To be oblivious to the issue people have with JKR? I thought she was a feminist. What have I missed?

[laughingnow]

People have warned me not to state the view above as ‘it’s more complicated’

No male person can ever experience life as any type of woman. They can only ever experience life as a male person who believes they are a woman. The use of the adjective 'trans' in the term 'trans woman' is a false usage, why should any person have to comply with such a request to use such a term.

Even when they 'act' like a woman, those male people are acting as they believe a 'woman' should act. Which is fucking misogynistic!

Even if they are treated 'as a woman' by some people, they are being treated as a 'male who presents as a woman and believes they are a woman'. Because their every reaction is based on that. Not on them being female in any way.

Even when they have extreme body modifications, it is to be their own concept of what a female looks like to them. It is not what a female is.

How can it be?

The only way a person can experience life as a woman, is to have a female body, formed around the production of large gametes, even if it doesn't produce those and to navigate their life based on the decisions they and society makes that revolve around them having that body.

A male can conceptualise what it might be like to be a female, but that is all it ever is - their concept of being female.

They may do it because they don't feel they fit into how they conceptualise how a male person interacts with the world (ie. their own stereotypes around being male) or they do it because they want to be seen as a female (using their own stereotypes of how a female navigates life). It really doesn't matter though. Their motivation is irrelevant to the outcome. And I consider the outcome can only be described as misogyny.

Which is that they will always be just a male who believes they are something they are objectively not.

How can the material reality be any different? This is why someone's gender is only based on someone's philosophical belief. And philosophical beliefs are fine for people to hold, but not one person in the UK has to comply with another's philosophical belief.

The logic cannot be any different than that I am afraid.

Yet, we are being told that a group of male people should be considered by society as being 'female' and to centre them by allowing them full access to female single sex provisions.

It is based on falsehoods, and language demands are designed to make this seem acceptable. But it is not.

‘Safety, privacy, acceptance and inclusion’
Safety - everyone deserves this. If they are not safe in the male toilet why would that be? Because of males. So deal with that. The answer is not to put males into female spaces.
Privacy- my local swimming pool does not have cubicles in the female changing room. I want privacy too. I don’t want any males to see me getting undressed. Why is my right to privacy not important?
Acceptance- why should I accept something that isn’t true? I don’t want to lie.
Inclusion- how exactly is a trans woman excluded from anything? They can play sports with their own sex class, go to the gym with their own sex etc.
My DH , like a lot of men , is absolutely lovely and no threat to anyone. But strangers don’t know that. That is why it would be inappropriate for him to be in a female space. Some women wouldn’t mind but even if just 1 out of hundred did feel uncomfortable that is enough to exclude him from that space.

The emotive speech surrounding it is designed to manipulate, cajole, and guilt trip, and its not working anymore.

Ultimately the fury exists because because what trans identified males cannot have is their feelings and identity validated at the expense of women and girls.

As for dignity and privacy, the sheer volume of selfies in female facilities does rather put the kibosh on that particular plea.

(Not to mention nonsensical)

Are you taking the piss?!!!!!

This statement:

“And to suggest that trans people are seeking to establish "full access to women and girls" when all they are asking for is safety, privacy, acceptance and inclusion like anyone else (e.g. the ability to go out in public and have a safe, private and dignified place to piss) is profoundly prejudiced and false.”

is actually a good example of the tactics that have been used to leverage a group of male people to get additional privileges that are often framed as being 'human rights'.

And to suggest that trans people are seeking to establish "full access to women and girls"

Demanding full access to female only single sex spaces can be very easily said to be demanding "full access to women and girls". This group is not demanding their own spaces for the needs listed. They are demanding to be treated exactly as if they are female people thereby having 'full access'.

"all they are asking for is safety, privacy, acceptance and inclusion like anyone else "

This has a couple of issues. If that was all they were asking for, why haven't they been campaigning for separate provisions to suit their unique needs? They have not been though. They have been demanding full access to female single sex provisions.

Also, those very same aims safety, privacy, acceptance and inclusion can be said to be the aims of other vulnerable groups of male people. And yet, 'human rights' which often gets quoted, do not include that groups of vulnerable male people have extra and specially provided for provisions. Because male people are judged to be safe enough with other male people in provisions. In the case of prisons, a separate space IS provided, as it should be..

"the ability to go out in public and have a safe, private and dignified place to piss"

Absolutely, all humans have this need. It is there right to have this.

No sub group of male people though have the right to access the opposite sex single provisions. In doing so, this actively voilates the human right for female people to have those same rights this poster is arguing for.

Female people have the same right to have "the ability to go out in public and have a safe, private and dignified place to piss" as those male people demanding to access their spaces.

However, some people believe that philosophical belief, because gender identity is only a person's philosophical belief about themselves, should be prioritised above the needs of female people based on female people's sex.

when all they are asking for is safety, privacy, acceptance and inclusion like anyone else

Aw, doesn’t that sound reasonable and an excellent idea, @Lostcat ! Let’s give them that then.

But wait, trans identifying people already have that! Calloo callay! Job done! Gender reassignment is already a protected characteristic under British law, so trans people gave the same safety, privacy and inclusion as everyone else.
Wonderful news!

Acceptance could be a bit of a problem. If by acceptance we mean “accept you, a transwoman, is a man who prefers to present or think himself as a woman despite being male” then we’re all good.

