FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > JKR feels women are abandoned by Labour
JKR feels women are abandoned by Labour
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT." Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. " No, just jk Rowling | |||
"I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces." Is it the penis that's the problem, or the person it's attached to? What problem is caused by a person hiding a penis inside their underclothes going into a women's toilet? | |||
"I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. Is it the penis that's the problem, or the person it's attached to? What problem is caused by a person hiding a penis inside their underclothes going into a women's toilet?" It’s the fact that a male rapist can put on a dress then go into the ladies loo ( not sure how many this would be ) . To be more concise it’s the aforementioned being able to enter a woman’s refuge where abused partners may be then put them at a high risk ( less than the guy going to loo in dress though more likely. To end very badly ) . Only answer is separate spaces for victims of abuse be they male female or trans .  | |||
| |||
"Which is another reason why people really need to have second thoughts about voting for Labour if they feel its ok for non biological women (a man) to share private spaces with biological females = looney idea" have they said this ? One can support trans rights and equality without also allowing exceptions to be made. I've kinda lost track what they have been said in this space. | |||
| |||
| |||
"It’s difficult to keep up with Starmer on this issue. Not right to say that only women have a cervix. 99.9% of women don’t have a penis. It is right that women have a cervix. This is the kind of big picture inspirational leadership that the country is crying out for." You forget that Keir Starmer doesnt know what a woman is or too scared to admit what a woman really is and thats the person that most people in here want as their next Prime Minister, good luck | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem." ************************************ I'm reluctant to post this but, I think you really ought to proof read before you write these beliefs of yours because to myself (and others), they are ridiculous, completely wrong and insulting to many people. Sorry, but I have to say this. | |||
"It is right that women have a cervix." Not necessarily. Some women have had theirs removed, and some are born without one. Possession of a cervix is not a determinant. | |||
| |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling " So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans. | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem." I can well understand your response, considering your choice to trans, to this issue, but you do answer the question yourself. You say " .... then go do something about fucking MEN!" Those so often accused of being Trans phobic and trans haters are trying to do something in that they want to keep those same "fucking MEN" out of women only spaces. The only clear way of defining a "fucking man" at present is he has a penis. When he no longer has one, she would be welcome in women's facilities. | |||
| |||
"As a child I did stay in a refuge for about 7 months. The people who run it absolutely detested men, and if they were still alive I doubt if they would feel any different about a trans who used to be a man. Some women really do have to have safe places, and no men of any description should be allowed access to them. I don’t want to upset anyone, but I don’t believe trans should be made exceptions for." i absolutely get this and afaik they aren't forced to take trans women. My understanding is the law allows for exceptions in certain cases. And again labour aren't seeking to change that. My question is whether jkr and those who run the shelters are comfortable with a trans man who presents as a man, and has had hormone therapy, into shelters. | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem." the most hatred iv ever read on here is by far this post I don’t think yr doing the trans ppl any good with all that ranting | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem. I can well understand your response, considering your choice to trans, to this issue, but you do answer the question yourself. You say " .... then go do something about fucking MEN!" Those so often accused of being Trans phobic and trans haters are trying to do something in that they want to keep those same "fucking MEN" out of women only spaces. The only clear way of defining a "fucking man" at present is he has a penis. When he no longer has one, she would be welcome in women's facilities. " Please tell me how many instances there have been of MEN disguising themselves as women in order to gain access to women's facilities. How many instances there have been of men living full time or even part time as women, for months and years. Showing themselves on social media as being women. Talking to doctors, coming out to their families and employers as being women. Regularly making themselves visible in public as women. Putting themselves on government registers as trans women (not as women, but deliberately outing themselves as trans to the government and all other authorities) in the knowledge that if our government lurches even further to the right this would effectively put a target on their backs. Just so that they can sneak into women's shelters. Just so that they can join the long queue at the women's toilet when they need to pee. IT DOES NOT HAPPEN. What does happen is that because of the hate against trans women that is originated by MALE politicians and billionaires, then taken up by women because of a totally manufactured fear climate, lots of cis women who happen to have masculine features or who present in a masculine manner find themselves being targeted as "that's never a real woman, that's got to be a trans". We get MEN pushing legislation to allow genital examinations of any women that they suspect. We get MALE security guards entering women's toilets and assaulting WOMEN, demanding to see their genitals or forcibly removing them from those facilities because "they didn't look like a woman". This does happen. This has been documented, particularly in American states where the anti-trans agenda has been pushed further than here. It is going to happen here if the transphobes get their way. The anti-trans agenda is anti-feminist, it is anti-women. And it does nothing to protect women, it does nothing to solve the problem of men hurting women. If you want women to be safe, don't spout anti trans bullshit. Examine the actions of MEN. You don't protect women against men by attacking trans women, when you attack trans women you attack all women. PS. All the anti-trans rhetoric, fifty years ago exactly the same words were used to attack lesbians. They were used to attack people of colour. Further back they were used to attack Jewish people. They were used to attack gay men. These exact same words are used to attack anybody different. In the future, if you get rid of trans women, they will be used to attack swingers. | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem.the most hatred iv ever read on here is by far this post I don’t think yr doing the trans ppl any good with all that ranting " Yeah, let's do some victim blaming. What do I do, stay meekly silent while you say whatever the hell you like about trans women? | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem.the most hatred iv ever read on here is by far this post I don’t think yr doing the trans ppl any good with all that ranting Yeah, let's do some victim blaming. What do I do, stay meekly silent while you say whatever the hell you like about trans women?" don’t think iv ever said a word about trans women you can look and check if you like the blaming I’m seeing from you is fucking men your words not mine | |||
