Transgenderism

[Mark Albrighton]

I think a compromise would be something like photos of the person as a child wouldn’t be on display, but would be kept in a family photo album for the parents to reminisce privately.

[Chindie]

Rowling 'challenging' Scotland to arrest her over new their new hate crime law. 

[Panto_Villan]

1 hour ago, Mark Albrighton said:

I think a compromise would be something like photos of the person as a child wouldn’t be on display, but would be kept in a family photo album for the parents to reminisce privately.

In this case the father had apparently died and the only remaining photo of the child was the one with the three of them in it, so it sounds like plenty of compromise had already happened.

I feel like 90% of these Reddit threads (the “am I the asshole?” ones) are made up to farm engagement, and this one seems almost perfectly engineered to spark as much debate as possible, so it probably is too.

[LondonLax]

24 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said:

In this case the father had apparently died and the only remaining photo of the child was the one with the three of them in it, so it sounds like plenty of compromise had already happened.

I feel like 90% of these Reddit threads (the “am I the asshole?” ones) are made up to farm engagement, and this one seems almost perfectly engineered to spark as much debate as possible, so it probably is too.

Only 90%?  That whole subreddit is made up at amateur fiction writers. . 

[chrisp65]

48 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Rowling 'challenging' Scotland to arrest her over new their new hate crime law. 

I don’t understand why she’s got so deep in to the spat on the extreme end of transgender politics and has essentially called out all transgender people as fakes. There is an intelligent debate to be had about a level playing field in sport, and safe spaces, and criminal activity. But for some reason she has taken those reasonable points and decided to absolutely focus hate on the entirety of a very fragile minority.

 

[Mark Albrighton]

Both Rowling and Linehan, am I right in thinking that they both started all this kinda innocuously…for want of a better word (Rowling with liking a tweet and Lineham with that IT Crowd episode) and they both essentially just doubled, tripled, quadrupled down from there? 

It comes across like they had a little bit of critical pushback in these early instances and then just went “Ah, **** it” and gone to town in their respective ways.

[colhint]

I think it stems from someone calling the police on her because she referred them as he. Then a load of others joined in. I think there is this hate crime  bill, and I haven't read it but it seems to suggest birth males who transition are protected, but birth females who stay female arn't. 

[chrisp65]

10 minutes ago, colhint said:

I haven't read it but it seems to suggest birth males who transition are protected, but birth females who stay female arn't. 

There is existing female specific law and offences, and further legislation proposed for this coming summer to deal specifically with hate crimes against women and girls.

’I haven’t read it but’ will be a common piece of prose over the next few weeks. Having seen the twisted anger a 20mph speed limit has on some roads in wales has created, **** knows what a piece of legislation like this will drag out of the scummier end of the press, politics, and social media.

[colhint]

I'm not sure what female specific laws there are  apart from general sexism. Which may seem to cover it, but that's only a part of it I think. 

Anyway people are angry that the Scottish Bill on hate crimes covers transgenderism race religion etc. But not mysogeny. 

So it appears you cannot shout to a person your a man not a woman, but you could still shout show us your tits.

Edited April 1 by colhint

[Chindie]

51 minutes ago, Mark Albrighton said:

Both Rowling and Linehan, am I right in thinking that they both started all this kinda innocuously…for want of a better word (Rowling with liking a tweet and Lineham with that IT Crowd episode) and they both essentially just doubled, tripled, quadrupled down from there? 

It comes across like they had a little bit of critical pushback in these early instances and then just went “Ah, **** it” and gone to town in their respective ways.

With Linehan that's pretty much what happened, he got criticism for an episode he wrote, and then got embraced by a minority that liked his transphobic stuff, and then he just went deeper and deeper to the point he's torpedoed his career and spends all of his time railing against more or less everything trans. The nadir of which was probably his campaign to police a lesbian dating app by 'exposing' people he felt shouldn't be on it.

Rowling has a bit of that, she jumped into the debate clearly on a side though and has only kept pushing that further, but she's worse in some ways because she's said and intimated stuff that's really quite offensive (she's essentially suggested all transwomen should be under suspicion for example iirc), and she's gotten friendly with lots of figures that are deeply problematic - we're talking people that are far right Christian conservatives, people that have argued for the outright erasure of trans people, etc etc. And then she's very rich and sadly quite influential still. Nobody really gives a **** about Linehan, he wrote some solid niche comedy series 20 years ago he's not a public figure and he's not rich enough to carry weight. Rowling is the most successful author ever, a billionaire behind one of the tentpole entertainment franchises and a personal success story that has had various politicians like to cozy up to her and her story for a quarter of a century more or less, and she's rich enough to buy real influence. Linehan is a clearing in the woods, Rowling is dangerous.

[chrisp65]

17 minutes ago, colhint said:

 

So it appears you cannot shout to a person your a man not a woman, but you could still shout show us your tits.

Already covered under legislation passed 14 years ago.

 

[colhint]

Which law was that.

[bobzy]

5 minutes ago, colhint said:

Which law was that.

Equality Act I’d guess? Pretty sure that covers sexual discrimination anyway. 

[colhint]

I think the thing is that's not a hate crime. The CPS recognises only 5 hate crimes. Disability, Race, Religion, sexual orientation, Transgender Identity

But nothing about misogyny. I think there are more misogynists than people believe. Women have to do things differently to most others based on there gender. You've heard in the past she was asking for it dressing like that, or venus Williams wasn't really a woman. Women have had to deal with misogyny for years,  but it's not a hate crime.Nor is misandry. The opposite. 

