I have about 20 podcasts that I listen to regularly and none of them have ever mentioned her. Funny how you end up seeing / heating the things you are interested in.
A lot of the podcasts I listen to are academics, and tbf they do incidentally cover this stuff through constant griping about how the current environment is counterproductive to appointments and quality research.
JKR’s persecution is referenced sympathetically, and with a certain degree of envy that she has the financial and professional freedom to ignore it all.
I've honestly never listened to a podcast which has said JK Rowling is transphobic
Although it would be a bit funny "United have fantastic fans, best in the league, what a club, defending football alone on behalf of working class football fans oh and also JK Rowling hates trans people and Jews"
Tbf it’s not far off that. Some of the stuff that’s directed at her is way out of order. She’s become almost a sort of totemic figure in that respect. It’s almost comedically off-base. There are people out there who embody and facilitate evil and the repression of minorities. But none of them are JKR.
It’s a lot of frothy hysteria from sociology undergraduates with too much time on their hands.
I’m at the Firsts exhibition at the Saatchi this afternoon, and it’s incredible that nearly all exhibitors feel the need to have Harry fooking Potter on display. It’s almost as ubiquitous at James Bond.
Although it would be a bit funny "United have fantastic fans, best in the league, what a club, defending football alone on behalf of working class football fans oh and also JK Rowling hates trans people and Jews"
————
ngl, this explains a lot about Davos; no wonder you are delusional m98 …
And also because lots are scared of saying anything different in case they get labelled transphobic and get cancelled. It has killed off discusson. Chilled to the max.
Thanks, Warren. I’d have hoped that my question there was easily interpreted as “Is being hateful to the community as a whole the test to see if JKR is actually transphobic?”
the point of my post is to say that there is a range of definitions and no-one bothers to make clear which definition they subscribe to - which is why this discussion goes nowhere.
i agree cv that’s the crux of the issue - i think a lot of people genuinely don’t see how what jkr says is transphobic (jim is one i think) and so it always just turns into a debate about the he meaning of transphobia
Is it transphobic to deny trans women are women? If so then JKR is undeniably transphobic.
though i’d note on this that it wasn’t too long ago (five years? less? i remember it even used to get called out on rof which is not a bastion of wokeness) that someone saying “trans women are men” would be the dictionary definition of transphobia and it’s only recently that the goalposts have been moved on that
iirc anna even got moderate pushback here in 2020 for calling trans women “men in dresses” and now that’s just standard language on social media, i doubt it’d even be criticised any more
FC - So that then takes us to the next step which is, in asserting a fact (“Trans men/women are men/women”), how many people in this national discussion have read any medical/scientific/sociological literature on the subject? I’ve only met one person who had any kind of reference and that was to a document that presupposed it’s own conclusions.
(Just to be clear, I’m not denying anything here - or admitting anything either - I just find it astounding that otherwise intelligent people lose all sense of evidence based enquiry on this issue.)
it’s not “asserting a fact” though cv - as i said, until five/ten years ago it was accepted (and of course still is in sociology) that gender and biological sex were two different things, to the extent that calling a trans woman a man would have been considered transphobic
and to agree with you - i’m not really arguing that that was or is transphobic, i’m saying that things have become normalised now that would have been seen as unequivocally transphobic in the recent past (to the extent trans people are now commonly - on this board and on social media - called perverts and groomers, and saying trans women are men is almost laughably innocent)
(Just to be clear, I’m not denying anything here - or admitting anything either - I just find it astounding that otherwise intelligent people lose all sense of evidence based enquiry on this issue.)
this is deliberate - there is a movement on the far right to create a sense of paranoia and conspiracy around trans people (or what they call the “gender identity” movement) - they tried it recently with critical race theory but have since moved on
many people (this board has a couple of examples) literally believe there is a wide ranging conspiracy among international medical bodies, universities and governments to facilitate the breakdown of society and in the extreme abuse children
when you get to that stage of thinking your cause is so righteous, it doesn’t matter if you take a basic sociology course to explain what gender mean, or listen to a medical professional explain gender dysphoria, you will never break out of it.
I’ve asked for evidence from people asserting that sex and gender are distinct and from people who deny it.
Both sides change the subject, point me to invalid sources or just get angry at me…
don’t know what evidence you would be looking for cv
its taught on sociology gcse courses and has been an accepted principle of social sciences for 50 years or so
but it’s a socially constructed thing so outside of pointing to how societies around the world (and throughout history) construct gender as separate to sex i don’t know what evidence there could be
Good questions. The real birth of the theory that gender and biological sex could be different was from Dr Money's studies in the 1960s. Hailed successful at the time, but later shown to be hugely damaging to the subjects, who were twins, one of whom was a boy whose penis was burnt off as a baby in a medical accident. Dr Money advised his parents to bring him up as a girl and he would never know the difference. He did though, his innate biological sex and gender were male. Long story short, he committed suicide, a whole sad story.
The difficulty now is not just in being able to identify ones own gender, it has spilled over into language, treatment pathways for children which can be life changing, and access to womens' spaces etc. It has been blown up by activists to be very divisive. Also divisive because there is no proper debate, it is very polarised, and people flinging around accusations that every study is somehow flawed or should be dismissed. In my experience trans adults simply wish to live their lives without the division that is being caused. This is an activists issue that is affecting people, trans people, children, families etc - nobody is happy with the status quo.
... and also, the social theory that gender can be identified by the person has also spilled over into notions that sex is assigned at birth (not observed) and sex can be changed.
“its taught on sociology gcse courses and has been an accepted principle of social sciences for 50 years or so
but it’s a socially constructed thing so outside of pointing to how societies around the world (and throughout history) construct gender as separate to sex i don’t know what evidence there could be”
Trouble is Chill, this doesn’t prove gender exists, it’s all a matter of faith. If I alter your text above to describe the existence of God you might see what I mean:
”its taught on religious studies gcse courses and has been an accepted principle of the curriculum for more than 50 years
but it’s a matter of belief so outside of pointing to how societies around the world (and throughout history) believe in God i don’t know what evidence there could be”
I think you are being a teeny tiny bit disingenuous there if I am honest Chill...
Five years ago many people on here (myself included) would have recoiled at/called out deliberate mis-gendering of an individual as being transphobic. And I still do. If someone of the male biological sex (with or without their penis still attached) wishes to be known as 'she' and generally treated as being female then fine. We should respect that and yes, (heaven help me) be kind about it.
