JK Rowling in hot water again

Sisyphus said:
Kathleen Stock. Rational debate is a necessary condition of a civilised society. Here we see extremists hounding a professor from her role. She was advised by the police to 'seek protection'.
Click to expand...
If she was advised to seek protection than I’d suggest that wasn’t cancelling someone. That’s a lot further than that.
 
Sisyphus said:
I will try to respond to your points, but I'm not sure that I have always understood your intent.
'Making a science of an ideological attack on human rights and particularly using the veil of "protecting womens rights" is a complete fabrication.
'How is this relevant to my assertion? I have not used a 'veil', there is nothing covert in my language. I have unambiguously given my precepts.
'The whole question of LGBTQ rights is under attack...'
I have not attacked LGBTQ+ rights, only stated that there are limits to these when they endanger others. To suggest otherwise is, at best, disingenuous. The defence I outlined is primarily promulgated by women, who see a material erosion in their right to safety and well-being. It is not an attack on democracy. As women form the majority of the population it is actually the opposite.
'If you read the justification...'
You are conflating the protection of women with the attack on LGBTQ+ rights. We clearly disagree on the importance and solution to this difficulty; but to accuse those who are supportive of women's rights here of 'fascism' is both insulting and ideologically unsustainable.
I have passed no comment on the book to which you refer. That is an unsubstantiated comment.
Rape in male prisons: Yes, this is a societal problem, but not relevant to this argument. Allowing self-identifying males into females prisons and other safe spaces will increase the number of sexual attacks, not reduce them. As a defender of civil rights I thought that you might have been more concerned by the rape of women in society; in the UK women are x8 more likely than men to be a victim (rapecrisis.co.uk).

As a digression, I too have been active in civil rights issues since the late 1970's when the police stood and watched as the skinheads of the National Front threw (glass) bottles of urine at us.
Click to expand...
I suggest it may be of benefit not to personalise the discussion - unless it is directed deliberately at you.
My assertions intend to offer a broader, more circumspect approach - looking at the prevailing ideological climate in which the whole question of sexuality, gender and sexual orientation is postulated - particularly in historical and political context.
It is commendable that you have begun to consider some of the points raised in this thread by numerous posters.
Please continue to contribute - my posts are directed at the ideology which underlies the attacks on civil and human rights, couched in a veil of libertarianism.

(y)
 
BoroBosco said:
They are going to record a crime as being carried out by someone who, in law, can't carry out that crime. Good luck to those who carry out crime data analysis in the future.



Google Karen White
Click to expand...
Scots law has nothing to say vis male or female, biology, gender etc, but it does require the rapist to be in possession of a pen1s. Here's the definition
"The Sexual Offences (Scotland) Act 2009 states that rape occurs when a person intentionally or recklessly penetrates another person's vagina, anus or mouth with their penis, where the victim does not consent and the person responsible has no reasonable belief that the victim is giving consent".
 
Liamo said:
As mentioned above, under the law women can carry out rape. The Guardian article linked to above shows there have been a number of cases where women have been charged with, and convicted of, rape.
Click to expand...
It is a semantic argument anyway, sexual assault which can be committed by man or woman is essentially rape, I know they define rape as 'penetration by penis' or whatever it is but it lives in the same category as sexual assault.
Caesium137 said:
Surely both sides are guilty of that?
Click to expand...
Asking for acceptance is not forcing people into someone world view. No trans people are objecting to cis gendered peoples existence, this is a massive false equivalency and I think you know that.
 
Sisyphus said:
I will try to respond to your points, but I'm not sure that I have always understood your intent.
'Making a science of an ideological attack on human rights and particularly using the veil of "protecting womens rights" is a complete fabrication.
'How is this relevant to my assertion? I have not used a 'veil', there is nothing covert in my language. I have unambiguously given my precepts.
'The whole question of LGBTQ rights is under attack...'
I have not attacked LGBTQ+ rights, only stated that there are limits to these when they endanger others. To suggest otherwise is, at best, disingenuous. The defence I outlined is primarily promulgated by women, who see a material erosion in their right to safety and well-being. It is not an attack on democracy. As women form the majority of the population it is actually the opposite.
'If you read the justification...'
You are conflating the protection of women with the attack on LGBTQ+ rights. We clearly disagree on the importance and solution to this difficulty; but to accuse those who are supportive of women's rights here of 'fascism' is both insulting and ideologically unsustainable.
I have passed no comment on the book to which you refer. That is an unsubstantiated comment.
Rape in male prisons: Yes, this is a societal problem, but not relevant to this argument. Allowing self-identifying males into females prisons and other safe spaces will increase the number of sexual attacks, not reduce them. As a defender of civil rights I thought that you might have been more concerned by the rape of women in society; in the UK women are x8 more likely than men to be a victim (rapecrisis.co.uk).

