J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

paddar

Four authors represented by JK Rowling’s literary agency have resigned after accusing the company of declining to issue a public statement of support for transgender rights.
Agency responds with a buh-bye.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/22/authors-quit-jk-rowling-agency-over-transgender-rights

''We believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view''

Re-education is so delightfully 1984

In other news all the Harry Potter books are on Amazons most read fiction list this week. Who knew cancelling a multi-billion selling author could be so hard?!

Annasopra

Bonniedog wrote: »

They should not however be entitled to make a tiny minority psychological defect into a legally defining standard.

What are you on about?

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

The biological difference between men and women is not a socially constructed standard! No more than is the difference between a dog and a bitch, or a ram and a ewe.

I never argued otherwise.

Bonniedog wrote: »

Of course men who for whatever reasons believe they are women should be entitled to legal protection where they do not harm others.

That’s all that happened.

Bonniedog wrote: »

They should not however be entitled to make a tiny minority psychological defect into a legally defining standard.

I think you’ll find that it’s people who argue that it is a tiny minority psychological defect are attempting to use that as a justification for continuing discrimination against other people, as a legally defining standard.

Equality legislation however disagrees with them and protects everyone from discrimination against them by people who are of that belief and attempt to use it to justify discrimination on those grounds. That’s the protection from harm by others that you referred to earlier.

Bonniedog

I have no problems with people being given legal protections, with all the usual provisions regarding harm to others etc.

However, that is not what Rowling was attacked for. It was on the basis of her pointing to the basic biological differences between male and females.

Actually i find the whole thing particularly revolting due to the utterly spineless reaction of Watson and Rathcliffe and others. Joined it would seem according to link a few posts above by some new people who want to kick her when she is down.

Drew Davies might, however, sell more cr@p books through the publicity :-)

AllForIt

paddar wrote: »

Four authors represented by JK Rowling’s literary agency have resigned after accusing the company of declining to issue a public statement of support for transgender rights.
Agency responds with a buh-bye.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/22/authors-quit-jk-rowling-agency-over-transgender-rights

''We believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view''

Re-education is so delightfully 1984

In other news all the Harry Potter books are on Amazons most read fiction list this week. Who knew cancelling a multi-billion selling author could be so hard?!

The most interesting thing about that Guardian report is that it has a link to the right wing Daily Mail in it.

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never argued otherwise.

If you argue that there is no objective reality, which you have, then you have argued that whether you realise it or not.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

paddar wrote: »

Four authors represented by JK Rowling’s literary agency have resigned after accusing the company of declining to issue a public statement of support for transgender rights.
Agency responds with a buh-bye.

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/22/authors-quit-jk-rowling-agency-over-transgender-rights

''We believe in freedom of speech for all; these clients have decided to leave because we did not meet their demands to be re-educated to their point of view''

Re-education is so delightfully 1984

In other news all the Harry Potter books are on Amazons most read fiction list this week. Who knew cancelling a multi-billion selling author could be so hard?!

Guardian articles on transgender topics no longer have comment sections. They used to and now they don’t. The New York Times is similar though they do occasionally allow comment sections and the incongruity between the articles and the comments are always interesting to observe.

Anyway, fair play to Hachette (Edit: it’s her other publisher). Their principles remain intact. I’d be proud to work for them.

Oh and this is a blatant publicity stunt by these nobodies. Trying to glom onto a much more recognisable name. Losers.

volchitsa

Bonniedog wrote: »

I have no problems with people being given legal protections, with all the usual provisions regarding harm to others etc.

However, that is not what Rowling was attacked for. It was on the basis of her pointing to the basic biological differences between male and females.

Actually i find the whole thing particularly revolting due to the utterly spineless reaction of Watson and Rathcliffe and others. Joined it would seem according to link a few posts above by some new people who want to kick her when she is down.

Drew Davies might, however, sell more cr@p books through the publicity :-)

It's never a good idea to look to child stars for leadership or even common sense.

Bonniedog

They are not children any more! They are famous adults due in large measure to Rowling.

No coincidence either that Watson was brought onto the board of the woke Gucci the same week she turned on Rowling.

volchitsa

Bonniedog wrote: »

They are not children any more! They are famous adults due in large measure to Rowling.

No coincidence either that Watson was brought onto the board of the woke Gucci the same week she turned on Rowling.

