JKR calls Labour's Bluff - Offering Meeting leadership only on her terms

[fromorbit]

JKR is playing at a different level. After Starmer and Reeves offered to meet with her she gave them her conditions.

I'll be happy to meet after NoXYinXXprisons, Lesbian Labour, Womens Rights Network, WomansPlaceUK and Alliance LGB have been given in person meetings with the Labour leadership. I'd also like to know whether Angela Rayner still considers the last two organisations hate groups.

They are trapped either they now have to meet with gay and women's groups and listen to them something they are desperate not to do. It is not impossible then that Reeves at least can be made to see some sense. Even talking with these groups and JKR will also make TRAs go ballistic and many will leave the party. Chances are that Labour will promise a bunch of stuff to JKR which If Labour still follow gender nonsense after that they can be fully held to account for. If they promise single sex spaces are safe then every time that is breached Labour's credibility will be on the line

Or if they refuse to meet with the groups they prove EVERYTHING JKR said in her essay was right.

The media are now hyping the meeting further locking Labour in

BRING IT ON
Keir Starmer insists he WILL meet with JK Rowling to thrash out trans and gender rights & ‘respects’ her views
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/28714134/keir-starmer-jk-rowling-trans/

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/24/labour-gender-transition-recognition-process-trans.

yes, it's really interesting how often male-vs-female anatomy comes up and is important in sports, in matters not strictly related to athletic performance.

Saddles on bicycles is another one.

I'm afraid if he has skin in the game it confirms the misogyny.

He believes that a male has the absolute right of supremacy and freedom to trample females in their seeking of self expression and gratification.

And he believes that a female who identifies as one of her betters gains more power and freedom by doing so.

In short, he believes that men are more important humans with primacy over women, and wishes to fix this in law.

I wish he'd have the guts to own it and try to justify it instead of try to dress it up and skirt around it and cover it up, which shows he knows damn well that it's wrong and would make him look an absolute arse if he had the guts to be honest.

I also think that due to the now inescapable conflicts with other people's freedom of belief and rights, and a belief that such prejudice is righteous, that someone with such skin in the game should not be standing for a position of responsibility requiring public duties of impartiality. They should be declaring conflict of interest.

And archery instructors would be entirely unsurprised by the 'you can tell sex by elbows' paper, having seen the different patterns of bowstring bruising on archers' bow-holding arm.

It crops up everywhere if you're looking.

We only have to look at all the work Caroline Criado-Perez did around PPE for women in her fantastic book, or the stuff we are hearing about female footballers being more prone to ACL injuries (because they are wearing boots designed for small men's feet rather than boots designed to fit a female foot).

The evidence is everywhere - male and female bodies are different, it's not that hard to comprehend!

The next election after this is in May 2025 - 10 months away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_United_Kingdom_local_elections

Most of the country councils in England are up for election - the ones that control education/social services.

The year after control of Wales Scotland is up for a vote.

Kind of think the question of whether women exist will crop up in those elections too if Labour decide they don't to keep TRAs happy.

There is NOWHERE for Starmer to run long term from the challenge JKR laid down. Either meet with JKR and women, or keep on the denial road which ends in the chasm of delusion and chamber of lost votes.

Once Labour is in power gender stuff becomes their problem. The Tories actually haven't used it much because they know gender screwed them up too. In opposition that is not so much of an issue.

Hannah Barnes has written about this in the New Statesman

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/labour/2024/06/labour-starmer-women-problem-jk-rowling-gender

It was so clear on the debate last night that Keir was trying to be nice and even handed, balancing the needs of both and protecting vulnerable women but HADN'T LISTENED TO THE WOMEN TRYING TO TELL HIM THE CURRENT SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK!

I shouted. I did.

And, it's so annoying that the equality act means services can be single sex only if they want to be- but only if they want/can put up with hassle from trans identifying people who want to use the wrong spaces.

Women should have spaces available to them. We shouldn't have to rely on services choosing to offer them.

I didn't watch the debate, they both set my teeth on edge, but....did Starmer really use that child's murder again?

I don’t think people know what the EqA allows

It would be down to court cases which businesses obviously will not want to risk.

Starmer was misleading there. A refuge as an example gives no indication for a retailer or gym

Yes it’s his stock answer to deflect

There was a TRA whooper in the audience which riled Starmer up

That is who he is listening to. He cannot hear women

Of course he did! Whilst berating Sunak about his comments when Esther Ghey was in parliament. He really is tone deaf.

I think it’s really quite sick and distasteful to keep using that awful tragedy as a means to prop up gender ideology and beat down those with valid concerns.

I completely agree. This is the third time that he's done it that I'm aware of, four if you include the incident in parliament he keeps lying about. I hope he has Mrs Ghey's permission to weaponise her child's death like this. It's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. There was no mention of single sex spaces during the trial and no GC arguments were raised as a motive.

Anyway, I'm sorry, that poor child should rest in peace. I'm not going to post anymore about the crime.

The problem also is that unless single sex spaces are required by law cowardly woke businessses take the line of least resistance and make everything like loos mixed sex to avoids any hassle So we all lose out

Which is already happening to a large extent.

This is true. If single-sex spaces are not a legal requirement, then those businesses and organisations who opt to provide them risk being accused of ‘transphobia’ as they are choosing to exclude transwomen from women’s spaces when they don’t actually have to. We definitely need additional third spaces. Third spaces won’t offer validation, of course, but at least they blow the “I don’t feel safe in the gents’” argument out of the water.

I shouted too but I did not see his misogyny as 'niceness'.

Yes this is so true.

It was his listing of the "good" women in his party too. As if this meant it was all sorted.

I admit to shouting at the tv, what an utter plonker and fuckwit fudger.

Yes. The listing of his pet 'good girls' who all think and do as he says, like he thinks good women should, is not at all the optics he thinks it is.

His treatment of Rosie Duffield is far more illuminating. And he is stupid enough to think that voters won't notice.

A healthy party would have a range of views, AND a range of women with different views, all of whom were welcome in the party because diversity would actually be important to them. Not a case of 'women are welcome in the party so long as they revolve entirely around keeping men happy and not wanting anything inconvenient of their own' .

Agree that his list sounded, to me, like he was saying “But I love the wimmin, look how many are in my Shadow Cabinet!”

Like JKR I have now firmly decided not to vote Labour. Gawd knows who I will vote for, but it won’t be them.

I know I'm old now because I keep thinking back to days of proper outspoken women MPs. Women like Audrey Wise, Anne Coffey, Maureen Colquhoun, Joan Lestor, Clare Short.

This lot are in it for the wrong reasons, themselves.

Anne Coffey was big on child safety. I wish she'd stuck it out in Labour instead of joining that doomed Tigger breakaway. I wonder what she makes of genderwoo?

I know, a list of nice ladies, followed by what he’d do for childcare. Grrr.

O thing nice about it, but that’s what he was aiming for.

Some of my best friends are women. My daughters are women!