JKR asking similar questions to what I have been asking for years on here.

[DialSquare]

Copied from Nitter

J.K. Rowling@jk_rowling29m
As another man who once worked with me declares himself saddened by my beliefs on gender and sex, I thought it might be useful to compile a list for handy reference. Which of the following do you imagine makes actors and directors who aren’t involved with the HBO reboot of Harry Potter so miserable?

Is it my belief that women and girls should have their own public changing rooms and bathrooms?

That women should retain female-only rape crisis centres?

That men don’t belong in women’s sport?

That female prisoners shouldn’t be incarcerated with violent men and male sex offenders?

That women should remain a protected class in law, because they have sex-specific needs and issues?

That language should reflect reality rather than ideological jargon, especially in a medical context?

That women shouldn’t be harassed, persecuted or fired for refusing to pretend humans can change sex?

That women should not be threatened with violence and rape when they assert their rights?

That freedom of speech and belief are essential to a pluralistic democratic society?

That troubled minors, especially those who are gay, autistic and trauma-experienced, should be given mental health support instead of irreversible surgeries and drug treatments on non-existent evidence of benefit?

That gay people shouldn’t be pressured to include the opposite sex in their dating pools, nor should they be smeared as ‘genital fetishists’ when they don’t?

That cross-dressing heterosexual male fetishists aren’t actually oppressed, but having the time of their lives piggybacking off gender identity ideology?

That said ideology, and the privileged, blinkered fools pushing it because they suffer zero consequences themselves, have done more damage to the political left’s credibility than Trump and Farage could have achieved in a century?

Let me have your thoughts.

This sums up the views of the majority of posters on this board, however, we often have other posters tell us they don’t agree with us, but never what views they don’t actually agree with.

So, those of you that don’t agree with the majority view on here, what is it about the above that you don’t agree with?

Hang on!!

Do we play the game back?

Where are the statistics just for the attacks on male people with transgender identities from male people while in the male single sex toilet?

Very good point.

"Who committed these hate crimes? Was it women who don't believe that people can change sex or was it men?
I know the answer to that without seeing any statistics or surveys. Perpetrators of these crimes are almost all male. Why don't you pop over to a male dominated forum (lots to choose from) and tell them to be more kind and accepting to trans people?"

Um, the context of this conversation started upthread when a commenter wanted proof trans people were in physical danger from men necessitating they use the women's bathrooms.

Try & keep up.

Erm, so how many hate crimes have been committed against trans identifying men whilst using men's toilets?

Yes, it's hilarious because he is confusing Australia with the UK. In the UK, saying 'toilet' is considered vulgar, which is why they say loo instead. But in Australia, toilet is the number one term used. We never ever, ever, ever call it 'bathroom'. Ever. That is a yank term. He is a fraud.

Hang on!!
Do we play the game back?
Where are the statistics just for the attacks on male people with transgender identities from male people while in the male single sex toilet?

Oh god. READ THE THREAD BEFORE COMMENTING. The context was the necessity of trans people using the women's loos hence the provision of offence data. Try & keep up.

Given we have our own resident Muppet who is trying to ruin the career of a woman for correctly sexing by claiming she drove him to nearly kill himself and this is hate I think we take such claims of 'hate' with a pinch of salt.

Especially since said bloke has apparently over dosed with antihistamines and has been unable to leave the house for weeks and then managed to shout abuse at JKRowling in public with a mega phone.

And has made similar claims about suicide on no less than three separate occasions during this period.

We know this type of militant fruit loop is one of those filling in surveys like Stonewalls.

And apparently we should take it seriously rather than accurately access that there is a core group of militants with an agenda who are frankly very unstable and frankly behaving in a manner which is disturbed and intimidating and a lot of people have been too afraid to deal with it adequately because of fear.

We are supposed to ignore that the majority of the rent a quotes that appear in the media have said things which would get another male firmly cancelled for the same thing.

We are supposed to just accept the narrative of the 'just like any other woman' claptrap whilst recognising we don't know a single woman who would behave in that same manner.

We are supposed to pretend that sexist, overly sexualised, homophobic and racist comments we here are perfectly normal and find and that transwomen are 'just trying to pee' whilst they spew this stuff and go 'oh yeah all that feminism stuff we've done for years doesn't matter now and yeah we should just accept the offensive representations of women that transwomen adopt.

Yeah good one. For a second there I almost fell for it.

Transcels are incels.

It is a very derogatory term.

• cooker: a derogatory term for a person involved in protests against vaccine mandates, lockdowns and a range of other issues perceived to be infringing on personal freedom.

https://www.anu.edu.au/news/all-news/australias-2022-word-of-the-year-revealed

But there doesn't seem to be any data at all about trans identifying men coming to harm in men's toilets.

It refers to someone who is a far rightist, conspiracy theorist, usually anti-vaxxer. It means their brains are cooked. For example, those conspiracy theorists against the covid jab are called cookers.

Thank you. I haven’t seen that one before.

