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

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

The laws were brought in specifically to allow trans people to have their new gender recognized in law and to make the whole process easier, I don't have an issue with that.
As you say the law requires people to act in good faith. The vast, vast majority of people will act in good faith, however, we all know that some people can and do act in bad faith.
I don't know of any reason for a non trans person to get their gender legally changed, but, it's possible for that to happen and no doubt it probably will happen if it hasn't happened already. In my opinion we need some mechanism within the law to reduce the opportunity for people to abuse this or any law, this would not affect genuine trans people in fact it would probably protect them even more.
You've said if 100% of male prisoners apply for and are granted gender recognition, they have done nothing wrong. Which in the eyes of the law is correct, but, that doesn't make it right, as they are already recognised as male, why would they need to apply for gender recognition other than to change their legal gender to female, the opportunity to do this shouldn't be available to them ( or anyone) unless they are genuinely trans.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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

I wouldn’t know, my wife does all that stuff

Recently as it happens I did have to fill out an application form for a client based in the UK giving them permission to do a background check and two of the questions stood out alright -


1. Have you ever been known by any other names:

2. Gender (Please specify if you would prefer not to say):


They’re justified in asking these questions because they have to be compliant with the Modern Slavery Act in the UK (we have similar legislation in Ireland to protect people from human trafficking) -


Modern Slavery Statement (an example)

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

No idea tbh, but you might find those statistics if you were really interested by filing a FOI request with the relevant authority. One of the first things you’ll be asked is to provide a reason for why you would want access to that kind of information, and if your reasons are deemed unreasonable, your request will simply be denied.

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

I don't know of any reason for a non trans person to get their gender legally changed, but, it's possible for that to happen and no doubt it probably will happen if it hasn't happened already. In my opinion we need some mechanism within the law to reduce the opportunity for people to abuse this or any law, this would not affect genuine trans people in fact it would probably protect them even more.
You've said if 100% of male prisoners apply for and are granted gender recognition, they have done nothing wrong. Which in the eyes of the law is correct, but, that doesn't make it right, as they are already recognised as male, why would they need to apply for gender recognition other than to change their legal gender to female, the opportunity to do this shouldn't be available to them ( or anyone) unless they are genuinely trans.

It’s a valid point you’re making, but you’re not thinking about the purpose of the gender recognition act in the first place. It’s for people who are transgender to have their preferred gender recognised in law so they are protected from discrimination. Any barriers or measures which are put in place which question the validity of an applicants intentions are immediately presuming they could be applying for a certificate to get up to no good. It’s just further unjustified discrimination.

That’s not right IMO. It wouldn’t provide any protection from discrimination for people who are transgender, it would just be further discrimination against them and presents further hardship. The law has to strike a balance between legitimate discrimination in order to achieve an intended aim, and unjustified discrimination, which is unlawful. Some people want the process made even easier again and the same right to have their preferred gender recognised in law, extended to children under 16 years of age.

Those two things are not something I support tbh. There’s plenty I don’t support, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to stop people from lobbying for things they care about either, because I understand that for some people their children need treatment, and I don’t see this circumstances as any different from parents of children who demand treatment for their children in other circumstances.

I think it’s far better for these things to be out in the open as opposed to being whispered about wink wink, nudge nudge style in closed groups on social media where parents and their children who are desperate for treatment are more likely to be exploited and abused by medical professionals with no morals, people like this for example -


Doctor ran illegal transgender clinic offering sex-change hormones to kids


Unfortunately while the law is still playing catch-up with the multitude of issues involved, people who aren’t willing to wait are going to extreme lengths and illegal means of procuring hormones and advice over the internet and self-medicating themselves, while for other people they’re more concerned about the possibility of being attacked by men in bathrooms, or people’s language that doesn’t agree with them, or playing identity politics and pronoun police.

