Jk Rowling and trans issues... talk to me!

"sex" is a protected characteristic under equalities legislation in the UK, in the same way as "disability" and "race". In order to have protection, the characteristic needs to be clearly defined and definable. Woman has to mean something clear if we want any kind of legal protection.

A more logically consistent viewpoint would be for the OP to say lots of different people need protection for different reasons but there's no need for people of different classes of characteristic to be carved out in law.

My identity lies in reality This right here. Like Dave Chappelle said "I support anyone's right to be who they want to be. My question is: to what extent do I have to participate in your self-image?"
A woman is an adult female human full stop ✋

Assuming you really want an answer -

What is Cis?

From what I can gather, just means not trans.
Kind of like being straight means not gay/lesbian.

What is Cis? Is it a makey uppey term someone has invented to pretend another term has some grounding in reality or among people in general. Has it any provenance in the real world? Do you assume someone not only believes in that newly made-up identity, but refers to themselves by it?

My identity lies in reality. Not that ridiculous term.

OP I haven’t read the whole thread but in short, you have failed to understand what the issue is - you have totally missed the point.

There are many threads, a lot of information on the internet, and JKRs own words which actually would provide you with a good introduction to the issues.

these threats apply to anyone who disagrees with the person who has posted them.

By the way, this includes anyone who thinks that transwomen should not be housed in female prisons sharing cells and spaces with women. And anyone who thinks there is ever a case for transwomen not competing directly against or with females in sports. So, if you have any reservations, you will get the same treatment as Joanne Rowling. Any reservations....

Or do you have a different definition for 'man' and 'woman'? I saw one the other day which was that a woman was 'someone who goes around being a woman'. Do you have a non-circular definition?

@bunters
for those of you posting JK's essay, it was that that got me so annoyed. She justifies her actions because she was domestically abused by her cis male partner.

What actions should she have to justify, though? What has she actually done which is so horrifying, so destructive?

Prior to writing that essay, she had said in a tweet that a woman losing her job for not agreeing that TWAW was disproportionate, and she had made a joke (also in a tweet) about a pompous bit of prattery.

For this evil behaviour, she has had death threats (serious enough to mean she needs protection twenty-four hours a day), rape threats, attempts to destroy her livelihood...

And you are annoyed with her for those two tweets? Blimey O'Riley. Save your wrath for the people here: terfisaslur.com/

In case you don't know the terminology, "terf" is a blanket-condemnation word applied to any woman anyone feels disagrees with him, her, fae, ae, vir, ze, etc about anything. It stands for "trans exclusionary radical feminist", and is particularly absurd when applied to a transwoman. So these threats apply to anyone who disagrees with the person who has posted them.

How can a transman be a man if they cannot change sex?

How can a transwoman be a woman if they cannot change sex?

Why is it so hideous to accept transmen as transmen and transwomen as transwomen?

Man and Woman refers to the sex of adult humans, though. Just like Stag and Doe for deer. That is the whole point of having those specific words. You don't have to keep saying biological male deer and biological male humans.

Just like the article on prison officers searching prisoners who identify as women but are physically still men.

www.independent.ie/irish-news/prison-officers-demand-guidelines-on-transgender-inmates-39637102.html?fbclid=IwAR1sG8A0-hU_Lz7ALG6S7C-01SJbdDUsmeJxdY-0A230PFJMlv23NQTd6EA

They 're not confused over adult human males and men. Irrespective of how people personally identify.

I believe Quaag's position is that it is not physically possible for males to be women biologically and vice versa, but that the social categories of 'women' and 'men' includes both sexes, dependent on their personal 'gender identity'.

I have my own view on the legitimacy of that idea, but Quagg sometimes seems reluctant to be crystal clear and I'm feeling helpful today. I'm she can clarify if I've misinterpreted.

But you appear to believe that people can change sex and want others to believe this too

No, I fully accept that trans women are biologically male, and trans men are biologically female, as you can't literally change the sex you were born.
It doesn't mean I can't accept trans men as men though and trans women as women.

I know op isn't going to listen, but in case someone is reading this who is on the fence and doesn't get it, it's quite simple. If you change the definition of woman in law to 'anyone who identifies as a woman' it erases your ability to fight sexism at all, in facts it masks the existence of it.

