JK Rowling in hot water again

Pinkers said:
People here don't seem to be understanding the wider context. Rowling's point is not about identifying as a woman to avoid the charge of rape. It is about the fact that a man, charged as a woman, will be placed in a woman's prison if convicted, where they will have ready access to a large captive population of women to rape. These incidents have already happened and will happen again on a larger scale if the country is stupid enough to start automatically enshrining in law without due process, the views of whatever activist group is in vogue this week, which are by no means shared by wider society, or even other activist groups who claim to represent the same minorities.

These issues affect everyone, and they need to be examined properly. Self-id, which, let's be honest, has no basis in objective reality, has very serious consequences for settings such as female prisons. The levels of violence/sexual violence against women in modern society are already disgusting and unacceptable, and undermining female only spaces to accommodate men with complex mental health issues should be questioned very carefully. However, for what are I think, complex reasons, there is a totalitarian attitude growing in a portion of society that will not tolerate rational debate (ironically, because 'tolerance' is apparently so important, which is probably why Rowling is drawing the entirely germane comparison with 1984).

Men, who if they have anything about them, should care about protecting and safeguarding women and children, but are happily clapping along to whatever Stonewall feels is reality this week because Harry Kane has to wear a rainbow armband and they don't want to be 'phobic', should have a little think for themselves, and perhaps learn what a lot of stalwarts of gay rights like the LGB alliance, actually think about Stonewall's trans-rights agenda. Which is that it is highly likely to lead to many gay/lesbian people taking the ill-advised route of irreversible hormone/surgery 'treatments' (often at irresponsibly young ages) that they will later regret (assuming they don't just commit suicide first of course because 'transitioning' is so exceptionally bad for mental health) and therefore a big step backwards.

A lot of people are afraid to speak out because of the vicious behaviour of activists. They don't seem like people who care for others or are averse to violence. Rather, they seem to endorse and threaten violence as a matter of course, as the constant threats of rape and violence against women like Rowling (and even more despicably their children) prove. Are we quite sure whatever they say should be the law, without debate?

Rowling has previously said that she feels she has a responsibility to speak out for others because of her position. She is entitled to do so. It's all too easy to just go along with whatever we think the prevailing view is, but it's also how societies end up like 1930s Germany. Just because one section of society wants something is not a reason to ignore everything else and give it to them. Especially not when that group constantly threatens (and indeed perpetrates) intimidation and violence against anyone who questions their arguments.
Click to expand...
So all trans people are mentally ill? Thats a very bold statement to make, and actually having trans friends and interacting with them on a weekly basis I can say it is also wrong from my experience.
 
I don’t have an answer to this but the thread started based on the vilification of Rowling for highlighting an absurdity in the law. I’m please the OP chose to the words Rowling in hot water again as the fault doesn’t lie with Rowling but the flawed system she highlights and those seeking to ‘boil’ Rowling in the their cancel culture hot water. Time for the sane majority to push back on the keyboard terrorists infesting our lives, most of which have no understanding of the genuine needs of the trans community.
 
Millbrook said:
Where does 'he' make that statement?
Click to expand...
"Which is that it is highly likely to lead to many gay/lesbian people taking the ill-advised route of irreversible hormone/surgery 'treatments' (often at irresponsibly young ages) that they will later regret (assuming they don't just commit suicide first of course because 'transitioning' is so exceptionally bad for mental health) and therefore a big step backwards."

Transitioning leads to mental health problems, they will regret it, backwards step, transitioning will be something they regret as long as they don't kill themselves first and transitioning is an ill-advised route. All pretty much stating this is an issue that can be solved on a dr's sofa and trans = bad mental health is clearly whats implied. That whole sentence is problematic and shows ignorance of the issues trans people face. Clearly a projection of their own views which are not shared by the trans friends I have.

Edit to ask why put he in quotation marks? Was this a poor attempt at humour?

Second edit - You do realise not only gay people transition don't you?

Some of the ignorance on this thread baggers belief.
 
Last edited:
JonnyHistory said:
"Which is that it is highly likely to lead to many gay/lesbian people taking the ill-advised route of irreversible hormone/surgery 'treatments' (often at irresponsibly young ages) that they will later regret (assuming they don't just commit suicide first of course because 'transitioning' is so exceptionally bad for mental health) and therefore a big step backwards."

Transitioning leads to mental health problems, they will regret it, backwards step, transitioning will be something they regret as long as they don't kill themselves first and transitioning is an ill-advised route. All pretty much stating this is an issue that can be solved on a dr's sofa and trans = bad mental health is clearly whats implied. That whole sentence is problematic and shows ignorance of the issues trans people face. Clearly a projection of their own views which are not shared by the trans friends I have.

