Woman's hour 2nd April 2024 JKR's 'hate' thread

Rebellious you took the words right out of my mouth:

I hate to break it to DJ but gender reassignment in the EA refers to transsexual people who have or are planning to change their physiology or something else (yep no idea what that means) to do with their sex - the protected characteristic he is spouting is a load of wishful thinking - it all needs updating and clarifying but as it stands what has happened is a massive TRA/MRA misinformation campaign

I have tried! I spent ages filing out the toilet consultation but I am afraid it is so far along it’s done deal - they can forget about all the pesky problems with disabilities and women. Until it’s too late for some. Because it handily gets rid of the identity problems.

I don’t know how to rally troops or if it’s too late?

What maybe being highlighted is the news reports coming out of schools that self enclosed mix sex solutions aren’t working. Pupils are being assaulted in them, they can’t tell how many students are in them, being used for sex, taking drugs, and the smells and hygiene are worse as mops can’t be used as effectively. Teachers have raised safety issues about fire emergencies too - I remember quickly checking toilet blocks by looking for feet in the door gaps.

Bloody hell! I mean I know women can be the same as men in that respect, but they usually aren't quite so blunt about it!

Gender identity is not a protected characteristic - and the law does not permit even those men with a GRC to use women's facilities. The misunderstanding that it does has arisen because of lack of clarity and intention in the original drafting of the law, which was written for an entirely different contingent of transsexuals, and in a very different set of circumstances.

Those posters who try to wheedle and whine their way into women's spaces, using all sorts of justifications - are all bad actors as far as I'm concerned. Look at Eddie Izzard...his privilege and his entiteld narcissistic arrogance is something to behold

As I've said before if you identified "with women", rather than "as a woman" you'd be far more respectful and consequently be far more trustworthy. But even then, when talking about public spaces, you cannot consent on behalf of all other users of that space; and there should not even be this kind of discussion. Men should use male facilities, and if not happy with those - campaign for other discrete facilities.

Yes. I think there is a danger that employers may feel that enclosed, self-contained unisex toilet cubicles are the "safe" or compromise option even where they do have plenty of space for separate single-sex blocks of traditional cubicles with a gap top and bottom and communal hand-washing area. Obviously, this is by far the best option for women for all sorts of reasons, but employers have been Stonewalled into thinking that they will be unlawfully discriminating against men who claim to be women if they provide them, and they are now getting the message that they are unlawfully discriminating if they don't provide them. So they may just go for the individual cubicles to be safe. Someone should tell them they may be discriminating against people with disabilities if they do!

Men can make women fell uncomfortable in spaces in which women do not expect or anticipate them to be.

You can tell you are not female - or if you are, you are very insensitive, because if you had empathy for women you would undersand precisely why we have single sex spaces in the first place, and why they are necessary.

Men who do have empathy respect women's boundaries.

And therefore it follows that people who are medically vulnerable at risk of collapsing suddenly and also girls/women who are more at risk of getting assaulted are 2 groups now more at risk due to these new designed legal enclosed toilets because of gender ideology.

Gender ideology directly affecting people with disabilities and females. From the toilet consultation men who want to use the ladies matter more than keeping toilets safe by design.

NecessaryScene

brilliant

I think she is enjoying being rich!

It gives her the freedom to do what she loves doing - keeping other women safe.

Actually, a woman said this to me not long ago.

"Like just shut up and enjoy being rich!" were her exact words.

The actual guardian, refusing to unquestioningly take someone's self-ascription of gender identity as their actual gender identity!

Gotta be a HATE CRIME!

Absolutely we do. Single sex areas for women exist because of bad actor men. Men who sexually assault, rape, assault and murder women. That is the main reason why women have women-only spaces. Transwomen are men and have the same (if not worse) pattern of violence and sexual violence against women and girls.

Why are you so keen to allow potentially dangerous men into places where women and girls are particularly vulnerable @DadJoke ? Do you have daughters? A sister? A wife? A mother? A grandmother? Are you happy to put them at risk purely in order to validate a man's "feelings"? It's so extremely misogynistic. I cannot imagine how any Dad could think it is OK.

