New statesman article: I once agreed with J.K. Rowling

[KookaburraSits]

Sorry if this has already been posted. It's embarrassingly bad.

www.newstatesman.com/comment/2022/03/as-a-victim-of-abuse-i-once-agreed-with-jk-rowling

Highlights of idiocy include:

"It is true that there are no meaningful statistics to suggest transgender women pose a threat to cis women like me. The argument is theoretical — hypothetical even."

"What I did know was that most of the politicians and commentators that I agreed with on every other issue were fighting hard for trans rights. So I understood that I must be missing some piece of the moral puzzle"

"Then I saw how profoundly misdirected her fear was. Because trans women are not the perpetrators but the victims of violence: last year an estimated 375 trans, non-binary or gender non-conforming peoplewere killed across the world."

"They say that sex matters for gender and you cannot call yourself a woman if you haven’t had periods, for example."

"Closer to home, you seem to be grossly misrepresenting what's been happening. People have been assuming that because some men also experience oppression along the immutable axis of race, they would automatically identify with anyone else who experienced oppression along one of the other immutable axes of oppression, such as sex. This was not the case. Men of all races commit rape, and men from racial minorities should not be infantilised as some form of demiman, incapable of hurting women. "

Agree with this, it's very much what I meant!

I definitely didn't mean to infantilise or misrepresent! Would you mind expanding on what I wrote which made you think that? (I'm genuinely asking, not sea lioning!)

Every single time I see someone come out and say they are 'ex-GC' or used to side with JKR or anything like that, they always immediately demonstrate that they have zero understanding of what the arguments are.
Every. Single. Time.
So I am a tad skeptical.
As someone said upthread, if someone had genuinely agreed with Rowling's position, having read and understood it, and then changed their minds, then I'd be very interested to hear the arguments. However, that hasn't happened yet and I suspect it won't.

"Just because someone's a member of an ethnic minority doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk."

-Feet of Clay, by Terry Pratchett-

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

How is it hypothetical?

The male population in prison that is there for sex related crimes - 20%
The male but identifying as trans population in prison that is there for sex related crimes - 50%

So males who ID as trans already pose more of a threat to women than males who do not ID as trans. And that is people who have been through some sort of decision making process to record them as 'trans'.

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

You think it is, or should be, a right for people to self id? Is that just when they self id as the opposite sex or should people be able to self id as other things too?

You absolutely don't understand or place any value on safeguarding when you can write the nonsense you've just written.

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

Is that an actual 'right', though? Why?

And is it not equally the actions of any male that are the problem, regardless of how they identify? Any man, however they identify, might decide to prey on women, so it's not discriminating to prevent them all coming in where they are not allowed. Unless you think that transwomen are somehow not going to have a small number of predators at the same rate as other males? So there are both a small number of transwomen who may be predators, and some who are not trans but may still claim to be in order to access women's spaces. If safeguarding is about considering the worst possible scenarios, well there they are.

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

This fellow in Canada changed gender so he could get cheaper car insurance:
metro.co.uk/2018/07/31/driver-24-changes-gender-female-get-cheaper-car-insurance-7779842/

Predators have joined the priesthood because they thought it'd get them closer to victims. They're not going to balk at having to sign a self-id form.

Does seem kind of unfair to to punish one group because of the actions of another though..

Why are churches locked most of the time instead of being open and free access all day as they were when I was a kid?

Why will your insurance be invalidated if you don't leave your car and your house locked when you leave it?

Why is wild camping banned in England?

The reality is that when there are those who will not respect other people's rights and boundaries of their own free will, there has to be the protection of law and gatekeeping. And that gatekeeping both deals with those who are determined to be twats to others, while discouraging everyone else from joining in.

And no, none of the necessary boundaries required by females for their access, equality, safety and inclusion, are 'punishment' for males. There is no right in law for males to have free access to the resource formerly known as adult human females. All male needs in this could easily and fully be met without sacrificing female rights and equalities and inclusion on an altar; it is not the case of one or the other.

It is only framed like that because the male led political lobby involved do not want compromise, or to have to spare any care, consideration, or inclusion or kindness for females. They just want what they want and female consent has nothing to do with it.

Saying no to this is 'punishing'? No. It really bloody isn't.

I skimmed the article. What an embarrassing pile of bullshit. It reads as if written by a teenager. I can’t believe the NS gave space to this and am really pleased, yet again, that I no longer subscribe to it.

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

Expand your mind. Treat women as people, with the right to self-determination, rather than as a prize which males should always have the right to compete for.

Access to women is not a right. Self-ID has already been abused to commit rape and sexual assault (I will not comment on whether these males were "cisgender" or not, because I don't care)

The image is what you are arguing. The answer is no. I have the right to go swimming in my local Victoria era municipal pool with communal changing rooms without having to let males see me naked.

It's the definition of bigotry to take the actions of a few and use it to negatively paint a whole people-group.

So how does safeguarding fit into your [extremely simplistic] view of managing relations between adults and children?

All teachers for example need DBS checks. Because of the actions of a few. It doesn't mean that all teachers have dubious intentions. Although we do know for a fact that some people aim their careers towards the trajectory of working with kids and they will take the opportunity to abuse them if they can.