That is NOT the same thing as them 'being a woman' in the sense that they should as a matter of law be treated as being female for all purposes where there is segregation between men and women. It was when that became the demand (and it happened very suddenly really) that people started to recoil, and frankly think about it a lot more. It was no longer a question of respect or of 'sure, why not? Let's be nice about this' it was a question of conflict of rights. It was about people with penises and a history of using them to rape women being in women's prisons. It was about big hairy b*ll*cks on display in the female changing rooms in sixth forms and colleges. It was about people of the male sex (who used to be in the special forces) fighting women in cage fights. It's hardly surprising that the narrative changed.
It was when that became the demand (and it happened very suddenly really) that people started to recoil, and frankly think about it a lot more. It was no longer a question of respect or of 'sure, why not? Let's be nice about this' it was a question of conflict of rights. It was about people with penises and a history of using them to rape women being in women's prisons. It was about big hairy b*ll*cks on display in the female changing rooms in sixth forms and colleges. It was about people of the male sex (who used to be in the special forces) fighting women in cage fights. It's hardly surprising that the narrative changed.
all in support of his evangelical faith in the endless mutability of reality - including magical solutions to the housing crisis, year zero here we come and off to reeducation camp for the unbelievers!
Trouble is Chill, this doesn’t prove gender exists, it’s all a matter of faith. If I alter your text above to describe the existence of God you might see what I mean
well we live in a secular society jim so i don’t think it matters much if you don’t believe god exists
but saying you don’t believe gender exists makes no sense - or to put it another way, occam can believe gender doesn’t exist all he wants but i assume he wakes up every day and puts on a shirt and trousers and a tie (or at least owns a few ties) and in his daily life will treat men and women as though they are men and women and will be treated as a man himself. whether he “believes” in gender makes no difference
on clergs other thread she was saying how men treat conflict in their friend groups differently to women, and there were half a dozen posters saying “yes i think men do that differently” - that has nothing to do with their testosterone levels or their possession of a penis, it’s about how men are socialised differently within our society and have different expectations, responsibilities and benefits because of that
its more like if occam said “i don’t believe in money, it’s just an article of faith” we could have an intellectual debate over whether that’s true, but at the end of the day the rest of society believes in money so what are you going to do?
Your claim about testosterone levels and indeed the broader genetics/evolution of the male human sex play NO part in conflict resolution amongst groups of men is absolutely huge and is going to need some serious backing up with evidence frankly.
“but saying you don’t believe God exists makes no sense - or to put it another way, chill can believe God doesn’t exist all he wants but i assume he wakes up every day and shouts “Jesus Christ” when he steps on a nail and in his daily life will treat men and women in a Christian manner (being kind to them) and will be treated in a Christian manner himself. whether he “believes” in God makes no difference”
if we lived in some post-gender society in which men and women were treated exactly the same and you said “some people believe in gender differences, how quaint!” you might have a point
but the patriarchy suffuses every aspect of our daily lives and every institution we interact with
That is NOT the same thing as them 'being a woman' in the sense that they should as a matter of law be treated as being female for all purposes where there is segregation between men and women. It was when that became the demand (and it happened very suddenly really) that people started to recoil
i think you are being disingenuous cc
i have no interest in relitigating all the trans issues - on which i have made my position clear multiple times - but trans people have been participating in sports and using facilities that correspond with their gender for decades without any issues
i see your elision there from “female” to “segregation between men and women” - if you now want to change our society to segregate by biological sex that is a massive change from the current position. and of course the gender critical position is one of complete exclusion and is completely impractical to implement without criminalising loads of trans people
the “demand” (it’s not a demand, it’s an appeal for equality and a human right) is not new, though i accept the focus on it by the right is orchestrated and recent
ffs “men are more direct” is 100% down to socialisation and to say it’s due to their testosterone levels or evolutionary traits is just bog standard misogyny used for decades to keep women as secretaries and nurses and men as bosses and doctors
christ it’s depressing how this bizarre focus on biological imperatives has dragged us back to the 1950s so quickly
But gender in the sense you are talking about there Chill isn't gender in the sense that it is used in relation to trans people.
I am sure Occam will accept that society treats men and women differently for example. I have never heard him say anything that suggests he doesn't accept that.
The 'magical thinking' accusation about gender isn't about that. It's about whether there is a thing which is gender, which is distinct from sex but which is innate to a person such that you can be one gender but born into a body, the sex of which happens not to match your gender (because they are two separate things) or indeed that you can be a gender that isn't related to biological sex at all (if you are one of the 100 odd that aren't male or female).
Trans people have absolutely NOT been competing in sport that corresponds to their gender rather than their sex for decades without any issues at an elite level for fvcks actual sake. You are utterly, utterly delusional if you think that is the case.
No doubt trans people who 'pass' have been using changing facilities and toilets for decades whilst being careful not to cause offense. That is very, very different to people demanding 'acceptance without exception' of their 'lady penis' in the showers at the sorority house.
Chill- some say that is whats happening. The hormones etc given to children can make them infertile. The highest growing group of trans identifying people by far is ASD (autistic) girls.
Then again there may be more to it. It is big business. Lifelong meds. $$$.
Trans people have absolutely NOT been competing in sport that corresponds to their gender rather than their sex for decades without any issues at an elite level for fvcks actual sake. You are utterly, utterly delusional if you think that is the case.
"Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors"
From the article linked as a source:
"Despite all this, Richards has expressed ambivalence about her legacy. She continues to take pride in being “the first one who stood up for the rights of transsexuals.” But she also mused, “Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy.
The science of distinguishing men from women in sports remains unsettled. And Richards has come to believe that her past as a man did provide her advantages over competitors. “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.” She adds, “There is one thing that a transsexual woman unfortunately cannot expect to be allowed to do, and that is to play professional sports in her chosen field. She can get married, live as woman, do all of those other things, and no one should ever be allowed to take them away from her. But this limitation—that’s just life. I know because I lived it."
