Woman's hour 2nd April 2024 JKR's 'hate' thread

[WarriorN]

First item is the Hate bill and JK's tweets - they did invite her on but haven't heard back yet

For women Scotland will be on too.

It wouldn't do it with male, so apologies for the mail lyrics.

Version 1

https://app.suno.ai/song/01fda943-2b67-465b-b82e-8f63ce296cdf

Version 2

https://app.suno.ai/song/088ca38c-9f9f-4b88-ae8d-d45efbbef8dc

This is piss poor arguing, are you fooling yourself with your disingenuous substitutions? Or do you know it’s bullshit?
We see you suggesting that GC women think female toilets are for GC women only, what crap you talk, what slimy tactics.

Women’s toilets are for all natal females, whatever their beliefs.

I think for some people who just hate women, that is a feature, not a flaw.

Morning DadJoke. Would you like a cup of tea dear?

Does @DadJoke hate women though?

Are we talking about him? I don’t know his position on whether Isla Bryson is a woman who should be in women’s toilets/cells/sports. He doesn’t seem to answer that question funnily enough.

Love it! The second one is my favourite.

The misunderstanding that it does has arisen because of lack of clarity and intention in the original drafting of the law, which was written for an entirely different contingent of transsexuals, and in a very different set of circumstances.

AND - because Stonewall has widely pushed an intentional misinterpretation of the law to the degree that the lie has, to many people, become the truth.

A lot of people have been led to believe that gender identity is a protected characteristic, and that a GRC makes a man for ALL intents and purposes, a woman, with all the rights and protections of a woman.

Neither of these is true.

Gender identity is NOT protected.

A GRC is a "legal fiction" which prevent the owner from being discriminated against because of his/her preferred lifestyle. It doesn't confer an automatic right to invade spaces where women are vulnerable. The safety, privacy and dignity of women is protected by the law* - or would be if it were properly applied and enforced.

Capture of organisations, including the police and the NHS has enabled this hideous travesty we have now.

*Though it would benefit from a legal definition of both sexes, based on biological fact.

Exactly.

No MEN.

We are, however, happy to accept transmen - because they are WOMEN.

Particularly like the second one!

👌

And yet, women's toilets are a designated place for trans women, regardless of your gender critical beliefs.

That's very kind, thank you. I have one in hand.

And yet, women's toilets are a designated place for trans women, regardless of your gender critical beliefs.

No, they are not as has been explained to you ad nauseum.

Who is doing this designating? You?

‘And yet, women's toilets are a designated place for trans women, regardless of your gender critical beliefs.’

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Go away

Do you dispute that trans women have been using women's toilets for decades? Do you think they are doing so illegally?

I recommend you take a look at AEA vs EHRC, where gender critical arguments to this effect were dismissed.

It's a shame that in engaging with Bollock-Juggling-Comedian, we are helping him to vigorously polish his knob halo, because he's a one-person peaking machine. The contempt for the privacy, dignity and safety of the partially-sentient support bipeds, with particular disgust for the service units that refuse to comply, shines through in every post. And looking at the recent feverish frequency of posting, is also clearly demonstrating the escalation that characterises, um, [mostly-male-associated-fixations].

"Trans women have been trampling over women's boundaries for decades" isn't quite the argument I'd have gone with, to be honest with you.

Women were never asked if we were OK with our single sex spaces being made mixed sex, and we certainly never consented to it.

Do you understand that "trans women are entitled to be in all women's single sex spaces" means "we cannot object to people like Isla Bryson and Katie Dolatowski in women's spaces"?

Yes or no?

You keep avoiding this question.

Bollock-Juggling-Comedian….. vigorously polish[ing] his knob halo, because he's a one-person peaking machine

😂😂

Has the word designated changed its meaning?

lots of other words have and its hard to keep up

how is the female toilets a designated toilet for males? Is it written down somewhere?

Yes they are. The ones that have an outline of a man on the front of the door.

Hi @DadJoke is Isla Bryson a woman in your view and should IB be in women’s loos and women’s prisons?

Men have no right to be there,unless they're washing the floor.

I think my favourite version of this is when they talk about people using toilets which match their gender identity.

If this were true, there would be 72 different types of toilets, not two. Perhaps the men's would be painted a nice dark blue and have beer fountains and flat screens broadcasting Sky Sports mounted on the walls, along with padded and heated toilets seats for maximum comfort whilst taking 45 minute dumps, whereas the women's would be painted a lovely pastel pink and have mini bottles of Prosecco, lipstick testers and voucher coupons for clothes shops. I will avoid speculating on what the other 70 might look like for fear of being accused of indulging in harmful stereotypes about gender diverse people.

Instead, there are only two types of toilets, both typically painted in the same colour, one with urinals on the walls and the other with sanitary bins in the cubicles. Almost as if one were designed for people with penises and the other for people with uteruses.

I agree. The more @DadJoke posts his piss poor defence of allowing men into female spaces, the more determined I become to go out and challenge anyone who has such a disdain for women's rights, such unacknowledged internalised misogyny, such disregard for the effect of men in women's spaces, sports, political life (UN UK's women's delegate anyone?). Keep going @DadJoke

I think it’s clear our mirthful patriarch believes that we can’t exclude any bad actors. So, rapists and perverts who identify as women cannot be excluded from women’s spaces as that would be unfair to the nice, law-abiding transwomen. No gatekeeping allowed as that would not be kind. This means our mirthful patriarch believes women must accept the risk of becoming collateral damage. Women should budge up, shut up, allow male people into their spaces and keep their fingers crossed that nothing untoward ever happens. On what planet is that okay? Or kind?

Women who object to males in their single-sex spaces are not hateful bigots. Some of them are survivors of male sexual violence. Some of them will have to self-exclude if female facilities become mixed sex, meaning there’s nowhere else for them to go. Why doesn’t the mirthful patriarch and his fellow TRAs extend a little more kindness and consideration towards women? Is it because women are…. um…. not as important as men?