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

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can’t see them being abandoned myself as currently only gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in UK law. Effectively it leave people in a position where they either undergo medicalisation and surgery to avail of equal rights, or they forego being protected by equal rights legislation

I think you may have misunderstood what gender reassignment means under UK law, it does not entail medicalisation or surgery.

"To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it." https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

suicide_circus

Deleted User wrote: »

This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

That's interesting sentence.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you may have misunderstood what gender reassignment means under UK law, it does not entail medicalisation or surgery.

"To be protected from gender reassignment discrimination, you do not need to have undergone any specific treatment or surgery to change from your birth sex to your preferred gender. This is because changing your physiological or other gender attributes is a personal process rather than a medical one.

You can be at any stage in the transition process – from proposing to reassign your gender, to undergoing a process to reassign your gender, or having completed it." https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination

It says on that page -


A wide range of people are included in the terms ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ but you are not protected as transgender unless you propose to change your gender or have done so. For example, a group of men on a stag do who put on fancy dress as women are turned away from a restaurant. They are not transsexual so not protected from discrimination


In order to be protected from discrimination in law, a person who is transgender needs to have their preferred gender recognised in law in the first place, and that comes under the Gender Recognition Act 2004 which states -


(1)In the case of an application under section 1(1)(a), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied that the applicant—

(a)has or has had gender dysphoria,

(b)has lived in the acquired gender throughout the period of two years ending with the date on which the application is made,

(c)intends to continue to live in the acquired gender until death, and

(d)complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.

(2)In the case of an application under section 1(1)(b), the Panel must grant the application if satisfied—

(a)that the country or territory under the law of which the applicant has changed gender is an approved country or territory, and

(b)that the applicant complies with the requirements imposed by and under section 3.

(3)The Panel must reject an application under section 1(1) if not required by subsection (1) or (2) to grant it.


What activists are basically saying is that the process requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the two years living as their preferred gender which they say shouldn’t be necessary in order for a person to apply for a GRC to be recognised in law as their preferred gender, and thereby be protected from discrimination by the Equality Act on the grounds of sex.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

What activists are basically saying is that the process requires a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria and the two years living as their preferred gender which they say shouldn’t be necessary in order for a person to apply for a GRC to be recognised in law as their preferred gender, and thereby be protected from discrimination by the Equality Act on the grounds of sex.

Every person is protected by the EA on the basis of sex, it may not be the sex that they feel matches their gender but they are protected on the basis of sex.

Personally I think that asking the government to allow you to identify your way into a protected class should require some base level of medical reason. If someone doesn't have gender dysphoria then changing gender isn't much more than someone changing their outfits if they don't have a psychological need to be seen as the opposite sex then I don't think they should be allowed to change their birth cert.

A trans person without a GRC is protected under both their birth sex and the category of gender reassignment under the equality act.

A GRC is not required to come under the category of gender reassignment it is only to be seen in law as the opposite sex.

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Every person is protected by the EA on the basis of sex, it may not be the sex that they feel matches their gender but they are protected on the basis of sex.

That’s great for people who aren’t transgender, but it does nothing for people who are transgender. It would be like suggesting that everyone has the right to enter into marriage, it’s not the person they want to be married to, but they have the right the same as everyone else. Essentially it’s inherently discriminatory against people who do not wish to be married to someone of the opposite sex (that comes under the circumstances in which people who are transgender are discriminated against too in law).

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Personally I think that asking the government to allow you to identify your way into a protected class should require some base level of medical reason. If someone doesn't have gender dysphoria then changing gender isn't much more than someone changing their outfits if they don't have a psychological need to be seen as the opposite sex then I don't think they should be allowed to change their birth cert.

That’s fair enough, it’s your personal opinion and you’re not demanding that anyone else has to agree with you. They don’t, and it’s because they don’t that they also have the same right as you do to challenge existing legislation.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

A trans person without a GRC is protected under both their birth sex and the category of gender reassignment under the equality act.

A GRC is not required to come under the category of gender reassignment it is only to be seen in law as the opposite sex.

They’re not though, and that’s why I pointed you to the example of the lads out on a stag night who are wearing dresses and are refused service in a bar -


A wide range of people are included in the terms ‘trans’ or ‘transgender’ but you are not protected as transgender unless you propose to change your gender or have done so. For example, a group of men on a stag do who put on fancy dress as women are turned away from a restaurant. They are not transsexual so not protected from discrimination.