So, this is the trans woman you cite as competing decades ago "without any issues at an elite level" ?
that trans people have been competing in sports at an elite level for decades
her court case was a major step in transgender rights and anti-discrimination law - it was like same sex marriage law or roe v wade and probably directly influenced the olympic committee acceptance of trans athletes
it doesn’t matter what richards’ personal views are - some gay people are against same sex marriage for some reason and loads of women clearly are anti-roe v wade
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
So hardly without any issues even in the opinion of the lady in question? Could that possibly be because it is absolutely fvcking obvious to everyone that there are physical sex based differences that impact sporting performance?
rof has such odd priors on things like this - if i say women have been having abortions in america, or gay people have been getting married, for decades, it’s not an argument to say “but some people disagree with that”
i’m talking about the progress of civil rights, and donny is arguing trans people jumped in five years ago “demanding” to participate in elite sports
Ah, so if you have to fight all the way to the state supreme court to be able to play according to your gender rather than your birth sex, and you yourself later think you shouldn't have been allowed to, and virtually no competitive sporting body in the world in 2023 would take a position based on self-determined gender without also some reference to biological sex based advantages, then that is "without any issues" ? Just so we're clear...
I’ve mentioned to chill that he hides behind his motte and bailey of ‘gender’ (which nobody not even Thomas Pink or Anna disputes) instead of owning the ground which is really disputed which is ‘gender identity’.
Chill - I didn't say that trans people 'jumped in five years ago' to demand to compete in elite sport. What I did was paint a picture of how much the dial has moved in terms of what trans activists are looking for, a lot of it related to the 'acceptance without exception'/pure 'self ID' concept which has really taken hold over that period. That included the pretty horrendous cage fight example which I think was the only example of sport I referred to.
The stuff around single sex spaces, the stuff around prisons, the stuff around sport (particularly contact sports). It became a competition to be the 'most accepting' and so incredibly stupid decisions were made that put women at risk and lots of people rushed to deny the fvcking blatantly obvious risks of such a system being abused by bad actors (whether they genuinely self ID'd as a different gender or not).
I do not accept that pointing out there are risks in contact sports or prisons ceasing to be sex segregated is transphobic. I also think there are quite a few literal 'men in dresses' who do not remotely in reality self identify as women and are just very bad men who will take advantage of any opportunity to get access to vulnerable women.
I do not accept that saying we should be very, very careful about giving young children drugs or procedures that will cause irreversible changes to their bodies because they are feeling confused about their identity is transphobic either.
I do accept that against the backdrop of this there are people who have sought to push a transphobic agenda. That is very sad and I am sure the lives of lots of trans people have been made much worse as a result. I am sure many, probably most of them actually have their own concerns and doubts about some of what is proposed around self ID or sport or puberty blockers. Unfortunately those moderate voices get drowned out by the screaming on both sides as indeed irl does my own fairly moderate voice. Because it is simply not worth the risk of engaging in the debate in public.
The problem is that for anti-trans activists, that’s just the smokescreen they need to push an actively transphobic agenda.
I mean, I manage to hold most of those viewpoints without feeling the need to link arms with the far right, homophobes and misogynists, nor have my every waking minute infected with responding to whatever confected outrage my twitter overlords have fed to me, which makes one wonder why the ‘legitimate concerns’ brigade cannot.
I agree with that Tom but I do sympathise (to some extent) with those (women in particular) who at the height of the transphobia outrage felt like they had to find their allies where they could because nobody who had reservations about this stuff had the guts to stand up and say it publicly (myself very much included to be fair). Those women were under threat of losing their jobs for expressing their opinion and in some cases being threatened with violence.
When Forstater (in the UK) lost her initial case I think a lot of people in the UK who strongly held gender critical beliefs thought that there was no mainstream protection for them and that expressing a strongly held and essential belief had effectively been outlawed. So they turned outside the mainstream and ended up with bedfellows they would never otherwise have chosen in a million years.
For the big point, in Scotland Nicola Sturgeon pushed through on the basis that trans people do not need to be risk assessed because they are all good and oppressed etc. The backlash was beaten down as transphobic, but of course, as people are people some are good and some are not and nobody is above being risk assessed or excused from safeguarding principles.
Just look back to the White Report about abuse the early 1980s.
The stuff around single sex spaces, the stuff around prisons, the stuff around sport (particularly contact sports). It became a competition to be the 'most accepting' and so incredibly stupid decisions were made that put women at risk and lots of people rushed to deny the fvcking blatantly obvious risks of such a system being abused by bad actors (whether they genuinely self ID'd as a different gender or not).
I do not accept that pointing out there are risks in contact sports or prisons ceasing to be sex segregated is transphobic. I also think there are quite a few literal 'men in dresses' who do not remotely in reality self identify as women and are just very bad men who will take advantage of any opportunity to get access to vulnerable women.
I'm with you broadly on the sport stuff, but the rest is basically the excuse used for racial segregation in the US south. Try what you said in the mouth of a white soputherner trying to keep black people out of white spaces "It became a competition to be the 'most accepting' and so incredibly stupid decisions were made that put women at risk and lots of people rushed to deny the fvcking blatantly obvious risks of such a system being abused by bad actors" "I also think there are quite a few .... just very bad men who will take advantage of any opportunity to get access to vulnerable women." The answer to this is, yes of course they are - and those people will probably offend anyway - but we don't exclude black people from white spaces just because they as a group are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes, because applying that generalisation to individuals just because they also happen to be black is the very definition of racism. Why the is discrimination against trans people justified because other trans people are bad actors?
I do not accept that saying we should be very, very careful about giving young children drugs or procedures that will cause irreversible changes to their bodies because they are feeling confused about their identity is transphobic either.
We are very careful, that's why we leave it in the hands of medical professionals - are you really suggesting they are not the right people? Lets face it, these treatments have been going on for years with no apparent unintended long-term side-effects, and of course there will be people who are misdiagnosed, suffer side effects or regret decisions, that's normal for any medical proccedure. Why is this different? Because its not about the treatment, its about the fact that its trans.
I do accept that against the backdrop of this there are people who have sought to push a transphobic agenda. That is very sad and I am sure the lives of lots of trans people have been made much worse as a result. I am sure many, probably most of them actually have their own concerns and doubts about some of what is proposed around self ID or sport or puberty blockers. Unfortunately those moderate voices get drowned out by the screaming on both sides as indeed irl does my own fairly moderate voice. Because it is simply not worth the risk of engaging in the debate in public.
