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.

Weird to keep bringing race into it, given what is on the record about some of those have said on this in JKR's thread. All it does is focus attention back on the words used by the men she's highlighting.

If you can't see the whole thread as you're not on Twitter (and they only let you see one post now), then it's all in the one post here. The Telegraph seems to have put on quite the spread:

x.com/carolinefff/status/1775086385642295386?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I don’t think Jonny Dymond was really expecting that, but he coped rather well. He is quite TWAW though, as I recall.

We know that gender critical feminists think trans women are men. We also know what gender critical feminists think a man is, and what they think a woman is.

We know that you and others think trans women are women. What we don't know is that you think a woman is and what you think a man is.

@DadJoke TW ARE men.

And the R4 Katie chap: trying on your sister’s knickers aged four is not what makes anyone female.

She means “male people like this”. She has listed male people who are dangerous/bad/have taken jobs that are for women, and used them as examples to illustrate why all male people should be kept out of women’s spaces/sports/jobs and awards reserved for women as this is damaging to women’s safety, dignity, and interests.

However, the only men who routinely assume that they are entitled to access women’s spaces, sports and jobs are trans women, and so this is where the problem lies - the insistence that biological women must join in with the immersive fiction of these men that they are somehow really women, even if that puts us in danger, ruins our privacy and dignity, trashes our sporting chances and destroys our representation in places such as the UN.

What rights has JKR suggested should be removed from these men?

The right to use spaces and compete in sports for members of the opposite sex, which is a right that trans people currently have, but the granting of it has caused a conflict of rights with other groups.

@DadJoke - human beings cannot change sex. They can have plastic surgery, and take hormones to mimic the other sex, but this does not change their DNA, their chromosomes, their musculoskeletal system or their endocrine system.

Sex is not 'assigned at birth' - it is determined at conception and observed (with a pretty-near perfect level of accuracy) at birth.

Women and girls need and deserve protection, safety and dignity in our toilets, hospital wards, prison cells, changing rooms, sports, rape crisis centres and domestic violence shelters.

All of this is pure fact - and stating these facts is a crime in Scotland. Stating these facts is NOT hatred.

Trans people exist - I do not deny their existence, nor do I hate them. But they do not get to rob women and girls of the rights and safeties that they have fought for over so many years. If trans women do not feel safe in the Men's changing rooms, that does not give them the right to use the Ladies, and to make women and girls feel unsafe in there. Women fought hard for their own public toilets - and before they got them, their ability to go out in public was limited by their need to have an available toilet (at home or at a friend's house) - the 'Urinary leash'. Trans activists want to invade the Ladies' loos rather than campaigning for their own, safe, gender neutral loos alongside single sex provision. Basically, their desire for validation matters more to them than the safety and dignity of women.

I find that attitude abhorrent, and it does not endear the trans activist movement or its aims to me.

What pisses me off is that simply for stating biological fact, I’m now labelled a ‘gender critical feminist’.. On what planet did that suddenly become a thing. I’m a woman. And then of course there’s the laughable ‘TERF’, I suppose it is catchy.

Actually prior to this GC TERF bollocks, I didn’t really like being labelled a ‘feminist’ either. Eg. Why are you calling me a ‘feminist’? Oh? You’re calling me a feminist because I believe in equal economic, social, and political rights for women? No that’s just a non sexist person. What I liked to think (back then), was a normal person.

And so here we are. Apparently a non sexist scientific fact understander, is a ‘Gender critical feminist’ or a ‘TERF’. How did men take control of our language so easily, and why are women allowing it to happen so easily?

Someone else put it better than I

‘We need to reclaim language. Every time we use their fabricated terms like ‘transgender,’ ‘gender identity,’ or ‘correct pronoun usage,’ we inadvertently reinforce the notion of people existing outside the boundaries of our species’ biological sex. Emphasizing clarity over the expedience of communication is vital.

Rather than responding to questions as if ‘transgender’ is a genuine category, a more effective approach is to inquire about its meaning, challenging the assumed understanding. Similarly, interrupting and reframing statements like ‘trans people’ by suggesting, “Do you mean individuals attempting to disown their sexed reality?” can reshape the discourse.

Lastly, change cannot be achieved in isolation. Whether by organizing a collective effort or by working individually, taking action is imperative. Leverage your strengths, speak unwaveringly of the truth, and resist the temptation to appease. This predatory industry has set its sights on the next generation, demanding that even those unfamiliar with activism step forward. The truth, grounded in biological reality, is our strongest ally, supported by the entirety of the living world’.

These rights are not as cut and dried as that. The EHRC allows for women to retain their loos, etc.

@SDTGisAnEvilWolefGenius I've looked at the hate crime act, and nowhere does it mention that anything that you've said is defined as a hate crime. You obviously know better, so would you mind pointing me at evidence for this?

