People can have as many discussions as they like, that’s not really the issue, people wanting pre-existing rights for a minority to change because it suddenly makes them uncomfortable, it’s discriminatory, no matter which way you swing it.

I don’t feel like transpeople that disagree with the likes of JK would ever get a fair shot of putting their points across, hence why people choose instead to focus on the negative minority, with the trolls as if they represent the entire trans population.

Saying the extremely vocal minority are going to do more harm to the trans community than the people wanting to strip their rights away is to me completely disingenuous and just a way to shift eyes away from people’s ignorance

I know I get called all sorts when I do this, but I’ll do it again, what would people’s genuine reaction be to gays rights being questioned because straight people don’t want to be associated with them?

What rights? Because those are conflicting rights as far as I can see. Sex is a protected characteristic in law, gender is not, so how is gender trumping sex in sex based sports for example? Also, people only "suddenly" felt uncomfortable when self ID became a thing, which is not legal actually in the UK as far as I'm aware? so that wouldn't be a pre-existing right

I'm not even going to dignify the last part of your post with a response tbqh

You mean like women losing their single sex spaces?

Like?

Thats not all that's happening and a blinkered insistence that it is doesn't really help anyone in my opinion.

I think there's a lot of conflation with other minority groups on this issue and a reluctance to accept that in some really fundamental ways, it is a very different issue.

Comparing to gay rights, for example. So someone comes out as a gay man... They continue to occupy the "man" space, obviously still being a man, and part of that discussion of issues that affect men.

They also create the secondary space "gay men". Only gay men are in that space. They rightly then get to insist that gay men's voices are the valid voice in that space, because it is their space.


Trans is inherently more complicated on a fundamental level. A person identifies as trans - what space do they occupy? Firstly they occupy the secondary space "transpeople" as above, transpeople are the valid voice there, in issues affecting transpeople only. Whether or not they continue to keep a foot in the "men" space I would say is optional; their voice is obviously just as valid on for example men's health issues but I appreciate that many don't want to keep a stake there and that's totally individual choice. Now the contentious part; the space they're seeking to move to, unlike gay men, is NOT unoccupied space. The space they want to occupy is "women". And that also, is fine! However once they are in that space they have to accept that it is NOT empty space, and that they DO have to share the conversation with the women who already occupy that space, on issues that affect both. There's no reasonable way around it.

Sports, bathrooms, changing areas. Transwomen having access to those compromises the female-only nature of those places.

Trans women have been using female changing areas and bathrooms for as long as I can remember, are you suggesting trans women, even those who’ve had the full procedure shouldn’t be allowed to use them anymore? Because that would be discriminatory Oliver

I agree... Hollywood films and fantastic books/movies have had men dressing as women / being transvestites forever.

People can’t distinguish a transvestite and a transgendered person.

Soon drag will be transphobic? Or surely drag is transphobic by these people who are complaining..

I'm a fair bit older than you Liam and I also remember this even further back, it was never an issue and really still isn't! But what do you think has caused the issue now?

To flip this around, transpeople who have not fully transitioned have never been able to access women's refuges nor female-only mental health inpatient facilities. Nor were they until very recently given access to women's prisons (still not universal) or women's sport.

Are you suggesting that people identifying as trans should be granted access to those areas upon self ID without very careful professional scrutiny and examination of the potential risk factors involved?

In 5 years time it will be transphobic to say ‘give birth’ or ‘labour’ or ‘pregnant’

Probably genetics will be a controversial subject also because it will upset peoples choices.


People obviously have an issue with facts and science...

I’m gonna buy it just to show support and then give it away at Christmas :clap1:

The rampant right wing onslaught against transpeople, similar to that against gay people in the 70’s and 80’s has most definitely played a part imo

I'm not right wing, have always been very much left leaning in fact. You don't think it was to do with Self IDing laws being proposed or transwomen entering women's sports (with a massively clear advantage thanks to their male biology) or transwomen (some only deciding they were trans once they were going to prison) being sent to women's prisons or the push to put younger children on puberty blockers?

How many examples are there of that actually happening though, like yes, that person played a system, but using instances like that as an excuse to systematically change the way transpeople lead their lives is the wrong way to go imo.

And in the same breath, people like JK also have an issue with doctors giving people thinks like hormones and puberty blockers and whatnot as if they’re given out like candy on Halloween, when in reality it’s bloody hard to get to that point, so people end up having to self-Id in the end, it’s all a vicious circle of ignorance, whether it be wilful or just through plain naivety.

I don’t think this is the case at all... doing this to generate sales would not generate sales... her Harry Potter verse and fantastic beast books sell every year in extreme amounts, as do her constant showing of the movies. All the merch for Harry potters and fairs and events. Majority of her fans are 16-30... this will only damage sales and her income... what you are saying isn’t making sense.

You’re also saying she has a flagging career, well if she does everyone does? She’s one of the richest women on the planet... and the best selling author of the last 50 years.. calling her Career flagging would be similar to saying similar that the Beatles flopped

I’m not sure you understand business fully if you think writing in this character and her outspoken views will benefit her? Or That this was pre meditated.

She is not an author that needs attention she is literally the most successful author of the last 50 years - she doesn’t need money - her books are still selling daily In thousands - she has over 10 movies across her books... and tours... and theme parks.. worlds.. across all continents. Like I said her career is not flagging - I mean you must be extremely ambitious if you think she is flagging.. are you secretly Bill Gates?

There are a lot of examples in women's sport tbf and to allow this loophole exist will decimate women's sports, is that right or fair?

Fallon Fox being the perfect example.

There aren't examples if it happening because most of these examples still cannot happen because - rightly - trans rights activists have not yet managed to remove the rigid safeguarding policies that are in place.

The point is that there are very vocal groups who ARE trying to have those safeguarding policies altered to be more trans inclusive, with no evidence base, no scrutiny, and seemingly very little concern for how that might affect women and children.

And then more relevantly to the JK Rowling issue; people who point out those actions and express concern about those goals are branded transphobic.

Yeah, I'm a big MMA fan, not only unfair there but really dangerous

I didn’t say you were right wing, but their determination to find a new victim alongside immigrant and poor people lead to a very heavy war on the ‘woke’ trans community, cause it’s not cool to bash the gays anymore.

Those examples are so tiny and far and few between, they’re anomalies, what do you think about Castor Semenya, she is biologically a female, with high naturally high testosterone levels and she’s being made to take medication to reduce it, would you say that was fair? To me she’s being discriminated against for something she can’t help.

And what about big women that are strong? There are some women out there than can naturally hold their own against any man, should they be disqualified from things just because they’re stronger than an ‘average’ woman?

Thats the thing though. No, there are not. There are professional female sportspeople who obviously can hold their own against any man casually playing the sport. There is no physical sport where any female athlete can compete with the top male tier. Those are just the facts. It's been tried and tested. The Williams Sisters had their arses handed to them by low-ranked male professional tennis players and they're significantly stronger than 99.9% of other female players.

The examples in Sport are not really that few and far between at all though, there's a lot of examples, in athletics, cycling, MMA, Weightlifting, Cricket and Rugby (off the top of my head)

I think the Castor Semenya case is very unfortunate but i agree with the decision made

The attempt to apply this narrative to JK Rowling is pretty much ludicrous and that's where the entire debate is falling apart for the majority of people and why mainstream support is being rapidly eroded. It's just not reasonable in the slightest to try to paint The Woman Wot Wrote Harry Potter as some sort of secret bigoted immigrant-bashing covert agent of the right... And trying to make it out to be the case makes any other claim of persecution - including the ones that ARE very valid - seem like they might be questionable.