[The Weeping Angel]

Rowling sets out her views here

[Oboogie]

It's not about Jez's stance (or lack thereof), some of his fan club however are eager for an opportunity to pile on people they perceive as an enemy.
No, women do not get a free pass - that's an absurd suggestion. However, I think they have rights and that those should be respected.

I don't think the overlap between Jez ultras and trans ultras, for want of a better description, is that big really. The Jez issues are mostly foreign policy and anti-capitalism. They're much more bothered about Starmer or Paul Mason. I don't think trans rights and JK Rowling, especially now, are of much concern to them.

Why did you mention womanhood in the context of Rowling? I don't understand. What right isn't being respected?

How concerned they are about the issue is largely unimportant, this is an opportunity to engage in a pile on targeting a Red Tory non-believer.
Twitter pile-ons onto women are always the most virulent, to misogynists a woman voicing an opinion must always be 'put in her place' and be made to comply.

[Crabcakes]

in response to WA’s post of Rowling’s explainer:

1. That was a very long post (of hers) to primarily say she doesn’t understand (or chooses to not believe in) the difference between sex and gender. First it’s down to biology. But then not. But then ultimately it is biology again when not just basing it on that would mean by that very definition trans women are women (which they are). It reads like someone talking themselves into a corner and then unconvincingly attempting to talk themselves out of it again.

2. You’ll note the slightly odd wording of the claim no study has shown trans women (not ‘trans-identified men’ - again a needless dig) don’t have the same criminality as cis men? This is likely because there was a previous claim often levelled against trans people when seeking to curtail their rights that trans women *do* have the same criminality as cis men that originated from a 2011 Swedish study, but this conclusion was a misinterpretation of the study findings and the author of that paper has repeatedly debunked this take (see
https://www.reddit.com/r/asktransgender/s/sbpl2pvUwi)

So now that that study can’t be used to ‘prove’ this belief is true, and in fact shows the opposite, the claim is now reversed - ‘well there is no study to show it is false, so…’. This is obviously ignoring findings that don’t suit the narrative on one hand, and inviting the reader to make quite the cognitive leap on the other.

3. Regardless, it’s irrelevant - you do not legislate freedoms and rights for the whole group based on the criminals in a population. You wouldn’t do it for race, you wouldn’t do it for disability, you wouldn’t do it based on whether someone were gay or straight, and you wouldn’t do it for religion. Because that’s a *very* dark path to go down.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I think she exactly states that she sees a difference between sex and gender.

[The Weeping Angel]

Rowling supported - and encouraged her followers to financially suppport - Maya Forstater, a woman who's contract was not renewed because of her stance on trans and non-binary people. While a lot of articles give some detail and imply Forstater was simply not comfortable with trans women in women's spaces, the full reality of what she said and went on to say is quite different:

Meant to be post a resposne to this the other day but forgot.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579

A woman who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex has won an appeal against an employment tribunal.

Maya Forstater, 47, did not have her contract renewed after posting tweets on gender recognition.

She lost her original case at a tribunal in 2019, but a High Court judge ruled her "gender-critical" beliefs fell under the Equalities Act.

The appeal said the tribunal had erred in law and another should take place.


Ms Forstater, from St Albans in Hertfordshire, did not have her contract renewed at the think tank Center for Global Development (CGD) in March 2019, after posting a series of tweets questioning government plans - which were later scrapped - to let people declare their own gender.

[Oboogie]

Scotland's new law in (in)action.

[The Weeping Angel]

I'd point out that if trans activists had been less arrogant and less convinced that they were on the right side of history then maybe things might be different. I'll give you an example when he was shown evidence of how Karen White a male born sex offender who was put into a woman's prison and then proceeded to commit sexual assaults on the inmates his response was big deal they were just dangerous lesbians and it was no big deal anyway.

[Oboogie]

The police are there, but unable to act as it's now seemingly ok to abuse and threaten lesbians because they're only women and therefore not covered by the new Hate Crime and Public Order Bill.

[The Weeping Angel]

Scotland's new law in (in)action.

Right side of history I see.

[Crabcakes]

Few things. First off, who is ‘he’ here? Who are we talking about?

I'd point out that if trans activists had been less arrogant and less convinced that they were on the right side of history then maybe things might be different. I'll give you an example when he was shown evidence of how Karen White a male born sex offender who was put into a woman's prison and then proceeded to commit sexual assaults on the inmates his response was big deal they were just dangerous lesbians and it was no big deal anyway.

Second, the Maya Forstater info - that’s not a rebuttal of what I posted. I posted about things she had gone on to say AFTER the things she had said leading to her initial dismissal, making her feelings very clear. I was not speaking as to the validity or not of the case. Even though she said these things publicly, Rowling still supported her.