Fair points, and appreciate its not fair to lump all peoples together just because they arrive at a similar conclusion on some things. Generalisations are for weak thinkers, nuance is more difficult.
i agree with a lot of donny’s 15.45 but he has it backwards as a timeline - the right organised and seized on trans people as a division point to gain support in a culture war
“trans activists” didn’t do anything
at a certain point, trans people had to ask for support from feminists and lgbt people because their existing rights were being threatened by a hate group (and, to be fair, feminists and lgbt people on the whole came through with that support)
maya forstater had been radicalised long before her court case came along
We are very careful, that's why we leave it in the hands of medical professionals - are you really suggesting they are not the right people? Lets face it, these treatments have been going on for years with no apparent unintended long-term side-effects, and of course there will be people who are misdiagnosed, suffer side effects or regret decisions, that's normal for any medical proccedure. Why is this different? Because its not about the treatment, its about the fact that its trans.
Just about everything in this is wrong and uninformed.
We are very careful, that's why we leave it in the hands of medical professionals - are you really suggesting they are not the right people?
We are not careful - hence the Cass Interim Report, closure of Tavistock, Policy Exchange Report etc. We are not leaving it in the hands of professionals, there is a lack of evidence in relation to children but hormones etc are being given; children are able to access them online and have them delivered; schools are bypassing medical professionals etc.
Lets face it, these treatments have been going on for years with no apparent unintended long-term side-effects,
Also wrong, plenty of evidence to show that. Testosterone on girls, for example, makes quick and permanent changes. The word "unintended" is also problematic here - these are children who cannot properly consent to permanent changes
and of course there will be people who are misdiagnosed, suffer side effects or regret decisions, that's normal for any medical proccedure.
Yet these are children being led down a path by adults, when there are huge questionmarks about their reasons for wanting to transition, especially around puberty, mental health, trauma etc. This is not normal and is not aligned with the safety attached to other medical procedures
Why is this different? Because its not about the treatment, its about the fact that its trans.
That is just a flavour of why it is different. Children should be children. They want to be dinosaurs, we dont start making permanent changes to them, but as soon as they go through puberty and hate their bodies, many are too quick to allow them to make life long changes at a young age. Thats wht it is different.
Warren -I don't agree that comparing single sex spaces to single race spaces is valid, at all. I think it is quite hard to understand as a man and to be honest before I started really listening to what women were saying about this I didn't really get the visceral nature of the feeling (at least some) women have about this, particularly those who have suffered trauma at the hands of men.
I certainly don't have blind trust in the Pharma/medical profession particularly not where there is the prospect of a treatment involving large numbers of people taking drugs for life. These are the people who brought us the opiate epidemic in the USA. Who brought us Ritalin for 1 in ten kids in the USA. I have similar concerns about the rate at which they had out Oxy and Ritalin and that has fvck all to do with trans.
It’s been answered many times before Chill. It is not discrimination against trans, it is single sex segregation for safeguarding reasons. Trans men are welcome in female only spaces as far as I am aware but trans women aren’t. It’s about biology not gender.
I say this with regret but a minority of my sex are evil, conniving, abusive bastards and will take any measures to satisfy their lusts. It is common for male paedophiles to study and get qualified to work in areas where there are vulnerable children - years of prep.
Some of them will claim to be trans to access facilities which make offending easier. This does not make them trans (although under self I’d it would). It is impossible to tell at face value whether someone who says they are trans are genuinely suffered dysphoria or have evil intent.
Therefore, from a safeguarding point of view, a biological separation is needed where it can be easily seen if someone breaches it (changing rooms where genitals are exposed for example. That way we safeguard the most vulnerable in society.
It’s been answered many times before Chill. It is not discrimination against trans, it is single sex segregation for safeguarding reasons
no sorry jim you don’t get away with that - you will of course be aware that this exact argument has been used to stop Black people interacting with whites and gay people becoming teachers (right down to the “there’s more paedos in that group)
in this country - and generally in right thinking societies - there is an assumption that you’re not blamed for a crime before you actually commit it, just because you’re a member of a certain demographic group
i assume you’d agree that Black people shouldn’t be excluded from spaces because of the actions of some individual Black people, or gay people shouldn’t be excluded from spaces because of the actions of some individual gay people
particularly where there’s no evidence any safeguarding benefits - trans people have used toilets according to their true gender for decades and no country that has allowed them to has seen an increase in sexual assaults
by which i mean, even if i took all of rumpole’s bollocks statistics at face value and agreed that there were more “autogynephiles” or “perverts” among trans people (which - and i need to say for the avoidance of doubt - i very much do not) i still wouldn’t agree with excluding all trans people from spaces of their true gender on the assumption they are more likely to commit a crime because they’re in that demographic group
it’s illiberal in the extreme
name another demographic group you’d accept that for
We’ve done this before Chill. You either have Safeguarding measures or you don’t. You’ve said in the past that while you would accept mixed changing rooms with everything on display to all ages and body types you accept the UK isn’t ready for this. I believe it is a safeguarding issue as well as a social one and therefore some form of segregation is needed.
Therefore you need to decide how you segregate, do you do it on clearly identifiable criteria (dangly bits or lack of) or do you do it on unprovable internal feelings? I support the former as it is safer and enforceable, you support the latter because you’re a womble.
To take your ridiculous race comparison, I presume then, you think it would fairer where racial segregation is used (E.g. that theatre that wants a black only audience for one night) for them to encourage anyone who identifies as black no matter what their biology may be!
0
0
Which ones are you listening too? All the ones I find bend over backwards to avoid that whole area.
0
0
Stop listening to Owen Jones Clergs!
0
1
It's all the 30 something Americans that permeate the verse.
0
0
I have about 20 podcasts that I listen to regularly and none of them have ever mentioned her. Funny how you end up seeing / heating the things you are interested in.
3
0
must… resist… urge… to post…
3
0
See…even Chill agrees. We’ve finally convinced him!
0
0
probably depends on topic
not many of the football podcasts I listen to get into rhis
0
0
Lol
0
0
none of the bird or botany podcasts I listen to have ever even mentioned JKR
0
1
A lot of the podcasts I listen to are academics, and tbf they do incidentally cover this stuff through constant griping about how the current environment is counterproductive to appointments and quality research.
JKR’s persecution is referenced sympathetically, and with a certain degree of envy that she has the financial and professional freedom to ignore it all.
0
0
Oh that's heartening
Maybe i need to go higher brow
0
1
Not sure about higher brow. Certainly duller.
2
1
I've honestly never listened to a podcast which has said JK Rowling is transphobic
Although it would be a bit funny "United have fantastic fans, best in the league, what a club, defending football alone on behalf of working class football fans oh and also JK Rowling hates trans people and Jews"
2
0
Lol
8
0
Tbf it’s not far off that. Some of the stuff that’s directed at her is way out of order. She’s become almost a sort of totemic figure in that respect. It’s almost comedically off-base. There are people out there who embody and facilitate evil and the repression of minorities. But none of them are JKR.