"I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. Is it the penis that's the problem, or the person it's attached to? What problem is caused by a person hiding a penis inside their underclothes going into a women's toilet?" Intent. Is the person identifying temporarily as a woman, or actually wants to remove the biological impediment to being one. I'm thinking of the Scottish case of the rapist becoming Isla Bryson and consequent regulations of people with penises not being accommodated in female prisons. | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem." How can one do something about the trickery? How does one differentiate between a man lying and a transwoman with a penis? A post op transwoman is not trying to trick anyone so we can start here, surely? BTW gender fluid does not a transwoman make. And I'm not criticising as my daughter expresses gender fluidity. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans." I don't see ambiguity. What I've read re SKS is that biological and gender are different issues. And that aligns with my thoughts and propose women have not been abandoned by Labour. Whereas Trans appear abandoned by tories. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling " Definitely not "just jk Rowling" these threads always go the same way. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT." This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women? | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women?" in no way defending the criminal system here but added context Almost 40pc of the 2021 cases hasn't had an outcome assigned. That's significantly higher than most crimes and probably is indicative of how long it takes to build a case. And 40 pc of cases has a "evidential difficulties (and victim does not support action)" Understanding that bit is imo where we make progress. However the 1.3pc stat may put off future complaints. Once cases get to court the majority end in a conviction. We need to get more cases there by understanding why victims cease to support action (and I'm sure there are many views!) Don't mean to diarail, but i fear the use of the 1.3 pc damages the cause. It doesn't help put o spotlight on the key issues and may put off future victims... Of cases which have concluded and victims have supported, it's at about 70pc if my maths is right. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women?" Isla Bryson isn't an isolated case. Perhaps someone like him/her (however s/he identifies now), thought he'd have an easier time in a female prison, or he was an opportunist. Either way, he was convicted of r@pe and shouldn't be accommodated in female only places. | |||
| |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women? Isla Bryson isn't an isolated case. Perhaps someone like him/her (however s/he identifies now), thought he'd have an easier time in a female prison, or he was an opportunist. Either way, he was convicted of r@pe and shouldn't be accommodated in female only places." I can see your point on her but that is someone who has been convicted of r*pe and then decides to transition. I’m very sceptical of her reasons for transitioning but she didn’t need to transition in order to have the opportunity to r*pe someone. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women?in no way defending the criminal system here but added context Almost 40pc of the 2021 cases hasn't had an outcome assigned. That's significantly higher than most crimes and probably is indicative of how long it takes to build a case. And 40 pc of cases has a "evidential difficulties (and victim does not support action)" Understanding that bit is imo where we make progress. However the 1.3pc stat may put off future complaints. Once cases get to court the majority end in a conviction. We need to get more cases there by understanding why victims cease to support action (and I'm sure there are many views!) Don't mean to diarail, but i fear the use of the 1.3 pc damages the cause. It doesn't help put o spotlight on the key issues and may put off future victims... Of cases which have concluded and victims have supported, it's at about 70pc if my maths is right. " Why doesn’t the 1.3% statistic help shine a light onto things? Yes there are numerous reasons for why a case may not move to trial but it is a shocking statistic and to sweep it under the carpet because it may put people off reporting is not the way forward. Reports of r*pe are increasing year on year, so it doesn’t seem to be putting anyone off. What we need to focus on is how victims can be better supported and how the police can better investigate reports. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women? Isla Bryson isn't an isolated case. Perhaps someone like him/her (however s/he identifies now), thought he'd have an easier time in a female prison, or he was an opportunist. Either way, he was convicted of r@pe and shouldn't be accommodated in female only places." there's probably a difference between someone who starts to transition after a conviction (I share your cynicism) and most trans women. I also understand the concern when they leave prison. That's tricky, but I wonder if there are better ways to manage that for people on the sex offenders list. Again, it's a balancing the rights and safety of all parties. