Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

As ever Doodledog says it all. Arguing about the minutiae of terminology avoids considering the bigger picture.

Can I remind everyone that women's spaces are still protected by law. and that transwomen can be banned from any space quite legally. So if the WI was to take a vote and the majority of women attending were to say that they would not attend if transwomen were included they could be prevented for joining. If someone feels that the present ruling is wrong they should take it up with the executive of the WI and not blame transwomen.

As for the idea that banning transwomen would keep toilets safe. No it wouldn't because you couldn't ban transmen so people looking like men would still use those toilets. How is that safer?

As for misogyny it is an interesting question if someone is a transwoman and is mistreated because she is living as a woman is or isn't that misogyny? I would argue it is if the treatment is based around the fact that she is a woman, and that any man who mistreated her would also mistreat a natal woman. The biology might be male but the mistreatment is based on the gender she presents as.
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?

varian

Trans people - men and women are a tiny percentage of the population. I have met a few. They seem no more threatening than any other group.

If the most contentious issue is the use of public toilets, then I suggest that trans-people should be given official permission to use loos designated for disabled people, which are generally underused.

Of course toilets are not the most contentious part of this! How many times do we have to list all the ways women and girls are affected by it all? Please read the thread? There is much more to it than that.

Toilets are important as we all use them more than changing rooms, hospitals, prisons, refuges and the like, but they represent the way in which the trans lobby flaunts the fact that there is now nowhere for women to call our own. It is dangerous to allow men in female loos, as we don’t know which ones are dangerous. If one man can be there unchallenged then any man can be there, and use that right to prey on vulnerable women.

But it is the colonisation of women’s spaces in general that we are concerned about - the pushing us out of sport and other women’s areas (such as the WI of all places), the eradication of words about women from the language*, the butchering of children’s bodies and messing with their mental health, and all the other ways in which women are being sidelined by this misogynist agenda.

*Look at how the word ‘misogyny’ was misused on this very thread. It means dislike/hatred of women based on their sex, and is entirely neutralised when applied to male people. Similarly, the word ‘rape’ means forcible penetration with a penis (ergo perpetrators are male), but it is now being suggested that women can commit rape, which again diminishes the severity of the crime.

Varian, re the question of which loo transpeople should use - a friend of ours who worked in HR had exactly that problem with a staff member undergoing transition and it was agreed that the person should use the 'disabled' loo. It seemed to be a satisfactory solution.

I support JKR all the way. She puts into words the basic truths of biology which I am sure the vast majority of the population have no problem with.
Just because some people shout loudly and stamp their feet does not mean they are right and that the rest of us have to believe their delusions.

Emperors New Clothes.
Never thought I would see it happening in real life.

But is it a hate crime to say that however gorgeous a transwoman looks and however gracefully they walk, you still don't really believe that a man can magically turn into a woman just by saying "I am now a woman" ?

Thankfully the school in Aboyne has cancelled the photographers contract - shame on them - shame

Of course there has to be a hate crime, too many folks are needing pulled up for their dislike and behaviour of certain minority groups. A school photographer in the north of Scotland should be charged with it for asking primary school parents if they wanted disabled schoolchildren removed from their school photographs - a blooming disgrace, well that’s my view take it or leave it

On the subject of who can use a loo, I am a bit confused. I tend to use a cubicle loo in restaurants which is for sole use and has the appropriate locks on the door. Of course cubicle stand alone loos are not always available but they do provide a safe place so maybe search them out if possible!

varian

Trans people - men and women are a tiny percentage of the population. I have met a few. They seem no more threatening than any other group.

If the most contentious issue is the use of public toilets, then I suggest that trans-people should be given official permission to use loos designated for disabled people, which are generally underused.

No, unless of course they are disabled.

Glorianny

Dickens

I said (what is so difficult to understand) that transwomen are not easily identifiable and those who think they can tell necessarily put more butch women at risk.

If we accept that sex and gender are not the same thing and that transwomen are transwomen and therefore cannot use women's toilets or other spaces, because biologically they are men... then so-called "butch" women would not be at risk of anything.

I realise that the logistics would be complicated and would need to be addressed - perhaps men would have to accept transwomen in their spaces and vice versa.

Those who are transgender make up a small section of the whole population, and now they want to shift the dynamics of that whole to accommodate themselves. And in so doing, deny the rights of millions of women who, at present, are not protected by any specific legislation other than that of human rights which everyone has.

So millions of women are not protected from the crime of misogyny, but a few thousand of transgender individuals are protected from the hate crime of transphobia, and the loudest of them are men who are TWAs insisting that their 'feelings' take precedent over the biological reality of women.