If children see that being transgender or non-binary or whatever else is no big deal, they’re far less likely to fret about where they fit in in society, and I don’t see that as a bad thing. That’s why instead of defending manhood and saying women can’t be men, I’m more interested in portraying a positive role model of what being a man actually means, so that’s what children see when they look at me, and not some bitter, spiteful person who just seems to be angry at the world all the time and is looking to take their frustrations out on others. That’s a bully, and they come in all shapes and sizes, and having suffered injustices in their own childhoods is no justification or excuse for them to take their issues out on others, nor does it provide a sufficient explanation for their behaviours and attitudes towards innocent people.

Girly Gal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It’s a valid point you’re making, but you’re not thinking about the purpose of the gender recognition act in the first place. It’s for people who are transgender to have their preferred gender recognised in law so they are protected from discrimination. Any barriers or measures which are put in place which question the validity of an applicants intentions are immediately presuming they could be applying for a certificate to get up to no good. It’s just further unjustified discrimination.

That’s not right IMO. It wouldn’t provide any protection from discrimination for people who are transgender, it would just be further discrimination against them and presents further hardship. The law has to strike a balance between legitimate discrimination in order to achieve an intended aim, and unjustified discrimination, which is unlawful. Some people want the process made even easier again and the same right to have their preferred gender recognised in law, extended to children under 16 years of age.

Those two things are not something I support tbh. There’s plenty I don’t support, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to stop people from lobbying for things they care about either, because I understand that for some people their children need treatment, and I don’t see this circumstances as any different from parents of children who demand treatment for their children in other circumstances.

I think it’s far better for these things to be out in the open as opposed to being whispered about wink wink, nudge nudge style in closed groups on social media where parents and their children who are desperate for treatment are more likely to be exploited and abused by medical professionals with no morals, people like this for example -


Doctor ran illegal transgender clinic offering sex-change hormones to kids


Unfortunately while the law is still playing catch-up with the multitude of issues involved, people who aren’t willing to wait are going to extreme lengths and illegal means of procuring hormones and advice over the internet and self-medicating themselves, while for other people they’re more concerned about the possibility of being attacked by men in bathrooms, or people’s language that doesn’t agree with them, or playing identity politics and pronoun police.

If children see that being transgender or non-binary or whatever else is no big deal, they’re far less likely to fret about where they fit in in society, and I don’t see that as a bad thing. That’s why instead of defending manhood and saying women can’t be men, I’m more interested in portraying a positive role model of what being a man actually means, so that’s what children see when they look at me, and not some bitter, spiteful person who just seems to be angry at the world all the time and is looking to take their frustrations out on others. That’s a bully, and they come in all shapes and sizes, and having suffered injustices in their own childhoods is no justification or excuse for them to take their issues out on others, nor does it provide a sufficient explanation for their behaviours and attitudes towards innocent people.

I did state the purpose of the law at the beginning of my post.

What's the point in an application process if everyone that applies automatically gets it regardless if they are a genuine case or not, it shouldn't be a free for all where all you have to do is apply, it's a hugely important decision and should be treated as such. The process should be such that genuine cases get through and non valid cases should be rejected. Having this in place would actually give more credibility to the genuine trans people who go through the process.

Discrimination isn't always negative, you can have positive discrimination too.

It is after all that tiny minority who act in bad faith who are most likely to be in the headlines for negative reasons and in the process hurting the reputation of genuine trans people in the eyes of the general public.

suicide_circus

had to stick a certain poster on ignore. the walls of text, the cyclical (and cynical) convoluted verbose arguments,
obfuscating left and right, i've had enough.

Annasopra

Its bizarre. Why on earth would anyone legally change their gender out of bad faith? I can think of any reason at all and am struggling to understand the point of that part of the discussion.

Annasopra

Girly Gal wrote: »

I did state the purpose of the law at the beginning of my post.

What's the point in an application process if everyone that applies automatically gets it regardless if they are a genuine case or not, it shouldn't be a free for all where all you have to do is apply, it's a hugely important decision and should be treated as such. The process should be such that genuine cases get through and non valid cases should be rejected. Having this in place would actually give more credibility to the genuine trans people who go through the process.

Discrimination isn't always negative, you can have positive discrimination too.

It is after all that tiny minority who act in bad faith who are most likely to be in the headlines for negative reasons and in the process hurting the reputation of genuine trans people in the eyes of the general public.