A GRC is required to protect a person from discrimination in law, and in order to qualify for a GRC the person has to meet the criteria and conditions specified in the Gender Recognition Act. Otherwise they’re not protected from discrimination without it, because what the GRC does is recognises the person as their preferred gender in law, and on that basis the person assumes all the rights and responsibilities of their acquired sex -


(1)Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).

(2)Subsection (1) does not affect things done, or events occurring, before the certificate is issued; but it does operate for the interpretation of enactments passed, and instruments and other documents made, before the certificate is issued (as well as those passed or made afterwards).

(3)Subsection (1) is subject to provision made by this Act or any other enactment or any subordinate legislation.


Gender Recognition Act, Section 9

Smegging hell

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Another writer who is pretty much impervious to cancellation! Good stuff.

Hmm?
https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1277351371784818692

Quantum Erasure

I'd say he didn't know what he was getting himself into,

he's getting it from the other side now...

Bonniedog

More science fiction.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They’re not though, and that’s why I pointed you to the example of the lads out on a stag night who are wearing dresses and are refused service in a bar

But lads on a stag do don't claim to be transgender.

Loads of people without GRC's have taken cases based on the category of gender reassignment so I don't know what point your making, as I've said you can use that part of the equality act without a GRC for example this case where the claimant didn't have a GRC or hadn't even changed her name by deed poll, was still entitled to protection under the gender reassignment part of the EA https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/employee-awarded-47000-in-transgender-discrimination-case/

So no as I've repeatedly stated you do not need a GRC to be protected as transgender under the EA you only need it to be able to access single sex spaces and only if someone has used the sex exemption in the EA which they would need to show a genuine need for a space to remain single sex which would only happen in the rarest of circumstances

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But lads on a stag do don't claim to be transgender.

That isn’t the point of that example. The point is that if they are refused service, they do not have a legitimate claim of discrimination in law on the basis that they are transgender. Only if they are transgender, and only then if they are discriminated against on that basis, might they then have a legitimate claim in law.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Loads of people without GRC's have taken cases based on the category of gender reassignment so I don't know what point your making, as I've said you can use that part of the equality act without a GRC for example this case where the claimant didn't have a GRC or hadn't even changed her name by deed poll, was still entitled to protection under the gender reassignment part of the EA https://www.pureemploymentlaw.co.uk/employee-awarded-47000-in-transgender-discrimination-case/

The point I’m making, and the point you appear to have overlooked in your own example, is that in the judgement of the Employment Tribunal, the point was specifically made that there was plenty of supporting evidence to support the complainants claim that they were subjected to continuous harassment on the basis of their transgender status, which amounted to discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment, not discrimination on the basis of sex. In order to ensure protection from discrimination on the basis of sex, they would have to qualify for a GRC, and I’ve shown you in my previous posts what that means, and why it is necessary. It doesn’t contradict the original point I made which is that current legislation effectively means that in order to be protected from discrimination on the basis of sex, they must undergo medicalisation or treatment, and this does mean in some cases surgery to alleviate their gender dysphoria.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So no as I've repeatedly stated you do not need a GRC to be protected as transgender under the EA

You do if you wish to claim that you have been discriminated against on the basis of sex.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

you only need it to be able to access single sex spaces and only if someone has used the sex exemption in the EA which they would need to show a genuine need for a space to remain single sex which would only happen in the rarest of circumstances

You don’t need a GRC to be able to access single-sex spaces? You need it if you wish to claim discrimination on the basis of sex for being treated unfavourably or discriminated against on the basis of sex. Even then, with a GRC, there are exemptions in law in which discrimination may not be unlawful if it can be argued that discrimination was necessary, reasonable and appropriate as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. A GRC won’t immediately overcome that one. Whether those circumstances are rare or common is really neither here nor there, the point of the legislative reform is to protect people from discrimination in precisely those rare circumstances where they are discriminated against.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Smegging hell wrote: »

Hmm?
https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1277351371784818692

Ha ha, oh dear. Well, he’s entitled to his opinion.

Sittingpretty

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Ha ha, oh dear. Well, he’s entitled to his opinion.

Some of the replies on that thread are awful. Replies to people being perfectly polite in expressing their opinion and/or fears and they’re met with name calling and aggression from some trans women (the irony).

That or “trans women are women” copied and pasted into the full character limit as if repetition of “the earth is flat” will make it so.

Quantum Erasure

Stephen King quit Facebook a while ago, he may quit twitter after this...

