Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

Rosie51

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US 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? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

I brought the US into it because the definition of rape is neither as simple or clear as you tried to claim. Apparently you still don't understand this. So I'll revert to my unanswered question . Is having an object inserted just as traumatic or not?

Glorianny do you want us to adopt other areas of US law, or just this rape one because it suits you to further blur the distinction between the sexes? Even your link points out that the individual states have differing definitions.
Will you never tire of trying to diminish the few protections that females enjoy, just to pander to men?
I have said the crime of penetration by object is viewed by the law as serious as rape and the sentencing guidelines are the same. Do you seriously think that having penetration by object redefined as rape is going to make any victim feel better? It could be argued that the risk of permanent internal damage from an object makes it a potentially more serious crime. I don't believe the victims are your concern, I believe it's just all part of the agenda.

OMG what "agenda" is that?
I simply find the lack of logic, the obvious connection and danger of discrimination, and the righteous indignation of those who claim to be supporting women but who are quite happy to see iniquitous and invasive processes introduced, and discrimination implemented, simply to prove their beliefs in biology, as unacceptable.
The question of course remains if someone who is a transwoman complains under a legislation of misogyny would you deny her that legal redress. The answer seems to be "yes". And so discrimination begins.
Feminism was never about supporting discrimination

Glorianny

I am amused by the concept that only women born with the right bits can be mistreated because they are women or subjected to discrimination. Most discrimination never gets as far as asking to check what sex you were born.

You are often amused by things I find troubling, but we’re all different.

Misogyny is not about mistreatment or discrimination (as you know). Those have their own words. That’s how language works. Misogyny is the dislike or hatred of women and girls, because they are female. It can’t apply to men. Please stop wriggling.

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US 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? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

I brought the US into it because the definition of rape is neither as simple or clear as you tried to claim. Apparently you still don't understand this. So I'll revert to my unanswered question . Is having an object inserted just as traumatic or not?

Glorianny do you want us to adopt other areas of US law, or just this rape one because it suits you to further blur the distinction between the sexes? Even your link points out that the individual states have differing definitions.
Will you never tire of trying to diminish the few protections that females enjoy, just to pander to men?
I have said the crime of penetration by object is viewed by the law as serious as rape and the sentencing guidelines are the same. Do you seriously think that having penetration by object redefined as rape is going to make any victim feel better? It could be argued that the risk of permanent internal damage from an object makes it a potentially more serious crime. I don't believe the victims are your concern, I believe it's just all part of the agenda.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views

I for one, would not dream of using words that my inner being does not believe in.

The law can be redrafted or amended or whatever happens to them, if a portion of it most people believe is not right or fair.
Justice and all that.

Of course only women can be mistreated because they are women. Men and trans women can be mistreated and subjected to discrimination but not because they are women, because they're not.

IF there was respect and consideration for women, for their safe spaces, sports etc from all trans women and those in power then we wouldn't be in this ridiculous situation. Gender neutral facilities would be widely available. Language that pertains to women wouldn't be being eroded, and anyone stating the biological truth that you can't change sex wouldn't be accused of transphobia, and/or subjected to abuse.

There would be no need to check what sex someone was born with because it wouldn't be an issue. Men wouldn't be entering spaces designated for women.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US 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? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

I brought the US into it because the definition of rape is neither as simple or clear as you tried to claim. Apparently you still don't understand this. So I'll revert to my unanswered question . Is having an object inserted just as traumatic or not?

I am amused by the concept that only women born with the right bits can be mistreated because they are women or subjected to discrimination. Most discrimination never gets as far as asking to check what sex you were born.

Rosie51

When you open up the category of women, adult female humans, to just anybody who wants to be a part of that then you make the classification of woman a useless one. It means nothing because it can mean absolutely anything any individual wants.

Which is, of course, the whole point.

This is such hard work.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny it was you not a white supremacist who raised other groups of women not qualifying, so what groups did you have in mind? If we stick to women being adult female humans there is absolutely no confusion at all.

But what if a transwomen is subjected to misogyny? Do you not imagine that the same circumstances might apply to a natal woman. If misogyny was a crime would you then only agree to a prosecution if the victim was a natal woman?

How many times? Misogyny can only apply to women. Men, however they 'present' cannot suffer from it.

What do you not understand?

When you open up the category of women, adult female humans, to just anybody who wants to be a part of that then you make the classification of woman a useless one. It means nothing because it can mean absolutely anything any individual wants.

Trans women aren't one group of women, they are not women/an adult female, they are male.

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US 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? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

Rosie51

Glorianny it was you not a white supremacist who raised other groups of women not qualifying, so what groups did you have in mind? If we stick to women being adult female humans there is absolutely no confusion at all.

But what if a transwomen is subjected to misogyny? Do you not imagine that the same circumstances might apply to a natal woman. If misogyny was a crime would you then only agree to a prosecution if the victim was a natal woman?

Barking orders again? Transwomen are not one group of women who are different. They are men who say they are women, which they are not.

