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.

How on earth did we manage to criminalise homosexuality from the middle ages until 1967, given that chromosomes weren't discovered until the late 19th century and prior to that we had no way of telling whether someone was male or female?

It's a mystery.

It’s so unpleasant, this muscling in on places you aren’t wanted, weren’t invited, and don’t qualify for. Proper cheeky fucker behaviour.

Self qualification is a very poor method for pretty much everything. I’m trying to think about any area, any at all, where you self qualify, or identify, your way in.

There really aren’t many. Either they are open access, everyone welcome, or they aren’t. Women’s toilets aren’t. Men belong in the men’s, no self qualification needed.

Are we talking about toilets again? Lordy.

Dadjoke. The poster who frequently overstates his understanding of law and medical research and then replies that anyone who disagrees with him is just hating on him and being abusive.

He has a posting history of grossly misrepresenting the law and not taking ownership of that when it becomes apparent he's been talking out of his backside all along.

He engages in non-law enforcement by intimidating and misrepresentation for these reasons and tells women they are committing non-crimes.

This is fundamentally coercive because it's gas lighting.

That's all the engagement you need to do with Dadjoke, whilst pointing out what the ACTUAL law and protections women DO have and why they should be protected.

No, they don't! What we curently have is a confused document that was drafted at a different time under different circumstances. Radical transgender ideology wasn't a thing when the equalities act was first implemented....this has been explained to you on numerous occasions now.

Toilets are predicated on biological sex. Those uncomfortable using the facilities for their sex need to campaign for their own discrete provision. Trying to force entry into women's spaces is not a good look, and increasingly more and more people recognise this.

No, I don't think she should be excluded from them for being a trans woman. It's always on a case-by-case basis.

So Jokers, what's your plan for women to do this case by case assessment of every man who claims a female identity to give them carte blanche to walk into any woman only space? I'm going to guess here that you haven't given that a second's thought because it's not worth the effort for you.

Why are you so hung up on toilets; whilst at the same time trying to suggest that women shouldn't be similarly hung up on toilets.

Why is access to female spaces so important for men who identify as women, to the extent that the dignity, comfort and safety of women and girls for whom those spaces were designed is considered of little consequence?

I'm still here. On the edge of my seat.

It's sobering sometimes to see in black and white how much some men despise women. They simply don't view us as autonomous human beings with our own feelings and opinions. We're just resources to be utilised. Support humans. Non character players.

Where to even start with this mess?

Firstly, no, access to public toilets and changing rooms is NEVER "on a case-by-case basis". It is quite literally a blanket rule, relying on individuals to do the right thing and bystanders to sound the alarm if they see someone doing the wrong thing.

This idea that trans women should be entitled to use women's toilets, which has been foisted on women without our consent, effectively upends that principle. Men who enter women's spaces when they have no business being there are, by definition, people who cannot be trusted to do the right thing. And if we are forced to accept that nice, harmless, male-born trans people who really do feel very profoundly that they identify as women should be allowed into these spaces, we lose any ability to sound the alarm. Because we are supposed to give everyone the benefit of the doubt.

Secondly, you do appear to be confirming that you think male people who have committed violent sexual offences against women should be allowed into women's changing rooms and toilets. You seem to think they have a right to say, "I am a woman" and have other people accept this as fact, which trumps any rights women might feel they have not to be in such spaces with a violent rapist.

In order to justify this position, you suggest that Isla Bryson should be allowed in women's single sex spaces for the same reason that Lily Cade and Lucy Letby are allowed in them. Lucy Letby is currently serving a whole life sentence, but even if she is ever released from prison, there is no evidence that she represents any physical threat to women whatsoever. Her victims were exclusively newborn babies in the NICU. Lily Cade has, to my knowledge, not been convicted of anything at all. Both of them are, in any case, female. Unlike Isla Bryson, who is male, and currently serving a sentence in a men's prison for committing an exclusively male crime against female victims.

Is that really the best you can do?

'women, including trans women, who have served their time for any offence should use the [female] toilet'

Why?
Why 'should' transwomen use female facilities?
There is no clear line between a man and a transwoman. Unsurprisingly.

Why 'should' society separate loos by self-belief or self-description?

In contrast, there is good sound logic to separating them by biology. It may be a slightly imperfect system, but it beats 'self-description' hands down.

(There would also be logic in having twice as many female as male facilities, but we aren't asking for the moon, or even for actual fairness, just an absence of male intruders.)

Have we ever seen a test case whereby a woman's right to privacy and dignity in shared open changing rooms away from penises has been tested in law?

Considering the issue with the clash in laws on vouyerism, this is particularly key.

My point here being, do we actually have an explicit legally sound argument that a right to access to female changing rooms is enshrined in law for transwomen?

We have a right for transwomen not to be harassed and singled out or outted for being trans but this doesn't actually necessarily in practice mean they have a right to inclusion in women's open changing facilities - especially if they don't have a GRC. We are not allowed to ask for a GRC.

The whole access to the changing rooms was accepted on the understanding (misguided) that we were talking about post-operative males and males who had a GRC or at the very least had invested significate energy already into a pathway to a GRC and a view to surgery. We now talk about males who have absoluetly no intention of either and males who openly talk about gaming the system through transmaxxing.

