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.

"What I objected to was her ... implying that we should remove rights from a protected class because of the behaviour of individuals from that protected class."

File under 'things that didn't happen'

I used to say trans women are male. But I can’t be arsed with that any more. Now I just say trans women are men.

IIRC you can use milk as well (or instead, rather).

I used to have a book many years ago when I was about 10 - Boys Big Bumper Book of Things To Do (or something like that) and it had lots of advice on invisible writing, secret codes, surviving in the wild by catching squirrels* and cooking them over a campfire etc.

*Told you how to make a bow and arrow, too, to shoot squirrels out of the trees and rabbits off the hill

It was one of the best books I've ever had.

Anyway - I'm sure it said that milk also dries invisible, but milk was at a premium in our house and I wouldn't have dared pinch any.

Edit because I got the letters of IIRC in the wrong order and being mildly dyslexic, didn't notice

gender critical people think trans women are men

Well, yes. India Willoughby is a father. There's no ambiguity at all about Willoughby's sex.

Remind you of anyone?

I'm put in mind of when my small child insists that something is something, when I know perfectly well it is not. I actually caught myself this morning and muttered 'I'm not arguing this with a 4 year old' and made my husband laugh.

So many of us are used to the nonsensical arguments of toddlers that the flat earthers on this board are nothing novel.

Quite. One person’s “misgendering” is another person’s truth.

@DisappearingGirl we all know that gender critical people think trans women are men, and that they wish to be free to say that. In the same way, many churches preach in their churches that gay sex is always a sin. They can do so, and whether it's hate speech depends on context.

There is a big difference between saying transwomen are men (which is simply a biological fact) and saying that something is a sin (which is a value judgement based on a religious belief in a deity for whose existence there is not a shred of proof).

Terven - Try envisaging what you think @DadJoke might look like.

Nowadays when I'm tempted to respond to him I call his "image" up in my mind's eye - it's not a flattering picture.

No way am I going to get involved, even online.

we all know that gender critical people think trans women are men, and that they wish to be free to say that. In the same way, many churches preach in their churches that gay sex is always a sin.

They’re not remotely the same. Transwomen are biologically and materially men. Sin is an abstract concept. Saying that a transwoman is a man is a fact. Saying that gay sex is a sin is an opinion based on an unsubstantiated belief.

So tiresome.

Trans women ARE men. If they were women, they wouldn’t need to call themselves “trans women”.

This might not be the answer you are looking for, but I agree with the provisions in the EqA which allow sporting bodies to decide on how people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are treated. I might disagree with their approach in specific cases, but I think the law as it stands is reasonable.

I'm getting Danielle Muscato vibes.

The right to be protected, like religious people, gay people and people of colour, from hate crimes. It's strange that it's only the protections against hatred for transgender people to which she is objecting.

Agree. It’s not possible to compare the two because they are not the same things. Stating the fact that water boils at 100 degrees is not the same as asserting your opinion that the water used in your cup of coffee doesn’t feel hot enough to have boiled.

I used to have a book many years ago when I was about 10 - Boys Big Bumper Book of Things To Do (or something like that) and it had lots of advice on invisible writing, secret codes, surviving in the wild by catching squirrels and cooking them over a campfire etc.*

Perhaps not the same, but I remember when I was little, my parents bought me this. Despite the rather sad title, it's pretty good, and I loved it. Pleased to see it's still in print.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Nothing-Nobody-Alone-Yourself/dp/0982053959

Correctly identifying someone’s sex isn’t hatred HTH

The fact that it doesn't even dawn on "knickerman" that "borrowing" his sister' underwear (getting caught and having to return them, so "not a theft") isn't normal behaviour in any way shape or form is very telling.

I wonder whether some key personnel at R4 are on holiday at the moment; it really does feel as that way. Today, Womens' Hour, WATO.... I wonder who they've lined up for PM tonight?

They might even get round to mention the WPATH files this week at this rate.

In terms of sports, this is the relevant piece of legislation from the EQA 2010 -

614. This section allows separate sporting competitions to continue to be organised for men and women where physical strength, stamina or physique are major factors in determining success or failure, and in which one sex is generally at a disadvantage in comparison with the other. It also makes it lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise.'

Please note that it relates not to 'how people with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are treated' but in ensuring fair and safe competition where one sex is generally at a disadvantage in comparison to the other.

Really good question. How is a medically healthy body "wrong" ?

DadJoke I can see we're not going to agree. And that's okay! Some of my well loved friends and colleagues would agree with you on this rather than me.

Tell you what, I won't report you for a hate incident if you don't report me 😉

I see the narcissistic supply dispensary has re-opened after the Easter break.

It's good to know that books like that are still about.

Is anyone else bored to tears with the blunt tool approach of the word “hate” (it should be “hatred”) to cover: difference of opinion/disagreement/mildly different stance/offend/abuse/argue/discuss and anything else on the spectrum of agreeing and disagreeing? It’s not “hatred” to have a difference of opinion. It’s not “hatred” to state a biological fact that some people choose to ignore because it makes their argument illogical.

Unless, of course, the word "man" is an obscenity and a slur.