JK Rowling on Keir Starmer

I freely admit that I have not read the full article

Then I freely admit I'm not going to read the rest of your comment.

I'll do you the decency you didn't do Rowling, or indeed anyone involved in the discussion, and refrain from telling everyone how much the post I didn't read was bullshit.

But what about a woman who has a history of abuse, or is from a certain religion, or is vulnerable for whatever reason?

What about women who have not had a history of abuse? Should we put them in the front line? I say no woman should have to be in this position, regardless of her history or religion.

If a transwoman wants to share your space so what?

What you're saying is, if a man with penis and testes wants to share your space, so what? That's what you are saying. Do you realise that 97% of transwomen retain their penis and testicles? They are, in effect, a male-bodied person in a woman's safe space? Why so you think there are womens restrooms and mens restrooms? Why do you suppose mens bodies and womens bodies have separate facilities?
Ponder that, then ask yourself why you think a transwoman, ie a male bodied person, should be allowed in a woman's restroom/facility. A transwoman is still a male, with male genitals.
Do you realise that? What you are saying is why should vulnerable women and girls care that a person with a penis and testicles is using womens restrooms and changeroom facilities.

Really, really think about what you are saying but more so the FULL IMPLICATION of what you are saying. Our foresisters fought decades ago for safe spaces for women from male-bodied people. Here you are, advocating for penises and testicles in those spaces and a complete erosure of those boundaries that were set up deliberately for the protections of women. We made laws on the Worst Case Scenario basis, that is WHY women and men have separate facilities.

You are advocating for the complete and total erosure of those boundaries, of all male bodied people to be able to be in those facilities, just because a man says he feels like a woman.

Don't you think that's open to abuse? You are advocating we do away with all safeguarding for women and children, just so you can 'bekind'. Where does it stop, and when does your critical thinking kick in, and when does your empathy for women and children, Muslim Hijabi women (who don't want to see a penis and testicles in their change rooms), domestic violence survivors, rape survivors etc.
Where is your 'empathy' for THEM?

If a transwoman wants to share your space so what?

If 20% of the male prison population is in prison for sexually related crimes, but it rises to 50% for 'trans women'...doesn't that make it more unsafe if they say they identify as a woman? So the 'so what' is that the risk to women increases not decreases?

If a transwoman wants to share your space so what? Of course there is a tiny chance she could have a sinister motive but there is a far higher chance that she just wants to live her life the best way she can and may need some legal protection to do that.

But what about a woman who has a history of abuse, or is from a certain religion, or is vulnerable for whatever reason? Of course there is a tiny chance that these people might not exist, but there is a far higher chance that they do, and that they want to live their lives the best way they can, and they need some legal protection to do that.

Why do they not matter as much to you as someone who has already grown up with a great deal of male privelege?

I feel that the line that transwomen are all really men and therefore somehow threatening to women fits this type of narrative. Men are not all inherently capable of violence just because of their biology.

Just to be clear, when a man decides he wants to transition to 'become' a 'trans' woman...what is it that he goes through exactly to 'become' one, or do we just have to trust words that he now is one?

i'm really confused as most sexual violence and murders are committed by men aren't they? [97% isn't it?] So what happens to make these men 'safe' to be in women's spaces?

"Men are not all inherently capable of violence just because of their biology."

Yes, they are. Snd we can't tell which ones are and aren't violent/predatory in advance, hence the purpose of single sex spaces.

Around 95% of sexual offences are committed by men and 88% of victims are women.

Trans women have the same offending rates as men btw. Because that's what they are.

I think that the vast majority of those who are against JKR are just naive to the truth. It's really simplistic to say that trans people deserve to live their own lives as per their choices. Of course they are. I completely agree. Unfortunately that's where some people's thinking ends. No one should be allowed to make choices about how they live their lives in a way that has a negative impact on someone else. Wear a dress if you wish, but don't take away my right to try on a dress without your penis next to me.
Float your own boat, but don't try to sink mine.

Only just come back onto this thread and seen a lot of people questioning my original comments - possibly quite rightly. I freely admit that I have not read the full article - only the link posted by the OP and previous such links so it is likely that I have missed much of the nuance from what JKR was saying. I also admit that I dashed off my earlier comments quickly in an effort to show that not everyone admires her. I wouldn't normally tell anyone to shut up and I can see why that was questioned.

