Alex Massie spells it out in the Times.

[ArabellaScott]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fc90146c-6813-11ed-bcd8-599592d95f22?shareToken=4aa8db330265c2db1083abbe9b53a6b5

Succint and clear.

'the Scottish government now believes a person may change their sex. Or, at any rate, it has argued in court that sex is no longer “immutable”. This is not true but, as so often in modern Scotland, reality must give way to fantasy.'

I honestly think it may have to come to this. Who wants to remain in the subhuman scum class if by a quick, no hassle signature you can be of the master race with all their privileges and better rights?

Not to mention, the males left in the male facilities will be the decent ones with respect for female boundaries and privacy.

If we reduce 'women' down to meaning beaurocratically 'males and their political enablers' that should successfully dump any lingering meaning out of the term and fuck things up to the point of a re think.

However if all the non consenting females have buggered off elsewhere out of the women's spaces, you know what will happen, don't you? Wherever they go, they will not be there long before the hammering at the door and sword/bloodied t shirt/barbed wire baseball bats start.

@nilsmousehammer I honestly think it may have to come to this. Who wants to remain in the subhuman scum class if by a quick, no hassle signature you can be of the master race with all their privileges and better rights?

exactly and no doubt it will end up with lots of court cases trying to do us for fraudulent declarations.

But is there any woman on this thread who hasn't at some point in their life whilst being unfairly treated purely due to the misfortune of having been born female thought "God! I wish I was a man".

Of course the Trans Rights Activists would be up in arms screaming "that's not fair, you can't say just because you feel like a man you are one!"

Unfortunately as they have insisted repeatedly that you are what you feel and that you can effortlessly slip began female and male with just a click of your heels, sorry I meant just removing said heels, and the fact that you aren't actually doing ANYTHING to prove you are now the opposite sex is all fine as it's purely how you feel they won't have a bloody leg to stand on.

The 'I used to look up to you, you are such a disappointment' brigade on that JKR have absolutely no idea how they are coming across writing stuff like that on that particular tweet, do they?!

Supporters of the Scottish government’s plans to make it easier for people to change their legal sex continue to insist there is no evidence reforming the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) will make life easier for “bad actors”. Real-life examples of precisely this drawn from the real world are dismissed as mere anecdotes

This, this argument that real life examples of predatory men who identify as trans are just anecdotes, was made in exactly those terms by the Welsh Government in an Equality Impact Assessment. All the data is 'anecdote' and anyone using such 'anecdotes' is guilty of making an argument of 'predatory determinism'.

Women of Wales, this is here too.

None so blind as those who will not see, and all that! There's someone telling her "you're breaking my heart with this garbage". As if JKR's reputation rests with the hard of thinking like this...

no doubt it will end up with lots of court cases trying to do us for fraudulent declarations.

The trouble is that legally, all this sauce for the goose but not for the gander stuff does not work when it hits a court room.

It's easy enough to have a male name on a gas bill. No one can define what T is, or what 'living as' actually means beyond the name: you can't apparently police appearance and we all keep saying 'woman' isn't a costume so 'man' isn't either, and besides I'm wearing mens departments trousers and sweater right now because the womens wear is all cut at mid chest with stupid sleeves and necklines at present. Men have long hair. It's fine for men to wear lipstick and carry handbags. Biology has nothing to do with it.

It's the gas bill and declaration? Fine. No problem. Sign me up for the master race please, it will be nice to be the one to make the rules and head pat the rest of the world instead of be a walking therapy resource. Is it a sincere declaration? In terms of 'do I want to be a 'woman' in this insane fuckwit world?' No. I sincerely fucking don't. At all. I have deeply held inner feelings.

A strong belief that if someone's boundary makes you sad, they have no business having it. Because everyone else has responsibility for your feelings, and the whole world and everyone in it has nothing better to do than revolve around you.

Aside from 'Ugh, you're such a meanie!' the TRA-hive response to JKR's retweet of the article appears to be, 'Ugh, you're taking one isolated incident and using it to demonize an entire minority. Bigot!'. This is the central trick, isn't it? Men are not a minority and male violence is not a rarity. By allowing men to create an artificial minority, which any of them can identify into, they are making recognition of the oldest form of power, male physical dominance over women, completely unsayable.

I was thinking of this in relation to Sam Bankman-Fried the other day, in that fraudsters always adapt to their particular times. Predators and conmen always take on the persona of those who are most respected, trusted and placed beyond scrutiny in the age that they are operating. Today's rip-off trader dresses like a skateboarder and talks about saving the planet. Today's predator knows the language of diversity and vulnerability, even if they are a hulking great-big white man.

'Ugh, you're taking one isolated incident and using it to demonize an entire minority. Bigot!'

Presumably they'd also argue for the scrapping of the PVG / DBS schemes...

The other point when we're talking about even one predatory male is that there will usually be several victims. Dolatowski has assaulted two girls that we know of, and presumably upset women at the shelter, as well as staff.

How many victims does it take for people to decide that actually it does matter if a predatory man is enabled to access vulnerable women and/or children?

n + 1
always

It is a good point.

Let's consider the feelings, emotions, trauma, physical damage of a sexual assault on a female person. It can be lifechanging. The impact lifelong. White, a notorious rapist enabled via self ID to access several victims on several different occasions, left one of these women so badly injured from the multiple rapes committed on her that she may not be able to have children.

And we're saying that NONE of this, in the increasing number of victims, apparently equals on the scale the terrible emotional impact of a male person not getting exactly what they want?

Seriously?

A male being offered a TQ+ wing is as harmful as if they had been raped and left with lifelong physical and mental injury.

How is this not just male supremacism that values those born with penises (not assigned them) as always infinitely more than those without? And this is pushed alongside the demand that we repeat the lie 'sex isn't a thing, isn't binary, no one knows what sex anyone is'.