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women?in no way defending the criminal system here but added context Almost 40pc of the 2021 cases hasn't had an outcome assigned. That's significantly higher than most crimes and probably is indicative of how long it takes to build a case. And 40 pc of cases has a "evidential difficulties (and victim does not support action)" Understanding that bit is imo where we make progress. However the 1.3pc stat may put off future complaints. Once cases get to court the majority end in a conviction. We need to get more cases there by understanding why victims cease to support action (and I'm sure there are many views!) Don't mean to diarail, but i fear the use of the 1.3 pc damages the cause. It doesn't help put o spotlight on the key issues and may put off future victims... Of cases which have concluded and victims have supported, it's at about 70pc if my maths is right. Why doesn’t the 1.3% statistic help shine a light onto things? Yes there are numerous reasons for why a case may not move to trial but it is a shocking statistic and to sweep it under the carpet because it may put people off reporting is not the way forward. Reports of r*pe are increasing year on year, so it doesn’t seem to be putting anyone off. What we need to focus on is how victims can be better supported and how the police can better investigate reports." I agree on that last sentence. We need to understand why victims don't want to support a case through to trial. We need to see if we can speed up getting cases to an outcome. I'm not sweeping anything under the carpet. But if all cases took a year to complete and all cases ended in a conviction, that 1.3 would be reported as 0. In my view that makes it slightly less helpful than a conviction rate that follows cases across years. And if all the outstanding cases ended up getting convictions I'd still want is to focus on the 40pc where the victim doesn't support the cases. As that's a high number versus other crimes. So yes, it shines light. But we can better focus that light. But I'd not call it decriminalised because it takes a longer time to get to court than other cases which could explain some of that low rate. I would if yhe system was set up to fail victims. But... The 1.3 doesn't tell me that. The other numbers do. And give me a route to get the number up. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women? Isla Bryson isn't an isolated case. Perhaps someone like him/her (however s/he identifies now), thought he'd have an easier time in a female prison, or he was an opportunist. Either way, he was convicted of r@pe and shouldn't be accommodated in female only places.there's probably a difference between someone who starts to transition after a conviction (I share your cynicism) and most trans women. I also understand the concern when they leave prison. That's tricky, but I wonder if there are better ways to manage that for people on the sex offenders list. Again, it's a balancing the rights and safety of all parties. " Someone mentioned above that they think there are very few men would masquerade as trans in life and online in preparation for the opportunity to get into a womens space . I tend to agree. I think the risk is more in the wheel house of if it become law that people can identify as they wish, and then use gendered spaces as they wish it will become less likely for people to be challenged going into those spaces. Then opportunists who have no connection to the trans community have the ability to use those spaces in the moment for nefarious purposes and are less likely ti be challenged, less likely for any incident to be prevented. | |||
| |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. This thing about men pretending to be trans to enter women only spaces to do something nefarious is a bit of a red herring for me. Given that r*pe is pretty much decriminalised, in 2021 only about 1.3% of r*pe accusations resulted in a charge ffs, why would men feel the need to pretend to be trans to do bad things to women? Isla Bryson isn't an isolated case. Perhaps someone like him/her (however s/he identifies now), thought he'd have an easier time in a female prison, or he was an opportunist. Either way, he was convicted of r@pe and shouldn't be accommodated in female only places.there's probably a difference between someone who starts to transition after a conviction (I share your cynicism) and most trans women. I also understand the concern when they leave prison. That's tricky, but I wonder if there are better ways to manage that for people on the sex offenders list. Again, it's a balancing the rights and safety of all parties. Someone mentioned above that they think there are very few men would masquerade as trans in life and online in preparation for the opportunity to get into a womens space . I tend to agree. I think the risk is more in the wheel house of if it become law that people can identify as they wish, and then use gendered spaces as they wish it will become less likely for people to be challenged going into those spaces. Then opportunists who have no connection to the trans community have the ability to use those spaces in the moment for nefarious purposes and are less likely ti be challenged, less likely for any incident to be prevented. " I get this. But afaik no party has suggested this. Nor have they suggested they will remove the ability to "discrimate" in certain circumstances. In my mind there are two instances: spaces where there is inertia before getting in (prison, houses) whereby there's vetting (or similar) The other are more fluid spaces such as toilets and changing rooms. These are harder to police, but also that means they aren't policed today ! And what will happen if we go down the biology route is trans men will be harassed and shamed. (Indeed I've read of masculine women already being harassed). | |||
"I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. Is it the penis that's the problem, or the person it's attached to? What problem is caused by a person hiding a penis inside their underclothes going into a women's toilet? It’s the fact that a male rapist can put on a dress then go into the ladies loo ( not sure how many this would be ) . To be more concise it’s the aforementioned being able to enter a woman’s refuge where abused partners may be then put them at a high risk ( less than the guy going to loo in dress though more likely. To end very badly ) . Only answer is separate spaces for victims of abuse be they male female or trans . "Well I'm absolutely delighted that you aren't positioning all trans women as rapists. However your understanding of the Equality Act is lacking. The Equality Act allows organisations to exclude a transgender woman from a woman's refuge. However it has to be done on a case by case basis. They can't adopt a policy banning each and every transwoman. (And vice versa for trans men) So the issue you have, actually isn't an issue at all. You're welcome! | |||
"I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. Is it the penis that's the problem, or the person it's attached to? What problem is caused by a person hiding a penis inside their underclothes going into a women's toilet? It’s the fact that a male rapist can put on a dress then go into the ladies loo ( not sure how many this would be ) . To be more concise it’s the aforementioned being able to enter a woman’s refuge where abused partners may be then put them at a high risk ( less than the guy going to loo in dress though more likely. To end very badly ) . Only answer is separate spaces for victims of abuse be they male female or trans .