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You need it if you wish to claim discrimination on the basis of sex for being treated unfavourably or discriminated against on the basis of sex

This trans woman without a GRC used sex as the basis for a discrimination claim in NI. Trans people without a GRC still have a sex and can still sue for discrimination on that basis https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/transgender-woman-settles-case-against-17570039

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Even then, with a GRC, there are exemptions in law in which discrimination may not be unlawful if it can be argued that discrimination was necessary, reasonable and appropriate as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. A GRC won’t immediately overcome that one. Whether those circumstances are rare or common is really neither here nor there, the point of the legislative reform is to protect people from discrimination in precisely those rare circumstances where they are discriminated against.

Its not discrimination to prevent people not of that sex from using a single sex space. There is a reason that single sex services/functions exist.

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion, I believe it is appropriate for some services/functions to be limited to single sex (not including legally changed sex) and you consider that to be discrimination.

I believe most trans women want to live their lives in peace and that those who would try and force themselves into situations that would make women feel uncomfortable such as getting angry when someone objects to having them take a smear (https://inews.co.uk/news/health/nhs-woman-transgender-nurse-smear-test-114009) are exactly those who should be excluded from performing services such as that

Under what you are saying it would be discrimination for a woman to object to a trans woman regardless of how far they are in their transition performing a smear or any other intimate examination.

That goes way beyond what you said earlier that the EA doesn't apply to trans people without a GRC and that there is no protection at all for trans people unless they have medicalisation or surgery so its gone from no protection to there should be absolutely no circumstances in which anyone who claims a transgender identity could be excluded from anything and there would be no checks and balances because requiring 2 doctors certs is too onerous

One eyed Jack wrote: »

currently only gender reassignment is a protected characteristic in UK law. Effectively it leave people in a position where they either undergo medicalisation and surgery to avail of equal rights, or they forego being protected by equal rights legislation

One eyed Jack

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You and I have a fundamental difference of opinion, I believe it is appropriate for some services/functions to be limited to single sex (not including legally changed sex) and you consider that to be discrimination.

We do have a fundamental difference of opinion. However you’re ascribing to me opinions I have never expressed, let alone held.

I believe too that it is appropriate for some services/functions to be limited to single sex (not including legally changed sex), and that is lawful discrimination.

Unlawful discrimination is something else entirely, where a person is denied equal treatment and services where there is no legitimate reason for doing so. That could only be determined on a case by case basis depending upon the circumstances in every individual case, whether it’s a matter of discrimination in employment, or in the provision of goods and services to the public where a person is treated unfavourably on the basis of any of the protected characteristics currently protected by equality legislation.

It’s why the Judge in the case of Maya Forstater determined that her beliefs did not amount to protected beliefs entitled to be protected by equality legislation, and therefore her case in which she claimed to have been discriminated against by her former employer had no merit - effectively, it was determined that she had not been discriminated against when her former employer chose not to renew her contract of employment.

hetuzozaho

A roller-coaster for jk Rowling! Gas.

https://twitter.com/sims/status/1277381145706053632

Bonniedog

Did King get a bang on the head?

Or is the absurdity of men deciding they are women a plot for a new book?

hetuzozaho

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

Stephen King quit Facebook a while ago, he may quit twitter after this...

I remember that, I think it was around the false info around political ads and data security. I agreed with him ( although I dislike Facebook a lot so very bias )

Actually found his announcement on Twitter! I guess he is happy enough with Twitter. Once he doesn't pull a Hopkins or Glinner on it!!

https://twitter.com/StephenKing/status/1223425267831574534

Penn

Bonniedog wrote: »

Did King get a bang on the head?

Or is the absurdity of men deciding they are women a plot for a new book?

Unlike Joanne Rowling who pretends to be a man for her new books. JK Rowling, a name she chose despite not even having a middle name and therefore no middle initial because it sounds like it could be a man's name, and then being one of the most prominent writers in the world and writing new books under the name Robert Gilbraith.

Funny how her womanhood is so important to her except when there's profit in it for her.

Smith152

Penn wrote: »

Unlike Joanne Rowling who pretends to be a man for her new books. JK Rowling, a name she chose despite not even having a middle name and therefore no middle initial because it sounds like it could be a man's name, and then being one of the most prominent writers in the world and writing new books under the name Robert Gilbraith.

Funny how her womanhood is so important to her except when there's profit in it for her.

What an unbelievably moronic post

Most peoples names are quite important to them yet constantly writers use pen names for various reasons.

