To agree with JK Rowling?

[StraightenUpAndFryRight]

mobile.twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033

‘Dress however you please.
Call yourself whatever you like.
Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.
Live your best life in peace and security.
But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real?
#IStandWithMaya #ThisIsNotADrill’

PurpleHoodie

A eunuch.

Precisely.

94% agree so far. It's interesting, isn't it?

Almost as if the woke folk are the tiny minority, who have somehow managed to convince the judiciary, the police, media and politicians, that biology and sex are outdated and irrelevant.

if a man has had his penis surgically removed (or whatever they do-I'm not sure on the specifics) - they don't have a penis so what are they?

A man without a penis is a eunuch, not a woman.

I do find it difficult to understand why people don't see women as human beings in their own right.

As a sex, as a concept, as an entity. With shared characteristics which place them all in the same category. Characteristics, incidentally, which no man has.

We're not 'support humans'. Or a big dumping ground for men who don't quite make the grade.

And incidentally, it's estimated that at least 90% of transwomen keep their penis. You're talking about a very small number anyway.

Very interesting.

OddBoots is silver placed to win the internet today. JKR wins gold.

I'd also expect some of that 6% was obtained by the posts telling lies on the thread about what Maya Forstater had done.

So why do some people then get up in arms about post operative trans people, ie if a man has had his penis surgically removed (or whatever they do-I'm not sure on the specifics) - they don't have a penis so what are they?

They are a man who has had his penis surgically removed. A man who loses his penis in an accident or because of cancer doesn't change sex.

I disagree lovepickledlimes

I do not want men in my safe spaces whether they have a penis or not. And most of these men keep their penis in any case.

Let them change and pee with other men.

Is any employer allowed to put an ideology above logic and science?

There is a problem here, in that the Gender Recognition Act puts an ideology above logic and science, enshrining in law the fiction that a male person is a woman, and even allowing their birth certificate (a historical document) to be changed to articulate the lie that the person was born the opposite sex. The GRA needs to be reformed, but not in the way that the transactivists think it should be. It cannot be right to enshrine a lie in law and require others to bend their minds and tongues to it, and to forgo their own rights.

I thought eunuchs were castrated men? So just testacles removed. Happy to be corrected if wrong.

GRA should be scrapped.

Biologically they are still a man though socially should be treated as a woman.

Says who? And what does that even mean anyway?

@Nunsnetting
Where should the line be drawn? If someone had a sincerely-held view that was considered homophobic and therefore offensive, for example, and then expressed it on social media, should their employer be forced to let it stand and take no action, on the grounds of freedom of speech?

The difference is "I don't believe in gay people" means 'I don't agree with and/or like their choice and lifestyle'. "I don't believe a man can change into a woman" is a biological fact. Humans can't change sex. One is potential hate speech (although, as a gay person myself, I would not be offended by someone tweeting "I don't believe in gay people" personally...) I agree with you that posting stuff on Twitter and Social Media is not an obligation.

I am genuinely not trying to be goady either but I find it interesting you name changed before posting your comment. I'm not looking for an argument or insults back and forth but it comes across as 'this is what I believe but I'm wary to say it because of the response I might get'. And that sounds very familiar. Although, here, you would get a measured response, rather than on Twitter when you'd be threatened with rape, sexual assault and told to die in a grease fire.

Dunno what happened there, sorry. I'm disturbed that this is all coming at the same time as a backlash against women in the workplace and against part time and flexible working. All as the economy contracts. Conveniently men can now claim to be women, boosting employers claims to be equality-friendly, even as they tell real women to get back to looking after the kids at home, unpaid and unappreciated as always, so that the men can work longer hours and go back to thinking they're the only important people in the world.

It's about the extent to which an employer is allowed to act when an employee behaves in a way that (they feel) is inconsistent with their values.

Did the judgement explain what those values where and why MF's behaviour was in contradiction with those values?

How do you define a value? Would it be acceptable to sack somebody because of their views on Brexit?

"I don't believe a man can change into a woman" is a biological fact.

And it's also a fact that has clear implications for poverty and inequality.

It's difficult to know how you fight poverty if you can't recognise the impact of sex.

A man can become a trans-woman . A man cannot become a woman. It’s that simple.

I wouldn't worry about JK. She won't be reading the tweets and she knew exactly the type of response she would get. It's also impossible for them to touch her from a career pov.

I do wonder if there is a political motivation to this too. The SNP are pushing through their second GRA consultation - accidentally over Christmas when they thought it could be swept under the carpet

If she has decided to speak out now because of the GRA consultation in Scotland, then I respect her even more.

The judgement can be found here. Well worth a read for anyone wanting to look beyond twitter slanging matches and click bait headlines.

For a shorter version, this is a one page overview from a site that discusses UK employment law.

There’s a vast amount of misinformation and misrepresentation in the media and on social platforms.

Whether anyone stands with maya or not, if they are going to express an opinion, they really ought to at least have read the judgement in question.

The key point is whether or not Maya’s GC views qualify as a protected belief under equalities law. The judgement found that they do not.

She is perfectly free to hold and express her views publicly and privately (this is explicitly said in the judgement) but they do not meet the qualifiers as a protected belief.

The judgement explains exactly why that is, and it’s really interesting.

Great post ImGoing.

It's about the extent to which an employer is allowed to act when an employee behaves in a way that (they feel) is inconsistent with their values

If that were really happening in the way it should, there would be many many many men sacked for sexual harassment, and overt or covert misogyny. #MeToo

But hey, they get to keep their jobs.

Dolor excellent point.

DH shares a publisher with JKR. He has a meeting with his editor coming up. I'll be sending him with a written statement of support for JKR to be read out in the meeting (DH is also GC so is on board with this!).

There is a problem here, in that the Gender Recognition Act puts an ideology above logic and science, enshrining in law the fiction that a male person is a woman, and even allowing their birth certificate (a historical document) to be changed to articulate the lie that the person was born the opposite sex

I don't think that, as the law stands, a GRC can create the fiction that somebody has no sex or that their sex is fluid. It's also not clear how somebody who presents and live as their birth sex could be included under the protected characteristics of Gender Reassignment.

Yanbu

Jk Rowling is God.