Gucci, hm? I'm sure they really really care about equality for underprivileged girls and those married off to old men instead of finishing school. Emma couldn't have chosen a better place to hang her hat. Or shoes.

OptimusTractor

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Guardian articles on transgender topics no longer have comment sections. They used to and now they don’t. The New York Times is similar though they do occasionally allow comment sections and the incongruity between the articles and the comments are always interesting to observe.

Anyway, fair play to Hachette (Edit: it’s her other publisher). Their principles remain intact. I’d be proud to work for them.

Didn't The Guardian close comment sections all together some time ago.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

OptimusTractor wrote: »

Didn't The Guardian close comment sections all together some time ago.

No, no. Not at all. I have a Guardian account. I don’t use it much but the last time I commented on an article was only about a week ago.

Girly Gal

The argument as to whether transwomen are women or transmen are men is largely redundant. If a person is accepted/ pass as a woman by general society, regardless if they were born female, then they are a woman, the same goes for men, if they're accepted / pass as a man then they are a man regardless if they were born male.

We assume that people were born the same sex/gender we perceive them to be and this is almost always the case with the exception of trans people who "pass" as their chosen sex/gender.

I don't think anyone is seriously claiming people can change their biological sex, as that's impossible, however, people can socially change their sex/gender and should be legally protected.

There is an issue with self identifying which needs to be addressed especially when we see male prisoners taking advantage of this to move to a female prison. Not sure what the answer is here, but, it needs to be addressed.

JoannaJag

Girly Gal wrote: »

The argument as to whether transwomen are women or transmen are men is largely redundant. If a person is accepted/ pass as a woman by general society, regardless if they were born female, then they are a woman, the same goes for men, if they're accepted / pass as a man then they are a man regardless if they were born male.

We assume that people were born the same sex/gender we perceive them to be and this is almost always the case with the exception of trans people who "pass" as their chosen sex/gender.

I don't think anyone is seriously claiming people can change their biological sex, as that's impossible, however, people can socially change their sex/gender and should be legally protected.

There is an issue with self identifying which needs to be addressed especially when we see male prisoners taking advantage of this to move to a female prison. Not sure what the answer is here, but, it needs to be addressed.

A big problem with this is that trans people are more likely to pass if they transition early - as young as possible. However if we start Young people - children really - on the course for transition before it’s “too late” we risk doing them irreversible damage for feelings which often change during puberty. I also think that these young people are misled into believing they really can change their sex with cosmetic surgery. On the other hand if we leave it, they may be less likely to pass. I still think we need a third space for transgender people as they aren’t going away. I also think it’s tragic that non conforming children can’t just do their thing and be accepted/accept themselves as the sex they are regardless of their presentation.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Girly Gal wrote: »

The argument as to whether transwomen are women or transmen are men is largely redundant. If a person is accepted/ pass as a woman by general society, regardless if they were born female, then they are a woman, the same goes for men, if they're accepted / pass as a man then they are a man regardless if they were born male.

We assume that people were born the same sex/gender we perceive them to be and this is almost always the case with the exception of trans people who "pass" as their chosen sex/gender.

I don't think anyone is seriously claiming people can change their biological sex, as that's impossible, however, people can socially change their sex/gender and should be legally protected.

There is an issue with self identifying which needs to be addressed especially when we see male prisoners taking advantage of this to move to a female prison. Not sure what the answer is here, but, it needs to be addressed.

Well said. And people need to be allowed to discuss these issues without people mouthfarting moronic terms like TERF at them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

JoannaJag wrote: »

A big problem with this is that trans people are more likely to pass if they transition early - as young as possible. However if we start Young people - children really - on the course for transition before it’s “too late” we risk doing them irreversible damage for feelings which often change during puberty. I also think that these young people are misled into believing they really can change their sex with cosmetic surgery. On the other hand if we leave it, they may be less likely to pass. I still think we need a third space for transgender people as they aren’t going away. I also think it’s tragic that non conforming children can’t just do their thing and be accepted/accept themselves as the sex they are regardless of their presentation.

That’s the issue. The transgender people who are most likely to pass are the ones who have been medicalised from a young age. I’m unambiguous about this. Blocking puberty is deeply unethical, IMO. If the long-term effects of these drugs on children are unknown, then neither these children nor their parents can give informed consent.

Third spaces all the way.

And, yes, non-conforming children should be supported, not told that they are “wrong”.