Especially if you've ever come across the many, many awful posts of TW who admit to being sexually aroused and masturbating in a toilet cubicle or shower next to women and girls - and worse. Are you really OK with that? Women and girls being used as sexual props for male fetishism? If you think that is an acceptable corollary for allowing TW into women's spaces then that is really, really sick.

I do find the she's so rich why does she give a fuck thing a very narcissistic male thought process.

I was rather annoyed with The World at One because I'd like there to have been less time with Katie Neeves - who fair enough may not have stolen his sister's knickers and god knows the Mail are happy to misquote/lie, but he's still a man - who was doing that whole pretence of being reasonable bullshit with added "Oh I just feel sorry for her, all that hate and she's transphobic and all that money and so much hate."

Whatever, Katie. Btw, you're a man. You were born one. You'll die one. If archaeologists dig your body up in however many years they'll be "it's a man" because you're a man. Oh and you sound like a man too. Because you are a man.

I think the very idea that "misgendering" can be considered a hate crime is akin to the end of times. There could be people who are not even slightly interested in the debate (important as it is there are still people who don't care) and could misgender someone through ignorance rather than alleged malice. How is that a crime? Obviously, I don't think it should be a crime at all. If you're pretending to be a woman and I call you a man I'm stating a fact, not commiting a crime and further to that how much does it genuinely hurt someone or make them fearful? I mean really? Thank fuck for JK Rowling. We all know that she did this to put the debate front and centre and she achieved that. I hope she's on Woman's Hour before we lose Emma (who will be missed) but in the meantime I do hope she's having a great holiday!

It's mad that we ave to keep repeating this.

First they came for the men called Aiden
Then they came for the men called Owen
Then they came for the men called Graham
...
Then they came for the beardy men
Then they came for the blond men
Then they came for the dark-haired men
...
Then they came for the men who stole borrowed their sisters underwear
Then they came for the men who forgot to steal or borrow any underwear
Then they came for the men who are very interested in your underwear
...
Then they came for the men who said they were women
Then they came for the men who thought they were women
Then they came for the men who just said they REALLY REALLY wanted to be there
...
Then when they came for me,
There were no other men left at all,
And I was out on my ear too.

And now they're just women's spaces.

Dammit.

I think the implication of his answer was that we need to let all males in if they claim their 'gender identity' makes women's spaces preferable to them.

Except, maybe sports.

You must have pulled a muscle with all that stretching and word twisting! Trans women are not being excluded from female spaces because they’re trans 🙄 To make that true (discrimination), the comparator would be another male. So, if we let all males into the Ladies except trans women, that would be discriminating against them because they’re trans. But we’re not.

The thing is this: ALL males are excluded from female spaces. This includes gay males, sweet old 95yr old males, your best (male) mate who wouldn’t hurt a fly, my lovely brother, your darling brother-in-law, your friend’s grandad - and trans-identified male persons.

It’s not just about danger. Clearly most men are lovely, but that’s not the point! Males are excluded not just for safety but for the privacy and dignity of women.

This constant envy and anger at women having anything of their own or any time away from men is really starting to piss me off!

OK then.

Let's give the Scottish government the benefit of the doubt and assume that the reason they did not include the protected characteristic of sex in this legislation is because they are planning to introduce an extra special law to protect women.

What about the other protected characteristics?

Shall we play a game of spot the difference between the protected characteristics in the new Scottish legislation and those in the Equality Act?

What else is missing or changed, and why?

@DadJoke Are you really not going to answer the question about how we keep the "bad actors" out of women's spaces and only let the nice trans women in?

There is no evidence (and I mean evidence, not anecdotes) of trans women being any danger statistically to non-trans women.
There is evidence (insanely plentiful evidence) of males being a danger to 'non-trans women' and no evidence that their gender identity removes or lessens this danger.

It's not "hate" to want males to stay out of female spaces and sports. It's merely having boundaries. When women having boundaries is framed as "hate", you know that you are dealing with a misogynist male entitlement movement.

And you really do have to wonder at the motivations of those who are determined to remove those boundaries.

There is no evidence (and I mean evidence, not anectdotes) of trans women being any danger statistically to non-trans women. It's a problem invented by transphobes to take rights away from transgender people.

Some of us are living, breathing “anecdotes” and find that statement deeply upsetting.
Surely a bit of consideration for others who have lived through abuse and violence would be better for your cause than alienating them?