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.

Child care and be kind decent women to look up to. What more do women need? Just wait till they come for your bank accounts and your shoes. That'll teach you to go about expecting rights.

Those involved with childcare are apparently livid and keen to tell him where he can shove his plans of what he would do 'for' it.

I work with Virago Women's Workshop in Leeds, they are a CIC, they receive no external funding, we are entirely volunteer driven. If 'Legal Women' comes to pass under Labour (which I no doubt think it will because of the GRC plans with no plans to update the EA to make it clear), we will be no more. We do not accept men into our space, that is the whole point of Virago - a space for women (and I will not quantify the word 'women' any further, because we shouldn't need to).

If it's anything like the unmitigated disaster of the 1140 in Scotland which has brought the sector to it's knees, with chronic underfunding and with staff morale at an all time low, then it's going to be shit

Yes ‘his pet 'good girls' have sacrifice the rights of other women so they can be in power. They will not be the ones who will suffer from the loss of single sex spaces and eroding of our hard won rights. I wish all women voters realise just how important this issue is without legally protected rights women will be relegated to second class citizens

Further complicated when funding, from Government in particular, is only available to those services which are 'inclusive' (I.e. those which do not offer single sex services) such is happening with rape crisis services in Scotland.

The whole of bicycle geometry has to be tweaked to cope with sex differences. Handlebar width, wheelbase, the lot.

Presumably that's been done, though? At least at elite level. Pro cycling teams surely have plenty of dosh to sort that. Whether that filters down to the bikes you buy in Halfords, I dunno. I suppose it's much the same with footballer's boots.

Found a short video from Sex Matters that addresses a frequently asked question here and on Twitter - why do politicians always pivot to talking about trans rights when asked about women's rights...

Having watched Keir Starmer’s uncomfortable squirming as he tries to answer the question ‘what is a woman?’ I have come to the following conclusions:

1. He really believes a man can biologically become a woman
2. He is beholden to the far left in Labour for whom this is part of the ideology
3. He has skin in the game and may have a child who is trans and whom he is colluding an untruth with All of the above does make him unsuitable to develop national policies in this area

Justin Webb was roasting Carla Denyer
(Green) on the Cass review this morning. She said some recommendations were good but had concerns about others. Also did the ‘we must treat everyone with respect’ thing that they all revert to when asked about gender.

The Today programme has mentioned gender issues every day this week. I’m guessing that’ll end on 5th July!

We must treat everyone with respect? Does Carla think that includes the ciswomen/cervix owners etc? Must they be respected whilst simultaneously having their words and rights removed. If the greens can square that circle solving the climate crisis should be a doddle!

Is that why the Greens have just done another purge of women who aren't acceptably compliant?

The thing about calling for respectful debate is it implies that those of us who’ve been talking about gender ideology for almost a decade now have been acting in an unacceptable manner.

It’s a sneaky both sides dig.

Yes! That's exactly the kind of "respect" I was talking about!

How can Labour or the Lib Dem's/SNP etc hope to improve public services when, in a very short space of time, public bodies are going to face a huge raft of litigation from those affected. There are potential employment discrimination actions against NHS and government employers such as the changing room nurses, negligence actions against schools, universities etc by girls raped or assaulted in mixed sex school toilets or injured in school sports. Women raped or sexually assaulted in prison .All of this harm is reasonably foreseeable. There is no point increasin public spending if huge sums are going to be paid out for litigation . Not just the huge damages awards for damages sterilised children needing a lifetime of care but the costs of litigation, the loss of staff and management time to litigation. This is bigger than Thalidomide, bigger than infected blood as it does not just involve product liability or clinical negligence claims but employers' liability, liability for the care of prisoners and discrimination as well

Why can't the journalists ask the questions of starmer .. how will you pay the legal bill out of public money for all this ?

What respect? What exactly are they tucking inside that ruddy buzz word?

Are people in balaclavas screaming at women being respectful?
Is the social media sewage about raping and killing women who want their own sex class, words, language, beliefs and spaces being respectful?

Or do they mean that women, speaking on this subject, should be deferential and submissive to the wishes of any male claiming a TQ+ identity?

Is 'respect' (submission, subserviance, deference, co operation with coercive control') something a male commands from women purely due to his TQ+ claimed label?

How 'respectful' is it to require women to accept their language, beliefs and ability to voice the impact upon them of these males to be strictly limited to what the male perceives as acceptable?

How 'respectful' is it to continually be demonstrating that a born male is a much more important and prioritised human over one born female? While lying that binary sex isn't a thing and no one knows what it is?

All good points, but TrAnS aRe thE MOSTY MoST MaRgInAliZZZZed!

Relevant current thread by Jane who has just asked KS about women on 5 Live

I'm m asking kier a question about women's rights on 5 live how to phrase it? www.mumsnet.com/Talk/feminism/5107115-im-m-asking-kier-a-question-about-womens-rights-on-5-live-how-to-phrase-it

a 30m interview between Starmer and JKR is what we need to be honest, not those other (valid, worthwhile) groups - because JKR will get the clicks and attention and she'd clean up

All good points, but TrAnS aRe thE MOSTY MoST MaRgInAliZZZZed!

Yes. I want someone like Starmer to explain to me, is pity respect then?

Do I owe a man my submission and unconditional enablement the minute he says some magic words?

Because that really won't be happening.

I'm wondering what it would be like for someone to go a bit lateral on this, and ask KS or other politicians:
"Can you explain the reason why this debate only seems to concern women's and trans rights being in conflict? Why do you think it would be that men aren't expressing any concerns about impacts on them or threats to their rights?"

I think part of the answer there, is based in the asymmetry of power between men and women. Men know that if a female comes into their space they can just tell her to jog on or if they have to, shove her out by force, and that she is not a physical threat at all. It's not a thing they worry about.

Men do deserve dignity, privacy provided by single-sex spaces just as much as women, it's just that they aren't worried at all that women will take that away. It's not remotely going to happen.

Yes. That's why it would be a good question to ask I think.
I know a turning point for my DH is when I simply asked him to explain to me his understanding of why we have sex segregated spaces in the first place.
I think sometimes, asking questions that lead people to conclusions themselves can be helpful

Completely agree.