Well I'm absolutely delighted that you aren't positioning all trans women as rapists. However your understanding of the Equality Act is lacking.
The Equality Act allows organisations to exclude a transgender woman from a woman's refuge. However it has to be done on a case by case basis. They can't adopt a policy banning each and every transwoman. (And vice versa for trans men)
So the issue you have, actually isn't an issue at all.
You're welcome!"And it is very worrying that the tories want to change the law. | |||
"All I'm hearing here is that men are the fucking problem! Well you know what? I'm not a man, I'm a trans woman. And I'm not the fucking problem. If you're really worried about MEN using trickery to hurt women, then go do something about fucking MEN! But you won't. And you know something, the ones who drive this shit from the top, the ones that push the hatred? The billionaires and media barons and politicians that tell you to hate trans women? They don't give a flying fuck about women. All they care about is increasing hatred, any hatred, because hatred makes them money, sells their shitrag "news" papers, gets them votes. Pussy grabber Trump tells you to hate trans women? And you're stupid enough to nod, to agree with the r@pist? JKR's husband, a man, was violent to her. Was her husband trans? No he was a fucking man. So why the fuck the hatred heaped on trans women? It's because it's easy, it's lazy, it deflects the attention from the real problem, it makes money for the ones who are the real problem. If you think that the biggest danger to women is trans women, then it's you who are the problem. Not me. Whether you're a man or a woman, it's you who are the problem. Don't be part of the problem, do something to help solve the real problem. ************************************ I'm reluctant to post this but, I think you really ought to proof read before you write these beliefs of yours because to myself (and others), they are ridiculous, completely wrong and insulting to many people. Sorry, but I have to say this." Well that was patronising. Allow me to return the compliment. You say speak for many people. You may describe yourself as TV/TS but that does not entitle you to appropriate the voice of trans people to shout down someone who is expressing a personal opinion about what has come to be known as "The Transgender Debate". I have lived as a woman for over 20 years. I have lost count of the number of times I have been attacked and abused because I am trans. I almost died 19 years ago when I was attacked by 5 youths after leaving an lgbt venue in the East End of London. But things got better, for a while ... The discourse between gender critical voices and trans people is not new. But the debate is now far more polarised. In CGD v Forstater the courts established that the belief that sex cannot be changed was a belief worthy of protection, and that it was unlawful to discriminate.inate against somebody eho holds that belief. But that is all it is: it is just a belief and it doesn't trump my belief that it is possible to change sex. And my belief is informed by the fact that there are legal processes in place to recognise and legitimise change of sex. Be that as it may, more and more people are piling in on this debate and forging alliances transcending longstanding political boundaries. Politicians have always scapegoated minority communities to deflect attention from their own shortcomings. Our current government decided to target refugees and transpeople. Whether they co-opted mainstream media to assist them in their goals or whether they jumped on the coat-tails of a populist wave created by mainstream media is moot. But on this particular issue, both are singing from the same hymn sheet. And when we see neo Nazis performing Nazi salutes at "Let Women Speak" rallies, it's hard to ignore the links between far right extremism and transphobia. Frankly though you say you are trans, you don't seem to have a clue about what is really happening and which side of your slice of bread has butter on it. Do catch up! | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT." Equally, women and people with vaginas should not enter male spaces, yet sadly this never part of the conversation. JKR is a sexist bigot. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Equally, women and people with vaginas should not enter male spaces, yet sadly this never part of the conversation. JKR is a sexist bigot." You are aware that there is no parity here? | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Equally, women and people with vaginas should not enter male spaces, yet sadly this never part of the conversation. JKR is a sexist bigot." Women entering male spaces does concern me, though as you say it is not something that gets any particular media or political attention. In my younger days it was quite common for women to burst into men’s toilets in nightclubs etc when the queue was too big in their own. It always made me very uncomfortable. And of course there is a major risk as a man that you then face allegations of exposing yourself to the woman. As usual the interests of men are hardly considered in this debate. I mean men not wearing a dress obviously. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Equally, women and people with vaginas should not enter male spaces, yet sadly this never part of the conversation. JKR is a sexist bigot. Women entering male spaces does concern me, though as you say it is not something that gets any particular media or political attention. In my younger days it was quite common for women to burst into men’s toilets in nightclubs etc when the queue was too big in their own. It always made me very uncomfortable. And of course there is a major risk as a man that you then face allegations of exposing yourself to the woman. As usual the interests of men are hardly considered in this debate. I mean men not wearing a dress obviously." Really? You want to go there? | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Equally, women and people with vaginas should not enter male spaces, yet sadly this never part of the conversation. JKR is a sexist bigot. Women entering male spaces does concern me, though as you say it is not something that gets any particular media or political attention. In my younger days it was quite common for women to burst into men’s toilets in nightclubs etc when the queue was too big in their own. It always made me very uncomfortable. And of course there is a major risk as a man that you then face allegations of exposing yourself to the woman. As usual the interests of men are hardly considered in this debate. I mean men not wearing a dress obviously." The idea of a man being charged for exposing themselves to a woman who burns a into a male toilet is laughable. | |||
| |||
