Is JK Rowling pushing the boundaries too far?

I am amused by the concept that only women born with the right bits can be mistreated because they are women or subjected to discrimination. Most discrimination never gets as far as asking to check what sex you were born.

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US rape can be a female crime. Is it less traumatic for someone to have an object violently pushed into an orifice than to have a penis pushed in? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

I brought the US into it because the definition of rape is neither as simple or clear as you tried to claim. Apparently you still don't understand this. So I'll revert to my unanswered question . Is having an object inserted just as traumatic or not?

Of course only women can be mistreated because they are women. Men and trans women can be mistreated and subjected to discrimination but not because they are women, because they're not.

IF there was respect and consideration for women, for their safe spaces, sports etc from all trans women and those in power then we wouldn't be in this ridiculous situation. Gender neutral facilities would be widely available. Language that pertains to women wouldn't be being eroded, and anyone stating the biological truth that you can't change sex wouldn't be accused of transphobia, and/or subjected to abuse.

There would be no need to check what sex someone was born with because it wouldn't be an issue. Men wouldn't be entering spaces designated for women.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything. But choosing to denigrate a piece of legislation which protects some minorities is ignoring their needs, simply because of your personal views

I for one, would not dream of using words that my inner being does not believe in.

The law can be redrafted or amended or whatever happens to them, if a portion of it most people believe is not right or fair.
Justice and all that.

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US rape can be a female crime. Is it less traumatic for someone to have an object violently pushed into an orifice than to have a penis pushed in? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

I brought the US into it because the definition of rape is neither as simple or clear as you tried to claim. Apparently you still don't understand this. So I'll revert to my unanswered question . Is having an object inserted just as traumatic or not?

Glorianny do you want us to adopt other areas of US law, or just this rape one because it suits you to further blur the distinction between the sexes? Even your link points out that the individual states have differing definitions.
Will you never tire of trying to diminish the few protections that females enjoy, just to pander to men?
I have said the crime of penetration by object is viewed by the law as serious as rape and the sentencing guidelines are the same. Do you seriously think that having penetration by object redefined as rape is going to make any victim feel better? It could be argued that the risk of permanent internal damage from an object makes it a potentially more serious crime. I don't believe the victims are your concern, I believe it's just all part of the agenda.

Glorianny

I am amused by the concept that only women born with the right bits can be mistreated because they are women or subjected to discrimination. Most discrimination never gets as far as asking to check what sex you were born.

You are often amused by things I find troubling, but we’re all different.

Misogyny is not about mistreatment or discrimination (as you know). Those have their own words. That’s how language works. Misogyny is the dislike or hatred of women and girls, because they are female. It can’t apply to men. Please stop wriggling.

Rosie51

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

Doodledog

Glorianny

I think the details are important.
Rape for example has a far wider definition in US law where penetration by an object is also regarded as rape. It isn't in the UK. But the idea that someone using an object to penetrate anyone is somehow less traumatic or not as serious as using a penis is unacceptable in my opinion. And certainly what happens to some women in women's prisons is just as damaging. (and that is nothing to do with transwomen).

Not the point. As you know.

I am not arguing about which hideous crime is more or less serious - that would be as disrespectful to the victims as saying that rape can be a female crime. I am saying that tinkering with the language shifts meanings. A birth-giver is not the same as a mother. Calling women 'cervix havers' downgrades the concept of womanhood. Rape is used as a weapon of war, because of everything that is bound up in the sexual violation of women - it is about more than the degradation and humiliation of assault.

You know all this, as do the people pushing for the changes. Why would thy bother changing the words if they don't matter? Words matter.

In the US rape can be a female crime. Is it less traumatic for someone to have an object violently pushed into an orifice than to have a penis pushed in? I would say it is equally as damaging. Female rape is recognised in the US. In the UK it is designated as assault. The definition of rape is neither as simple nor as restricted as you seem to imagine www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/rape-and-gender-can-a-woman-rape-a-man.html

Why bring the US into this? You may as well say that in some countries women are punished if they are raped because they have had sex with a man who is not their husband. You are wriggling again.

I brought the US into it because the definition of rape is neither as simple or clear as you tried to claim. Apparently you still don't understand this. So I'll revert to my unanswered question . Is having an object inserted just as traumatic or not?