However I do really object to the Daily Mail type crap that everyone is to be doubted and feared. The sort of nonsense that makes people feel all refugees are scroungers, that all teenagers are wasters who only want screen time or the EU only wanted to screw us by taking our money and imposing restrictions on us. This is a dangerous view of the world.

I feel that the line that transwomen are all really men and therefore somehow threatening to women fits this type of narrative. Men are not all inherently capable of violence just because of their biology. This is the bandwagon I feel JKR has jumped on I know "Be Kind" has been overused and become trite, but at its heart it is a good message. Assume the best in people, be empathetic and give people a chance to live their best lives. Might sound naïve, but I think it is a good way to live.

If a transwoman wants to share your space so what? Of course there is a tiny chance she could have a sinister motive but there is a far higher chance that she just wants to live her life the best way she can and may need some legal protection to do that.

I am well aware that most people on this thread will think I am naïve, ill-informed or whatever. I don't really care. You don't need to jump all over my comments ripping them apart unless you really have nothing better to do. I'm just trying to explain myself in a slightly more articulate way than I did before. If you disagree - fine - that is your right.

But they should be up in arms at this. Transmen were born female and so have first hand experience of women's oppression, so they should be supporting us women instead of being silent and not standing with us

There are a few that do speak up but amazingly they are ignored almost as if they are in fact women and can safely be ignored.

Dunno how that works

I know plenty of people want to buy her books but also plenty of younger people are boycotting her books

A lot of that is all for show though - literally, grandstanding to their viewers/followers. I am a bit suspicious of several anti JK but HP obsessed YouTubers who always seem to be finding totally immaculate HP merch on the secondhand market...

(even the Times article above has that in it, despite making the point that sex is real - for the average person who reads it, they may not come away with that as the primary message, but that the legal POV is that TWAW)

I wish articles like that didn't keep quoting people like Starmer saying that TWAW and that "this is the law", because that's surely at least somewhat misleading, without spelling out a few more details. But for the random person on the street who has not followed the topic closely, if a well-known lawyer says "here is a thing that is true because it's the law", they are likeliy to believe what he says, and believe that there's nothing that they can do about it anyway, or that they'd be breaking the law if they didn't agree.

Transmen were born female and so have first hand experience of women's oppression, so they should be supporting us women instead of being silent and not standing with us.

I see gender ideology as a very inward-looking thing, encouraging an obsession with self at the expense of engaging with a wider range of interests and people. My hunch is that for those who have opted out of womanhood (as they see it), our problems cease to be their concern. This is illusory, of course, but would explain why transmen are very silent about women's oppression. Also, they probably want to keep away from all things female in the belief that they will pass better that way.

[quote Igneococcus]Today's leading article, comments open but premoderated, I have one pending which I doubt will be allowed:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a49ac38a-a22d-11ec-a1de-983f3d5a1668?shareToken=088392cb01004895f6deb5dd2179baf4[/quote]
@Igneococcus, comments turned off now, when I just followed your link. Many thanks for the share tokens. Most appreciated.

I think I'll send her a card. Here's the webpage with various contact details for enquiries/correspondence. www.jkrowling.com/enquiries/

Sane people point out that those scenes were filmed in Australia House in London and the tiled floor is as originally installed when it was built in the 1930s. Does it make any difference? Of course not.

I suspect that Starmer & co desperately wish that the whole thing would just go away. No doubt there was a meeting where a bunch of Labour MPs and activists got together to discuss ‘the problem’ and some bright spark came up with the idea of trying to find a ‘sensible middle ground’ by suggesting that henceforth women can be referred to as either female adults or trans women.

Brilliant!

Except it’s not. It will fall flat on its face because ultimately there can’t be a compromise. Males cannot become females.

Transmen aren't up in arms about all this utter bullshit because they don't have that sense of male entitlement, which is where all this bullshit comes from. They're used to getting what the fuck they want as men and expect the same result when they're pretending to be women.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

I agree Starmer is trying to stay relevant

It’s a vote winner for a few (who are likely to vote Labour anyway)

He’s lost my vote for being so spineless.