The reason she chose JK Rowling as her name is because she thought (quite sensibly) that young boys would be turned off by reading a book written by a woman and just used her initials instead. Generally when people use an initial as a pen name they will use 2 initials.

Using a pen name has got nothing to do with the points regarding gender identity that she has been making.

Penn

Smith152 wrote: »

The reason she chose JK Rowling as her name is because she thought (quite sensibly) that young boys would be turned off by reading a book written by a woman and just used her initials instead. Generally when people use an initial as a pen name they will use 2 initials.

That's exactly what I said. Rather than using her name, she chose a different version of it which made it less obvious she was a woman in order to sell more books. And then when writing books aimed at adults and being one of the most famous authors on the planet, wrote under a male name (Robert Gilbraith) because it would sell more books than writing under a different female pseudonym (if she didn't want the new books to be associated with Harry Potter).

As to what it has to do with her writing on trans issues:

At the same time, my life has been shaped by being female. I do not believe it’s hateful to say so.

Her life has been shaped by being female.... except when she could make a profit off pretending to be a man. I do not believe it's hateful to say so.

jam_mac_jam

Penn wrote: »

That's exactly what I said. Rather than using her name, she chose a different version of it which made it less obvious she was a woman in order to sell more books. And then when writing books aimed at adults and being one of the most famous authors on the planet, wrote under a male name (Robert Gilbraith) because it would sell more books than writing under a different female pseudonym (if she didn't want the new books to be associated with Harry Potter).

As to what it has to do with her writing on trans issues:



Her life has been shaped by being female.... except when she could make a profit off pretending to be a man. I do not believe it's hateful to say so.

The fact that she had to change her name to sound like a man doesn't show how your life is shaped by being a woman?

The lack of self awareness in that point is telling.

Penn

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The fact that she had to change her name to sound like a man doesn't show how your life is shaped by being a woman?

The lack of self awareness in that point is telling.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of her talking about how important her gender is to her when she repeatedly throws it to the side to increase her book sales and make more money.

jam_mac_jam

Penn wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of her talking about how important her gender is to her when she repeatedly throws it to the side to increase her book sales and make more money.

Maybe she is annoyed by living in a world where she has to change her name to make the same money as a man?

If anything that would make you more aware of your sex, not less?

You don't see the hypocrisy of your point?

Smith152

Penn wrote: »

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of her talking about how important her gender is to her when she repeatedly throws it to the side to increase her book sales and make more money.

Using a pen name is nothing remotely related to changing someone's gender it's just a pen name. It doesn't change who she is.

Marion Morrison and Archibald Leach didn't become different people when they changed their names they just had catchier names to appear on film posters.

I suspect that having a book written by JK Rowling would turn people off reading it due to the names association with Harry Potter, by choosing completely different name it gets rid of that possibility.

Penn

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Maybe she is annoyed by living in a world where she has to change her name to make the same money as a man?

If anything that would make you more aware of your sex, not less?

You don't see the hypocrisy of your point?

In relation to feminism, I agree. In relation to trans issues, no. My point is in relation to her bringing up how being a woman has shaped her life in the context of discussing gender identity. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of her statement under that same framework.

Penn

Smith152 wrote: »

I suspect that having a book written by JK Rowling would turn people off reading it due to the names association with Harry Potter, by choosing completely different name it gets rid of that possibility.

And she could have written it under a different female pseudonym. Didn't have to use a man's name.

But it'd sell more books and she'd make more money which she doesn't even need given her wealth and therefore could have written under a different woman's name with no risk. Didn't. More money writing under a man's name. Being a woman shapes her life, being a man shapes her bank balance.

Smith152

Penn wrote: »

And she could have written it under a different female pseudonym. Didn't have to use a man's name.

But it'd sell more books and she'd make more money which she doesn't even need given her wealth and therefore could have written under a different woman's name with no risk. Didn't. More money writing under a man's name. Being a woman shapes her life, being a man shapes her bank balance.

She doesn't turn into a man when writing though it's just a pen name.

I doubt she actually needs the money from the books she writes under the RObert Galbraith name so I imagine money is not the reason she used that name.

hetuzozaho

Smith152 wrote: »

She doesn't turn into a man when writing though it's just a pen name.

We don't know this :P

I think giving her grief over using a pen name is a bit of a stretch!

Bonniedog

There is a big difference between an author using a pen name and a man claiming - with no biological evidence whatsoever - that he is a woman.