In some circumstances that is harmless and up to them. When they are removing female spaces, changing the language, skewing statistics and data, telling children that there is such a thing as a 'wrong body', it is not harmless.

Misogyny is dislike or hatred of women. The clue is in the etymology. Male-born people are not women. They cannot, therefore, be subject to misogyny, unless the concept of being a woman has been changed - which is, of course, what you are trying to do.

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US 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? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Glorianny it was you not a white supremacist who raised other groups of women not qualifying, so what groups did you have in mind? If we stick to women being adult female humans there is absolutely no confusion at all.

Rosie51

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny It also leads to the interesting question of if you believe that it is not misogyny, then are there other groups of women it wouldn't apply to? If trans women are different how many other groups of women can be?

woman: adult female human. That's all you need to know.

Who are these other groups of women apart from transwomen (males) who wouldn't qualify? I do hope you're not doing an India Willoughby ( a transwoman) who thinks if blackwomen (their insistance all one word) and lesbians qualify as real women so do transwomen. Racism and homophobia are not nice traits.

You know I'm an intersectional feminist Rosie51 But yes if you consider transwomen are a group misogyny doesn't apply to there is nothing to stop a white supremacist claiming exactly the same for black women. Then you get into an argument that should never take place.
Anyone who mistreats someone because they present as a woman is guilty of misogyny.

What part of black women, or lesbians, or bisexual women, or red-haired women denies their female biology? Nutters can claim whatever they like it doesn't change the immutability of sex.
So if mistreatment of a transwoman is misogyny according to you, then it can't possibly be transphobia can it? Or do you propose to have it both ways?

I wouldn't draw lines anyway so why ask me? I don't think it is necessary to examine anyone's biology if someone is being discriminated against because they present as a woman it is misogyny. You think it isn't. So you have one group of women who are different. So other people think other groups of women are different. Justify your thinking. Are you going to examine all women?

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

Yes I have seen lots of proponents of gender nonsense argue that black women are not women. Its racism and one of the reasons I dont subscribe to the gender belief system. Racism and homophobia often lurk there. Transwomen are men, they are not in the category of women. And if they are the category is utterly meaningless. There is no difference between Eddie Izzard and Keir Starmer in terms of sex, neither belong in the category of women.

Glorianny

Rosie51

Glorianny It also leads to the interesting question of if you believe that it is not misogyny, then are there other groups of women it wouldn't apply to? If trans women are different how many other groups of women can be?

woman: adult female human. That's all you need to know.

Who are these other groups of women apart from transwomen (males) who wouldn't qualify? I do hope you're not doing an India Willoughby ( a transwoman) who thinks if blackwomen (their insistance all one word) and lesbians qualify as real women so do transwomen. Racism and homophobia are not nice traits.

You know I'm an intersectional feminist Rosie51 But yes if you consider transwomen are a group misogyny doesn't apply to there is nothing to stop a white supremacist claiming exactly the same for black women. Then you get into an argument that should never take place.
Anyone who mistreats someone because they present as a woman is guilty of misogyny.

What part of black women, or lesbians, or bisexual women, or red-haired women denies their female biology? Nutters can claim whatever they like it doesn't change the immutability of sex.
So if mistreatment of a transwoman is misogyny according to you, then it can't possibly be transphobia can it? Or do you propose to have it both ways?

Rosie51

Glorianny It also leads to the interesting question of if you believe that it is not misogyny, then are there other groups of women it wouldn't apply to? If trans women are different how many other groups of women can be?

woman: adult female human. That's all you need to know.

Who are these other groups of women apart from transwomen (males) who wouldn't qualify? I do hope you're not doing an India Willoughby ( a transwoman) who thinks if blackwomen (their insistance all one word) and lesbians qualify as real women so do transwomen. Racism and homophobia are not nice traits.

You know I'm an intersectional feminist Rosie51 But yes if you consider transwomen are a group misogyny doesn't apply to there is nothing to stop a white supremacist claiming exactly the same for black women. Then you get into an argument that should never take place.
Anyone who mistreats someone because they present as a woman is guilty of misogyny.

But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. you obviously are unaware that despite not classifying penetration by an object as rape, the severity of the crime is regarded as equal to rape and the sentencing guidelines are the same.

Am I the only one confused by all this? It has become so complicated. Men at present clean loos whilst we use them and I’m used to that. We are notified of course, but could any man looking for trouble get this job? (Not a trans).
I have to say the thought of being attacked in a public loo is always the last thing on my mind.
Trans competing in sport and some other situations are a different matter.

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Glorianny It also leads to the interesting question of if you believe that it is not misogyny, then are there other groups of women it wouldn't apply to? If trans women are different how many other groups of women can be?

woman: adult female human. That's all you need to know.

Who are these other groups of women apart from transwomen (males) who wouldn't qualify? I do hope you're not doing an India Willoughby ( a transwoman) who thinks if blackwomen (their insistance all one word) and lesbians qualify as real women so do transwomen. Racism and homophobia are not nice traits.