Oh dear are we back to this again. If transwomen must use male facilities in the interests of equality transmen must use women's.Which means there will be people who look like men in women's spaces. For those intent only on assault or nefarious activities it saves them the bother of dressing up. A man could walk into a woman's toilet and claim he was a transman. If anyone thinks transmen don't look like men watch "Hunted".

I entirely agree misogyny needs proper legislation. Inserting the word "sex" into this legislation wouldn't help.

Glorianny I did say the logistics would be complicated and simply put forward a debating proposal, so there's no need for the "Oh dear are we back to this again".

The point is, it comes down to this - women do not want men in their toilets, changing rooms, or other spaces where they are undressing - unless by consent. Although it's not an every-day occurrence, women have been assaulted, often enough for us to be wary, and transwomen have taken advantage of their freedom, along with men who have tried it on in some way.

The difference between the two private spaces - both men's and women's is that largely speaking - men do not feel threatened by the presence of a woman, for fairly obvious reasons. It's highly unlikely that any man is going to feel intimidated by a transman in his changing room. He might feel a tad uncomfortable of course - hence my recognition of the difficulty with the logistics of the whole thing.

What matters to me, and other women in support of JKR, is that we as women are, or were, faced with misogyny, assault - look at the number of women who have come forward to admit that they've been groped, grabbed at, shouted at, cat-called, had obscene sexual comments made to them in the street, by men. And if we believe that sex is immutable - then we simply don't want men - however they are attired, in places where we are having a pee, changing clothes or getting undressed for an examination, unless by consent.

I'm sure some men value their privacy also - but they are not under threat, and never will be, in the same way that women are.

Misogyny is very much alive and well - in spite of the Feminist movements, it's something most of us have endured to some degree or other all our lives, either mildly or violently. A man who has been through male puberty will remain a man-regardless of how he identifies. And those men who have identified as women who have been charged with and convicted of assault and rape, exist and there will be other offences, it's not suddenly going to stop. Also, not all transwomen who've committed an offence against women will get caught - or even be reported.

And those men - identifying as women but also committing offences against them - are nothing more than misogynists, and misogyny, so far, is not deemed a hate crime - but transphobia (dependent rather on subjective interpretation) is.

Trans people - men and women are a tiny percentage of the population. I have met a few. They seem no more threatening than any other group.

If the most contentious issue is the use of public toilets, then I suggest that trans-people should be given official permission to use loos designated for disabled people, which are generally underused.

TerriBull

"If transwomen must use men's toilets in the interests of equality then transmen will have to use women's which will mean there will be people who look like men in women's spaces" Yeah right they're everywhere aren't they?.

So where are all the protests by men about transmen trying to crash men only spaces? where are the transmen trying to enter the field of men only teams in sport? where are the transmen, who get caught up in fracas doling out a smack in the mouth to those that oppose them. Where are the transmen who threaten to rape their natal male counterparts who speak out about not wanting them in their changing rooms and toilets. I mean where the hell are they all anyway? , they could at least make a stand and enter one of those old fossil male only private member's clubs and do us all a favour! Fantastic headline "Transman, previously a woman enters "men only" inner sanctum for the voyeuristic purpose and pleasure of seeing elderly men seated in button back arm chairs, snoring and drooling into a crumpled Telegraph. Such a sight for sore eyes! Sadly it seems they don't have the balls of their vociferous transwomen counterparts who almost certainly have the balls, and the Adam's apples, the beefy thighs, the big hands all the other male transwomen characteristics that come in handy when endeavouring to assert their stronger selves over natal women.

It really is nothing to do with transmen really. Just as the violence involved is little to do with transwomen. It is about predatory men who will use every opportunity to access women's spaces. And as I said they wouldn't even need to dress up.
As for the numbers transitioning they are currently around the same for transwomen and transmen

Well said, TerriBull.

But on every thread on this topic someone wants to know 'what about the men?' 'Why is nobody talking about transmen'? 'What about misandry'? 'Not all men are like that'.

Nobody is saying that men should be discriminated against (as if that is likely to be an issue). We are saying that as women, we want to speak up for women, and that women and girls are far more at risk from men than men are at risk from women. We know that men are at risk from other men too, and I don't know a single woman who is ok with that - but when the discussion is about trans rights, it is surely obvious that we are likely to concentrate on the way they impact on women?

"If transwomen must use men's toilets in the interests of equality then transmen will have to use women's which will mean there will be people who look like men in women's spaces" Yeah right they're everywhere aren't they?.

