JK Rowling hits out at first feminist Sturgeon

[JanieAllen]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-hits-out-at-first-feminist-sturgeon-over-trans-laws-2tz8mj386

archive copy archive.ph/fTP6f

<gazes sadly at own run of the mill sons>

Joining to hear the answer.
How can my teenage daughter tell the difference between a boy and a transgirl? She's at high school and is quite shy and private and being around boys when she is in a vulnerable position, like using toilets at school during her period, makes her very anxious. Please tell me, so I can tell her.

Was that not proposed by a Labour MSP?

My run of mill boys. Just run of the mill. 2 of them. How could I be so feckless

wonder if my girl is also run of mill

no one I know likes using mixed sex toilets. Men and boys piss all over the seat and on the floor

It was labour MSP Monica Lennon.

not our first feminist

So because it doesn't effect you there isn't a problem? That sounds very self absorbed. What about victims of assault and domestic violence? What about women from certain religions? They don't matter?

It doesn’t have to does it but in the past sturgeon has done lots for women not everything has to benefit one section of society this bill however will help trans people and that doesn’t impact on women that they can get verified on passports etc easier it’s not self id

for crying out loud use a comma at least! I read this really fast in a breathless voice because that's what it seems you are like
Please link to some of this lots that she has done for women.

How does it not impact women? Some women are saying it does. Why does one group get to tell another group, effectively, to STFU?

If you can try to at least use a bit of punctuation, it would help. Thanks.

I suspect maybe Freesprit has bought into the "born in the wrong body" idea and really thinks that what we are talking about is an intersex condition, and that transmen are actually, really, a kind of woman.

Trans women already have legal access to toilets and other safe spaces. It's covered under the equality act...
The GRA reform would just make it easier for a trans person to get legal documentation that aligns with their identity. What's the problem?

The Equality Act protects both sex and gender reassignment, but I think I am right in saying that guidance and some case law has established that whilst there isn't a hierarchy of rights per se, in certain circumstances you can favour one group over another. This is what the furore over single sex facilities centres on. The EA does allow for the exclusion of transwomen in certain circumstances.

IM WITH YE ON PUCNTUATION YOU JUST NEED TO GET IT ALL OUT AS FAST AS YE CAN SOMETMES LOL

Trans women already have legal access to toilets and other safe spaces.

No one would disagree they have access to toilets.

They do not have a legal right to access facilities for the opposite sex.

the problem is that currently they have to have a diagnosis of dysphoria, and then "live as a woman for 2 years". Now some people may say that's a long time and they shouldn't have to wait. But as it stands, there are some checks and balances, not least for the transitioning person, in case the diagnosis was flawed or they change their minds.

If they can now just say "I'm a woman" and then get a GRC after 3 months "living as a woman" (which amounts to changing your name, possibly, using female pronouns and changing your driving licence - pretty much what the previous GRC requirements were, but without the 2 years and without the need for a dysphoria diagnosis) - where are the checks going to come? How do we know that they are a trans woman and not a twat with a grudge, or worse, against women? If we aren't even allowed to ask - a person transitioning has, in effect, all the rights of someone with a GRC from day one - how can we know?

If there is no harm meant, why is a 3rd space so abhorrent? This would show some lovely female solidarity with women who, for whatever reason but including culture and religion, cannot be where men are. And we know how that ends for those women: their world shrinks to their own 4 walls. That's not solidarity with women, is it?

For me? i have no issues with sharing a toilet, i have issues around places like a gym changing room/shower area where I'd be naked with male bodies. And i am the very anthesis of a shrinking violet: I am likely to say "this is for ladies". We do know how that can end too, though.

I also don't get the horror at having to wait 2 years from men in their 60s who suddenly say "but I'm a woman, i've been waiting years for this". Well, 2 more years, while you carry on living as a woman, isn't much in the grand scheme of things?

So i would really like to know: why the hurry? (some) Women in the UK got the vote just over 100 years ago. But how long was it before they could get a mortgage without a man countersigning? And sure we pushed, but we didn't steamroller and we didn't take away anyone else's safe spaces.

I don’t support NS’s policies but I always thought she was a good example to women
But not any more

TWO WEEKS IS PLENTY AH THINK WEVE HUD ENOUGH TALKING ABOUT AW THIS NOW LETS MOVE ON TO A BRAVE NEW GENDERFREE SCOTLAND WI FREE TAMPONS FOR EVERYBODY

so it was, thanks

🤣🤣🤣

@Freespirit42 - so if you have daughters/sisters/older female relatives, you would be fine with them sharing toilets/hospital wards/pool changing rooms with a transgirl, but not a boy?

So a transgirl penis is fine in female spaces, but a boy penis isn’t?

Have you ever thought about what you are saying?

Which facilities?

To live as a women one needs to surely describe what a woman is. NS has consistently failed to do this (as has everyone else who's been asked).

Freddie McConnell was granted a GRC, then gave birth to two children. Surely that renders the GRC useless as giving birth isn't living as a man is it?

Transwomen have access to the toilets/change rooms/etc of their sex = male.

The facilities are segregated according to sex (biological reality) not gender (ideology).

Which facilities?

Short answer: any space or service with "women's" in the title.

Bit of a tangent, but have I understood correctly that should the reform pass in Scotland, any resident of the rest of the UK could move to Scotland, get a GRC under Scottish rules, and then move back again, and that GRC would have to be recognised in the rest of the UK?

Because it’s not a woman’s right issue at all as there are women like me that don’t see trans people affecting my rights at all

I mean how fucking thick do you have to be to genuinely believe this? - I can't get my head round it

I’ve just been reading up on Maggie Chapman’s amendment to the bill.

Jesus wept! The Scottish greens are an absolute nightmare. I wonder if Sturgeon might be less determined to steamroll ahead if she weren’t so beholden to that bunch of extremists (and they are extremist)

I do think that the greens get away with a lot because people assume they’re just a bunch of well-meaning - if somewhat unrealistic - eco-warrior types, so they don’t really look at how terrifyingly ‘hard left’ they are. Or quite how good they are at manipulating other party’s need to form
coalitions to push well beyond the representativeness or popularity of their actual policies.