Jk takes on the police

[Hoardasurass]

JK Rowling is taking on the police over transwomen being allowed to strip search women, she's said that she'll fund the legal fees of any women who's strip searched by a man and wants to sue 😍

https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/celebrity-news/jk-rowling-promises-pay-court-35170667?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

Same thing in reverse I think - human rights of the female officer.

The desperation of senior police officers to enable indecent assault by male officers on women does suggest that the predatory culture exposed by so many court cases stretches up into the most senior ranks of the police.

The police seem to have forgotten that their job is to enforce the law, not to ignore or find ways to break it.

It is technical. But the law is technical. The reasoning behind the ruling was that it was what parliament intended, they didn’t say it was because otherwise there would be an infringement of the right to privacy, dignity and safety. They said it was what parliament must have meant because they couldn’t make all the different bits make sense otherwise. They may come to a different conclusion with a different bit of legislation. Under our system parliament can (and has on quite a few occasions) make laws that violate privacy and dignity.

I’m not arguing that the police policy is right. I think, even under the old interpretation, they could and should have used the single sex exemption. I’m only saying that the idea that the Supreme Court ruling made a big impact on the law that covers prisoner searches is not true. Police forces have to juggle several laws when interpreting what they have to do and if they came to the conclusion they can prioritise trans rights over women’s dignity before, there isn’t much stopping them from doing so now. Change will be down to political pressure and, possibly, a more robust look at the risks of discriminating against women by not using the single sex exemption. Not because they hung everything on a belief the equality act supported TWAW and now know it doesn’t.

It has made a big impact because the reasoning and arguments are the same if you (not you personally) are arguing that same gender officers can strip search or that a GRC turns a man into a woman for the purposes of PACE code 3.. The SC said that the biological sex of someone is what matters, not a certificate which you can't ask to see. (And it was already settled law that self-ID is not law.) So this will affect areas not covered by the EA.

They explicitly said it was ONLY about the definition of sex in the equality act. So no, it doesn’t cover laws that are not covered by the equality act.

As I said in my first post on this:
The EA2010 does not apply, agreed,

And in my second:
So this will affect areas not covered by the EA.
Wherever the principle is the same, this SC judgement will be influential.

Can words mean different things in different laws?

Possibly, but the SC judges said that words carry their normal everyday meaning.
So I suppose that means unless you define a word differently in the Act itself, the word means what the average person in the street thinks it means.

The principle was - what did parliament intend?
So the outcome of applying that principle to other acts cannot be assumed.

Surely that wouldn't happen ? A man being strip searched would have to be done by a male PC or PG, never by a woman officer ?

I love the fact that JKR is willing to put her money where her mouth is. She’s absolutely a role model.

What's infuriating and rather frightening is that the police are quite happy to ignore the ruling, unless someone with enough money threatens them with litigation.

(I now realise it might not specifically apply, but I don't think they would openly go down that road).

Presumably the lack of clarity is what JKR is willing to pay to disperse. Successive court cases may be necessary to unravel all of this, then lobbying to change the law where it is discriminatory against women. Hopefully the latter will be rare, but it’s essential to know where we stand.

Incidentally, I think this type of strategic management is exactly why women are beginning to win this argument. Naomi Campbell mentioned on LinkedIn that the reason women were currently annihilating transactivists in court was because #NoDebate gave us time to rehearse and finesse all our arguments, while transactivists twiddled their thumbs. She even gave kudos to a lawyer who had started to formulate some more coherent legal arguments for “trans rights”. I hope they don’t get too successful, but I was interested to see that put forward.

Not in the least. I mean, sure, them edumacatid peeple - like them peeple wot believe in equali and digniti and that kind of stuff wot we know is bullocks - seem to hate her, but wot does they know, AIR?

She is undeniably a role model, but not - I suspect - of the kind you believe, or would like to believe.

I’m sure she is still vilified by all the fake feminists and the misogynists who identify as social justice warriors!

Her stance has always been live and let live, as far as I’ve seen. Just respect normal social courtesies and basic human rights such as women’s single-sex spaces.

LOL. Why is that then? She’s a successful writer in multiple genres, has kept her intellectual property and is an incredibly smart businesswoman, set up a children’s charity, supported women getting their sex based rights clarified, set up a rape crisis centre, helped several women who were mistreated by their employers, and helped to save the lives of a number of female lawyers in Afghanistan. Not a bad role model in my book. What have you done, exactly?

An application for a judicial review could be the best option. They might cave then like British Transport Police did and no individual woman would have to go through litigation personally.

But I agree that they are just being misogynistic bastards, because the argument has been won. The state of the police is terrifying.

Oh you mean the people who believe the fundamental difference between men and women is in how we think?

The people who believe women are people who embrace their sexist secondary position in society, because if we didn't we'd obviously identify as men?

The people who feel very strongly that women saying no to being defined by, undressing with or being intimately touched by men who claim to be women are offending those mens dignity? Who believe children's bodies have to match sexist ideas about gendered personalities and if they dont those bodies need to be corrected?

The people who believe some are more equal than others and women and gay people need to step up and redefine themselves to get with the program?

Those people?

Yes, those people still hate on JKR, but I wouldn't call them educated.

Indoctrinated maybe, but not educated.

Not for the first time, looking at your posting history, you are rather missing the point.

But you are correct in one regard; there is indeed a blight of indoctrination at work here, its horrors made manifest in the tribalistic thinking that pervades certain areas of the internet.

She really could have just enjoyed the rest of her life without troubling herself with any of this, which is what makes it even more commendable that she’s taking a stand for women’s rights. That’s real moral fortitude.

Think you'll find that @FlirtsWithRhinos is usually spot on with her feminist / political analysis. But that of course is often a threat to those with a more casual acquaintance with reality, facts and the rights of women to safety and privacy from men.

She could’ve splashed it all on scrabble and lawn boys. She will always have my admiration and appreciation.

I mean, carry on with the insults and DARVOs, we all know it’s all you have.