It’s a lot of frothy hysteria from sociology undergraduates with too much time on their hands.
0
0
Wot KB sed.
2
0
Lol
0
0
I’m at the Firsts exhibition at the Saatchi this afternoon, and it’s incredible that nearly all exhibitors feel the need to have Harry fooking Potter on display. It’s almost as ubiquitous at James Bond.
I think she’ll be fine.
1
0
Warren20 May 23 14:28
Reply | Report
Lol
Lol
0
0
Clerghs - you should check out…
https://www.theunspeakablepodcast.com/
It’s mostly great and right up your street I suspect.
1
0
Heh very good Jim- chill is now Team Anna!
3
0
MUST… RESIST… POSTING…
2
0
Heh- admire your restraint Chill!
1
0
Although it would be a bit funny "United have fantastic fans, best in the league, what a club, defending football alone on behalf of working class football fans oh and also JK Rowling hates trans people and Jews"
————
ngl, this explains a lot about Davos; no wonder you are delusional m98 …
0
0
Because lots of yoof podcasters are uber woke.
And also because lots are scared of saying anything different in case they get labelled transphobic and get cancelled. It has killed off discusson. Chilled to the max.
0
2
These issues go nowhere because no-one sets out their definition of ‘transphobic’.
Is it transphobic to deny trans women are women? If so then JKR is undeniably transphobic.
Is someone transphobic when they are hateful towards the trans community as a whole? If that’s the test then she probably isn’t.
0
0
Is someone racist when they are hateful towards the black community as a whole?
0
0
Thanks, Warren. I’d have hoped that my question there was easily interpreted as “Is being hateful to the community as a whole the test to see if JKR is actually transphobic?”
the point of my post is to say that there is a range of definitions and no-one bothers to make clear which definition they subscribe to - which is why this discussion goes nowhere.
0
0
i agree cv that’s the crux of the issue - i think a lot of people genuinely don’t see how what jkr says is transphobic (jim is one i think) and so it always just turns into a debate about the he meaning of transphobia
though i’d note on this that it wasn’t too long ago (five years? less? i remember it even used to get called out on rof which is not a bastion of wokeness) that someone saying “trans women are men” would be the dictionary definition of transphobia and it’s only recently that the goalposts have been moved on that
1
0
I would definitely never listen again to a podcast that discussed jkr in any context other than her contribution to children's literature.
+ everything KB said
0
0
iirc anna even got moderate pushback here in 2020 for calling trans women “men in dresses” and now that’s just standard language on social media, i doubt it’d even be criticised any more
0
0
FC - So that then takes us to the next step which is, in asserting a fact (“Trans men/women are men/women”), how many people in this national discussion have read any medical/scientific/sociological literature on the subject? I’ve only met one person who had any kind of reference and that was to a document that presupposed it’s own conclusions.
(Just to be clear, I’m not denying anything here - or admitting anything either - I just find it astounding that otherwise intelligent people lose all sense of evidence based enquiry on this issue.)
0
0
Isn’t it transphobic to say ‘trans women’?
shouldn’t it just be ‘women’?
0
0
it’s not “asserting a fact” though cv - as i said, until five/ten years ago it was accepted (and of course still is in sociology) that gender and biological sex were two different things, to the extent that calling a trans woman a man would have been considered transphobic
and to agree with you - i’m not really arguing that that was or is transphobic, i’m saying that things have become normalised now that would have been seen as unequivocally transphobic in the recent past (to the extent trans people are now commonly - on this board and on social media - called perverts and groomers, and saying trans women are men is almost laughably innocent)
0
0
this is deliberate - there is a movement on the far right to create a sense of paranoia and conspiracy around trans people (or what they call the “gender identity” movement) - they tried it recently with critical race theory but have since moved on
many people (this board has a couple of examples) literally believe there is a wide ranging conspiracy among international medical bodies, universities and governments to facilitate the breakdown of society and in the extreme abuse children
when you get to that stage of thinking your cause is so righteous, it doesn’t matter if you take a basic sociology course to explain what gender mean, or listen to a medical professional explain gender dysphoria, you will never break out of it.
0
0
Defo take that point, FC, though I’d say the dogmatism goes both ways. If it was an accepted fact 5 years ago, where was the evidence for it then?
I’ve asked for evidence from people asserting that sex and gender are distinct and from people who deny it.
Both sides change the subject, point me to invalid sources or just get angry at me…
(Also, generic repetition before people get carried away that all people should have a base line of respect and discrimination is bad innit)
0
1
don’t know what evidence you would be looking for cv
its taught on sociology gcse courses and has been an accepted principle of social sciences for 50 years or so
but it’s a socially constructed thing so outside of pointing to how societies around the world (and throughout history) construct gender as separate to sex i don’t know what evidence there could be
0
0
Oh Chill so close! - but like Al Pacino you got pulled back in!
0
0
Good questions. The real birth of the theory that gender and biological sex could be different was from Dr Money's studies in the 1960s. Hailed successful at the time, but later shown to be hugely damaging to the subjects, who were twins, one of whom was a boy whose penis was burnt off as a baby in a medical accident. Dr Money advised his parents to bring him up as a girl and he would never know the difference. He did though, his innate biological sex and gender were male. Long story short, he committed suicide, a whole sad story.
The difficulty now is not just in being able to identify ones own gender, it has spilled over into language, treatment pathways for children which can be life changing, and access to womens' spaces etc. It has been blown up by activists to be very divisive. Also divisive because there is no proper debate, it is very polarised, and people flinging around accusations that every study is somehow flawed or should be dismissed. In my experience trans adults simply wish to live their lives without the division that is being caused. This is an activists issue that is affecting people, trans people, children, families etc - nobody is happy with the status quo.
0
0
... and also, the social theory that gender can be identified by the person has also spilled over into notions that sex is assigned at birth (not observed) and sex can be changed.