We also have no legal obligations placed on organisations to state whether they are mixed sex or single sex - the definition is set by the organisation and isn't transparent to women to make informed decisions about. If you ask the question you are immediately treated as a criminal (see the on going tribunal case which is being tweeted today).

The law actually talks about case by case decisions rather than blanket bans - so according to circumstances and the concept of reasonable adjustments. It also has explicit exemptions which keep being conveniantly ignored by people who don't want to hear it.

In reality the status quo is based on social convention where it was understood it was a tiny number who had a medical condition not an increasingly large number some of whom freely admit to or use language which suggests a fetish is driving their identity. It also was based on the myth of a lack of penises. Which again we know not to be true.

Given there are also considerations relating to religious belief and homosexuality which are being ignored as part of trying to make single sex, mixed sex this is a real issue.

Its a bit like the whole charade with the hate crime laws. We were TOLD that saying transwoman are men was a hate crime and that police scotland would prosecute. In reality, police scotland are saying 'hmm no' and theres every reason to believe that a court case would throw out such accusations as being totally bollocks because of other existing laws.

Here we are being told that transwomen have an absoluete right to access to women's changing rooms. Yet, has this been tested in the courts? Has it hell.

Forgive me for not responding more quickly to to the flurry of questions coming my way.

The current system of self-id in toilets is working perfectly well and there is no evidence whatsoever of any change in crime statistics. It already works, so I don't have to say how it should work. It should work how it currently works and has worked for decades.

On to your self-policing toilets.

What is to prevent a man pretending to be a trans man using the women's toilets? This is your (unwarranted concern) about men pretending to be trans women. If someone who (you guess) is a trans woman is in the toilet, how should that be policed? If you see someone you think is a trans woman in a women's toilet, what do you think should happen?

How does this even solve your supposed concerns?

The effect of bathroom bills in the states is that both trans men and GNC women have been targetted and attacked by gender critical people for using toilets based on their sex registered at birth. It's not tenable.

Has DadJoke explained why he thinks 'sex based' facilities should actually be 'preferred gender based'? Has he explained what that means, and what any such division would usefully accomplish? Has he explained how that could possibly be 'policed'? (Maybe on the last point he doesn't think it should be, but then that makes the earlier questions harder).

The current system of self-id in toilets is working perfectly well

It's not.
Neither, apparently, is this posters ability to read, comprehend or care about what women have to say.

Very like our very own police officer and his half baked knowledge of criminal law and police procedures. Uncanny, some may say.

It's all about the ME, the attention, and the desire to invade women's spaces.

Manpandering to him helps him to disrupt the thread. His intervention is an attempt to prevent women talking to each other, and instead centre the man.

It's not an honest engagement. It's gone from the original OP here and associated discussion, to an insistence by a man than Isla Bryson has a right to use the women's toilets when he's served his time.

No point in thinking up clever responses, he isn't listening. Some men just come to derail and invade.

1. Self ID in toilets didn't work so well for the ten year old girl who was sexually assaulted in the Sainsbury's toilets by Katie Dolatowski, did it?
2. We can tell who is male and who is female. More importantly, every individual who is capable of using the toilet independently knows whether they are male or female. If you make it clear to people that they should be using single sex toilets for members of their own biological sex as observed and recorded at the time of their birth and they choose to do otherwise, they are demonstrating that they cannot be trusted and we are right to be wary of those people, aren't we?

Some single sex spaces are never delineated in that way, some are. That was the point I was making. You can't exclude women who have served their time for sexual offences against women from women's bathrooms.

Lily Cade has admitted to sexual assault on female victims. There might be single sex spaces from which she should be banned, but toilets aren't one of them.

Isla Bryson is a man, @DadJoke.

Everyone who has been convicted of rape in the UK is a man, in fact.

Lily Cade hasn't been convicted of anything at all. It is very interesting that you seem to be taking the position that a biological male who has been convicted of raping women, served his time and been released should be entitled to use all women's single sex spaces, but a biological female who has not been convicted of anything at all should be excluded from some of them.

Care to show your working on that one?

Care to show your working on that one?
I think his working is evident to most women here.

Incidentally, it felt good typing the words, "Isla Bryson is a man". Thank you, JK Rowling.

I do find myself wondering what poor old Dadjoke is trying to accomplish here. It ain't influencing anyone, and if anything seems to be reassuring people that being GC is the only logical position.

Nice nutpicking. You think that Dolatowski wouldn't have assaulted the ten-year-old if Morrison's had a policy of excluding trans women?

No, you can't. GNC people have been attacked and targeted, as have trans men when bathroom bills have been introduced. False positives are highly likely. When you introduce toilets based on chromosomes, it has zero effect on assualts on women, and increases assaults on trans men and GNC women. Of course you think you can because of the toupee fallacy, the same way people think they can tell which people are gay.

Well it’s very male behaviour, whatever the outfit worn.

The current set up works perfectly well and has done for decades. It's chromosome based toilets which are unworkable.