What has JK Rowling said or done that’s transphobic

Meanwhile of course trans men can apparently be excluded from both female and male provision!!

100% behind mixed sex provisions alongside single sex.

As long as we don't start to condone the sexist idea that male people can be not "a man", or female not "a woman".

Because that is separating people's personalities up into sexist little boxes based on whether your personality is right or wrong for your sex.

I still have no idea why people seem to think that's somehow more progressive and more tolerant than simply leaving man and woman to mean the two sexes abd focusing on getting rid of the sexist ideas about what that means for our personalities altogether.

Can someone make a new thread?

You asked for posters to share Indias tweet since it appeared you didn't believe they said it. Do you now see it was tweeted.

India born a male did tweet it, laughable though it is, perhaps comedy was the aim since obviously no biological male has a cervix. The individual did father a child. Not a mother, a father.

Yes I am familiar with the argument - I've heard it repeated ad nauseam. I disagree with this legal interpretation or that it reflects the intentions of the SC.

It's about safety.
Women are still not on equal footing
It's nothing to do with genitals, stop banging on about genitals

Actually, yes we can.

Well yes, you can of course say and do exactly as you like. You are right about that.

You believe wrong.

The judgement found that one cannot justify sex segregation unless one does actually segregate by sex.

Saying "woman only" but then allowing a few not-women in proves you don't actually need to be women only at all, and poof! your exemption from sex discrimination law has gone.

This is one of those times I find it hard to believe I am in a world where that had to be said.

You cannot answer every one of those questions simply by saying “male at birth, therefore male space” and treating everything else as irrelevant.

Actually, yes we can. And thanks to the brave souls of FWS, the law clearly agrees with us.

You have told us at length that transwomen have male bodies but they have a perception of themselves as female despite knowing their anatomy is male. (Setting aside lunatics like Willoughby and his cervix for the moment)

You have said again and again that this is not a delusion. That the pain, like that of a phantom limb, is real.

I accept the latter; the former is merely dancing around definitions. If you believe something about yourself (being female) when you know you are male-bodied, that is clearly and unequivocally a delusion. No matter how deeply and honestly held (again, placing scepticism aside for the moment.) No matter any psychological or physiological reason, it cultural baggage.

Holding a perception about yourself that contravenes physical reality is what a delusion means.

Just like being a female human being is what a woman means.

I think this is a much more useful question than trying to establish whether trans people are “really” men or women.

I don't think the answer has to be either “every trans woman must always be admitted to every female space” or “every trans woman must always be excluded from every female space”. I think there may be circumstances where there are legitimate reasons for saying that a particular space is for birth-sex females only, in the same way that we might legitimately provide a space specifically for lesbians, Black women or breastfeeding mothers, for example.
In other contexts, excluding a trans woman may achieve very little while imposing a substantial cost on her. There doesn't need to be a blanket rule mandating exclusion.

I think the Supreme Court judgment was a poor one, but I believe that was actually its intention - to enable/ allow for female-only provision to be restricted by birth sex - not to mandate it in all contexts where services might be provided to men and women separately. Unfortunately it has been widely interpreted - including by the EHRC - as establishing a wider practical rule that wherever a service or space is divided by sex, trans women should as a matter of course be excluded from the female side. That's really disturbing to me.

We would like her to answer the questions.

We instead get waffle.

So we ask them again.

The questions she avoids tell their own story.

Nothing. She speaks truth

I'm as old as the hills, and I dont remember consenting to men in the ladies, I dont remember assuming they were transexuals. Its not a word we ever used.

It's fine to say we were idiots to let them get away with it. But now we don't.

Sigh.

We have stats that show a concerning pattern in that trans women are incarcerated for sex offenses at a significantly higher rate than other groups of prisoners.

Should we:

1. Ignore it. We can't extrapolate to the wider population so there's nothing to see.
2. Investigate whether this pattern is due to factors affecting which trans women get imprisoned or something that reflects a more general population skew.

These are higher rates of sex offences.

Being observed in a subset of a population for whom there is significant political pressure to reduce safeguarding controls to levels below that of other men.