0
0
“its taught on sociology gcse courses and has been an accepted principle of social sciences for 50 years or so
but it’s a socially constructed thing so outside of pointing to how societies around the world (and throughout history) construct gender as separate to sex i don’t know what evidence there could be”
Trouble is Chill, this doesn’t prove gender exists, it’s all a matter of faith. If I alter your text above to describe the existence of God you might see what I mean:
”its taught on religious studies gcse courses and has been an accepted principle of the curriculum for more than 50 years
but it’s a matter of belief so outside of pointing to how societies around the world (and throughout history) believe in God i don’t know what evidence there could be”
6
0
I think you are being a teeny tiny bit disingenuous there if I am honest Chill...
Five years ago many people on here (myself included) would have recoiled at/called out deliberate mis-gendering of an individual as being transphobic. And I still do. If someone of the male biological sex (with or without their penis still attached) wishes to be known as 'she' and generally treated as being female then fine. We should respect that and yes, (heaven help me) be kind about it.
That is NOT the same thing as them 'being a woman' in the sense that they should as a matter of law be treated as being female for all purposes where there is segregation between men and women. It was when that became the demand (and it happened very suddenly really) that people started to recoil, and frankly think about it a lot more. It was no longer a question of respect or of 'sure, why not? Let's be nice about this' it was a question of conflict of rights. It was about people with penises and a history of using them to rape women being in women's prisons. It was about big hairy b*ll*cks on display in the female changing rooms in sixth forms and colleges. It was about people of the male sex (who used to be in the special forces) fighting women in cage fights. It's hardly surprising that the narrative changed.
2
0
+1
0
0
chill being disingenuous you say….
all in support of his evangelical faith in the endless mutability of reality - including magical solutions to the housing crisis, year zero here we come and off to reeducation camp for the unbelievers!
1
1
well we live in a secular society jim so i don’t think it matters much if you don’t believe god exists
but saying you don’t believe gender exists makes no sense - or to put it another way, occam can believe gender doesn’t exist all he wants but i assume he wakes up every day and puts on a shirt and trousers and a tie (or at least owns a few ties) and in his daily life will treat men and women as though they are men and women and will be treated as a man himself. whether he “believes” in gender makes no difference
on clergs other thread she was saying how men treat conflict in their friend groups differently to women, and there were half a dozen posters saying “yes i think men do that differently” - that has nothing to do with their testosterone levels or their possession of a penis, it’s about how men are socialised differently within our society and have different expectations, responsibilities and benefits because of that
its more like if occam said “i don’t believe in money, it’s just an article of faith” we could have an intellectual debate over whether that’s true, but at the end of the day the rest of society believes in money so what are you going to do?
0
0
Your claim about testosterone levels and indeed the broader genetics/evolution of the male human sex play NO part in conflict resolution amongst groups of men is absolutely huge and is going to need some serious backing up with evidence frankly.
1
0
I was just thinking about Pre Menstrual Dysphoria and how much it FCKS ME OFFFFF that some males think they can just identify as being female
having a female body is a constant fcking battle of wills
(I daresay being in a male one brings its own problems)
0
0
“but saying you don’t believe God exists makes no sense - or to put it another way, chill can believe God doesn’t exist all he wants but i assume he wakes up every day and shouts “Jesus Christ” when he steps on a nail and in his daily life will treat men and women in a Christian manner (being kind to them) and will be treated in a Christian manner himself. whether he “believes” in God makes no difference”
ftfy
0
1
come on, jim, that’s a facile analogy
if we lived in some post-gender society in which men and women were treated exactly the same and you said “some people believe in gender differences, how quaint!” you might have a point
but the patriarchy suffuses every aspect of our daily lives and every institution we interact with
0
0
i think you are being disingenuous cc
i have no interest in relitigating all the trans issues - on which i have made my position clear multiple times - but trans people have been participating in sports and using facilities that correspond with their gender for decades without any issues
i see your elision there from “female” to “segregation between men and women” - if you now want to change our society to segregate by biological sex that is a massive change from the current position. and of course the gender critical position is one of complete exclusion and is completely impractical to implement without criminalising loads of trans people
the “demand” (it’s not a demand, it’s an appeal for equality and a human right) is not new, though i accept the focus on it by the right is orchestrated and recent
0
0
these thread are not the same without Anna saying the same thing in twenty different ways every day.
1
1
I have literally never listened to a podcast which mentions jk Rowling, in the context of being transphobic or otherwise.
Although yes I guess podcasts aimed at middle aged conservatives probably major on the topic 🤷🏻♂️
0
0
ffs “men are more direct” is 100% down to socialisation and to say it’s due to their testosterone levels or evolutionary traits is just bog standard misogyny used for decades to keep women as secretaries and nurses and men as bosses and doctors
christ it’s depressing how this bizarre focus on biological imperatives has dragged us back to the 1950s so quickly
0
0
But gender in the sense you are talking about there Chill isn't gender in the sense that it is used in relation to trans people.
I am sure Occam will accept that society treats men and women differently for example. I have never heard him say anything that suggests he doesn't accept that.
The 'magical thinking' accusation about gender isn't about that. It's about whether there is a thing which is gender, which is distinct from sex but which is innate to a person such that you can be one gender but born into a body, the sex of which happens not to match your gender (because they are two separate things) or indeed that you can be a gender that isn't related to biological sex at all (if you are one of the 100 odd that aren't male or female).
0
0
we’ll be doing race science again next
1
0
Trans people have absolutely NOT been competing in sport that corresponds to their gender rather than their sex for decades without any issues at an elite level for fvcks actual sake. You are utterly, utterly delusional if you think that is the case.
No doubt trans people who 'pass' have been using changing facilities and toilets for decades whilst being careful not to cause offense. That is very, very different to people demanding 'acceptance without exception' of their 'lady penis' in the showers at the sorority house.
0
0
Chill- some say that is whats happening. The hormones etc given to children can make them infertile. The highest growing group of trans identifying people by far is ASD (autistic) girls.
Then again there may be more to it. It is big business. Lifelong meds. $$$.
0
0
I suspect you'll be swooning first.
1
1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renée_Richards
0
0
different than a thing you’ve made up to paint trans people as abusers?
yes i imagine it is rather different
0
0
Yes never happened Chill...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/7-sorority-sisters-university-wyoming-sue-kappa-kappa-gamma-challenge-rcna77266
0
0
From the Wikipedia article you linked to, Chill:
"Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors"
From the article linked as a source:
"Despite all this, Richards has expressed ambivalence about her legacy. She continues to take pride in being “the first one who stood up for the rights of transsexuals.” But she also mused, “Maybe in the last analysis, maybe not even I should have been allowed to play on the women’s tour. Maybe I should have knuckled under and said, ‘That’s one thing I can’t have as my newfound right in being a woman.’ I think transsexuals have every right to play, but maybe not at the professional level, because it’s not a level playing field.” She opposes the International Olympic Committee’s ruling in 2004 that transgender people can compete after they’ve had surgery and two years of hormonal therapy.
