Depends on the man. I was once hit by an enormous wave at the beach & landed in an old man's lap. It was embarrassing but hardly the same thing as a younger man.

Sorry what?!

That sounds like an unfortunate amalgamation of Upton and Shipman!

Because the generalisation smears all trans people as a threat. Using a minority group to represent the majority is hateful. Just ask muslims who get smeared as terrorists or Jews who get smeared as degenerate globalists or black people that get smeared s criminals.

You have to hand it to this one, he keeps on digging. Might hit Australia soon, I think he'd prefer it there.

Right, so it's the #notallmen argument? Women must ignore the dangers at a population level so as to not hurt the feelings of men. That actually translates to: women must shut-up about the dangers, accept them, and change their own behaviours and ways they interact with the world if they want to avoid those dangers. They must never say "I told you so" because that is using victims for polical purposes. They must not mention the pattern. They must accept that there will always be a few bad apples but that these things are "unavoidable". Because to actually avoid "these things" (read systematic violence and sexual violence against women and children by predominantly male humans) men would have to be told "no" sometimes, and we all know that limiting men's freedoms by telling them no, or hurting their feelings by naming patterns, is a far greater crime than leaving women and children vulnerable and exposed, and telling them to shut-up about it.

Answer me this.

Do you believe all muslims should be banned from immigration because a few are terrorists?

Do you believe all people of colour should be banned from public because of higher crime rates?

You keep using the generalisation of men's crimes as a representation of trans women & its a false equivalence according to women's experience on the ground that's reflected in their disinterest in this issue that even JKR admits to….& is fuming over.

She bizarrely blames trade unionists as if to be completely unaware of the leftist doctrine of big tent strength in oppressed numbers & egalitarianism. And why wouldn't she know this? Because she isn't inherently a true believer of leftist principles.

How else does she think the left manages such influence other than solidarity particularly of minority groups? Its a pledge is to protect everyone particularly its weakest & that by extension means they can't be held hostage by stereotypes about groups.

Supporting trans people from discrimination, dehumanisation & demonisation isn't a green light for a free for all by men. Nor is it saying single spaces in certain circumstances don't matter but the thing is as individuals many of us disagree on what constitutes risk. People of the left are historically more known for their openness & trust not caution so trade unions are in fact being true to leftist beliefs in their support of trans people.

Do you believe all muslims should be banned from immigration because a few are terrorists?
No, terrorists are not exclusively or even a significant majority Muslim. Most terrorists are men though.

Do you believe all people of colour should be banned from public because of higher crime rates?
No, and I think that "higher crime rates" needs to be investigated, because there are different types of crime and different cohorts are likely to be represented differently across the crime categories, so not only is my answer no, I disagree with the framing of the question, I think it smacks a little of the racism you are trying to imply I am supporting.
Much crime is committed by men though, evidenced by the much higher male prison populations globally.

You keep using the generalisation of men's crimes as a representation of trans women & its a false equivalence according to women's experience on the ground that's reflected in their disinterest in this issue that even JKR admits to….& is fuming over.
This sentence is doing a lot of work, and I find this fairly typical of TRA rhetoric to start a sentence on one topic, swerve though a couple of others, and land in an entirely new place, but lets break it down...

You are saying that I an falsely equating male trans-identified people with male people. I am not. That is the category they all fall into - male - and male violence toward females and children has a very different pattern to female violence towards females and children, so that is where the comparison must sit. Our argument is that this pattern is what must be recognised for what it is (hint: reality) and that identifying out of maleness does not ensure the adoption of female patterns of violence, and women should not be coerced into believing that it does, and punished when they won't.

Regarding what you call disinterest in this issue by "women on the ground", I think this is more wishful thinking than reality, poll after poll shows majority men and women support, and are increasingly supporting a return to biological reality in pulic life and policy and I can't see the enormous victories the UK GC movements have recently celebrated happening without a groundswell of grass roots political support. I understand that this is upsetting, but facts are facts.
My reading of JKRs latest essay is that she is frustrated with the very women I have described in my previous post who think only of themselves and not the women who are impacted by the loss of female-only spaces, this is a frustration many if is share, and yes, it is infuriating. And deeply disappointing.

No, terrorists are not exclusively or even a significant majority Muslim. Most terrorists are men though.

I never suggested they were. The facts are some muslims are terrorists and by your 'safe guarding' logic they should be banned.

No, and I think that "higher crime rates" needs to be investigated, because there are different types of crime and different cohorts are likely to be represented differently across the crime categories,

So by this logic generalisations are a problem? Thank you for supporting my point.