Girly Gal

JoannaJag wrote: »

A big problem with this is that trans people are more likely to pass if they transition early - as young as possible. However if we start Young people - children really - on the course for transition before it’s “too late” we risk doing them irreversible damage for feelings which often change during puberty. I also think that these young people are misled into believing they really can change their sex with cosmetic surgery. On the other hand if we leave it, they may be less likely to pass. I still think we need a third space for transgender people as they aren’t going away. I also think it’s tragic that non conforming children can’t just do their thing and be accepted/accept themselves as the sex they are regardless of their presentation.

I do agree with alot of what you say, children shouldn't be transitioning, once people reach adulthood they can do as they please, this of course will make it more difficult for some to pass, but, that's a risk trans people should have to take.
I'm not sure how a third space will work; do all trans people have to use this, both transmen and transwomen, those that can and can't pass.

It is a complex issue and their are no straight forward answers.

Spanish Eyes

There is no way I would welcome a man with a penis attached going into a toilet with my daughter. You know the self professed "women" who identify.

Is that mad.

Such a minuscule number of society, and yet they appear to have so much power now. I don't get it anymore.

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

There is an issue with self identifying which needs to be addressed especially when we see male prisoners taking advantage of this to move to a female prison. Not sure what the answer is here, but, it needs to be addressed.

I would suggest that if a person is genuinely concerned about eliminating or reducing the risk of sexual violence in prisons, that they do their research on the issue beyond a few attention grabbing headlines in the tabloids.


Since passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004), sexual assault in prison has received more research attention. Rates of sexual victimization in America’s prisons vary greatly, ranging from 41% to less than 1%. Based on a meta-analysis by Gaes and Goldberg (2004), a conservative “average” prevalence estimate of prison sexual assault was estimated at 1.9%. Wolff, Blitz, Shi, Bachman, and Siegel (2006) estimated sexual inmate-on-inmate victimization rates over a 6-month period at 3.2% for female inmates and 1.5% for male inmates. The risk of victimization doubled for female inmates who experienced sexual abuse prior to age 18. For male inmates, those who experienced sexual victimization prior to age 18 were approximately two to five times more likely to report sexual victimization inside prison during a 6-month time period than their counterparts who had no sexual victimization prior to age 18 (Wolff et al., 2007).


Patterns of Victimization Among Male and Female Inmates: Evidence of an Enduring Legacy

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would suggest that if a person is genuinely concerned about eliminating or reducing the risk of sexual violence in prisons, that they do their research on the issue beyond a few attention grabbing headlines in the tabloids.


Since passage of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004), sexual assault in prison has received more research attention. Rates of sexual victimization in America’s prisons vary greatly, ranging from 41% to less than 1%. Based on a meta-analysis by Gaes and Goldberg (2004), a conservative “average” prevalence estimate of prison sexual assault was estimated at 1.9%. Wolff, Blitz, Shi, Bachman, and Siegel (2006) estimated sexual inmate-on-inmate victimization rates over a 6-month period at 3.2% for female inmates and 1.5% for male inmates. The risk of victimization doubled for female inmates who experienced sexual abuse prior to age 18. For male inmates, those who experienced sexual victimization prior to age 18 were approximately two to five times more likely to report sexual victimization inside prison during a 6-month time period than their counterparts who had no sexual victimization prior to age 18 (Wolff et al., 2007).


Patterns of Victimization Among Male and Female Inmates: Evidence of an Enduring Legacy

I accept I may have used a bad example, but, can you tell me if with gender self determination is it possible for someone to legally change their gender, despite not being trans?

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

I accept I may have used a bad example, but, can you tell me if with gender self determination is it possible for someone to legally change their gender, despite not being trans?

I don’t think you used a bad example tbh, it’s understandable that you’d use the example when it’s the one most commonly used to argue against Self-ID.

To answer your question though- it’s possible for anyone to legally change their gender despite not being transgender.

However, the concept of ‘Self-ID’ as it’s being portrayed in the tabloids and by some posters here, isn’t actually as simple as a person declaring themselves their preferred gender and having their decision immediately recognised in Irish law.