The pay gap will still be there, but we will be gaslight that stats say the pay gap is closing (when reality is that more men have started identifying as women)

Male violence will still be there, but we will be gaslight saying women raping women is on the rise (when reality is it's mele rapists identifying as women)

Female athletes will start losing medals to men, but when we try to point it out we will be gaslight (what do you mean Serena lost a tennis match to a man? Andrea Murray is a woman now!)

Good luck trying to fight sexism and male violence when you can't even name it.

But you appear to believe that people can change sex and want others to believe this too. 'Transwomen' are male, because only male people can be 'transwomen' (I think I am correct in saying that female people cannot identify as 'transwomen'). So if you believe that 'transwomen are women', then you believe that people can change sex. And yet they can't. Why do you insist on trying to impose your belief system on others?

It is always nice when we can feel self righteous and good about ourselves by catering to the opinion of the day. Especially if there is no personal downside whatsoever....

I can see why someone would be motivated to pretend to be trans to avoid men's prison, and how such an individual would be a danger to women in prisons. But I don't find these examples to be in alignment with most people's interests

Well at least you are honest that egocentricism means you don't care about other women being raped as long as you are not at risk.

Or perhaps you are being honest that you only want to hold views that you think the majority of people hold.

If you've met trans people, you know they pose zero risk to anyone else. And those that do are a minority, just like there are Catholics who rape children, or Muslims who commit crimes, etc. You know the story. Marginalised groups get painted in the same light by those who dislike 'different'.

@Dogsareus trans people pose the same risk as anyone else. Not more, absolutely. So transwomen commit sexual offences at the same rate as any other male. The evidence for that is very clear - there are more transwomen in prison for sex offences than women, not because transwomen pose any more threat than anyone else male, but because they pose no less. And women commit just 2% of such offences. Women commit dramatically fewer violent offences, especially sexual offences. Women are also smaller and less strong than men. So we have separate provision, in recognition of those facts.

Do you think that women who want spaces separate from male people are hateful? Do you think women who don't walk home alone at night, especially in isolated spaces, or who arrange to meet online dates in public places, or who don't want to share a communal changing room with males or who don't want an intimate examination performed by males are hateful? Do you think they are unfairly demonising all men because of the actions of a few? Or is that reasonable? And if it is reasonable, why is it unreasonable, as soon as a man says they assert a feminine gender identity? What has changed, that her previously socially acceptable and rationally based actions are suddenly deemed hateful?

It's not hateful to recognise that while most men pose no risk to women, the majority of those posing such a risk are men. And nor is it hateful to recognise that the risk is based on bodies - not claims to gender identity. It's not discriminatory for women to ask that our own rights, needs and protections are retained. In fact it's really sexist to argue otherwise.

We need parallel provision. Not for one group to erase the rights, and even the very descriptors and legal definition, of another, as is being demanded at present.

If women can no longer be defined as a sex class, we can't collectively argue for our rights. If 'women' is suddenly a mixed sex category, how can we assert rights based on the structural, systemic ways in which women's biology renders us vulnerable to discrimination and exploitation?

It's really shocking to me that women speaking up for our rights - because women are abused and exploited across the world, and through history, for our reproductive and sexual potential - are subjected to death and hate threats, and job loss, and those women are then the ones being called hateful. How is the misogyny of that position so invisible to you? You think that any man should be able to access all women's provision at will, and any woman who says that's not okay with her is a bigot? Seriously?

Men's Rights Activism seems to have gone very, very mainstream.

And yes, I do know trans people, most of whom are perfectly nice. But you can use that argument to say women don't need any single sex provision at all. Why don't you?

It's sinister people trying to prevent the truth from outing. That trawler website Scumsnet had 'safeguarding' tagged as a transphobic word, so outsiders could mass report posters who talked about safeguarding on this board.

Nowt to do with transphobia, all to do with censorship.

There was nothing remotely transphobic in my comment that was deleted. Those monitoring this board just don't like to see the cold hard truth of where their ideology leads and how they care not one jot about those who suffer appallingly as a result of it.

And of course, people seeing the perfectly normal comments being deleted is a real eye-opener for them

Perfectly normal.
Right, OK.
"If you see any transphobia report them" mantra gets trotted out - when it does get deleted, it's "perfectly normal comments!"
It's always explained away, isn't it? In a move on, nothing to see here way...
Troll hunting and personal attacks are never allowed on all the other boards as well, not just here.

It’s not even just female prisoners being raped, imagine going to work and being raped because you weren’t protected the best you could have been
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8211325/amp/Female-prison-officers-raped-inmates-self-identify-trans-women-claim.html