Interesting thing just happened. When I keyed in misogyny , productive text it recognised it. When I typed Misandry it suggested Mossberg.

 

Edited April 1 by colhint

[chrisp65]

Having done a little bit of reading around it (a little bit). There is existing legislation around sexism and sexual harassment under the Equality Act Scotland. There is also section 38 of the Criminal Justice Act, and without going down the rabbit hole of a Scottish Law degree multiple other laws that prevent a man shouting ‘show us your tits’ at a woman in the street. As with this legislation, where the line is where the police and the prosecutors are prepared to do anything, that’s always a bit of a debate. There also appears to be the option of addition of sexism in to this Act, and / or a stand alone separate anti mysoginy Act which has been in consultation since 2022.

The law ain’t perfect, it’s heading in the right direction at a faster pace than it is in england and Wales.

It’s a developing area of freedoms and rights, there will be mistakes, there will be progress. I think doing ‘something’ is better than hoping it goes away and wishing it was still 1965 before the homos were invented.

 

 

 

[colhint]

Yeah all well and good but I reckon loads of women are thinking why do the top six get far more  ref decisions go  their way, why never us. I reckon they view transgenderism a bit like Chelsea, barely ever heard of for a hundred years and now for some reason they are sky six.

[chrisp65]

19 minutes ago, colhint said:

Yeah all well and good but I reckon loads of women are thinking why do the top six get far more  ref decisions go  their way, why never us. I reckon they view transgenderism a bit like Chelsea, barely ever heard of for a hundred years and now for some reason they are sky six.

I’m not sure JK Rowling’s main complaint is the sequencing and prioritisation of legislation or the running order of match of the day.

[desensitized43]

11 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

I don’t understand why she’s got so deep in to the spat on the extreme end of transgender politics and has essentially called out all transgender people as fakes. There is an intelligent debate to be had about a level playing field in sport, and safe spaces, and criminal activity. But for some reason she has taken those reasonable points and decided to absolutely focus hate on the entirety of a very fragile minority.

 

She wrote a massive blog about it some time ago that went pretty in depth as to her reasons. Wjhat I took from reading it was that she's a woman who's been abused by a man in the past (like a lot of women tbh) and her issue isn't with Trans people, it's a fear of men. So when she's in a women-only 'safe space', she doesn't want someone who's a biological man there regardless of whether they 'just identify' as a woman or are actively transitioning.

Personally I think you can do whatever you want to as long as you're not harming anyone else but there lies the rub of the issue...she feels she's being harmed by it.

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

She wrote a massive blog about it some time ago that went pretty in depth as to her reasons. Wjhat I took from reading it was that she's a woman who's been abused by a man in the past (like a lot of women tbh) and her issue isn't with Trans people, it's a fear of men. So when she's in a women-only 'safe space', she doesn't want someone who's a biological man there regardless of whether they 'just identify' as a woman or are actively transitioning.

Personally I think you can do whatever you want to as long as you're not harming anyone else but there lies the rub of the issue...she feels she's being harmed by it.

Yep, I’ve read some of what she says and as I said, she has a nugget of a legitimate point that needs to be discussed including us being a society that has the ability to offer everyone a safe space. But everyone needs to mean everyone. Not just the group she advocates for, it’s a dead end argument to argue that one group should be protected and not another.

She regularly takes that point she wants to make and ends up in shrieking arguments online and creating social media pile ons. In contributing to that, she makes less people safe. 

Then, because of the weight of her identity and presence in the discussion any debate on any ‘serious’ news channel ends up simply reflecting that online shouty ping pong. We don’t get a sensible debate without it quickly turning in to whether you support or dislike Rowling and interpretations of what she stands for.  

 

[desensitized43]

4 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Yep, I’ve read some of what she says and as I said, she has a nugget of a legitimate point that needs to be discussed including us being a society that has the ability to offer everyone a safe space. But everyone needs to mean everyone. Not just the group she advocates for, it’s a dead end argument to argue that one group should be protected and not another.

She regularly takes that point she wants to make and ends up in shrieking arguments online and creating social media pile ons. In contributing to that, she makes less people safe. 

Then, because of the weight of her identity and presence in the discussion any debate on any ‘serious’ news channel ends up simply reflecting that online shouty ping pong. We don’t get a sensible debate without it quickly turning in to whether you support or dislike Rowling and interpretations of what she stands for.  

 

Agreed. I don't like the way she's gone about it at all and persnally think she's doing harm to her cause but I'm not sure how we move forward. The tendancy is to talk about women in general terms, like they all think like Rowling. I know my Mrs says she personally isn't bothered if someone Trans is using the womens toilet or changing room but I don't think she's ever known when someone Trans was, so is it a non-argument? It's a pretty wooly debate that ultimately boils down to how certain women (but evidently not all) "feel" about it rather than any kind of hard evidence of anyone being in actual danger.

As a man though, I don't feel like this is my fight to be had. It doesn't affect me and I don't really care what bathroom or changing room someone uses. It feels to me like something prominent women politicians need to sort out as they're the ones 'at the coal face', if you like and the rest of us need to butt out and be guided by them.