You have misunderstood the process. Applications can be refused and some have been.

Girly Gal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You have misunderstood the process. Applications can be refused and some have been.

Good to know

Girly Gal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its bizarre. Why on earth would anyone legally change their gender out of bad faith? I can think of any reason at all and am struggling to understand the point of that part of the discussion.

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to, as I've said it only applies to an absolute tiny number of cases, but, the opportunity for these people to do this should be eliminated without impacting the genuine cases the law was intended for namely trans people.
Don't be so naive to think the law couldn't be abused if someone somehow could gain from it.

One eyed Jack

Girly Gal wrote: »

It is after all that tiny minority who act in bad faith who are most likely to be in the headlines for negative reasons and in the process hurting the reputation of genuine trans people in the eyes of the general public.

There’s one thing fundamentally wrong with that argument. I’m guessing you don’t normally judge whole groups of people on the basis of characteristics or traits they share in common with people who commit abuse. On that basis, people who are transgender don’t have anything to prove to the general public either.

You’re not responsible for some people who choose to commit abuse, so why do you imagine anyone else should be? There’s no damage done to your reputation as a result of the behaviour of other people. That would be prejudice, and if someone were to discriminate against you based upon the behaviour of someone else, you’d be justified in seeing that as unfair and completely out of order.

Bonniedog

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I’m more interested in portraying a positive role model of what being a man actually means, so that’s what children see when they look at me, and not some bitter, spiteful person who just seems to be angry at the world all the time and is looking to take their frustrations out on others. .

Your Buddha like perfection has nothing to do with the biological fact that men cannot just decide on a whim or the basis of some psychological condition to be wimmin.

If they want to delude themselves that they can that's fair enough. They don't have any right to make the rest of us accept that absurdity or to be shut up if we demur.

Which is the whole point of the Rowling business. That she had the audacity to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and was set upon by the woke brownshirts.

Annasopra

Girly Gal wrote: »

It's amazing the lengths some people will go to, as I've said it only applies to an absolute tiny number of cases, but, the opportunity for these people to do this should be eliminated without impacting the genuine cases the law was intended for namely trans people.
Don't be so naive to think the law couldn't be abused if someone somehow could gain from it.

I still dont have a clue what you are on about to be honest. You cant even come up with any reasons at all yourself.

paddar

I don’t think the law aspect is the half of it (I can’t see gender police asking for papers bitte outside of toilets). I think a potential issue is the chilling effect it may have on the ability of women to speak up or report situations that make them uncomfortable. If a woman finds herself in an environment (e.g. changing room) with a male-bodied person will she be reluctant to report this if there is a chance she is labeled as phobic or problematic? Is it easier just to stay silent even if she feels threatened? There is a disconnect between TWAW and a womens right to privacy that has not been resolved (and won’t be if people keep screaming TERF).

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No idea tbh, but you might find those statistics if you were really interested by filing a FOI request with the relevant authority. One of the first things you’ll be asked is to provide a reason for why you would want access to that kind of information, and if your reasons are deemed unreasonable, your request will simply be denied.

Well, it was your claim, so it's up to you to make it stand up, not up to me to test it.

Because you were posting up those links as though the GRC might be refused if the person were deemed somehow not to be trans - but AFAIAA that isn't the case and there is no mechanism for that to happen.

In fact that's the whole point of self declaration.

volchitsa

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You have misunderstood the process. Applications can be refused and some have been.

On what grounds? Because I can't see anything other than lack of correct documentation, or age etc. There is no procedure to evaluate whether the person is really trans, is there?

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, it was your claim, so it's up to you to make it stand up, not up to me to test it.

Because you were posting up those links as though the GRC might be refused if the person were deemed somehow not to be trans - but AFAIAA that isn't the case and there is no mechanism for that to happen.

In fact that's the whole point of self declaration.