So where are all the protests by men about transmen trying to crash men only spaces? where are the transmen trying to enter the field of men only teams in sport? where are the transmen, who get caught up in fracas doling out a smack in the mouth to those that oppose them. Where are the transmen who threaten to rape their natal male counterparts who speak out about not wanting them in their changing rooms and toilets. I mean where the hell are they all anyway? , they could at least make a stand and enter one of those old fossil male only private member's clubs and do us all a favour! Fantastic headline "Transman, previously a woman enters "men only" inner sanctum for the voyeuristic purpose and pleasure of seeing elderly men seated in button back arm chairs, snoring and drooling into a crumpled Telegraph. Such a sight for sore eyes! Sadly it seems they don't have the balls of their vociferous transwomen counterparts who almost certainly have the balls, and the Adam's apples, the beefy thighs, the big hands all the other male transwomen characteristics that come in handy when endeavouring to assert their stronger selves over natal women.

I actually dont want further laws around speech, they tend to cause harm to the people they are supposed to protect. It was lesbians for example who were dragged through the court system for their beliefs that men remain men. Minorities need free speech more than anyone.

If misogyny is criminalised, will misandry be criminalised too?

Doodledog

*I entirely agree misogyny needs proper legislation. Inserting the word "sex" into this legislation wouldn't help.*
Sex doesn't need to be 'inserted into legislation' if misogyny is criminalised.

'Misogyny' means hatred of women. Female people. From the Greek, I believe. Misos (hatred) gyne (women).

Sex is inherent in the word, or it was until the concept of sex was subsumed into so-called 'gender'. Those of us who have been saying that words matter for so long had this sort of thing in mind. Before long there will really be no way of discussing male and female, and women will cease to exist in a conceptual way. Will you be happy then?

Before long there will really be no way of discussing male and female, and women will cease to exist in a conceptual way.
Frightening possibility isn't it? Misogyny is hatred of women based on their female sex, misandry is hatred of men based on their male sex. If we can acknowledge the scientific fact that sex is immutable and transwomen are not female then a law which protects against misogyny will suffice. Transwomen are covered by transgender identity, there is no need to wrongly include them under misogyny.

Sex is one of the protected characteristics in the Equality Act, so protection based on sex is perfectly acceptable.

I’ve supported jk from the start what she has been put through for speaking the truth is ridiculous she is a great voice for us women

J KRowling is my heroin



















J. K Rowling is my heroine.



1e

I entirely agree misogyny needs proper legislation. Inserting the word "sex" into this legislation wouldn't help.
Sex doesn't need to be 'inserted into legislation' if misogyny is criminalised.

'Misogyny' means hatred of women. Female people. From the Greek, I believe. Misos (hatred) gyne (women).

Sex is inherent in the word, or it was until the concept of sex was subsumed into so-called 'gender'. Those of us who have been saying that words matter for so long had this sort of thing in mind. Before long there will really be no way of discussing male and female, and women will cease to exist in a conceptual way. Will you be happy then?

Dickens

^I said (what is so difficult to understand) that transwomen are not easily identifiable and those who think they can tell necessarily put more butch women at risk.^

If we accept that sex and gender are not the same thing and that transwomen are transwomen and therefore cannot use women's toilets or other spaces, because biologically they are men... then so-called "butch" women would not be at risk of anything.

I realise that the logistics would be complicated and would need to be addressed - perhaps men would have to accept transwomen in their spaces and vice versa.

Those who are transgender make up a small section of the whole population, and now they want to shift the dynamics of that whole to accommodate themselves. And in so doing, deny the rights of millions of women who, at present, are not protected by any specific legislation other than that of human rights which everyone has.

So millions of women are not protected from the crime of misogyny, but a few thousand of transgender individuals are protected from the hate crime of transphobia, and the loudest of them are men who are TWAs insisting that their 'feelings' take precedent over the biological reality of women.

Oh dear are we back to this again. If transwomen must use male facilities in the interests of equality transmen must use women's.Which means there will be people who look like men in women's spaces. For those intent only on assault or nefarious activities it saves them the bother of dressing up. A man could walk into a woman's toilet and claim he was a transman. If anyone thinks transmen don't look like men watch "Hunted".

I entirely agree misogyny needs proper legislation. Inserting the word "sex" into this legislation wouldn't help.

Or has the word Misogyny' been co-opted too? not as far as I know Doodledog but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

I do not want men, however they identify in any female spaces or female sports, simples…