I will have a read. The abstract supports the fact that people are much safer in the toilets of their sex, particularly anyone who is vulnerable.

For example, in that article in talks about drug use. Drugs users unfortunately have a greater chance of death in a toilet. You may see signs around public toilet talking about drug use. It’s where people go to take drugs.

If someone collapses, they have a greater risk of surviving if someone sees them and gets help before it’s too late. I helped save the life of a young woman who had stopped breathing as she had choked on their own vomit precisely because I saw her on the floor of the toilet cubicle she was in.

A big problem is seeing them on the floor. This is because the door gaps get designed out. No ‘inclusive’, gender-neutral, mixed sex, universal, or unisex toilet have them in this country (which is why I asked about the U.K.). Even single sex designs have been becoming more private as the trend was that anyone used any toilets they wanted to and it was hateful to ask them not to. This means privacy becomes paramount.

Other major causes of death in toilets are cardiac arrests and self-harm. I notice cardiac issues and mental health are mentioned in the report. 11% of cardiac arrests happen on the loo. Anyone medically vulnerable is much safer in a toilet with door gaps as shown on this picture you ignored in another thread we were on.

In order for everyone to be safe and healthy, we need single sex designs with door gaps to be the most common design. Gender ideology and inclusive toilets work against this as the area in front of the cubicle is mixed sex therefore the cubicle design has to be private and sound resistant.

What you could do, which would be radical and I don’t think people are ready to accept this, is to have mixed sex toilet blocks that have door gaps that anyone could use. These are currently against building regs and legislation. I expect women would self exclude though due to male behaviour so they would become additional mens toilets.

The Stonewall report talks about shouting at people and pushing people (mentioned once) out of toilet blocks. I am talking about preventing multiple deaths and countless sexual assaults inside cubicles. That’s the difference. I am wanting everyone to be as safe as possible. The demographic least at risk in ‘inclusive’ designs are heathy men.

This is why the Supreme Court verdict was so great for vulnerable people - it will enable more of the safest toilet designs to be reintroduced and enforced.

I have read the thread. You have provided precisely zero relevant data to support trans identifying men using women's toilets.

There are more recorded crimes committed by trans identifying men against women and girls in women's toilets than there are crimes committed by men against trans identifying men in men's toilets.

"But there doesn't seem to be any data at all about trans identifying men coming to harm in men's toilets."

There doesn't need to be all there needs to be is trans people at greater risk of violence from men. Use logic!

If there were even anecdotal accounts we'd certainly have had them blazoned all over the media.

I suspect this doesn't matter to Brian, who will just spam us with hundreds of irrelevant comments and then say "you're not paying attention, keep up"

There has never been any report that a transwoman was attacked in male facilities. The only reports have been transwomen attacking females in female facilities. In fact, transwomen themselves have said they are completely safe in male facilities, and the worst they get is a smirk.

Why should we 'keep up' with utter incel nonsense?

Honestly. It's almost as if you think the world should revolve around you and that reality is irrelevant.

"Hi I'm redtoothbrush I'm a billionaire. Given me all the stuff in the shop. What do you mean imaginary money isn't real money?"

But there is no evidence of any such risk.

There is, however, plenty of evidence that trans identifying men present a risk to women.

Where is the data that SPECIFICALLY mentions PUBLIC TOILETS?

Where?

I have read the thread. You have provided precisely zero relevant data to support trans identifying men using women's toilets.
There are more recorded crimes committed by trans identifying men against women and girls in women's toilets than there are crimes committed by men against trans identifying men in men's toilets.

I DON'T HAVE TO. All I have to do is show trans people are at higher risk of violence around men who happen to be committing most of the violence against them according to the data.

And there's no evidence women are at risk from trans people.

Even with your 'data', and I say that loosely, there is zero evidence that transwomen are at increased risk of anything.

Even if they were, male-on-male violence is a male problem and is not a problem for women to solve. Male-on-female violence is a much greater problem.

There has never been any report that a transwoman was attacked in male facilities. The only reports have been transwomen attacking females in female facilities. In fact, transwomen themselves have said they are completely safe in male facilities, and the worst they get is a smirk.

That's because you can't or won't read the links provided.

Yup. If transwomen were attacked in the males, they'd rub our faces in it, bring it up every....day..., and NEVER let us forget it.

But how can we tell which beardy wanker is male and which beardy wanker is 'female' and therefore "allowed" in the toilets.

It doesn't even protect the 'legal' beardy wankers as a policy precisely because no one can tell which beardy wanker is legit and not legit!

Women are better off letting the beardy wankers sort it out between themselves and have a beardy wanker free zone!

Never mind this conversation always ignores the privacy and dignity element because ironically making it all about 'transwomen being perfectly safe' is an argument that's easier to make than the one about women not wishing to be around all penises.

And it has moved to being an all round abusive term to be used when women disagree with a man, or a man wants to marginalise a woman for any reason. Such as because she doesn’t react all friendly like when he looks her way.