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’

I agree.

Sleep with any consenting adult who’ll have you.

I would like to add here that you should also want to sleep with said consenting adult who'll have you.

The butler was thoroughly impertinent too

I would like to add here that you should also want to sleep with said consenting adult who'll have you

You only get that right if you were born a man. There are one or two transwomen who bully lesbians for being 'transphobic' for not having sex with them.

JanesKettle I hope you're remembering correctly! Google gave me nothing yet but with luck a women-only religion will eventually turn up

He correctly interpreted the law, and the spirit of the law

We’ll have to agree to disagree, and we will see if it gets appealed.

we will see if it gets appealed.

Indeed, and while a cleaning lady and/or butler is not within my budget I will be more than happy to throw something in the pot to help fund a Reasonable People versus Dictatorial Bollocks appeal.

I do not have a cleaner but I would not sack a cleaner for having beliefs I disagreed with. That includes beliefs like 'women have female brains/souls/inherent essences which cause them to act and think and feel in a particularly female way', something I strongly disagree with whether it's a conservative Christian saying it or a gender ideologist saying it.

But surely most of us already work alongside people who disagree with us about religion or politics or other kinds of belief and we manage to cope with it? We don't find it inherently offensive and harmful that someone out there might think differently to us? We can cope with other people being wrong without also calling them evil and wanting them sacked? Why does this particular ideology not allow for that, and why are so many people okay with it not allowing for that?

Also it's interesting just how much JKR's actual words have been warped and misrepresented and downright lied about. Or how people have said it's a dog-whistle for the secret evil views in her heart, like this is just the same thing as Katie Hopkins tweeting about a 'final solution'.

It's almost as if people are, at some level, aware that what she said was not actually that bad.

twitter.com/elletorrito/status/1208332713117331456

Murray 'non binary' - does not have protected characteristic of gender reassignment. Is not a colleage of Maya's - she did not work with him.

Bunce 'fluid' - does not have protected characteristic of gender reassignment.

"She did not misgender or dead-name anyone who had the protected characteristic of gender reassignment"

"It would be draconian to impose use of preferred sexed vocab on private citizen where it is not required by legislation."

You only get that right if you were born a man. There are one or two transwomen who bully lesbians for being 'transphobic' for not having sex with them.

That's not sex or sleeping with, that's rape

I have friends and family members who I strongly disagree with on all kinds of things. I mean, isn't navigating that what's commonly known as "Christmas dinner" (or Thanksgiving if you're in North America)? Most of us manage to do so without screaming "you're cancelled and also I'm going to burn everything you've ever written" at people.

ProdigalKitten me too - I have contributed and I’d urge all those who can afford it and who care about freedom of expression to do the same.

FairCop said it well in their blog piece on this case:
“The implications of this reasoning go far beyond the requirement to be ‘nice’ since it removes the protections that would otherwise be afforded to this particular belief by the Equality Act 2010. One chilling ramification of this is that it would also remove the ability of protected groups to define themselves and their own oppression - for example, making it more difficult, if not impossible, for women to defend their sex-based rights in the workplace.”

:

*colleague (sp?)

All this needs common sense applied and to sack someone for this is clearly wrong. Obviously if Bill doesn't like gender change so beats up Jimmy now named Jane when he comes into work in a dress that is going to get Bill the sack. If bill accidentaly calls the nwe Jane Jimmy whey she hasn't had any surgery, hasn't changed gender by law yet and sports a beard and penis no one should be wanting Bill sacked.

If Jimmy has changed sex by law, done the whole thing, penis removed etc and has asked people at work to call him Jane and someone delberately keeps coming up to him at work every day and says morning Jimmy then a telling off might be in order depending on the context. People do change names even outside the gender issues eg my mother was known as Nancy as a child (and for life by some relatives) but always Anne when she grew up as she hated the abbreviation Nancy. I always knew her as Anne. No one is suggesting if a relative continued to call her Nancy until she died (as they did) even though she didn't like it they have commited some kind of cardinal sin.

If we can’t talk about sex we can’t talk about sex discrimination (and we are ALL at risk due to the need for sex specific healthcare, including transgender people).

I’m a Christian. I once had a cleaner (in my better-off days) who was a Muslim. We got on well. I was very touched when she bought me a small gift at Christmas.

I can’t imagine why I’d mind having a cleaner with political views that differed from mine, and I certainly wouldn’t sack them for it.

Para 91 Similarly, I do not accept that there is a failure to engage with the importance of the Claimant’s qualified right to freedom of expression, as it is legitimate to exclude a belief that necessarily harms the rights of others through a refusal to accept the full effect of a Gender Recognition Certificate or causing harassment to trans women by insisting they are men and trans men by insisting they are women.

But a gender recognition certificate also insists that transwomen aren't women. Otherwise there would be no exemptions.

The judge was saying that the fact based belief that maya holds can't be protected because it upsets trans people. It didn't meet all the criteria. That's the bottom line.

And of course there are any number of beliefs that upset other people.

Which is why it needs challenging.

I reckon most religions would fail to meet criteria 5 tbh...

People do change names even outside the gender issues

This is a good point.

My husband hates his full name and always goes by a diminutive of it except his mum always uses his full name (as in everyone else calls him Billy but his mum always uses William sort of thing).

My grandmother was always known by her middle name.

A friend of mine changed to using her middle name when she started university. People who have only known her as an adult use this name, those of us who knew her as a child use her first name.

All of this is common place. Trans people aren't special.

I changed my name when I left home at 18 for reasons connected to abuse. However, I don't kick off when people from the past use my "dead name" and I even use it myself with older relatives just because it's easier for them and I am a grown up. I also used to get called Mrs XP's Name even though we were never married. Perhaps I should have a tantrum and burn something though.

Some of my relatives insist on writing my name as 53rd DHSurname, even though it's not my name and I have explained this several times. We just got a Christmas card to "Mr and Mrs George Smith", when I am neither a Mrs nor a George nor a Smith. I find it annoying and rolled my eyes at it but I don't think it's denying my very existence or worth death threats.

I'm fairly sure my cleaner and I have very different views on all sorts of things. But until I come home and find she has rearranged the Lego so it spells 'DIE GODLESS HEATHENS' I'm ok with that.

...we are having to pretend that sex isn’t real whereas the entire world knows it is.

The entire world only knows that it is real that different people have different chromosomes, body parts, reproductive capabilities etc.

Whether or not you decide that the terms man / woman / he / she exclusively denote the holders of any of those characteristics is an ideological position.

You cannot justify the use of a definition that others find offensive simply by pointing out that the facts you want the word to denote are real, then act like you are just stating a fact and not an opinion or ideological position.

Whether or not you decide that the terms man / woman / he / she exclusively denote the holders of any of those characteristics is an ideological position.

No it bloody well isn't it's what these words literally mean. People trying to rewrite the definitions of these words is an ideological position, however.

^this

People trying to rewrite the definitions of these words is an ideological position, however.

Exactly