There’s a whole application process they have to go through to apply to have their preferred gender acknowledged in Irish law, and their application is only considered provided they meet certain eligibility criteria set out in the Gender Recognition Act -


Application for a gender recognition certificate

Persons who may apply for a gender recognition certificate

Requirements on application for a gender recognition certificate

And the Minister can also revoke a GRC under certain conditions -

Revocation by Minister


The issue of sexual violence in prisons is something of a red herring, as the issues regarding where inmates are housed upon sentencing would be a matter for the Judicial system and requires a revision of their policies, rather than the issue of sexual violence among inmates of either sex, being addressed in legislation.

Acedia.

To avoid contentious words like "cis" and "menstruator" and to include trans, non-binary, two spirit etc, I think women should be referred to in future as "women and women who are not women".

That would include all women, including all the gender special women, and exclude all men. Problem solved!

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think you used a bad example tbh, it’s understandable that you’d use the example when it’s the one most commonly used to argue against Self-ID.

To answer your question though- it’s possible for anyone to legally change their gender despite not being transgender.

However, the concept of ‘Self-ID’ as it’s being portrayed in the tabloids and by some posters here, isn’t actually as simple as a person declaring themselves their preferred gender and having their decision immediately recognised in Irish law.

There’s a whole application process they have to go through to apply to have their preferred gender acknowledged in Irish law, and their application is only considered provided they meet certain eligibility criteria set out in the Gender Recognition Act -


Application for a gender recognition certificate

Persons who may apply for a gender recognition certificate

Requirements on application for a gender recognition certificate

And the Minister can also revoke a GRC under certain conditions -

Revocation by Minister


The issue of sexual violence in prisons is something of a red herring, as the issues regarding where inmates are housed upon sentencing would be a matter for the Judicial system and requires a revision of their policies, rather than the issue of sexual violence among inmates of either sex, being addressed in legislation.

My point was that as with all laws and regulations in society they need to be kept under constant review to ensure they are not being abused. We need to strike a balance; not to make it too difficult for genuine trans people to change their gender legally, but, also we need to make it harder for those who might try to abuse it.

I have no problem with gender self determination itself, we just need to ensure it's not abused. There will always be people who try to abuse laws and exploit loopholes.

As you've said it's possible for a person who is not trans to legally change their gender, I would have to question the motive of a person doing this and in my opinion a case like this should not be allowed or be possible to happen. I can't think of a genuine reason for a non trans person to change their gender legally.

Annasopra

Girly Gal wrote: »

My point was that as with all laws and regulations in society they need to be kept under constant review to ensure they are not being abused. We need to strike a balance; not to make it too difficult for genuine trans people to change their gender legally, but, also we need to make it harder for those who might try to abuse it.

I have no problem with gender self determination itself, we just need to ensure it's not abused. There will always be people who try to abuse laws and exploit loopholes.

As you've said it's possible for a person who is not trans to legally change their gender, I would have to question the motive of a person doing this and in my opinion a case like this should not be allowed or be possible to happen. I can't think of a genuine reason for a non trans person to change their gender legally.

Whats your point. You think the system could be abused but you have no idea why? Seriously?

Bonniedog

It is being abused. Men are pretending to be women to get transferred out of male prisons, men are pretending to be women to win at sports.

There is no way that a 12 year old boy should be allowed make life changing decisions that he might regret in later years. 12 year olds are not allowed drive cars or vote or take out credit cards for a good reason you know.

Such a child needs compassion and help, not the cheer leading of politically motivated nihilists.

kowloon

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know far too many women who would disagree with how JK is trying to define womanhood. I can ask a hundred different women what womanhood or being a woman means to them, and I’d get back at least 500 different answers, and no doubt each woman would be telling the truth about what she imagines is a “real woman”, you may remember real women from popular social media sites, showing off their bare wares, telling everyone this is what a real woman looks like, and raking in likes.

They did what?! Where was I during this?

Bonniedog wrote: »

Such a child needs compassion and help, not the cheer leading of politically motivated nihilists.

Leave us nihilists out of this, ve care about nahthing.

suicide_circus

Bonniedog wrote: »

Such a child needs compassion and help, not the cheer leading of politically motivated nihilists.

Well said

Girly Gal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Whats your point. You think the system could be abused but you have no idea why? Seriously?

If you read my post properly you'll see that my point was that the current system can be abused i.e. a person who is not genuinely trans could legally change their gender.

Can you tell me why a non trans person would want to change their gender in the eyes of the law?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t think you used a bad example tbh, it’s understandable that you’d use the example when it’s the one most commonly used to argue against Self-ID.