If you mean “accept this transwoman’s belief that he has actually changed sex (despite that being impossible) as factual” we are going to run into the brick wall of material reality. You know, that thing that exists whether you believe in it or not.

That could have a knock on effect of “inclusion” if you by that you mean “gets to have the stuff for women only despite not being female”. Because that’s not inclusion, that’s a land grab. Womanhood isn’t something males can colonise. Women do actually have rights too.

There are perfectly sensible trans identifying people who know they are not the opposite sex, who use their own same sex facilities and respect others’ boundaries. I know some of them in my real life. They would no more use the women’s changing room or join a women’s sport team than my gay son would. I wish their voices were heard more.

Look, @Lostcat, it's very simple.

Demanding inclusion in women's single sex spaces when you are not a woman is the same thing as demanding full access to women and girls.

And your inclusion in such spaces means that they are no longer safe, private and dignified spaces for women and girls.

And they are no the longer single sex spaces which women are entitled to under law.

horseshit was your word wasn’t it? Yep everything about this post is certainly that

you should have said ‘your post’ cos what you have said is that lostcats post is horseshit

#OperationLetThemSpeak in full flow, I see! Great stuff, keep it up.

I think she sometimes jumps on news stories that are literally designed by the press to stoke culture wars and takes the bate, giving them the outrageous sound bite they wanted. In a world where everyone is going low, I think she could ‘go high’ and still fight for important issues.

Sometimes she comes across a bit Katie Hopkins in her delivery, as though she wants to shock rather than educate, and I think that’s a missed opportunity.

I also think these days that absolutely nothing of value is said on twitter/X or threads by anyone and she’d be better off leaving well alone.

Ok. Thanks for the answer.

As far as I can see then, it is based on your own opinion that she should only use her platform to educate and to effectively 'be kind'.

Do you think that she should be free to express her opinions about current affairs? Or is that, according to you, stoking a culture war?

Should anyone who responds to highlight a news item be considered to be 'stoking a culture war'?

Or just her when she responds to an issue she sees as worthy to highlight around the needs of female people.

Also, should she respond to the male people who directly abuse her, or not? Should she just brush it all off lest she stoke a culture war?

I am trying to work out what is considered 'stoking a culture war' and what is not, by the way. What is her responding to a current affairs issue that she is concerned about and what is someone else's categorisation of that issue as being not worthy of response for instance?

And where did 'be kind' and 'go high' get us?

Ah yes, violent male sex offenders in the female prison estate.

And just for anyone who isn't aware, the official Scottish Prison Service policy is still that violent male offenders can be placed in the female estate in Scotland. Official policy

But it's all a 'culture war'.

I would like to know what is referred to as a culture war too. I find it a lazy categorisation usually. But it might be relevant here.

I tend to find it previously used to dismiss the need to discuss the needs of female people by those who find the conversations uncomfortable. Or who have deprioritised it for whatever their personal reason. And that is fine. But it is not find to accuse a woman of stoking a culture war simply because you, personally, cannot see the relevance to prioritise it.

I laugh at thought terminating cliches like the "right side of history" and "basic human decency". It means nothing in effect.

Yes nothing of value is ever said on X by the bad people and yet the attention and furore created on X on the pakistani rape gangs several months ago led to a major government announcement today. Funny that.

And if anyone ever bothered to read JKR's original note on the subject, they'd see it was as 'high' and empathetic and measured as it was possible to be.

What was the result? She got totally vilified on social media, death threats sent to her home, rape threats and designated wicked witch status by those who tell us to 'be kind'

So, I don't think 'going high' really helped her here. I have no idea why people would suggest she owes that to anyone anymore.

I would like to know what is referred to as a culture war too. I find it a lazy categorisation usually. But it might be relevant here.

In my experience it was used in the early years of this century in the US to refer to anti-science, specifically anti-evolution christian extremists. Their opponents were the new atheists.

I mean, JKR is told she should 'go high' and stop stoking 'culture wars' and yet this is happening in plain sight.

https://terfisaslur.com

Heaven forbid deriding them with terms like “ladyfeels” though.

Oy vey.

This !!! 👏

I fucking love her ❤️ Someone at work recently said they wouldn't go to HP World because JK is a transphobe and I couldn't help asking why? She said "oh I don't want to give her money because she's horrible to trans people isn't she".

When I said oh that sounds awful how has she been horrible? My (genuinely lovely) colleague said she wasn't really sure, but that is what she'd heard. I directed her to some of JKRs incredible charity donations, rape crisis service, and legal help for women facing disciplinaries at work for their gender critical views.

Saying that men cannot change into women is not transphobic.

Her yacht was recently in a Canadian port - forget which.

This was reported on social media. The number of posts I saw calling for it to be sabotaged, bombed, sunk, scuttled etc was truly eye opening, mainly it seemed by Canadian women who've been fed the "transphobic witch" narrative.

Where ARE all these trans people everyone is falling over themselves to defend, and attack others on their behalf? I don't know a single one.

I honestly just thought everyone disliked JKR after seeing social media posts etc. It wasn’t until I joined mumsnet that I saw that she had a following. I follow a lot of left media, and so hadn’t realised people liked her. I also work in a secondary school, and the kids don’t seem to like her either, so I just thought it was a universal dislike of her.

Well the lack of critical thinking here is extremely depressing.