As a digression, I too have been active in civil rights issues since the late 1970's when the police stood and watched as the skinheads of the National Front threw (glass) bottles of urine at us.
Click to expand...


Read the government guidance on this https://assets.publishing.service.g...Guidance_on_Prisoners_who_are_Transgender.pdf

To put this argument in context this is how many prisoners we are talking about.

According to the HMPPS Offender Equalities Annual Report (2018/2019)3 , in 2019 there were 163 prisoners who are transgender (an increase on the figure of 139 recorded in 2018). Of those, 129 prisoners reported their legal gender as male, 32 as female and two did not state their legal gender. There were ten prisoners who are transgender from a BAME background. The Report also provides the following as a result of a data collection exercise in April and May 2019:

• “62 of the 121 public and private prisons (51%) in England and Wales said that they had 1 or more transgender prisoner. • There were 163 prisoners currently living in, or presenting in, a gender different to their sex assigned at birth and who have had a local transgender case board.

• Of these, 129 reported their legal gender as male, 32 reported their legal gender as female and 2 did not state their gender. When asked about the gender with which the prisoner identified, 130 identified as female, 20 as male and 13 did not provide a response. • Prisoners were asked to specify another identity and 88 gave a response. 15 identified as gender-fluid, 8 as Transvestite, 7 as intersex, 6 as nonbinary and the remaining 51 gave preferred not to say.

• 10 of the 163 prisoners reported their ethnic group as Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic Group and 152 as White, with 1 unknown.

• There were 34 transgender prisoners in women’s prisons: 30 reported their legal gender as female and 4 as male. When asked about the gender with which the prisoner identified, 11 identified as female, 20 as male and 3 did not provide a response. • There were 129 transgender prisoners in men’s prisons: 2 reported their legal gender as female and 125 as male, with 2 not providing a response. When asked about the gender with which the prisoner identified, 119 identified as female, 0 as male and 10 did not provide a response. • Based on this exercise, there were 2 transgender prisoners reported per 1,000 prisoners in custody

If you read through the whole document it concedes that whilst the prisoner does not have to have gone through surgery they do have a panel that judges these things and take many aspects of the individuals life and medical record into account. This is not a case of saying hey, I'm a woman, this is accessed medically and involves a fairly lengthy process involving risk assessments for both the individual and the people they will be incarcerated with.
 
Sisyphus said:
3) This is most clearly shown when we allow a convicted rapist to self-identify as a women and thereby gain access to a women's prison. This may be seen as an extreme example, but it is happening,
4) This is the point JKR was making. The literary allusion may have been overly dramatic for some, but this does not affect the validity of the statement.
The equating of the protection of women's rights with incipient fascism is not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Perhaps part of the trouble with this thread is that some think JK Rowlings sh*t takes on trans issues begin and end with who goes in which prisons and this is her first time tweeting about it. It doesn't and it isn't. She's one of the madheads who wants trans people banned from bathrooms, the media and everything else. That's why people will say she's bigoted and part of creeping fascism/culture wars.
 
r00fie1 said:
I suggest it may be of benefit not to personalise the discussion - unless it is directed deliberately at you.
My assertions intend to offer a broader, more circumspect approach - looking at the prevailing ideological climate in which the whole question of sexuality, gender and sexual orientation is postulated - particularly in historical and political context.
It is commendable that you have begun to consider some of the points raised in this thread by numerous posters.
Please continue to contribute - my posts are directed at the ideology which underlies the attacks on civil and human rights, couched in a veil of libertarianism.

(y)
Click to expand...
Thank you. The encouragement from a respected member, even though we may disagree here, is welcome. I apologise if you thought my initial comment was in anyway a personal attack, it was not meant to be. My point was that it is difficult to condense complex arguments into very short threads and that I may have misunderstood certain of your comments.
I am also aware that this issue is one that may be adopted by the right wing media, and we should be aware of the distortion they will apply.
 
