Ridiculous responses to JK Rowling tweeting about equalities act petition.

[howmanybicycles]

So happy that JKR has tweeted the petition to update the equalities act to make it clear that sex, not gender is a protected characteristic. Responses her tweet are full of the usual smoke and mirrors and mysgnynistic insult– just wanted to collate them to help me better see the tactics of those who seek to dismantle women's rights. Have I missed any?

1. Trying to make out that JK Rowling is supporting the murder of a transgirl teen. She’s not and has never said anything which could be reasonably interpreted as that. It’s perfectly possible to imagine a society where transgirls use the facilities for their biological sex and aren’t murdered. It’s a travesty and a tragedy if anyone is murdered just for being trans identifying and JK Rowing very clearly agrees with that. We’ve spent years trying to work towards just such a society for gay men who are more at risk than heterosexual men. No-one blames women for not letting them into the ladies if bad things happen in the men’s.

2. Pictures of transwomen asking what would happen if they went into the men’s. Firstly, most TW don’t pass outside of photos but also see above. Secondly, the TW are focusing on the signifiers of dress and hair and makeup but that’s not relevant to many. I don’t care what men wear, but their gait, girth, voice and adam’s apple etc. show them very clearly to be men. The problem here is male violence. If men have a problem with other males wearing dresses and make-up in their facilities then the men are the problem. You can want to wear these things and not be trans identifying so moving all the TW into the ladies doesn’t really solve the problem even if you ignore the dangers to women which this does.

3. “You’ve already lost this battle so why are you still banging on about it?”. Would those misogynists have said that to the suffragettes. This particular comment is very clearly a ‘back in your box’ one.

4. “you’re trying to force people to discriminate” – well that one’s just ridiculous. Keeping males out of female only spaces is clearly not discriminating!

5. “You’d have to check genitals” – also clearly ridiculous. I guess that person has not heard of secondary sexual characteristics or is choosing to pretend they’ve not. “you’re making it such that all women have to produce ID to enter any female space” – same sort of nonsense really

6. “some males do pass” yes but the vast majority don’t and if you let passing males in, you have to also let in ant other man who ‘feels like a woman’.

7. “feminism is for all women”. Yes that’s the point. TW are men. If you want to dispute that, give us a definition of women which includes all those people who are women and all those people who feel like women and don’t rely on gender identity cos so many women don’t have one.

95,607

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3?page=5

@BlackeyedSusan compliments won't get you out of your duty to womankind!

95,642 signatures

Bloody hell. Was just about to post 95601 when the buzzer went. Go to let the girl in and 174 people signed while I was gone. Can't leave her out in the snow.

Just going back to check the number now...95,820

96000 4000 more signatures needed

96,018!!

Thank you JK!!

96,016!
I'm going to be refreshing this all night 🤣

You were faster than me!
96,028 now

Scotland totally involved. Ta JKR and ta SNP

What a fabulous day to reach the milestone 1ook, here's hoping

Boymamabee · Today 18:38
Does this apply to someone who’s obtained a gender recognition certificate? Just trying to understand.

There are some explanations here as well as a link to the petition
www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4758082-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-3

and there are explanations about GRCs in discussions in this current thread if you look it up.

“Is it illegal to exclude males where females are naked? The current law isn’t clear.”

I am prepared to be corrected, but I don't think that there's a petition to sign. However, a letter written to your local MP - not an email - can have an effect. Especially if others write.

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

I stand corrected

96,300 signatures

96,402

@howmanybicycles
Just on your 4th point -

“”you’re trying to force people to discriminate” – well that one’s just ridiculous. Keeping males out of female only spaces is clearly not discriminating!”

I see it as we are trying to enforce (appropriate) discrimination - we are discriminating against all men/males/XY biology, so as to ensure segregation by sex not gender. It is permitted and necessary discrimination brought in to keep females safe.

We are not discriminating against TW, though, as we are equally treating all males, by keeping them all out of female spaces.

At the same time it could be argued when some public vote based eg hair or the person seemed good or the papers said this, or they have always voted for x party regardless of what best for the country etc

That is the current way we vote for political appointees suitable for this day and age ?

Discrimination means unjust treatment which this would not be though.

It was a very stupid idea in my opinion that what should be positive rights set in law, like single sex prisons etc are now exceptions in the small print that have to be ‘legitimate means to a proportionate end’ ( how subjective and open to argument) plus have to deal with the laws related to a category of person who is a legal lie.

Discrimination means unjust treatment which this would not be though.

Not exclusively it doesn't.

recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another.
"discrimination between right and wrong"

We discriminate all the time.

We discriminate against adults being taught in a primary school. I discriminate against all women in terms of my sexual orientation.

We discriminate against sex offenders being allowed to work with children.

What you can't have is discrimination based on sex, unless it's in certain situations.

It was mostly designed to stop women being disadvantaged!

But it was understood that there were situations under which you absolutely would discriminate. Sexual orientation being one of them. Which is another protected characteristic in law.

it's just that no one thought they would have to qualify the law to explain that rapists shouldn't be women's prisons, men competing in women's sports, or using female facilities.

That's why we need clarity.

Sorry if this has already been asked Datun, but what is the name of this Podcast?

The Witch Trials of JK Rowling, on Spotify and Apple Music.

If the equality act is updated to make clear its biological sex that’s the protected characteristic, a grc shouldn’t make any difference. If it isn’t, the haldane judgement broadly means men with a grc are legally women. This means we cannot keep them out of single sex spaces. That’s why the petition is so important

Yip exactly. It is discrimination to say men can’t use women’s toilets but it shouldn’t be unlawful discrimination.and is entirely justified for reasons of privacy and safety.

I know the thread has moved on and I haven't RTFT but.... 10k in a day!
Go JKR!! 💜

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/623243

2500 left to go