I disagree with the framing of the question, I think it smacks a little of the racism you are trying to imply I am supporting.

Higher violent crime rates by people of colour are a fact & facts aren't 'racist'. What's racist is to believe violent crime is inherent to a population of which I never suggested.

You are saying that I an falsely equating male trans-identified people with male people. I am not. That is the category they all fall into - male - and male violence toward females and children has a very different pattern to female violence towards females and children, so that is where the comparison must sit. Our argument is that this pattern is what must be recognised for what it is (hint: reality) and that identifying out of maleness does not ensure the adoption of female patterns of violence, and women should not be coerced into believing that it does, and punished when they won't.

You are totally confused. The context here is women's personal experience with trans women being the reason they don't perceive them as threatening not what the generalised data bout men states.

Regarding what you call disinterest in this issue by "women on the ground", I think this is more wishful thinking than reality, poll after poll shows majority men and women support, and are increasingly supporting a return to biological reality in pulic life and policy and I can't see the enormous victories the UK GC movements have recently celebrated happening without a groundswell of grass roots political support. I understand that this is upsetting, but facts are facts.

Did we even read the same essay? JKR explicitly states her disappointment, anger & frustration with institutions & women broadly ignoring the implementation of government guidance. She's admitting herself the changes aren't resonating with actions.

Do you even understand what a poll is? They are notoriously wrong when the rubber hits the road because Its one thing to state your beliefs but quite another to act on them hence JKR's frustration.

You misrepresent everything you hear or read.

No-one said men (or anyone else) should be banned from public, that was your hyperbole.

It must be exhausting twisting around like this. You can't actually have a rational conversation.

You misrepresent everything you hear or read.

No-one said men (or anyone else) should be banned from public, that was your hyperbole.

It must be exhausting twisting around like this. You can't actually have a rational conversation.

No, terrorists are not exclusively or even a significant majority Muslim. Most terrorists are men though.

I never suggested they were. The facts are some muslims are terrorists and by your 'safe guarding' logic they should be banned.

No, and I think that "higher crime rates" needs to be investigated, because there are different types of crime and different cohorts are likely to be represented differently across the crime categories,

So by this logic generalisations are a problem? Thank you for supporting my point.

I disagree with the framing of the question, I think it smacks a little of the racism you are trying to imply I am supporting.

Higher violent crime rates by people of colour are a fact & facts aren't 'racist'. What's racist is to believe violent crime is inherent to a population of which I never suggested.

You are saying that I an falsely equating male trans-identified people with male people. I am not. That is the category they all fall into - male - and male violence toward females and children has a very different pattern to female violence towards females and children, so that is where the comparison must sit. Our argument is that this pattern is what must be recognised for what it is (hint: reality) and that identifying out of maleness does not ensure the adoption of female patterns of violence, and women should not be coerced into believing that it does, and punished when they won't.

You are totally confused. The context here is women's personal experience with trans women being the reason they don't perceive them as threatening not what the generalised data bout men states.

Regarding what you call disinterest in this issue by "women on the ground", I think this is more wishful thinking than reality, poll after poll shows majority men and women support, and are increasingly supporting a return to biological reality in pulic life and policy and I can't see the enormous victories the UK GC movements have recently celebrated happening without a groundswell of grass roots political support. I understand that this is upsetting, but facts are facts.

Did we even read the same essay? JKR explicitly states her disappointment, anger & frustration with institutions & women broadly ignoring the implementation of government guidance. She's admitting herself the changes aren't resonating with actions.

Do you even understand what a poll is? They are notoriously wrong when the rubber hits the road because Its one thing to state your beliefs but quite another to act on them hence JKR's frustration.

You’ve done these arguments before with your previous names. They were rubbish then (and more than a little racist).

Another day, another minimal-post history TRA getting irate and unable to cope because an amazing brave woman writes a sensible essay.

You’re not kidding anyone mate😂😂😂

It’s a bit sad really. I mean, how bad must your life be that you spend time slagging off women for defending women’s rights

Er this is a comments section you know, where critiques are the point. Its not meant to be a fan club.

But you haven’t provided any critiques of the essay, just made yourself look a little foolish by continually whinging about JKR but not pointing out how she is wrong…

I'm still snorting how anyone can hear Churchill say he loves it when a plan comes together.

😁

And then, not getting that JKR says she's as much like Churchill as Willoughby is a woman. How can you not get that!

That part of the night was hilarious. A right crack up.

Anyone else still got the A team theme in their head….

But we do as in what JKR is complaining about ….the law being fragrantly institutionally ignored.

Anyone else still got the A team theme in their head….