To answer your question though- it’s possible for anyone to legally change their gender despite not being transgender.

However, the concept of ‘Self-ID’ as it’s being portrayed in the tabloids and by some posters here, isn’t actually as simple as a person declaring themselves their preferred gender and having their decision immediately recognised in Irish law.

There’s a whole application process they have to go through to apply to have their preferred gender acknowledged in Irish law, and their application is only considered provided they meet certain eligibility criteria set out in the Gender Recognition Act -


Application for a gender recognition certificate

Persons who may apply for a gender recognition certificate

Requirements on application for a gender recognition certificate

And the Minister can also revoke a GRC under certain conditions -

Revocation by Minister


The issue of sexual violence in prisons is something of a red herring, as the issues regarding where inmates are housed upon sentencing would be a matter for the Judicial system and requires a revision of their policies, rather than the issue of sexual violence among inmates of either sex, being addressed in legislation.

Seems to be less complicated than a first application for a passport.

I can't find any reasons for which it would be refused other than adminstrative ones, or being underage etc. Have there ever been any attempts at revoking a GRC against the person's wishes and if si on what grounds?

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

My point was that as with all laws and regulations in society they need to be kept under constant review to ensure they are not being abused. We need to strike a balance; not to make it too difficult for genuine trans people to change their gender legally, but, also we need to make it harder for those who might try to abuse it.

I have no problem with gender self determination itself, we just need to ensure it's not abused. There will always be people who try to abuse laws and exploit loopholes.

As you've said it's possible for a person who is not trans to legally change their gender, I would have to question the motive of a person doing this and in my opinion a case like this should not be allowed or be possible to happen. I can't think of a genuine reason for a non trans person to change their gender legally.

Laws which are meant to protect people from discrimination such as equality legislation and the gender recognition act, are made on the basis simply of people acting in good faith. They aren’t made with the notion of giving people carte blanche to abuse laws which are intended to protect people.

In other words, it wouldn’t matter if 100% of the population applies to have their preferred gender recognised in law (everyone now has that right, whereas nobody had it before), they would still be held to the same standards as everyone else, that they themselves couldn’t discriminate against another person on the grounds of ethnicity or religion or disability or any of the other six grounds on which people are protected from discrimination.

Any review would simply be questioning whether current legislation is sufficient to protect people from discrimination, and currently the gender recognition act is being reviewed to include people who identify as non-binary, to protect those people from discrimination.

The point is, someone wishing to have their preferred gender recognised in law isn’t doing anything wrong. We have plenty of legislation which exists already to prohibit people from abusing other people, and if people do abuse other people, depending upon which laws they have violated and the degree to which they have abused people, they might well find themselves doing a stint in prison. We punish people who have been proven guilty of an offence. We don’t punish people who are innocent. That’s why even if 100% of the male prison population applies for a gender recognition certificate and is granted it, they haven’t done anything wrong. If for any reason they abuse another person, then they are doing wrong and should be punished for doing wrong.

That’s why I made the point that if people were genuinely concerned about women being victims of sexual violence in women’s prisons, they would know that the biggest perpetrators of abuse of women in the context of women’s prisons, are other women! Men identifying as women commit only a tiny, tiny fraction of abuse of women compared to the overall figures for the perpetrators of abuse against women, in that context - the majority of both perpetrators of abuse, and victims, are women.

If someone suddenly becomes interested in protecting women in prison from abuse only when they learn that men are identifying as women in order to do so, it’s obvious that person has no genuine interest in protecting women, and is only using women in prison as an excuse to argue against Self-ID.

I can’t think of any reason why anyone would want to change their gender in the first place myself tbh, beats the hell out of me, I love being a man. At the same time when I ask people who don’t think the same way as I do why they would want to be either a woman or a man or non-binary, the most common answer I’ve always gotten is that they don’t know themselves, it’s just something inside them. I can relate to that in many ways. I don’t need them to state their reasons explicitly, and if it were up to me I wouldn’t be bothered that an individual wants to be either a woman or a man.

It would only matter to me if it were my own child, and then anything anyone would say about what they think children should or shouldn’t be permitted to decide for themselves or accusations of subjecting my own child to abuse because I don’t meet their standards? They could go and shìte tbh. I don’t imagine any other parents would feel any differently if they knew they were acting in their children’s best interests, regardless of the opinions and beliefs of others who are not their children’s parents.