at all, I just have one very cheap, very simple answer to one problem ie identifying whether an athlete is male or female so they can compete in their own sex class.

As for the US transman, that's up to the state and their rules. If they're taking testosterone which is a banned drug for any other athlete I don't think they should be competing at all. I'm for the same rules for everybody, not exceptions for very special people.

Rosie51 if you can't see the harm caused when someone is raised as a woman then suddenly told she is a man then your lack of compassion astounds me. At least one woman has committed suicide because of this issue, which is, no matter how you choose to view it, a real and relevant issue of discrimination for black women. I don't feel I have the right to contradict the views of those women. You may.

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny what is the relevance of a Prince Edward or even a Prince Albert piercing got to do with this thread?

Sorry it is a Prince Albert - never good on royal names. They were of course specifically used to hide the genitalia of Victorian gentlemen in tight trousers. I just think that claiming genitals always show in pink leggings ignore their usage. So perhaps they'd have to be banned to help identify transwomen.

They are both piercings of the penis.

Glorianny

Rosie51

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.

I raise what are real problems which a simplistic attitude ignores. Like the problems of black women raised as women in countries with less developed health systems who are then banned from competing and told they are men. Something you find acceptable but the majority of black people do not.
Or the transman in the US forced to compete in a female sport because his state designates your classification by your birth sex. Apparently he just shouldn't compete.
Why do you pretend to have all the answers? Is it possibly because your simplistic attitude ignores a huge number of concerns which you are actually afraid to look at, never mind answer?

Athletes who have a DSD that meant they were raised as female when they are actually male with functioning internal testes and have gone through male puberty with all its advantages aren't banned from sport. They are perfectly able to compete in their correct sex class. The problem is that while they are very successful against females they likely won't enjoy the same success against their fellow males. Why do you think female athletes of any colour should have to accept such unfairness? Are you unaware that black female athletes are also disadvantaged, or don't those black people matter?
A simple one off cheek swab will eliminate any such problems with DSDs in the future but you have opposed this cheap, hardly invasive procedure. I have said I feel sympathy for anyone who makes this discovery, but sympathy shouldn't endorse what is effectively cheating. You take the opposite view and would allow a male to carry on defeating females.
I don't pretend to have all the answers at all, I just have one very cheap, very simple answer to one problem ie identifying whether an athlete is male or female so they can compete in their own sex class.

As for the US transman, that's up to the state and their rules. If they're taking testosterone which is a banned drug for any other athlete I don't think they should be competing at all. I'm for the same rules for everybody, not exceptions for very special people.

Doodledog

Glorianny I don't really expect an answer, but if, as you say, women's spaces are protected, please can you explain what they are being protected from and why, and also what does 'women's space' mean in the absence of a sex-based definition of 'women'?

You've had the answer so many times Doodledog you know the legislation. But I'll try to be patient. Here it is again
As a link]
publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmwomeq/1470/147010.htm#:~:text=The%20third%20exception%20(Schedule%203,protected
And so you don't have to click

Exception allowing single sex services to discriminate because of gender re-assignment

The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.

Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.

Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

I'm sure you can.

Callistemon21

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

RosiesMaw

Actually Glorianny unless the man identifying as a women has had their Adam’s Apple shaved it is relatively easy to spot them
Prominent genitals are also a giveaway even if the leggings are pink!.

👏👏👏

So are we imposing a dress code on people? You must expose your throat or wear leggings which expose the shape of your genitals. (Never heard of a Prince Edward apparently)
Are we banning polo necks?

Oh dear.

Have you not seen some of the photos of more aggressive, misogynistic men masquerading as women?

Well, of course you have!

Well of course I have but I thought we all agreed that they are not representative of the average transwoman. Are you now saying they all dress like that? Because I can assure you they don't.

Glorianny I don't really expect an answer, but if, as you say, women's spaces are protected, please can you explain what they are being protected from and why, and also what does 'women's space' mean in the absence of a sex-based definition of 'women'?

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny what is the relevance of a Prince Edward or even a Prince Albert piercing got to do with this thread?

Sorry it is a Prince Albert - never good on royal names. They were of course specifically used to hide the genitalia of Victorian gentlemen in tight trousers. I just think that claiming genitals always show in pink leggings ignore their usage. So perhaps they'd have to be banned to help identify transwomen.

Mollygo

No Glorianny. I’m just reading what you say.
Unless you say things you don’t think,
I’ve no idea what you think,

So explain to me how wanting to see a law on misogyny which protects all women is in any way saying
that men, whether or not they are TIM, have the right to do whatever they want, even when its detrimental to females, and women don’t.
In fact I'm saying entirely the opposite. That anyone abusing or mistreating a woman because they are a woman would be guilty of misogyny. If you can't see that this protects all women that isn't my fault.
I'd argue that the view that transwomen cannot be victims of misogyny simply reinforces misogynistic attitudes and means that all women are less protected.

Glorianny what is the relevance of a Prince Edward or even a Prince Albert piercing got to do with this thread?

Mollygo

No Glorianny. I’m just reading what you say.
Unless you say things you don’t think,
I’ve no idea what you think,

I know what I think.

Of course, we can't see one another.

GrannyGravy13

Glorianny

GrannyGravy13

RosiesMaw

Actually Glorianny unless the man identifying as a women has had their Adam’s Apple shaved it is relatively easy to spot them
Prominent genitals are also a giveaway even if the leggings are pink!.

👏👏👏

So are we imposing a dress code on people? You must expose your throat or wear leggings which expose the shape of your genitals. (Never heard of a Prince Edward apparently)
Are we banning polo necks?

Nobody is mentioning banning anything Glorianny just pointing out the blatantly obvious…

But if I can't see the throat and I can't see if there is an Adam's apple I can't tell. I need the evidence I'm told makes transwomen easy to identify. We'll have to ban polonecks, or insist anyone wearing them also wears pink leggings. I'm not sure what to do about the possibility of a Prince Edward, but I'm sure those who know will tell me

No Glorianny. I’m just reading what you say.
Unless you say things you don’t think,
I’ve no idea what you think,