Glorianny do you want us to adopt other areas of US law, or just this rape one because it suits you to further blur the distinction between the sexes? Even your link points out that the individual states have differing definitions.
Will you never tire of trying to diminish the few protections that females enjoy, just to pander to men?
I have said the crime of penetration by object is viewed by the law as serious as rape and the sentencing guidelines are the same. Do you seriously think that having penetration by object redefined as rape is going to make any victim feel better? It could be argued that the risk of permanent internal damage from an object makes it a potentially more serious crime. I don't believe the victims are your concern, I believe it's just all part of the agenda.

OMG what "agenda" is that?
I simply find the lack of logic, the obvious connection and danger of discrimination, and the righteous indignation of those who claim to be supporting women but who are quite happy to see iniquitous and invasive processes introduced, and discrimination implemented, simply to prove their beliefs in biology, as unacceptable.
The question of course remains if someone who is a transwoman complains under a legislation of misogyny would you deny her that legal redress. The answer seems to be "yes". And so discrimination begins.
Feminism was never about supporting discrimination

Catching Up
I stand with JKR
Thanks to Doodledog and Dickens plus the majority here putting forward well argued challenges to Glorirannie’s frankly ludicrous arguments
No one is anti trans.
Misogyny can’t be directed at transgender people identifying as women. Criticisms of trans activists are t misogynistic they’re anger directed at men wearing frocks who threaten women. Being subjected to death threats, bring raped to death with my lady dick - and more. Rapists demanding to serve their sentences in women’s prisons etc - that’s what we object to

GloriannyNo answers to any questions I've posed over the last few posts?

Would those iniquitous and invasive processes introduced include the once in a lifetime cheek swab to determine the sex of athletes? Nowhere near as invasive as a dental appointment, but so traumatic!

simply to prove their beliefs in biology, Do you not believe in biology? Tom Daley (huge transwomen are women advocate) and his husband somehow knew exactly what type of women, the biological distinction, they needed in order to provide them with their children.

Feminism was never about supporting discrimination no it was about promoting fairness and equality for females hence feminism. Sometimes that will mean an exclusion of, discrimination against, men for that to be achieved. Do you equally object to discrimination when jobs are advertised to specific, exclusive categories in order to balance diversity?

Doodledog

Glorianny

I am amused by the concept that only women born with the right bits can be mistreated because they are women or subjected to discrimination. Most discrimination never gets as far as asking to check what sex you were born.

You are often amused by things I find troubling, but we’re all different.

Misogyny is not about mistreatment or discrimination (as you know). Those have their own words. That’s how language works. Misogyny is the dislike or hatred of women and girls, because they are female. It can’t apply to men. Please stop wriggling.

But if we want a law about misogyny (and I thought you did) then we must consider what will be involved in that. As far as I am concerned the mistreatment, dislike or hatred of anyone who presents as a woman is misogyny. You seem to think that any misogynist is going to go around asking women to prove their natal sex. I don't think they will. I don't think they do. It's quite a valid question to ask how you see any legislation. against misogyny being applied.

I dont want any more laws about speech. Women and other groups suffer when this happens as has been shown time and time again. The people who want more control of speech are much more frightening to me as a woman than sone idiot who tells me to get back in the kitchen.

Rosie51

*Glorianny*No answers to any questions I've posed over the last few posts?

Would those iniquitous and invasive processes introduced include the once in a lifetime cheek swab to determine the sex of athletes? Nowhere near as invasive as a dental appointment, but so traumatic!

simply to prove their beliefs in biology, Do you not believe in biology? Tom Daley (huge transwomen are women advocate) and his husband somehow knew exactly what type of women, the biological distinction, they needed in order to provide them with their children.

Feminism was never about supporting discrimination no it was about promoting fairness and equality for females hence feminism. Sometimes that will mean an exclusion of, discrimination against, men for that to be achieved. Do you equally object to discrimination when jobs are advertised to specific, exclusive categories in order to balance diversity?

Demanding answers immediately isn't very considerate.
Why do you always try to focus on strangely individual instances and ignore the wider picture?
We were discussing misogyny not sports which is incredibly complicated and involves racism and white patriarchal supremacy.
Feminism was about changing the system and creating a less masculine approach to society. Not simply tapping into male prejudices and adding a few more for good measure.

I can just imagine some of these men in dresses fantasising about being sent back to the kitchen.

Oh God not the endless tedious you are a bigot nonsense. Sorry but that doesnt work anymore, that shop sailed some time ago, most people are laughing at that now. What next far right, nazis. All absolutely meaningless to me I am afraid.

That's your opinion. Referring to someone by the chosen pronoun is simply using words it doesn't require you to believe anything.
Of course it requires you to believe. Using 'her' ,'she' for someone who is male indicates that you share that person's misguided belief.
Such nonsense.

