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.

Gosh, imagine my surprise to find a thread has somehow circled back round to toilets again.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html

I think the unisex toilet policy adopted by Morrisons - apologies to Sainsbury's - increased the likelihood of Katie Dolatowski both entering those toilets and not being swiftly booted out, yes.

Single sex toilets are, of course, not based on chromosomes, but what we can see with our own eyes.

I don't buy half the stories about "gender non conforming cis women" being challenged in women's toilets, but if they are, I'm afraid that is a consequence of women now being paranoid about the possibility of the opposite sex in their single sex spaces.

I think TRAs have found aggression, occupation and bullying quite a useful tactic.

@Dadjoke forgive you? No. You have been given loads of evidence, repeatedly, that you ignore. It’s like arguing with an AI bot that only has certain phrases programmed in. There’s no empathy either, but unlike some of the more advanced AI bots you are not ‘evolving’ from being given the facts.

You do have a use though - new people reading the thread are educated in to how crass and poor your arguments are so can easily see it all falls apart very quickly.

the bottom line is most women just don't want to share a toilet / bathroom / changing room with a man. And trans women are men. Doesn't matter whether the woman is scared or not, just being in the presence of a man in that kind of facility is an affront to the woman's dignity and privacy.

And any man that wants to invade those kins of spaces is exactly the kind of man that shouldn't be in there.

Thankfully I think people are fed up of the aggressive bullies screeching "be kind" at them now. It's not working anymore.

Yes, domination of women, harm to women and disrespect of women is not kindness.

@MissScarletInTheBallroom so, GNC people, often lesbians, are a price you are willing to pay to have chromosome based toilets? I am entirely unsurprised.

Only one in a thousand women are transgender, so you are much more likely to identify GNC women as transgender than identity a trans women - so your approach to deal with a statistically non-existent threat is to hassle women who don't fit your gender norms.. And many trans men pass - how would you exclude the hypothetical predatory men who claim to be trans men? And how would you stop trans men being harrased for being men? It's entirely unworkable.

I do wonder that, if dad joke is actually a dad, how that came about given that it’s soooooo haaaarrrd I mean almost impossible in DJ to world to tell who is a man and who is a woman. Did DJ just wonder around chatting up every person that crossed his path in the hope that one of them might be a woman?

For anyone who doesn't know about Katie Dolatowski, a couple of salient facts -

As well as the sexual attack against a 10 year old (in which he told the girl that he would stab her mother), he had also previously been caught trying to film a 12 year old girl in a public toilet.

Dolatowski was held in the female prison estate at Cornton Vale. When Nicola Sturgeon was asked why the Government had intervened in the (later) case of Isla Bryson, no real reason was given.

He declared his whole hearted support for the GRR and for NS..

I'm unsurprised you haven't answered the question. Although I think that we can take from your response that you believe that a transwoman is anyone who says they are one, and so it would be difficult for you to police this.

There are a few points though about your non-answer. You suggest the current system of self-id works perfectly well. I'm unclear how you would judge that. Polling suggests that slightly more people oppose transwomen in women's toilets than support it, with opposition growing when no surgery is specified (your self-id). So on the grounds of popularity that's a fail. You also have no idea how many women are self-excluding from or feeling uncomfortable in these spaces. I appreciate women's comfort means nothing to you, so understand why you feel a system that would impact this in your eyes 'works'. I can only presume that you are using the frankly low bar that because women aren't being more routinely assaulted, raped, spied on etc, etc, we should consider that a win.

I suspect this is some sort of game to you - the tiresome use of 'non-trans' a little indicator of this - but it would more honest if you just said "any male person should be allowed in female only spaces if that is where they feel most comfortable, and I don't really care how women feel about that"

It's not hard to tell who is male and who is female.

Do you have any idea how homophobic it is to suggest that people can't tell the difference between a lesbian and a man?

And then to accuse me of wanting lesbians to be the collateral damage of my single sex toilet policy, when you have literally just admitted that it's fine for women and girls to be the collateral damage of your self ID toilet policy.

I mean, that is just the most astonishing take.

Let's compare and contrast.

If toilets are strictly single sex and a gender non conforming lesbian is challenged about her right to be in a women's toilet, the worst case scenario is most likely some minor embarrassment for both parties as she opens her mouth and explains that she is female and has every right to be there.

If all biological males have full access to women's toilets on a self ID basis, the worst case scenario is a woman or child being sexually assaulted, raped or even murdered.

Your position appears to be that the latter is acceptable collateral damage but the former is not.

Of course, Miss Scarlet. Men's feelings must be protected above all else.

I'm going to have to hide the thread because watching women constantly responding to this guy is doing my head in. There's showing him he's wrong for the benefit of lurkers - which is one thing, and there's allowing yourself to be used to keep a mans fantasy of rapists in womens toilets running.

There's a plopper who was on another FWR thread recently who has pictures up on another platorm of himself in terrible blue underpants. He's hidden his face but is inviting admiration of his manly physique. Yuk.

I'm answering all the questions thrown at me, then getting in to trouble for answering them. I'll return to my original point, then I am out.

Listing bad actors in a protected category and implying that all members of that category should suffer as a result of their behaviour is the weapon of MRAs, racists, homophobes and other bigots throughout the ages, usually with the excuse that it protects women and girls. JK Rowling is just following in the storied footsteps of Anita Bryant.

"What these people really want, hidden behind obscure legal phrases, is the legal right to propose to our children that theirs is an acceptable alternate way of life. ... I will lead such a crusade to stop it as this country has not seen before."

That still isn't what happened. What happened is that men who pretend to be women were identified & Police Scotland confirmed it's not an offence to say that transwomen are men. HTH

Was Katie Dolatowski banned from women's toilets because they were a known threat to women?

If they had been, wouldn't there have been the potential to add yet another charge of aggrevated harm to the charges laid therefore extending the length and severity of sentence?

Why aren't we making laws along these lines rather than trying to a) criminalise women for trying to protect themselves b) making straw man arguments that this wouldn't have prevented this particular crime c) assuming that because this particular crime might not have been preventable there isn't an argument to criminalise men who use single sex facilities because of vouyerism and because the status quote tends to disempower women from challenging men when it is right and appropriate for them to do so being they are fearful of point a).

Funny how these conversations always go a particular way and aren't reframed in this way.

Its almost as if its about mens rights being more important than the rights and protections of women and children.

tilts head

Still waiting for the answer to my question ...

@DadJoke are you not using Anita Bryant in the same way that you are accusing others of using Isla Bryant and Katie Dolatowski?

It's wasn't about 'bad actors in a protected category' though.
It was simply about various people not being in a particular category (female) at all.

in real life the percentage of trans men that 'pass' is probably less than 1%. Problem is, we'll have been too kind - we should have simply told them "yeah, nice dress, but you still look like a bloke'.

Nutpicking. Quite appropriate really 😆

Listing bad actors who may or may not be in a protected category (gender reassignment) and saying out loud that all members of a different protected category (female) should suffer the presence of those bad actors in their single sex spaces so as not to upset the non bad actors in the gender reassignment category is indeed straight out of the MRA playbook. And you have just made a homophobic comment about lesbians.

Not sure whether I've seen you saying anything racist or not, but if I see you trotting out the old "black women" trope in a discussion about women's sports, I'll consider that a full house.

I will avoid speculating on what the other 70 might look

AT least one of them would have to be a giant honking litter tray (preferably filled with geraniums or soft, tender seedlings) for the cat gender people to use. This would have to be placed in a very open, public place for full validation, because there is nothing a cat likes more than defiantly looking you straight in the eye while it defecates over your pansies.