"Can't believe people are still trying the "a cis man might pretend to be a trans woman and get into bathrooms!" panic. Predatory men don't pretend to be trans women to assault or abuse women. They don't need to. " No, you're quite right - predatory men don't need to pretend to be trans women to assault or abuse women, but it's an extra, private and secluded opportunity to do so if the male predator falsely presents as a woman. And it's not just adult women we should be considering. Do you have a young daughter? If your young daughter went into a public toilet with shared spaces, such as sinks, mirrors etc and an "obvious" male in a dress followed her in straight away, what would you do? Would you be concerned, or would you leave your daughter at risk in the name of "inclusivity"? There is also the question of females of different cultures. A muslim woman, for example, would not want to share a private space in this way due to her cultural beliefs of modesty, as mentioned in the Q'ran. We pride ourselves in the UK that we accept all cultures, but in this case, transgender inclusion can lead to cultural exclusion. | |||
| |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). " I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t." Why, what laws are you planning to break? | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t." They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t." Are you related to the brothers Grimm? As you like to make up tales about the Labour party. | |||
| |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days." No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. " Isn't it more like what is sauce for the goose? I am happy to accept whatever individuals want to be described as.....but please offer me the same courtesy. | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. " I’m not sure that many people spend a great deal of time worrying about it. But if people want to call me a woman let them. | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. " I'm not small minded or resistant to change but I too do not want to be called a 'cis' anything. I'm a woman and identify as a woman. I'm not a woman because I'm entitled, I'm a woman because of birth. I have no problem accepting others who transition, they are free to see themselves as they choose. All I ask is for the trans community to give me the same grace and let me identify as a woman. As for the term 'cis' which I think was used in the 90s, being used to distinguish between woman and trans woman it is superfluous and redundant. This is due to the fact that trans woman is the term used by those that have gone through transition, whilst the term woman relates to a female through birth. Women are women, trans women are trans women, that's the distinction. As for your heterosexual remark, doesn't that relate to sexuality. So I could be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexuality but I'll always be a woman. The same would apply to trans woman. Mrs x | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. I'm not small minded or resistant to change but I too do not want to be called a 'cis' anything. I'm a woman and identify as a woman. I'm not a woman because I'm entitled, I'm a woman because of birth. I have no problem accepting others who transition, they are free to see themselves as they choose. All I ask is for the trans community to give me the same grace and let me identify as a woman. As for the term 'cis' which I think was used in the 90s, being used to distinguish between woman and trans woman it is superfluous and redundant. This is due to the fact that trans woman is the term used by those that have gone through transition, whilst the term woman relates to a female through birth. Women are women, trans women are trans women, that's the distinction. As for your heterosexual remark, doesn't that relate to sexuality. So I could be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexuality but I'll always be a woman. The same would apply to trans woman. Mrs x" I'm sure your partner is grateful to you for speaking for him. | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. I'm not small minded or resistant to change but I too do not want to be called a 'cis' anything. I'm a woman and identify as a woman. I'm not a woman because I'm entitled, I'm a woman because of birth. I have no problem accepting others who transition, they are free to see themselves as they choose. All I ask is for the trans community to give me the same grace and let me identify as a woman. As for the term 'cis' which I think was used in the 90s, being used to distinguish between woman and trans woman it is superfluous and redundant. This is due to the fact that trans woman is the term used by those that have gone through transition, whilst the term woman relates to a female through birth. Women are women, trans women are trans women, that's the distinction. As for your heterosexual remark, doesn't that relate to sexuality. So I could be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexuality but I'll always be a woman. The same would apply to trans woman. Mrs x I'm sure your partner is grateful to you for speaking for him. " ******************************** Could you please clarify the above re. "partner is grateful"....? Your reply earlier (regarding my comments about another post) were rather misguided as you do not have any idea of my lifestyle, even less how I see myself. No, I'm not 'trans', as you state I describe myself. I'm a born male with a love of being able to wear any outfits I choose to wear, male or femme, I am purely bisexual and see attraction in certain people, their sex is completely irrelevant. In the twelve years since I 'introduced', so to speak, my other self to everyone in my life, not once have I encountered opposition of any sort. All my family, friends, work colleagues, neighbours and their dogs know me/her as a very nice and non-judgemental person, I take full responsibility for all I do or say and my honesty is impeccable, just for the record. I'm no label fan either, just me, nature had me born male (with a little androgyny attached!) but I express myself as I wish, without offending anyone or stating any opinion as to how anyone else ought to behave. This post of mine merely scratches what is a very complex subject and I have not the time to compose any more here, as I am still busy with my work but having a 'little break' to write the above, which, I hope helps to show the very basics of my very happy life on Earth. BUT..... do not consider me 'clueless', you do not know one iota other than what I have rambled above and my (pseudo-femme!) appearance, as per my images on here. I have rather a higher intelligence than some people may assume. If only you knew the truth, you would understand. Finally, regarding all the superfluous 'stuff' hurled about on the subject of, (in a nutshell), 'gender, sex, cis, trans', et al....., There's two kinds of folks, Good and not good. That is my conviction on that matter. (Really though...., apologies about the above presentation, it's tap-tapped on a modern telephone and in a great hurry). D. Eva Nightingale. | |||
" Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. " Heterosexual is not a prefix. People are not expected to add it to terms they already use , or define and describe themselves as a hetero man or woman on things like their social media, work signatures. In fact if i read someone describing themselves as a hetero man unprompted i would assume them a but of a verbally aggressive homophobe. | |||
" Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. Heterosexual is not a prefix. People are not expected to add it to terms they already use , or define and describe themselves as a hetero man or woman on things like their social media, work signatures. In fact if i read someone describing themselves as a hetero man unprompted i would assume them a but of a verbally aggressive homophobe. " Does that not just show that society as a whole is biased towards heterosexuality? | |||
" Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. Heterosexual is not a prefix. People are not expected to add it to terms they already use , or define and describe themselves as a hetero man or woman on things like their social media, work signatures. In fact if i read someone describing themselves as a hetero man unprompted i would assume them a but of a verbally aggressive homophobe. Does that not just show that society as a whole is biased towards heterosexuality?" The world assumes you are the "norm" and you have to tell them when you aren't. As we see in the enm world ! Telling someone you are the norm seems to have undertones. Which is unfortunate as it it forces labels into the few which in itself isolates. | |||
" Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. Heterosexual is not a prefix. People are not expected to add it to terms they already use , or define and describe themselves as a hetero man or woman on things like their social media, work signatures. In fact if i read someone describing themselves as a hetero man unprompted i would assume them a but of a verbally aggressive homophobe. Does that not just show that society as a whole is biased towards heterosexuality?" No. Because people are not forced to add bisexual or homosexual either. | |||
" Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. Heterosexual is not a prefix. People are not expected to add it to terms they already use , or define and describe themselves as a hetero man or woman on things like their social media, work signatures. In fact if i read someone describing themselves as a hetero man unprompted i would assume them a but of a verbally aggressive homophobe. Does that not just show that society as a whole is biased towards heterosexuality? The world assumes you are the "norm" and you have to tell them when you aren't. As we see in the enm world ! Telling someone you are the norm seems to have undertones. Which is unfortunate as it it forces labels into the few which in itself isolates. " I even think using norm here carries that same undertone. It suggests that the other is not normal. I completely understand the point you are trying to make but rather than “normal” I think where people are coming from is most common. Its what is the circumstance most often. I also tried to think of better ways to describe it and my brain also keeps jumping to the word normal so not suggesting you meant anything by it, just i guess if we step back and look at the language its not great and its probably time we had another term. But yes when people see the need to describe themselves as the “normal” unprompted its usually them making sure they don't fall into another category and comes from not a great place. The whole trans language debate seems to flip what usually happens on its head. | |||
| |||
" Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. Heterosexual is not a prefix. People are not expected to add it to terms they already use , or define and describe themselves as a hetero man or woman on things like their social media, work signatures. In fact if i read someone describing themselves as a hetero man unprompted i would assume them a but of a verbally aggressive homophobe. Does that not just show that society as a whole is biased towards heterosexuality? The world assumes you are the "norm" and you have to tell them when you aren't. As we see in the enm world ! Telling someone you are the norm seems to have undertones. Which is unfortunate as it it forces labels into the few which in itself isolates. I even think using norm here carries that same undertone. It suggests that the other is not normal. I completely understand the point you are trying to make but rather than “normal” I think where people are coming from is most common. Its what is the circumstance most often. I also tried to think of better ways to describe it and my brain also keeps jumping to the word normal so not suggesting you meant anything by it, just i guess if we step back and look at the language its not great and its probably time we had another term. But yes when people see the need to describe themselves as the “normal” unprompted its usually them making sure they don't fall into another category and comes from not a great place. The whole trans language debate seems to flip what usually happens on its head." fair challenge. Language is important. I meant the mode. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans." so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. " You should go on her thread on “X” and repeat the claim that she is a holocaust denier. Perhaps then come back to the forum and let us know how you get on. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. " Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust? | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust?" She is saying that trans people were not victims of the holocaust, and if you try to say that is holocaust denial she gets her very expensive lawyers to threaten to ruin your life. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust? She is saying that trans people were not victims of the holocaust, and if you try to say that is holocaust denial she gets her very expensive lawyers to threaten to ruin your life." Thanks. I was being lazy but then looked it up. Feels like a semantics argument. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust? She is saying that trans people were not victims of the holocaust, and if you try to say that is holocaust denial she gets her very expensive lawyers to threaten to ruin your life. Thanks. I was being lazy but then looked it up. Feels like a semantics argument. " Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. | |||