Well people could, But it actually implies that people have no feelings. And requires most to go against what they truly believe.

Do you do that type of thing yourself Glorianny?

Glorianny

Rosie51

GloriannyNo answers to any questions I've posed over the last few posts?

Would those iniquitous and invasive processes introduced include the once in a lifetime cheek swab to determine the sex of athletes? Nowhere near as invasive as a dental appointment, but so traumatic!

simply to prove their beliefs in biology, Do you not believe in biology? Tom Daley (huge transwomen are women advocate) and his husband somehow knew exactly what type of women, the biological distinction, they needed in order to provide them with their children.

Feminism was never about supporting discrimination no it was about promoting fairness and equality for females hence feminism. Sometimes that will mean an exclusion of, discrimination against, men for that to be achieved. Do you equally object to discrimination when jobs are advertised to specific, exclusive categories in order to balance diversity?

Demanding answers immediately isn't very considerate.
Why do you always try to focus on strangely individual instances and ignore the wider picture?
We were discussing misogyny not sports which is incredibly complicated and involves racism and white patriarchal supremacy.
Feminism was about changing the system and creating a less masculine approach to society. Not simply tapping into male prejudices and adding a few more for good measure.

Demanding answers immediately isn't very considerate. Pray show me where I demanded answers... oh you can't because I didn't.

You introduced other areas such as rape which is not a purely misogynistic offence. Men can be orally or anally raped by other men if you didn't know.

Glorianny, how do you define ‘misogyny’? How are you making it apply to people not of the female sex? The ‘gyne’ part of the word is the same as in ‘gynaecology’. It relates to female sex.

If, say, a transwoman is attacked because of being transgender, the offence is a hate crime as transgender is covered under the Scottish Act. If a woman is attacked because she is female, (misogyny), however, there is no ‘hate’ element, as women are not protected in the way that transwomen are.

I repeat- a transwoman cannot suffer from misogyny because the term applies to the female sex only. It exists to differentiate between male and female. Why are you pretending otherwise?

Feminism was about changing the system and creating a less masculine approach to society. what by including males in all areas they want? By accepting male voices defining what a woman is? It seems to me society is now more ruled by the dominance of men not less. Letting a special class of men take women's single sex spaces, sports, awards etc hasn't helped one single female. Shall we compile a list of all those transmen who have beaten men out of sporting prizes, men of the year awards, taken top company positions? Won't take a lot of ink will it?

Of course we should stand up for the minorities who are being bullied. The school in Aboyne north of Scotland had the school photographer in saying to the parents of the primary school they can airbrush any or all disabled children out of the school photographs - shame on them, the school has sacked the company’s contract and I agree with the hate crime they should be prosecuted for that it’s a blooming disgrace and that’s my opinion like it or lump it

Bonnybanko

Of course we should stand up for the minorities who are being bullied. The school in Aboyne north of Scotland had the school photographer in saying to the parents of the primary school they can airbrush any or all disabled children out of the school photographs - shame on them, the school has sacked the company’s contract and I agree with the hate crime they should be prosecuted for that it’s a blooming disgrace and that’s my opinion like it or lump it

I don't think anybody has endorsed the airbrushing out of disabled children from the class photo have they? So there's nothing to like or lump is there? What are your views on whether or not it should be a hate crime to correctly sex someone, a transwoman for instance? Is it a hate crime to want to protect females from having to compete against trans identified males in sports?

This is the front cover of our WI magazine for April. The colours of purple, white and green representing the Suffragettes.

No mention that they accept transwomen, without a vote from their loyal members. We are no longer a democracy imo.

NanKate

This is the front cover of our WI magazine for April. The colours of purple, white and green representing the Suffragettes.

No mention that they accept transwomen, without a vote from their loyal members. We are no longer a democracy imo.

"Making the WI's Voice Heard"

What voice is that exactly?

That W.I. cover is an insult to biological women and the suffragettes!!
The suffragettes fought for biological womens rights.

Allegedly there have been more complaints about Humza Yousef's observations of too many white people up in wee Scotland taking all the top jobs, than there have been against JK Rowling. Anyway he pointed that out and.added to that quite shockingly when he enters a room, sometimes those rooms are full of white people shamelessly displaying their whiteness, they could do something about it, cover up any alabaster coloured arms on display with a Saltire, at least The problem is it seems, Scotland is somewhat mono cultured being 96% white!