The statistics are published every year

Between 2015 and the end of 2018 there were 422 Gender recognition certs granted. The Minister can refuse to grant a cert and can revoke a Cert. 1 Application for a cert was refused in 2017. No revocations of certs have been made since 2015

Annasopra

volchitsa wrote: »

On what grounds? Because I can't see anything other than lack of correct documentation, or age etc. There is no procedure to evaluate whether the person is really trans, is there?

The Minister sets out the grounds in her or his decision

One eyed Jack

Bonniedog wrote: »

Which is the whole point of the Rowling business. That she had the audacity to point out that the emperor has no clothes, and was set upon by the woke brownshirts.

You’re just as guilty as anyone else if you’re trying to present that nonsense as fact. JK can’t be likened to the child in that story given the enormous power of influence she has in society. She is the bloody Emperor, the billionaire celebrity with 14.5 million followers on just twitter alone and an enormous reach with her works of fiction which have influenced many people’s thinking that they could be whoever they want to be, and then she turns around and says that no, they can’t be whoever they want to be and they have to conform to her standards?

Your alternative representation of the facts is akin to the misrepresentation of the facts in Maya Forstaters case, or this woman’s misrepresentation of the facts as to why her licence to practice medicine in the UK was revoked -


GenderGP trans clinic moving to Spain after UK suspends doctors


No mention in that article of the fact that she was found guilty of operating an unregistered clinic -


The GP was accused of carrying on or managing an agency without being registered.

Dr Webberley denied the claims and said shutting down her service risked her patients coming to harm.

"Working privately, as a GMC registered doctor, is no different to a doctor taking on a role in a private hospital," she added.

But Judge Thomas found Dr Webberley's company was guilty of the charge.

He also ruled Dr Webberley, in her capacity as a company director, committed the offence with her "consent, connivance or neglect".

While Dr Webberley expressed "huge disappointment", HIW Chief Executive Dr Kate Chamberlain welcomed the court's decision.

"Unregistered healthcare services pose a risk to patient safety as they are not subject to the same level of scrutiny as registered services," she said.

The General Medical Council and the Welsh Government have both been informed of the conviction.


Transgender specialist Dr Helen Webberley ran unregistered clinic


It wasn’t because the big bad District Judge was being mean to the poor little doctor who just wanted to help people. It was because she violated the law by breaching the Care Standards Act which applies to everyone in her profession.

She found out that she is no more above the law than JK even given her influential social status in respectable society.

Girly Gal

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I still dont have a clue what you are on about to be honest. You cant even come up with any reasons at all yourself.

The example of male prisoners in the UK, up to 1 in 50 are claiming to be transgender, this is substantially higher than the general population, so it's fair to say not all are genuine cases, it's likely to follow here, but, turn a blind eye to that as it doesn't suit your argument.

I'm not arguing against trans people, just want to be clear that trans people are entitled to the same rights and protection as everyone in society.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, it was your claim, so it's up to you to make it stand up, not up to me to test it.

Because you were posting up those links as though the GRC might be refused if the person were deemed somehow not to be trans - but AFAIAA that isn't the case and there is no mechanism for that to happen.

In fact that's the whole point of self declaration.

Hold on a minute, you keep doing that. You asked me a question -


Have there ever been any attempts at revoking a GRC against the person's wishes and if si on what grounds?


I said I don’t know, because I don’t know. I suggested that if you were really interested you could submit an FOI request. I made no claim about the number of GRCs which have been revoked. I pointed out that they can be. I already backed up that claim by providing the relevant provision in the relevant legislation. I posted those links and if you actually bothered to read them, you would have seen that any determinations are made by the Minister for Social Protection as to whether or not a person is granted a GRC or not, or whether the GRC should be revoked.

If the persons application was determined to be invalid for any reason, it could be refused. It says in the legislation that among the criteria required to support an application are -


a statutory declaration declaring that he or she—

(i) is not married or a civil partner,

(ii) has a settled and solemn intention of living in the preferred gender for the rest of his or her life,

(iii) understands the consequences of the application, and

(iv) makes the application of his or her free will.