You don't have to assume the prison stats wll reflect the general population to know the right answer here is 2.

The study on trans offenders which I have seen linked on another thread deliberately does not include those who only decided that they were trans when they realised they were going to prison and therefore wanted it to be in the women 's estate.

If one considers what a small proportion of the male population TIMs must be, given that trans people of both sexes make up less than 1% of the population of which men are a little under half, it is remarkable that they make up such a disproportionately large proportion of the violent-offending male prison population, isn't it.

@Lacksie again, what I'm interested in is how best do we solve this.

If it was still 20 years ago and "trans" was simply a transsexual person occasionally using the loo, I'd think "who cares".

But the world has changed (see my post above) and there's no way of putting the "expanded trans" issue back in the box.

I just can't see a practical way we could say "you 3 genuine harmless trans people can go in the women's, but you 7 fetishists and perverts can't".

I think we've got to the point where we (Supreme Court) had to clarify that the starting point is that women's spaces and services are for females.

However there are other things we can do. We can add gender neutral spaces (in addition to the single sex ones) wherever possible. This would be useful generally too e.g. for mums with young sons and dads with daughters.

We could convert the male sports team to "open" and make clear trans women are welcome.

Probably other ideas too.

What do you think?

I said that the existence of trans experience — a persistent experience of gender identity that differs from natal sex — is a real, documented phenomenon.

As is the belief that one is Jesus Christ.

Anyway, we’re all agreed that trans-identified men are men. And I think we’re all agreed that sex segregation exists to protect females from male pattern violence? So all that remains is for you to prove that the subset of males who claim ladyfeelz do not follow male pattern violence. Because the burden of proof is indeed on you to defend the extraordinary claim.

Oh please. They’ve sidestepped more than Anton du Beke

They’re a very good indicator of the relative rate of offending of transmen and transwomen though. They show - in every jurisdiction that collects data - that transwomen offend more than transmen. Unlike any other cohorts. Black, white, Muslim, Christian. In all these cohorts men outoffend women.

Prison data is fine because its the most reliable data - if no trans identifying men were prosecuted you would be using that as proof they do not offend.

@Lacksie I do get where you are coming from. I think there are definitely a very small number of people who genuinely have gender dysphoria where they feel permanently wrong in their sexed body.

I think going back 20 years, a very small proportion of this very small number would physically "transition" (what we called a transsexual) and also permanently present in a feminine (or masculine) way. I guess those people probably used the opposite sex loos and I don't remember anyone worrying about this. There were hardly any of them and they weren't generally trying to get into women's sports, prisons, services etc.

I think one of the main problems is that Stonewall and social media etc have expanded the meaning of trans so it includes:

• People with gender dysphoria who have transitioned
• People with gender dysphoria who have not yet transitioned
• Men with a fetish about being a woman (AGP)
• Young people who are struggling socially or with puberty (autistic, trauma history, gay, gender non-conforming, the alternative crowd)

• Perverts, weirdos and misogynists who enjoy the power of getting into women's spaces or threatening "TERFs"
• Probably other groups I've not thought of.

I think only the first group matches the one you're describing - and I do actually have a lot of sympathy for that group.

Question to follow in another post ...

where posters demand she answers their questions while simultaneously calling it waffle

omg thank you!

You are entitled to your own boundaries and preferences. What you are not entitled to is a unilateral veto over every toilet, hospital ward, swimming pool, sports body, refuge or voluntary association simply because you personally regard trans women as male.

Those spaces do not belong to you individually. Their rules have to balance the dignity, privacy, safety and rights of every individual who uses them.

You assertion that you are entitled to police who is in that space is not “a boundary”. It is a demand that your preferences should automatically override everybody else’s interests in every context. I don’t accept that.

And you speak for yourself, not for “the needs of women”.

And for a group of supposed critical thinkers, it isn’t hard to understand why prison statistics aren’t a good indication of the general population. Confirmation bias at its finest!

This descended into a AMA with @Lacksie where posters demand she answers their questions while simultaneously calling it waffle 🤦🏻‍♀️