The science of distinguishing men from women in sports remains unsettled. And Richards has come to believe that her past as a man did provide her advantages over competitors. “Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I’d had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I’ve reconsidered my opinion.” She adds, “There is one thing that a transsexual woman unfortunately cannot expect to be allowed to do, and that is to play professional sports in her chosen field. She can get married, live as woman, do all of those other things, and no one should ever be allowed to take them away from her. But this limitation—that’s just life. I know because I lived it."
So, this is the trans woman you cite as competing decades ago "without any issues at an elite level" ?
1
0
I think I've changed my mind. Your views on housing policy are actually more reasonable than this !
0
1
yes eeyore - i know richards’ position on trans women in sports (i dunno, maybe she’s right)
that’s nothing to do with my point to donny though, which is about the recent rise in transphobia in the uk and the usa
1
0
So what was the point of your 14.48 post ?
0
0
I miss Anna.
0
0
Lol at eeyore.
1
0
Donny's 13:27 is bang on the money.
0
0
that trans people have been competing in sports at an elite level for decades
her court case was a major step in transgender rights and anti-discrimination law - it was like same sex marriage law or roe v wade and probably directly influenced the olympic committee acceptance of trans athletes
it doesn’t matter what richards’ personal views are - some gay people are against same sex marriage for some reason and loads of women clearly are anti-roe v wade
0
0
And on Ms Richards
Richards has since expressed ambivalence about her legacy, and came to believe her past as a man provided her with advantages over her competitors, saying "Having lived for the past 30 years, I know if I'd had surgery at the age of 22, and then at 24 went on the tour, no genetic woman in the world would have been able to come close to me. And so I've reconsidered my opinion."
So hardly without any issues even in the opinion of the lady in question? Could that possibly be because it is absolutely fvcking obvious to everyone that there are physical sex based differences that impact sporting performance?
0
0
"that trans people have been competing in sports at an elite level for decades"
WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. Those are the key words you keep swerving.
0
0
Sorry got interrupted mid post so that was largely what eeyore said. Chill - you said competing for decades without any issues remember?
0
0
heh, great minds and all that Eeyore.
0
0
she won the court case eeyore
0
0
rof has such odd priors on things like this - if i say women have been having abortions in america, or gay people have been getting married, for decades, it’s not an argument to say “but some people disagree with that”
i’m talking about the progress of civil rights, and donny is arguing trans people jumped in five years ago “demanding” to participate in elite sports
that’s just not true
0
0
cept thats not what donny said...
0
1
Ah, so if you have to fight all the way to the state supreme court to be able to play according to your gender rather than your birth sex, and you yourself later think you shouldn't have been allowed to, and virtually no competitive sporting body in the world in 2023 would take a position based on self-determined gender without also some reference to biological sex based advantages, then that is "without any issues" ? Just so we're clear...
0
0
yes eeyore
the issues were created recently by bad actors
in 2010 there were no issues
0
0
I’ve mentioned to chill that he hides behind his motte and bailey of ‘gender’ (which nobody not even Thomas Pink or Anna disputes) instead of owning the ground which is really disputed which is ‘gender identity’.
4
0
Chill - I didn't say that trans people 'jumped in five years ago' to demand to compete in elite sport. What I did was paint a picture of how much the dial has moved in terms of what trans activists are looking for, a lot of it related to the 'acceptance without exception'/pure 'self ID' concept which has really taken hold over that period. That included the pretty horrendous cage fight example which I think was the only example of sport I referred to.
The stuff around single sex spaces, the stuff around prisons, the stuff around sport (particularly contact sports). It became a competition to be the 'most accepting' and so incredibly stupid decisions were made that put women at risk and lots of people rushed to deny the fvcking blatantly obvious risks of such a system being abused by bad actors (whether they genuinely self ID'd as a different gender or not).
I do not accept that pointing out there are risks in contact sports or prisons ceasing to be sex segregated is transphobic. I also think there are quite a few literal 'men in dresses' who do not remotely in reality self identify as women and are just very bad men who will take advantage of any opportunity to get access to vulnerable women.
I do not accept that saying we should be very, very careful about giving young children drugs or procedures that will cause irreversible changes to their bodies because they are feeling confused about their identity is transphobic either.
I do accept that against the backdrop of this there are people who have sought to push a transphobic agenda. That is very sad and I am sure the lives of lots of trans people have been made much worse as a result. I am sure many, probably most of them actually have their own concerns and doubts about some of what is proposed around self ID or sport or puberty blockers. Unfortunately those moderate voices get drowned out by the screaming on both sides as indeed irl does my own fairly moderate voice. Because it is simply not worth the risk of engaging in the debate in public.
0
1
+infinity for Donny.
0
1
Basically what Donny said.
The problem is that for anti-trans activists, that’s just the smokescreen they need to push an actively transphobic agenda.
I mean, I manage to hold most of those viewpoints without feeling the need to link arms with the far right, homophobes and misogynists, nor have my every waking minute infected with responding to whatever confected outrage my twitter overlords have fed to me, which makes one wonder why the ‘legitimate concerns’ brigade cannot.
1
0
I agree with that Tom but I do sympathise (to some extent) with those (women in particular) who at the height of the transphobia outrage felt like they had to find their allies where they could because nobody who had reservations about this stuff had the guts to stand up and say it publicly (myself very much included to be fair). Those women were under threat of losing their jobs for expressing their opinion and in some cases being threatened with violence.
When Forstater (in the UK) lost her initial case I think a lot of people in the UK who strongly held gender critical beliefs thought that there was no mainstream protection for them and that expressing a strongly held and essential belief had effectively been outlawed. So they turned outside the mainstream and ended up with bedfellows they would never otherwise have chosen in a million years.
0
1
Donny is spot on all through.
For the big point, in Scotland Nicola Sturgeon pushed through on the basis that trans people do not need to be risk assessed because they are all good and oppressed etc. The backlash was beaten down as transphobic, but of course, as people are people some are good and some are not and nobody is above being risk assessed or excused from safeguarding principles.
Just look back to the White Report about abuse the early 1980s.