@DadJoke - I live in Scotland, and it is my understanding that, under the new law here, I could be investigated for hate speech. I hope I am wrong and you are right, but I do not trust the SNP - they are fully in thrall to the trans lobby, and don't give a tiny, shiny shite about women, in my view.

Yes, that's exactly what she is doing - we agree. She is pointing at bad actors in the category she doesn't like then using that to suggest that because of the existence of these bad actors, no one with that protected category should retain rights they currently have, for example, to use women's toilets.

It's exactly the same technique people used against gay scout masters.

@DadJoke - can you tell us how to distinguish the bad actors from the other trans women who want to use the Ladies loos?

I am sure that you can't - and that is exactly why I do not want any trans women in the ladies loos.

How can we exclude the "bad actors in the category" from women's spaces whilst allowing the nice ones in?

I have asked you this question several times now. Apologies if you've already answered and I missed it.

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.

The really hilarious thing about this is that trans people are a very safe demographic. They hardly experience any hate at all as far as I can see. It's women who experience the hate - women who are subjected to physical and sexual assault, women who are on the receiving end of rape and death threats, women who are hounded out of their job or denied a platform to speak because they think men can't be women. And yet where's the protection for them? Nothing.

Incidentally, the definition of trans in Scotland's Hate Crime Act is:

(a)a female-to-male transgender person,

(b)a male-to-female transgender person,

(c)a non-binary person,

(d)a person who cross-dresses,

I wonder how transgender people feel about a "person who cross-dresses" being included in the definition of trans? Because it is well-established that cross-dressing is a sexual fetish. The idea that men should be protected from "hate crime" on the basis of their sexual fetish is as bizarre as it is abhorrent.

I don't know anyone who objects to trans people being protected from hate crimes.

Unless referring to someone's biological sex or objecting to them being in spaces or sports for members of the opposite sex are redefined as hate crimes.

That, in a nutshell, is the issue with this new law.

I would be astounded if anything you said here amounted to a hate crime - it's a very, very high bar.

I suspect people here don't have a problem with the aggravated aspect of the bill. If you punch someone and you do it because they are black or transgender, it's an aggravated offence.

The one you and Rowling are concerned about is this. Rowling knew that what she posted didn't reach that bar - she doesn't actually want to be arrested and convicted for stirring up hatred. I don't think you need to worry.

OFFENCES RELATING TO STIRRING UP HATRED
(2) A person commits an offence if—
(a) the person—
(i) behaves in a threatening or abusive manner, or
(ii) communicates threatening or abusive material to another person, and
(b) either—
(i) in doing so, the person intends to stir up hatred against a group of persons based on the group being defined by reference to a characteristic mentioned in subsection (3), or
(ii) as a result, it is likely that hatred will be stirred up against such a group.
(3) The characteristics are—
(a) age,
(b) disability,
(c) religion or, in the case of a social or cultural group, perceived religious affiliation,
(d) sexual orientation,
(e) transgender identity
(f) variations in sex characteristics.
(4) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to show that the behaviour or the communication of the material was, in the particular circumstances, reasonable.

Yes. This is quite important, really. There's nothing inherently special or different about a 'transwoman'. He's just a man, like any other man.

So is it or is it not abusive to say that a trans woman is a man, in your opinion?

Also, why is punching a trans woman a more serious offence than punching a woman?

I would be astounded if anything you said here amounted to a hate crime - it's a very, very high bar

We'll have to wait and see, won't we? I've certainly read plenty on this board about police taking a very over-zealous approach over mere ribbons and stickers.

Also, why is punching a trans woman a more serious offence than punching a woman?

Ooh, now that is a very good question.

Yes, but that's part of the propaganda.

The SNP has insisted that there is a 'rising tide of hate' and have tried to claim that hate crimes against transgender people have been increasing, although this hasn't been supported by the statistics.

The Junior Minister for Community Safety claimed that the HCA was passed 'unanimously', when it wasn't.

They're trying to create a narrative of a special oppressed class of people who are so marginalised and vulnerable that everyone's speech must be compelled, monitored, and curtailed to avoid hurt.

In actuality this is a useful tool for the government to bring out whenver there's someone they want to have something over, with terms so vague and resting in 'perception' that it can be brought out at will. Police can choose to charge someone with the crime when the alleged victim doesn't even perceive it as a hate crime.

Craig Murray, journalist, jailed for contempt of court.
Murdo Fraser, opposition politician, hate incident recorded against him for criticising govt policy.
Salmond, accused of rape and sexual assault.

I am not a fan of any of these men, fwiw. But anyone who is daft enough not to see how this new Act will be weaponised probably doesn't have the first idea of why freedom of speech is important, let lone the wit to grasp when it's under threat.

@duc748 I've never seen that book thanks for flagging it up. I may well buy it for a younger person (after reading it first of course.)

I treated myself to the SAS survival handbook from the charity shop a while back. It may well come in handy next time KJK is speaking down at the Albert Dock.

Yes, and one worth asking.