Mermaids response to JK Rowling

[SapphosRock]

Interesting to read the other side:

mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/dear-jk-rowling/

The modern gay rights movement was, after all, sparked by a protest led by trans women of colour.

If they need to use misinformation or tell lies to make their case then there's something wrong with their case.

We see no evidence that trans girls are a threat to other girls in any way.

Very telling that they choose to mention trans girls, as apposed to trans women...

Seeing that they are coming from polar opposite positions I thought it was a thoughtful and respectful response. Good that Mermaids condemn the actions of the TRAs who have attacked JKR too - I hope they read it and are ashamed.

I counted 14 outright lies or pieces of misinformation.

Ugh
The amount of times Mermaids have been corrected on who started the Stonewall riots (allegedly a black gay man with a drag alter ego but in reality no one actually knows) to see them continue with this deliberate lie is rather infuriating.

so the argument that gender recognition certificates “throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms” is disingenuous…as well as smelly. While you offer no evidence to back up your suggestion that most women oppose changes around trans access to women’s toilets, we can offer evidence to the contrary

"Eww JKR is smelly"

@Deltoids1 can you post them? I’d like to post them in the comments of a friends post about this.

So many lies and worst of all, it’s so badly written. One shared trait between all TRAs is poor writing. They actually called an argument “smelly”. Did a trans kid actually write it?

I guess 'smelly' is a pun on toilets being smelly.

I followed the link to research that supposedly proves TW don't retain male violence. Just skimmed but pretty sure it said the male pattern offending remained the same Can someone double check that - was late at night so I might have got it wrong.

I'm just starting to get into reading about both sides of this debate, as I feel I align myself with JKR but do want to know what both arguments are. This is the first Mermaids piece I have read and clearly I need to read more from both sides as it has left me somewhat confused.

The article about biological sex doesn't necessarily support their argument, as I feel the examples they're talking about, the SRY "popping" over the the X chromosome for example, must be fairly far and few between, surely? It doesn't state that this happens frequently, just that it can, and in fact gives no data on how often these kinds of things biologically happen.

I also feel they gloss over the whole safe space thing. It seems they're saying that for approximately 0.52% of the UK population that are trans, women must allow people with penises into changing rooms, locker rooms etc. Is that right? They say that no-one needs a birth certificate to prove entry to a changing room (can't remember the exact words) - surely this means that any man can turn up to a changing room and go in, saying it's discriminatory to say he can't. Have I got that right?

I'm sure I've got it wrong - happy to be corrected so I can understand this debate properly.

What were the 14 lies?

I couldn't even finish reading. Blatant lying and they know it

Yes Wakaranaihito I read it the same way as you. Interestingly that ridiculously long Twitter thread by Andrew Carter cites the same report for the same reasons as Mermaids.

the SRY "popping" over the the X chromosome for example

Yeah, intersex condition.

Trans isn't intersex, and Intersex societies have repeatedly asked to not be drawn into trans issues.

For starters, this is from Google:

Intersex Society of North America
The Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) is devoted to systemic change to end shame, secrecy, and unwanted genital surgeries for people born with an anatomy that someone decided is not standard for male or female

Mermaids promote the opposite. They promote genital surgery and in fact lowering the age for unnecessary genital surgeries, on children who like the wrong toys.

They claim transwomen invented gay rights and that women don't object to being pushed aside to make room for men. They and stonewall may become cautionary tales told in the future to bemused listeners who wonder how they got away with it.

@Wakaranaihito

This passage is relevant:

regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.

(My italics)

Interestingly, female to male trans people (I don't think I'm allowed to say 'trnsx**l, am I?) seem to become more criminal and more violent:

By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime.

(My italics)

Thanks, Gncq, I will go and have a read about intersex societies. I didn't even know it happened.

Ok, this might take time as I’m in the middle of parenting etc so bear with me

1. The modern gay rights movement was, after all, sparked by a protest led by trans women of colour.

Untrue. They are referring to the Stonewall riots which was started by a butch lesbian called Storme LeDarverie (I may have spelt her name wrong.

1. To address the core of your point, trans rights do not come at the expense of women’s rights.

Yes they do. If the current proposals to bring in self-ID of gender are successful, then the word woman is meaningless legally and politically.

1. We see no evidence that trans girls are a threat to other girls in any way

Why do we have sex segregated facilities and sports if there is no issue with unisex provision. This is an untruth at best.

1. It is not simple and it is most certainly not the truth to state that under the current Gender Recognition Act 2004 (which still requires a complicated, medicalised and lengthy process) “any man who believes or feels he’s a woman” can be legally recognised in that gender.

Lie.

I really can’t read it as my blood is already boiling. I may have to come back to it when I’m not raging so much.

Storme was a fucking lesbian

The historical transing of people who are no longer alive is fucking disgraceful.

Even Pink News had to amend their article claiming jk was lying about the fact that no medical or physical alterations were required for a grc. Check out channel.4 fact check.

She was telling the truth

1. Furthermore, access to bathrooms and changing rooms is generally not controlled or restricted on the basis of legal gender, so the argument that gender recognition certificates “throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms” is disingenuous

This is already happening. Bathrooms and changing rooms are now being delineated by gender (see M&S et al for details). Women and girls cannot be guaranteed safe spaces away from the male gaze.

1. While you offer no evidence to back up your suggestion that most women oppose changes around trans access to women’s toilets, we can offer evidence to the contrary.

Whilst I don’t know of any research out there, I’m pretty sure if should a picture of Karen White to the general population as asked them if they were comfortable with their daughter toileting/changing next to White, there would be a consensus against it.

Storme was a fucking lesbian

The historical transing of people who are no longer alive is fucking disgraceful.

Were they even referring to her? I thought as a women (yes they recognise her sex) they have ignored her role in favour of a man - Marsha something - a drag queen who called himself a man. Who wasn’t there.

Do the high school athletes in the USA suing for their right to single sex sport competition (and by extension college scholarships) feel that transgirls are no threat to them?