Edit to ask why put he in quotation marks? Was this a poor attempt at humour?

Second edit - You do realise not only gay people transition don't you?

Some of the ignorance on this thread baggers belief.
Click to expand...
It was the attributed comment that 'all trans people are mentally' ill I took issue with.

As to the 'he' it seemed appropriate as I have no idea of 'his' preference.

Yes I am well aware that transitioning has nothing to do with sexual preference.

In some ways I'm not sure men should comment on the female to male transition and it's implications. However I do object to the discriminatory labelling of women who voice concerns which should be heard.
 
@Milbrook did I provide enough evidence to back my statement
Millbrook said:
It was the attributed comment that 'all trans people are mentally' ill I took issue with.

As to the 'he' it seemed appropriate as I have no idea of 'his' preference.

Yes I am well aware that transitioning has nothing to do with sexual preference.

In some ways I'm not sure men should comment on the female to male transition and it's implications. However I do object to the discriminatory labelling of women who voice concerns which should be heard.
Click to expand...
The posters comment was transitioning leads to mental health problems, those who don't commit suicide that is. The poster never said some, a few, a majority the implication was all. Read it back and highlight any ambiguity that would make this comment to be about some and not all trans people. I can find any personally hence my comment.

The comment I replied to is ignorant to what trans people.go through not only in transitioning but garnering acceptance in society. When ignorant people presume it's just a mental condition it dehumanizes them amd makes them an 'other' in society.

As I said some massive ignorance on this thread to the issues and sweeping generalisations massive those I replied to just serve to perpetuate these myths.

If you are unsure of a pronoun either ask or write person, your comment come across as flippant and served to further trivialize these people's positions.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Maybe a place to start would be to ask them? Would a trans woman, criminal or not, prefer to be labelled as a woman or a man? And would the trans woman prefer to be in a male or female prison?
Click to expand...
Would we then not get every male criminal who feels like wasting the courts time or trying to get an easier term identifying as female to go to a women's prison then?

As I assume this would give anyone the right to chose their gender in the eyes of the law whenever they so wish?
 
Caesium137 said:
Would we then not get every male criminal who feels like wasting the courts time or trying to get an easier term identifying as female to go to a women's prison then?

As I assume this would give anyone the right to chose their gender in the eyes of the law whenever they so wish?
Click to expand...
Steady Caesium, we've been told the discussion has moved on;)
 
indeedido said:
Steady Caesium, we've been told the discussion has moved on;)
Click to expand...
Assumptions help nobody, I would imagine if you just say I identify as a women they can simply check your medical record and check if you have or are in the process of transitioning. If you are still a cis man or woman identifying as another gender with no medical record to back up your claim they are going to their birth genders prison.

Everything in this thread is an assumption, there is no evidence men (not trans women) get sent to women's nails not would a judge do that. If they have transitioned then it becomes a different question, either way they are not going to have an easy time in jail because of who they are. Mens prison they risk rape and bullying, women's prison they risk rejection and isolation.

What is people obcession with trying to villify trans people especially over something that might come up once a year in court. Nothing more than scare mongering.
 
Caesium137 said:
Would we then not get every male criminal who feels like wasting the courts time or trying to get an easier term identifying as female to go to a women's prison then?

As I assume this would give anyone the right to chose their gender in the eyes of the law whenever they so wish?
Click to expand...

My point was ask the tiny number of trans people what their thoughts are if we really do want to help the 'genuine needs of the trans community' as Duffman suggested.

I'm not sure anyone, trans or otherwise, would expect that we would ever get to the position when a male, upon being sentenced, decided that he was a female and wanted to go to a female jail. That is just silly and detracts from the actual issue.
 
JonnyHistory said:
Assumptions help nobody, I would imagine if you just say I identify as a women they can simply check your medical record and check if you have or are in the process of transitioning. If you are still a cis man or woman identifying as another gender with no medical record to back up your claim they are going to their birth genders prison.

Everything in this thread is an assumption, there is no evidence men (not trans women) get sent to women's nails not would a judge do that. If they have transitioned then it becomes a different question, either way they are not going to have an easy time in jail because of who they are. Mens prison they risk rape and bullying, women's prison they risk rejection and isolation.