And finally, I agree the Scottish law is badly phrased and not fit for purpose. In fact, I don’t think I’ve said anything about it in this thread at all? My points have always been that Rowling has repeatedly demonstrated a bias against specifically trans women, has supported people who are openly and quite offensively transphobic, and she has been generally provocative and needlessly unpleasant in her campaign against the law. Her behaviour being unreasonable and a law also being flawed are not mutually exclusive.

[davidjay]

It's not about Jez's stance (or lack thereof), some of his fan club however are eager for an opportunity to pile on people they perceive as an enemy.
No, women do not get a free pass - that's an absurd suggestion. However, I think they have rights and that those should be respected.

I don't think the overlap between Jez ultras and trans ultras, for want of a better description, is that big really. The Jez issues are mostly foreign policy and anti-capitalism. They're much more bothered about Starmer or Paul Mason. I don't think trans rights and JK Rowling, especially now, are of much concern to them.

Why did you mention womanhood in the context of Rowling? I don't understand. What right isn't being respected?

How concerned they are about the issue is largely unimportant, this is an opportunity to engage in a pile on targeting a Red Tory non-believer.
Twitter pile-ons onto women are always the most virulent, to misogynists a woman voicing an opinion must always be 'put in her place' and be made to comply.

Billy Bragg is getting pelters for being on the other side.

[Oboogie]

Billy Bragg is getting pelters for being on the other side.

Yes, he jumped the shark a few years ago. He seems to be peddling the notion that Neo-Nazis are crusaders for women's rights and therefore women should pipe down. Barking mad, you might say.

[The Weeping Angel]

Few things. First off, who is ‘he’ here? Who are we talking about?

I'd point out that if trans activists had been less arrogant and less convinced that they were on the right side of history then maybe things might be different. I'll give you an example when he was shown evidence of how Karen White a male born sex offender who was put into a woman's prison and then proceeded to commit sexual assaults on the inmates his response was big deal they were just dangerous lesbians and it was no big deal anyway.

Second, the Maya Forstater info - that’s not a rebuttal of what I posted. I posted about things she had gone on to say AFTER the things she had said leading to her initial dismissal, making her feelings very clear. I was not speaking as to the validity or not of the case. Even though she said these things publicly, Rowling still supported her.

And finally, I agree the Scottish law is badly phrased and not fit for purpose. In fact, I don’t think I’ve said anything about it in this thread at all? My points have always been that Rowling has repeatedly demonstrated a bias against specifically trans women, has supported people who are openly and quite offensively transphobic, and she has been generally provocative and needlessly unpleasant in her campaign against the law. Her behaviour being unreasonable and a law also being flawed are not mutually exclusive.

The He is referring to Lord Kobel.

[MisterMuncher]

I'd point out that if trans activists had been less arrogant and less convinced that they were on the right side of history then maybe things might be different. I'll give you an example when he was shown evidence of how Karen White a male born sex offender who was put into a woman's prison and then proceeded to commit sexual assaults on the inmates his response was big deal they were just dangerous lesbians and it was no big deal anyway.

I didn't think that citing a criminal individual exploiting gaps in the system open to their demographic to their nefarious advantage as an example of why said demographic should not receive legal protections is particularly smart or helpful, though.

To speak to your example, if you were seeking to protect incarcerated people from those who abuse them most, you'd need to start with the guards

[The Weeping Angel]

No you start with the principle that you don't have with the principle you don't put male born rapists in with female inmates.

[Abernathy]

No you start with the principle that you don't have with the principle you don't put male born rapists in with female inmates.

Eh ?

[The Weeping Angel]

Fucking Hell.

No you start with the principle that you don't put male born rapists in with female inmates.

[Abernathy]

Now if you’d only said that on your first go…

[Philip Marlow]

I'd point out that if trans activists had been less arrogant and less convinced that they were on the right side of history then maybe things might be different.

And yet…no.

I once worked, God help me and once upon a time, on the night shift at a Muller factory, and for an immediate supervisor who was both gay and one of the most toxically obnoxious human beings under whose authority it has ever grieved me to suffer. Many were the insults we minimum wage peons heaped upon him at break times when he was not in a position to hear us. And yet, had any of us taken his unpleasantness as free licence to spit homophobic abuse upon his person, I like to think that the rest of us would have objected, volubly.

Which is to say, if your avoidance of embracing a tediously bigoted view about a minority group relies upon them addressing you in a manner which you find suitably respectful, then you’re not really an opponent of said bigotry at all.

[Philip Marlow]

Billy Bragg is getting pelters for being on the other side.

Yes, he jumped the shark a few years ago. He seems to be peddling the notion that Neo-Nazis are crusaders for women's rights and therefore women should pipe down. Barking mad, you might say.

He can be a little grating at times, but if memory serves the far right accusation was a specific referenced to Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull/Posie Parker and her association with assorted far right types, not to mention her assertion that the loss of Roe v Wade was a price worth paying for the defeat of the evil trans. All told, it’s probably not worth puffing flour your chest on defence of that.