"I know it's a complex issue. But surely if you want people to respect someone's pronouns and address them that way, you should also respect someone's wish to be not called a cis-woman? You know... for some consistency." That's my point. I'm not a 'cis' anything, I'm a woman, don't call me 'cis' please, it's disrespectful, Mrs x | |||
"This may be a bit off topic but I'll put it out there. Am I the only person that feels insulted when the term "CIS" is applied to my sex without my consent? I am a man, I identify as a man, I am happy to be classified as a male, my pronouns reflect my biological and chosen gender. If someone wants to identify as something other than their birth or biological sex, then I will always respect that and adjust my language to respect them. But please don't expect me to adopt the phrase CIS for my own status (as my employer apparently wants me to adhere to because apparently all need new badges). I’m 100% with you there, save for the fact that I’m not going to call someone a horse because they’d like me to. Facts are facts. Though under Labour I’ll probably end up going to jail if I don’t. They throw you in jail just for saying you’re English, these days. No you're not alone. A lot of people feel the same way. They are usually small minded people who are resistant to change and have an overbearing sense of entitlement. But it's not about you. It's about being able to differentiate between those who are trans and those who are not when we are talking about such matters. Question: do you object to the term heterosexual in the same way? Because cis is to gender what hetero is to sexuality. I'm not small minded or resistant to change but I too do not want to be called a 'cis' anything. I'm a woman and identify as a woman. I'm not a woman because I'm entitled, I'm a woman because of birth. I have no problem accepting others who transition, they are free to see themselves as they choose. All I ask is for the trans community to give me the same grace and let me identify as a woman. As for the term 'cis' which I think was used in the 90s, being used to distinguish between woman and trans woman it is superfluous and redundant. This is due to the fact that trans woman is the term used by those that have gone through transition, whilst the term woman relates to a female through birth. Women are women, trans women are trans women, that's the distinction. As for your heterosexual remark, doesn't that relate to sexuality. So I could be heterosexual, homosexual, bisexuality but I'll always be a woman. The same would apply to trans woman. Mrs x I'm sure your partner is grateful to you for speaking for him. " Lost, sorry must have gone over my head, Mrs x | |||
| |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust? She is saying that trans people were not victims of the holocaust, and if you try to say that is holocaust denial she gets her very expensive lawyers to threaten to ruin your life. Thanks. I was being lazy but then looked it up. Feels like a semantics argument. Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from." I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. | |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers." The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. | |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie." Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills. | |||
| |||
"Forgive me but hanging out on X with the racists and the right wing nut jobs is not my idea of fun. " I know how you feel. I don’t like baseball much so don’t really watch it. | |||
| |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills." That's a massive cope. If she has told the truth, there is no reason for her to apologise like this. Journalists face allegations like these all the time. They don't take back statements and apologise for them unless they lied. | |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills." It's still a lie. And she had rightly apologised, because she knows it's a lie. If you feel otherwise, then demonstrate how JKR *IS* a "Holocaust denier", and the rest of this discussion is moot. Several of her tweets were poorly articulated, but nowhere does she deny the holocaust. She might have been trying to say that the Germans were targeting gays, specifically, and that trans issues were not being treated distinctly as trans issues, but rather under the gay umbrella. Helpful quotes from JKR on this: I just… how? How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve been a fever dream’? Neither of your articles support the contention that trans people were the first victims of the Nazis or that all research on trans healthcare was burned in 1930s Germany. You are engaging in lying, Alejandra This, from @rivkahbrown, a journalist who wrote a tweet celebrating the Hamas attack of October 7th and was forced to apologise for it, is staggering. I'd be delighted to meet you in court, Rivkah, to discuss holocaust denial. There is no tragedy where they didn’t suffer more than anyone else, no issue in which they don’t centre themselves. Language, history, other people’s oppression: all must be reconfigured around them. (These can all be found on X) | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust? She is saying that trans people were not victims of the holocaust, and if you try to say that is holocaust denial she gets her very expensive lawyers to threaten to ruin your life." Why is she saying trans were not victims of the holocaust? It stands to reason they would have been as "undesirables/untermenschen" (and have found sites that assert they were). I imagine many were within the homosexual groups - a pre op traswoman in a relationship with a man would have been viewed as gay. | |||
"Sorry love, I do not feel abandoned by his view on women and transgender. I agree that a person, however they identify, with male appendage, should not enter female only spaces. This case reared its head after Thursday's QT. Great. Another thread for some standard issue trans community bashing. No, just jk Rowling So what's your gripe with JKR? As far as I can see her position has been consistent, and she's just calling out Labour for their ambiguous stance on trans.so you're OK on her being a holocaust denier then? Trans people were amongst the victims of the Nazis but Joanne denies it happened. Just for clarity and my understanding (as I am not on Twatter and don’t follow JKR)… Is she saying the holocaust per se didn’t happen or only that trans people were not included in the victims of the holocaust? She is saying that trans people were not victims of the holocaust, and if you try to say that is holocaust denial she gets her very expensive lawyers to threaten to ruin your life. Why is she saying trans were not victims of the holocaust? It stands to reason they would have been as "undesirables/untermenschen" (and have found sites that assert they were). I imagine many were within the homosexual groups - a pre op traswoman in a relationship with a man would have been viewed as gay." The nazis possibly ran out of shapes and colours for every undesirable group to be distinct under an icon. | |||