What is people obcession with trying to villify trans people especially over something that might come up once a year in court. Nothing more than scare mongering.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. And remember we are talking about a tiny minority of trans people here - for some to make out that the entire male prison population would request a transfer as they are now female is beyond ludicrous.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Exactly this. And remember we are talking about a tiny minority of trans people here - for some to make out that the entire male prison population would request a transfer as they are now female is beyond ludicrous.
Click to expand...
The vast majority of trans news reports in the media are negative, the right wing press especially seem acted of trans people and actively look to push stories like this to stoke up anti-trans feelings. The fact people buy into it and push some of the shocking tropes and ignorant talking pointsvlike on here just shows how little critical thinking people employ these days. Honestly some of the comments on here are shocking and have no place on society. People are different get the **** over it.
 
I believe it all started when J K Rowling said in reply to someone claiming otherwise that it’s a medical fact that only a woman can bare a child.
 
SuperStu said:
Can't help yourself. 🤷‍♂️ That little line completely invalidates anything else in your post. Makes it clear your opinion is compromised by bigotry.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, the inability of trans activists to relate their ideology to something in objective reality is the crux of the problem with wider society recognising what they ask for.

If I were to ask you, say, ‘What is a car?’ you might tell me some ancillary things about a car (it has wheels, seats etc) but no doubt you would also be able to explain that a car is a personal transportation device. That’s it purpose, and that is obvious to us all. Fast or slow, more or less seats, we all know what a car is, because cars exist.

If you asked me what ‘what is a women?’ there’s an easy definition too. Because again, women exist and we all know what one is. And trans activists fully recognise this point too, as evidenced by the fact that they typically place huge importance on not being ‘mis-gendered’. So everyone agrees that ‘men’ and ‘women’ are not just ideas, but things that exist in reality, and which are different.

But the objective way by which I, (and everyone else in history up to about 5 minutes ago), defines a woman is basically ‘a human being who is ordered towards gestation of a baby’ - versus how we define a man, which is basically ‘a human who is ordered towards fathering a baby’. These are definitions with a basis in biological reality that everyone understands. Some women are tall, some short, some men (and occasionally women) are hairy, some aren’t. And these definitions work all the way down, including for chromosomal abnormalities (although I believe around 99.5% of people with gender dysphoria actually fit standard xx/xy anyway, but that’s another story) like Turners (women) and Klinefelter (men) etc. We don’t decide a woman with Turners ‘isn’t a woman’ do we? We recognise that they are a women with, through no fault of their own, a medical issue.

So what is the trans activist definition of ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ SuperStu? As you think yourself so enlightened, do tell me. This is the question trans activists cannot answer. They do not have a consistent, coherent definition of ‘a man’ or ‘a woman’ because what they claim is that anyone who says they are man/woman/insert-made-up-word is then, literally, a man/woman/made-up-word. Can you also explain for me how that process works please, because it sounds to me like magic?

Now we don’t start talking about re-defining the basis of how we view physics based on Dynamo or David Blaine, so why should we re-define how we view biology based on what some people (usually with poor mental health) say? This isn’t controversial by the way when it comes to other mental health conditions, with anorexia being a prime example. We don’t ‘affirm’ an anorexic teenager in their mistaken view of their identity by saying ‘Yes, you are fat’, because the objective biological status of their body shows us they are, objectively, *not* what they claim to be. To ‘affirm’ the mistake, everyone rightly recognises, would be deeply irresponsible, in fact even ‘evil’. If a clinician were to do this, they could rightly be taken to task for malpractice and would almost certainly be struck off. So again, what is your explanation for why we should throw out this responsible, reasoned approach? There is no discernible difference between the say-so of someone suffering from gender dysphoria and someone suffering from anorexia.

Yet here we are with the NHS pumping hormone blockers into kids without parental say so, and performing expensive surgeries on people (which appear to be having catastrophic effects on their subsequent mental health outcomes by the way) on the basis of ……what exactly?

//Makes it clear that your opinion is compromised by bigotry.//

Boring. You know what your comment makes clear?
  1. You’ve done next to no research, and therefore don’t know what you’re talking about.
  2. You’re easily led
  3. Virtue signalling is more important to you than the real people who will be lifelong victims of the trans fad.
Under those circumstances, you really shouldn't be seeking to influence people one way or another, because it's irresponsible for you to do so.
 
r00fie1 said:
Its a calculated decision to provoke outrage and hatred - driven by an ideological [anti-democratic / authoritarian] agenda
(y)
Click to expand...
You're still missing the point. The point isn't that everyone who *actually has* gender dysphoria is a potential rapist. The point is that if the judiciary is stupid enough to allow self-id, *rapists will use this to their advantage so that they are placed in female prisons*.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top