Yeah, we can tell what sex people are, and that it's binary. One group can't be traumatised by the word 'no'. The other group can be repeatedly traumatised, excluded and physically harmed and still hear nothing more than the word 'no'.

That's manmaths, nils!

Because the pain and suffering of the male who is not being affirmed and supported outweighs the pain and suffering of the female who has been assaulted.

Or even, if a transwomen fears assault from males in male prison, this is a reason to move they into the women's prison. The women who fear assault from the male who's moved in? Tough tits, I'm afraid.

The Scottish Prison Service have decided that Dolatowski is at risk of his feelings being so hurt so badly that he is forced to punch younger men repeatedly in the head, so they say Dolatowski must be put into the women's prison, where he will be happier and therefore presumably - hopefully- less violent?

I'd love to see this risk assessment. How does the reasoning work?

Because women are likely to be even more at risk, of both violent attack, where the size and strength differential means Dolatowski will have the advantage, and of course of sexual assault, given that Dolatowski is a sex offender.

Why do the women in Cornton Vale not get any consideration of their feelings, safety, dignity or comfort?

I don't know, how can anyone say this is reasonable or logical or fair. It's fucking inhuman.

Also noting that I am using Dolatowski's male pronouns because he is a convicted sex offender and paedophile, and I will not call him a woman. I think Mumsnet rules allow us to correctly sex convicted sex offenders.

So if he beats up a man in prison he's allowed to go to a womens prison, if he beats up or rapes a woman where will he go next? Juvenile detention?

I do love this theory that male sex offenders are only so vile in their sex offending to women because they have not yet been surrounded with non consenting female resources. (Not merely a TQ+ safe and private space. That won't do. It isn't about the space or safety from other males, it's all about the females in it.)

And that once those non consenting bodies are placed around them (and unable to run away) the offender will never feel the urge to harm women again.

And the women whose fear, distress, humiliation, trauma, possible injuries is all being gambled on making this male sufficiently happy to behave....?

well what does that matter if we're giving this male what they need?

It's FUBAR.

Geneva Convention:

'Under the terms of Protocol I, "Women whose liberty has been restricted for reasons related to the armed conflict shall be held in quarters separated from men's quarters. They shall be under the immediate supervision of women.
...

The Fourth Convention states, "Whenever it is necessary, as an exceptional and temporary measure, to accommodate women internees who are not members of a family unit in the same place of internment as men, the provision of separate sleeping quarters and sanitary conveniences for the use of such women internees shall be obligatory" (Art. 85).'

See also: cruel and unusual punishment.

And the imbalance that female prisoners are expected to put up with the threat of sexual assault and rape from violent males because the males' needs

however the main justification for removing TQ+ males from the male estate is that they might suffer sexual assault and rape from violent males.

So unilateral worse treatment and standards for biological females.

'But sex doesn't exist and TWAW'.

And mentioning biology, being female, gender critical, Karen White, or any other words that actually mean being able to describe the evil of this to women are all signs of a witch in need of burning. FGS Rishi sort this out.

the main justification for removing TQ+ males from the male estate is that they might suffer sexual assault and rape from violent males

This is what I don't understand about Dolatowski, though. He is the one who was violent, who assaulted another prisoner. He is the convicted SO. How in the name of anything does that mean that he is painted as solely a victim?

Less than 20 years ago, Labour brought in the GRA which allows people to be legally recognised as the opposite sex. A bonkers and pointless exercise in my view, but here we are.

They did this one the basis that these people were

1. Homosexual
2. Unable to marry because same sex marriage was not permitted
3. All so convincing as the opposite sex no one else could tell (rofl)
4. Had a medical diagnosis of (at the time I think it was Gender Identity Disorder)

Now, a mere 18 years later

1. Sexuality is irrelevant
2. Same sex marriage is (rightly) legal
3. You don't have to do anything to make your outward appearance look like that of a member of the opposite sex
4. No medical diagnosis

So what precisely is the GRA for? And should someone who meets none of the criterion originally laid out in the (appalling legislation) be entitled to the special status it bestows?!

Bad law, badly written, repeal NOW!

Note I'm not saying that changing your appearance makes a difference, just it's another way the original purpose of the legislation has been undermined

Absolutely - the GRA was a fudge introduced because the Labour government didn't believe that same-sex marriage was politically achievable. If they had just had the guts to try, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in today.

I have no idea Arabella, the whole thing seems wicked to me.

If they could not keep other male prisoners safe from this individual how in the hell do they intend to protect female prisoners from him?

Where, anywhere, is it a human right for males to be provided with female bodies - and I say bodies, because no other part of the female appears remotely relevant. No one seems at all interested in how those females feel or what happens to them, or even that they have not consented to these Hunger Games experiments.

It is going to take a woman dead in this mess before apparently anyone in politics other than Baroness Nicholson gets off their bum and does anything. It is perfectly possible to meet the needs of any TQ+ male prisoner without throwing them female prisoners and everyone crossing their fingers and hoping the female prisoners survive the experience at least physically intact.

Mentally? Well I suppose MN will pick up the pieces of distraught and damaged female humans. Since apparently no one else can manage a fuck to give. When did we vote in this male supremacist bullshit?

Not to mention that every single solitary concern, recorded in Hansard as MPs discussed the possible bad outcomes from doing this? Has come true. Along with a lot more too insane for anyone to have envisaged at the time.

We have women blocked from women's refuges, women's spaces, women's toilets and changing rooms.

We have raped women stacking up in piles.

It's all been a fucking disaster, the experiment has massively failed and the GRA needs to be scrapped. Now. Male problems are going to have to get fixed another way.