Failing to meet any of those criteria could result in a persons application being refused. They applicant may also appeal the decision of the Minister if their application is denied.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Its bizarre. Why on earth would anyone legally change their gender out of bad faith? I can think of any reason at all and am struggling to understand the point of that part of the discussion.

paddar wrote: »

I don’t think the law aspect is the half of it (I can’t see gender police asking for papers bitte outside of toilets). I think a potential issue is the chilling effect it may have on the ability of women to speak up or report situations that make them uncomfortable. If a woman finds herself in an environment (e.g. changing room) with a male-bodied person will she be reluctant to report this if there is a chance she is labeled as phobic or problematic? Is it easier just to stay silent even if she feels threatened? There is a disconnect between TWAW and a womens right to privacy that has not been resolved (and won’t be if people keep screaming TERF).

Yup. This. Nobody will able to demand to see a GRC after all.

There is a conflict there for sure and I think people are finally fed up of it not being discussed.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Girly Gal wrote: »

The example of male prisoners in the UK, up to 1 in 50 are claiming to be transgender, this is substantially higher than the general population, so it's fair to say not all are genuine cases, it's likely to follow here, but, turn a blind eye to that as it doesn't suit your argument.

I'm not arguing against trans people, just want to be clear that trans people are entitled to the same rights and protection as everyone in society.

And get this: if all of those men claiming to be transgender were transferred to women’s prisons, it would increase the UK women’s prison population by 50%. I’m confident that won’t happen but it’s interesting to ponder.

Gruffalux

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

And get this: if all of those men claiming to be transgender were transferred to women’s prisons, it would increase the UK women’s prison population by 50%. I’m confident that won’t happen but it’s interesting to ponder.

And get this, the 1 in 50 identifying as trans in prisons rises to 1 in 10 for travellers, according to Peter Clarke, chief inspector of prisons, UK.
There most be something odd in their stirabout....or could it be they have ulterior motives? Hmmmmm... No. Neverrrrrr. I simply cannot imagine such a thing.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The Minister sets out the grounds in her or his decision

Disgusting. Why does he get to decide to deny trans-people their existence. Surely you are outraged at this blatant transphobia, no?

One eyed Jack

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Disgusting. Why does he get to decide to deny trans-people their existence. Surely you are outraged at this blatant transphobia, no?

Current Minister for Social Protection is Regina Doherty? She’s not denying anyone’s existence as far as I’m aware, she doesn’t have that kind of power or authority any more than JK does. All Regina has the power and authority to do is determine whether an applicant should be granted or denied a GRC to have their preferred gender recognised in Irish law.

I’m almost certain Regina is a woman, but if you were interested in being certain Cteven, you could always pull a Donald Trump manoeuver? Women are mad for that craic, apparently? :pac:

CtevenSrowder

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Current Minister for Social Protection is Regina Doherty? She’s not denying anyone’s existence as far as I’m aware, she doesn’t have that kind of power or authority any more than JK does. All Regina has the power and authority to do is determine whether an applicant should be granted or denied a GRC to have their preferred gender recognised in Irish law.

I’m almost certain Regina is a woman, but if you were interested in being certain Cteven, you could always pull a Donald Trump manoeuver? Women are mad for that craic, apparently? :pac:

I'm already on my way to protest they's disgusting transphobic, homophobic,xenophobic, racist, misogynist department. I'll report back re gender identity tomorrow and whether they has a male or female vagina.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

I'm already on my way to protest they's disgusting transphobic, homophobic,xenophobic, racist, misogynist department. I'll report back re gender identity tomorrow and whether they has a male or female vagina.

Oh I thought your side were complaining before about a lack of respect for your points. Sure how could anyone respect that trollery.

CtevenSrowder

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Oh I thought your side were complaining before about a lack of respect for your points. Sure how could anyone respect that trollery.

Not in my current reality we weren't. Check back again tomorrow to see which reality I've woken up into.

Annasopra

CtevenSrowder wrote: »

Not in my current reality we weren't. Check back again tomorrow to see which reality I've woken up into.

Ok cool. You don't want a respectful discussion and you just want to have trollish nonsensical rants.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

The Minister sets out the grounds in her or his decision

A government minister makes the decision?