3
1
Yeah, the cricket ones are noticeably silent too.
Guess we've just been lucky.
1
0
I'm with you broadly on the sport stuff, but the rest is basically the excuse used for racial segregation in the US south. Try what you said in the mouth of a white soputherner trying to keep black people out of white spaces "It became a competition to be the 'most accepting' and so incredibly stupid decisions were made that put women at risk and lots of people rushed to deny the fvcking blatantly obvious risks of such a system being abused by bad actors" "I also think there are quite a few .... just very bad men who will take advantage of any opportunity to get access to vulnerable women." The answer to this is, yes of course they are - and those people will probably offend anyway - but we don't exclude black people from white spaces just because they as a group are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes, because applying that generalisation to individuals just because they also happen to be black is the very definition of racism. Why the is discrimination against trans people justified because other trans people are bad actors?
We are very careful, that's why we leave it in the hands of medical professionals - are you really suggesting they are not the right people? Lets face it, these treatments have been going on for years with no apparent unintended long-term side-effects, and of course there will be people who are misdiagnosed, suffer side effects or regret decisions, that's normal for any medical proccedure. Why is this different? Because its not about the treatment, its about the fact that its trans.
Fair points, and appreciate its not fair to lump all peoples together just because they arrive at a similar conclusion on some things. Generalisations are for weak thinkers, nuance is more difficult.
0
0
the cricket ones work hard to avoid referencing JKR. LBW is a euphemism for JKR
0
0
i agree with a lot of donny’s 15.45 but he has it backwards as a timeline - the right organised and seized on trans people as a division point to gain support in a culture war
“trans activists” didn’t do anything
at a certain point, trans people had to ask for support from feminists and lgbt people because their existing rights were being threatened by a hate group (and, to be fair, feminists and lgbt people on the whole came through with that support)
maya forstater had been radicalised long before her court case came along
0
0
Just about everything in this is wrong and uninformed.
1
1
"the rest is basically the excuse used for racial segregation in the US south."
"Generalisations are for weak thinkers"
0
0
‘“trans activists” didn’t do anything’
Really????
1
0
Suppose I should address this in more details:
We are not careful - hence the Cass Interim Report, closure of Tavistock, Policy Exchange Report etc. We are not leaving it in the hands of professionals, there is a lack of evidence in relation to children but hormones etc are being given; children are able to access them online and have them delivered; schools are bypassing medical professionals etc.
Also wrong, plenty of evidence to show that. Testosterone on girls, for example, makes quick and permanent changes. The word "unintended" is also problematic here - these are children who cannot properly consent to permanent changes
Yet these are children being led down a path by adults, when there are huge questionmarks about their reasons for wanting to transition, especially around puberty, mental health, trauma etc. This is not normal and is not aligned with the safety attached to other medical procedures
That is just a flavour of why it is different. Children should be children. They want to be dinosaurs, we dont start making permanent changes to them, but as soon as they go through puberty and hate their bodies, many are too quick to allow them to make life long changes at a young age. Thats wht it is different.
3
0
Warren -I don't agree that comparing single sex spaces to single race spaces is valid, at all. I think it is quite hard to understand as a man and to be honest before I started really listening to what women were saying about this I didn't really get the visceral nature of the feeling (at least some) women have about this, particularly those who have suffered trauma at the hands of men.
I certainly don't have blind trust in the Pharma/medical profession particularly not where there is the prospect of a treatment involving large numbers of people taking drugs for life. These are the people who brought us the opiate epidemic in the USA. Who brought us Ritalin for 1 in ten kids in the USA. I have similar concerns about the rate at which they had out Oxy and Ritalin and that has fvck all to do with trans.
0
0
https://freetospeak.co.uk/testimonials/
Scary reading.
2
0
this is an excellent question warren to which you will never receive a fair answer
3
1
It’s been answered many times before Chill. It is not discrimination against trans, it is single sex segregation for safeguarding reasons. Trans men are welcome in female only spaces as far as I am aware but trans women aren’t. It’s about biology not gender.
I say this with regret but a minority of my sex are evil, conniving, abusive bastards and will take any measures to satisfy their lusts. It is common for male paedophiles to study and get qualified to work in areas where there are vulnerable children - years of prep.
Some of them will claim to be trans to access facilities which make offending easier. This does not make them trans (although under self I’d it would). It is impossible to tell at face value whether someone who says they are trans are genuinely suffered dysphoria or have evil intent.
Therefore, from a safeguarding point of view, a biological separation is needed where it can be easily seen if someone breaches it (changing rooms where genitals are exposed for example. That way we safeguard the most vulnerable in society.
0
0
no sorry jim you don’t get away with that - you will of course be aware that this exact argument has been used to stop Black people interacting with whites and gay people becoming teachers (right down to the “there’s more paedos in that group)
in this country - and generally in right thinking societies - there is an assumption that you’re not blamed for a crime before you actually commit it, just because you’re a member of a certain demographic group
i assume you’d agree that Black people shouldn’t be excluded from spaces because of the actions of some individual Black people, or gay people shouldn’t be excluded from spaces because of the actions of some individual gay people
why are trans people different in your mind?
0
0
particularly where there’s no evidence any safeguarding benefits - trans people have used toilets according to their true gender for decades and no country that has allowed them to has seen an increase in sexual assaults
0
0
by which i mean, even if i took all of rumpole’s bollocks statistics at face value and agreed that there were more “autogynephiles” or “perverts” among trans people (which - and i need to say for the avoidance of doubt - i very much do not) i still wouldn’t agree with excluding all trans people from spaces of their true gender on the assumption they are more likely to commit a crime because they’re in that demographic group
it’s illiberal in the extreme
name another demographic group you’d accept that for
0
0
We’ve done this before Chill. You either have Safeguarding measures or you don’t. You’ve said in the past that while you would accept mixed changing rooms with everything on display to all ages and body types you accept the UK isn’t ready for this. I believe it is a safeguarding issue as well as a social one and therefore some form of segregation is needed.
Therefore you need to decide how you segregate, do you do it on clearly identifiable criteria (dangly bits or lack of) or do you do it on unprovable internal feelings? I support the former as it is safer and enforceable, you support the latter because you’re a womble.
To take your ridiculous race comparison, I presume then, you think it would fairer where racial segregation is used (E.g. that theatre that wants a black only audience for one night) for them to encourage anyone who identifies as black no matter what their biology may be!
Join the discussion