| |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills. It's still a lie. And she had rightly apologised, because she knows it's a lie. If you feel otherwise, then demonstrate how JKR *IS* a "Holocaust denier", and the rest of this discussion is moot. Several of her tweets were poorly articulated, but nowhere does she deny the holocaust. She might have been trying to say that the Germans were targeting gays, specifically, and that trans issues were not being treated distinctly as trans issues, but rather under the gay umbrella. Helpful quotes from JKR on this: I just… how? How did you type this out and press send without thinking ‘I should maybe check my source for this, because it might’ve been a fever dream’? Neither of your articles support the contention that trans people were the first victims of the Nazis or that all research on trans healthcare was burned in 1930s Germany. You are engaging in lying, Alejandra This, from @rivkahbrown, a journalist who wrote a tweet celebrating the Hamas attack of October 7th and was forced to apologise for it, is staggering. I'd be delighted to meet you in court, Rivkah, to discuss holocaust denial. There is no tragedy where they didn’t suffer more than anyone else, no issue in which they don’t centre themselves. Language, history, other people’s oppression: all must be reconfigured around them. (These can all be found on X)" Holocaust denial is not simply denying the Holocaust happened, it is denying that certain groups were victims of the Holocaust. | |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills. That's a massive cope. If she has told the truth, there is no reason for her to apologise like this. Journalists face allegations like these all the time. They don't take back statements and apologise for them unless they lied." I’m not sure you understand quite how much the scales are tipped towards the wealthy in such matters. | |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills. That's a massive cope. If she has told the truth, there is no reason for her to apologise like this. Journalists face allegations like these all the time. They don't take back statements and apologise for them unless they lied. I’m not sure you understand quite how much the scales are tipped towards the wealthy in such matters." Presumably people who don’t have the money to back up what bile they spout should be a little more cautious before they speak. | |||
" Rivkah Brown who originally posted that JKR is a Holocaust denier deleted the tweet, apologised and admitted that she was wrong. But the lefties on the internet are still saying that JKR is a Holocaust denier because none of them cared to check where the allegations came from. I’m not sure that Rivkah Brown took that course of action entirely unprompted by Rowling’s very expensive lawyers. The cost of the lawyers is irrelevant. As a journalist, she would be confident to stand by her statement, were it not a complete lie. Yes but in the real world the cost of lawyers is very important, principles and the truth don’t pay the bills. That's a massive cope. If she has told the truth, there is no reason for her to apologise like this. Journalists face allegations like these all the time. They don't take back statements and apologise for them unless they lied. I’m not sure you understand quite how much the scales are tipped towards the wealthy in such matters." If what you said is true, not a single journalist would be writing anything bad about wealthy people. And yet journalists do all the time. Journalists have criticised JK Rowling herself so many times. None of them retracted what they said and apologised to her. If you still believe that JK Rowling is a Holocaust denier, you have to show us evidence to support this allegation. Then you wouldn't have to do these gymnastics to defend Brown. | |||
" I’m not sure you understand quite how much the scales are tipped towards the wealthy in such matters." Do you feel that the "Holocaust denier" allegation is at all defensible in court? | |||
" I’m not sure you understand quite how much the scales are tipped towards the wealthy in such matters. Do you feel that the "Holocaust denier" allegation is at all defensible in court?" It doesn’t really matter, Rowling wouldn’t have to prove it was a false claim, only that it has caused serious harm to her reputation or profession by causing a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. One defence would be to prove on the balance of probabilities that the statement is true, which would be essentially down to the opinion of the judge trying the case. Ultimately, Rowling can afford to lose a couple of million quid on going to court, a journalist cannot, so if there’s even the slightest possibility Rowling could win then the only sensible option is to apologise in the manner that she requests. This is why the ‘game’ is stacked in favour of the rich. | |||
| |||
" I’m not sure you understand quite how much the scales are tipped towards the wealthy in such matters. Do you feel that the "Holocaust denier" allegation is at all defensible in court? It doesn’t really matter, Rowling wouldn’t have to prove it was a false claim, only that it has caused serious harm to her reputation or profession by causing a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. One defence would be to prove on the balance of probabilities that the statement is true, which would be essentially down to the opinion of the judge trying the case. Ultimately, Rowling can afford to lose a couple of million quid on going to court, a journalist cannot, so if there’s even the slightest possibility Rowling could win then the only sensible option is to apologise in the manner that she requests. This is why the ‘game’ is stacked in favour of the rich." That exactly how Laurence Fox won his case. By having more money than the others  | |||
" Do you feel that the "Holocaust denier" allegation is at all defensible in court? It doesn’t really matter, Rowling wouldn’t have to prove it was a false claim, only that it has caused serious harm to her reputation or profession by causing a reasonable person to think worse of him, her or them. " It does really matter, at least as far as this discussion thread is concerned. You're implying (whether or not you mean to) that JKR is (probably) a Holocaust denier who is too rich to be caught out. By your logic, a journalist couldn't break a story about an MP having an affair if that would cause professional harm. That's nonsense. A journalist can absolutely cause harm to a reputation/profession by calling out the truth, without fear of repercussion. Especially in active online debate with the participant! What they cannot do is make up lies that do cause harm. Brown knows this. Do you believe that JKR is a Holocaust denier? | |||
| |||