It isn't bigotry to know this. It isn't bigotry to know that men pose a threat to women [we have centuries of evidence of this].

Why do you forget that when the word 'trans' is uttered? Do you not know about the centuries of abuse that men have dished out to women?

Agree that the faux naivety on display in the article is cringeworthy.

@PurgatoryOfPotholes

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

Expand your mind. Treat women as people, with the right to self-determination, rather than as a prize which males should always have the right to compete for.

Access to women is not a right. Self-ID has already been abused to commit rape and sexual assault (I will not comment on whether these males were "cisgender" or not, because I don't care)

The image is what you are arguing. The answer is no. I have the right to go swimming in my local Victoria era municipal pool with communal changing rooms without having to let males see me naked.

That meme is a flat out demand that a female person validate a male person with her body.

With Her Body.

Ffs. What decent person would ever put another person in that position irrespective of sex or identity?! Never mind with coercion, guilt and threats for failing to strip off on command!

That is a really shit article. Some women who are abused haven't moved onto the plane of understanding I have where I have more empathy for men is basically her argument.

And the author doesn't even have the courage to put their own name to it I suspect. Pathetic.

"How is it hypothetical?"

As far as I know no man has ever gone through the humiliating process of getting a gender recognition certificate and used that to abuse women in a space they could not have entered before. This scenario only exists in the heads of those seeking to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

I would go so far as to say that this is necessarily hypothetical. It's an impossible scenario because gender recognition certificates are not required to enter gendered spaces; that is controlled by the 2010 equality act, an entirely separate piece of legislation which, in general, prohibits discriminating on the basis of gender transition.

"Is that an actual 'right', though? Why?"

Self id is already the law in several countries with, to my knowledge, no I'll effect at all.

Here's a letter from the human rights watch to our PM about this www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/17/letter-uk-prime-minister-gender-recognition-reform

@ElaineFuchs - why is it deemed a punishment not to allow males, however they identify, into female only spaces?

Why is it deemed a punishment to not allow people to self id as the opposite sex?

@Clymene

That is a really shit article. Some women who are abused haven't moved onto the plane of understanding I have where I have more empathy for men is basically her argument.

And the author doesn't even have the courage to put their own name to it I suspect. Pathetic.

Lucy Hall - no idea who she is. The sixth former on work experience?

Self id is already the law in several countries with, to my knowledge, no I'll effect at all.

"to my knowledge"... I think that might be where the problem is

Self id is already the law in several countries with, to my knowledge, no I'll effect at all.

Your knowledge is severely lacking.

@TheGreatATuin

In this specific case: it's denying trans people the right to self-id because of the hypothetical actions of cisgender men getting a new birth certificate in order to allow them to prey on women more easily somehow (sounds absurd when I put it like that).

This fellow in Canada changed gender so he could get cheaper car insurance:
metro.co.uk/2018/07/31/driver-24-changes-gender-female-get-cheaper-car-insurance-7779842/

Predators have joined the priesthood because they thought it'd get them closer to victims. They're not going to balk at having to sign a self-id form.

But so what if a predator has a GRC?

That would basically only allow them to get married and die while being recorded as a different gender? Self-id doesn't control access to spaces.

@VestofAbsurdity

Self id is already the law in several countries with, to my knowledge, no I'll effect at all.

Your knowledge is severely lacking.

A peer-reviewed study showing that the introduction of self-id in any of these countries caused an increase in sexual assault would definitely get me to rethink my views.

[quote ElaineFuchs]"How is it hypothetical?"

As far as I know no man has ever gone through the humiliating process of getting a gender recognition certificate and used that to abuse women in a space they could not have entered before. This scenario only exists in the heads of those seeking to discriminate on the basis of gender identity.

I would go so far as to say that this is necessarily hypothetical. It's an impossible scenario because gender recognition certificates are not required to enter gendered spaces; that is controlled by the 2010 equality act, an entirely separate piece of legislation which, in general, prohibits discriminating on the basis of gender transition.

"Is that an actual 'right', though? Why?"

Self id is already the law in several countries with, to my knowledge, no I'll effect at all.

Here's a letter from the human rights watch to our PM about this www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/17/letter-uk-prime-minister-gender-recognition-reform[/quote]
You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

As far as I know, which appears not to be very far at all.

There is NO protected characteristic of gender identity therefore you cannot discriminate against it, at least have the good grace to know the relevant Laws before you pontificate.

Is you argument that because the situation is already crap, it would be a good idea to make it worse?

That would basically only allow them to get married and die while being recorded as a different gender? Self-id doesn't control access to spaces.

How do you control access to spaces? If someone self-id's as the sex opposite to their birth sex then pray tell which space do they use?

[quote VestofAbsurdity]@ElaineFuchs - why is it deemed a punishment not to allow males, however they identify, into female only spaces?

Why is it deemed a punishment to not allow people to self id as the opposite sex?[/quote]
In the UK, just one example: without a gender recognition certificate, trans men have to get married as a "wife" and vice versa. To these men this can be humiliating and undignified, I think that qualifies as a punishment.