JonnyHistory said:
Asking for acceptance is not forcing people into someone world view. No trans people are objecting to cis gendered peoples existence, this is a massive false equivalency and I think you know that.
Click to expand...
That isn't what I meant, but thanks for assuming that and adding a little dig on the end.
 
r00fie1 said:
I suggest it may be of benefit not to personalise the discussion - unless it is directed deliberately at you.
My assertions intend to offer a broader, more circumspect approach - looking at the prevailing ideological climate in which the whole question of sexuality, gender and sexual orientation is postulated - particularly in historical and political context.
It is commendable that you have begun to consider some of the points raised in this thread by numerous posters.
Please continue to contribute - my posts are directed at the ideology which underlies the attacks on civil and human rights, couched in a veil of libertarianism.

(y)
Click to expand...
I respect your views R00fie but have a difficulty with your assertion in an earlier post that 'the whole question of LGTBQ rights are under attack' if that applies to a discussion such as this.
Not every debate entails prejudice though it may attract some prejudiced views.

My local Tesco has a male employee who wears a skirt - I have no issue with that.
My neighbour transitioned from male to female - I had no issue with that and was happy to call her Sue.

I do have an issue with men transitioning to women and wanting to play in female sport. This is an example of area that deserves debate without an assumption that it is an attack on the trans community.
 
Caesium137 said:
That isn't what I meant, but thanks for assuming that and adding a little dig on the end.
Click to expand...
What exactly was your implication then because it is not very clear?

Edit to explain my interpretation of your comments.

-Much like in modern political discourse the 'both sides are bad' rhetoric is dangerous and inaccurate.

Your comment that both sides are trying to impose their world view is an example of this. I do not know any trans people trying to impose anything except there right to exist and have acceptance in society. Both sides are not imposing their world view, one side is to an extent trying to demonise and marginalise trans people, trans people are not marginalising cis gendered people are they? They are asking for acceptance.
 
JonnyHistory said:
What exactly was your implication then because it is not very clear?

Edit to explain my interpretation of your comments.

-Much like in modern political discourse the 'both sides are bad' rhetoric is dangerous and inaccurate.

Your comment that both sides are trying to impose their world view is an example of this. I do not know any trans people trying to impose anything except there right to exist and have acceptance in society. Both sides are not imposing their world view, one side is to an extent trying to demonise and marginalise trans people, trans people are not marginalising cis gendered people are they? They are asking for acceptance.
Click to expand...
Mercifully, few are trying to marginalise trans people. There are two, related, difficulties that arise that do require detailed discussion. Firstly is the issue of safety, that we have briefly considered above; it’s not just prisons, but also changing rooms. Anyone who believes that the ability to self-identify (once more widely known) will not be exploited by non-trans people is being naive. The second is that of people born males, with muscle density and previously high testosterone levels, competing in women’s sport. We are seeing this in the US college circuit.
Perhaps the solution, at least for sport, is a third category?
 
Millbrook said:
I respect your views R00fie but have a difficulty with your assertion in an earlier post that 'the whole question of LGTBQ rights are under attack' if that applies to a discussion such as this.
Not every debate entails prejudice though it may attract some prejudiced views.

My local Tesco has a male employee who wears a skirt - I have no issue with that.
My neighbour transitioned from male to female - I had no issue with that and was happy to call her Sue.

I do have an issue with men transitioning to women and wanting to play in female sport. This is an example of area that deserves debate without an assumption that it is an attack on the trans community.
Click to expand...
Fair do`s. Just a question: what concerns do you have for trans men [whose gender at birth was female] who are placed in male prisons?
Cheers for the comments (y)
Just finished decorating - off for a cuppa.
 
Interesting inversion of the previous argument, but the current legislation would allow that person to choose where they were most comfortable. At some stage we will need to distil this to physical biology, not that that is the only criterion, but from my perspective the most important.
 
Which prison would be appropriate for Claire? This recent judgement (and accompanying article) sets out the difficulties faced by a binary prison system. Here's one possible solution, but it's not perfect. In theory, you could still end up with a prison unit containing prisoners contesting each other's transgender status.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top