The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

Pru - this view from a Professor of Law is what I’m talking about.

Crucially, the proposed reforms will have no impact whatsoever in women’s bathrooms or in other gender segregated spaces. This is because, by virtue of Section 7 of the Equality Act 2010, all trans women who have undergone, are undergoing, or intend to undergo a process of gender transition (this need not be medical transition) are, irrespective of whether they have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), already, subject to some exceptions, legally able to access women-only spaces. In other words, the right which some imagine will usher in all kinds of mischief already exists. This is, in a nutshell, the crux of the matter. For a media less obsessed with trans people, and more concerned with facts, this would be a non-story.

The fact is that what the GRC does is not a factor in shared spaces since by law trans people already have the right to access shared spaces (where said shared spaces allow it there is also the right to not allow it in some cases).

My point is (and you’ve suggested along with prisons that shared spaces are impacted) that the Scottish government legislation changed NOTHING about the rights the GRC offered only the process for obtaining one. And that if the concern is (as is absolutely right) men abusing the process then they don’t need a GRC to do that as it doesn’t give them the rights they already have in law.

I'm not one for sniping at credentials etc, but since you made an appeal to authority, it's worth rebutting.

The Professor of Law in question is a Professor at Keele University who as far as I can tell doesn't teach, and is a trans-woman activist (rather than a practicing lawyer).

She is wrong for two reasons, one not her fault.

The Equality Act includes as protected characteristics both sex and gender reassignment. There are parallel and slightly different exemptions that allow discrimination on the basis of each.

Firstly, that view was published before the recent Haldane decisions I have referred to several times. If that decision is right, and it's currently law in Scotland and persuasive in England and Wales, the the EA falls away completely. If you have a GRC then you have changed your *sex* and there is no basis to exclude persons with a GRC from female only spaces, because they are legally female. The SG said this wasn;t the case, but the Scottish Courts have disagreed with them. If Haldane stands, then under the SG's proposals, Adam Graham could self-declare as a woman, and there is no possible provision stopping him being housed in a female prison.

Secondly, even if that decision is overturned, what is said above is not correct. I've bolded a particular sentence (I think yours) which cannot be true. You can't have a right to be in a same-sex space if the provider of that space has the right not to allow you to be there. Only one of those can be true.

The way it works is that firstly you have to meet the criteria of s7 of the EA to have the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. If you don't pass that test, it falls away and same sex providers are free to turn you away without worrying about your gender.

Professor Sharpe sets out the test above but misses out (shock) the words "by changing physiological or other attributes of sex". If you do meet that test, then the provider can still turn you away but only if doing so is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

So assuming for a second Haldane is overturned, a single sex provider CAN turn away a trans-identifying person, even with a GRC but you'll notice that the decision, and the discretion is put in the hands of the provider (e.g. SPS). Now imagine you run a swimming pool and Adam Graham turns up with his self-ID'd GRC. You've had proper legal advice and you know you MAY be able to turn him away from the women's changing rooms, but he has a certificate which legally recognises him as a woman. What are you going to do?

One of the reasons JK Rowling got into this was because there wasn't a single women's refuge in Glasgow (she has since established/announced she would establish one) that was turning away trans-women (even without a GRC), and that's under the "old" law where a GRC is hard to get. Once those same people are able to get a GRC on the basis of self-ID, what do you think service providers are going to do?

It may be true (if Haldane is overturned) that having a GRC doesn't give you the *right* to single sex spaces, but it gives you access to something which is clearly going to push the needle for any single-sex service provider in deciding whether to let you in. The case of Adam Graham is an example that providers are *already* applying this in a way that lets males into female spaces, and the new process will make that even worse. That's why he's relevant to the Scottish GRC debate.

[BWFC_Insane]

Pru I think the argument is that a GRC gives you no additional rights (in terms of access) by law currently than being in the middle of gender reassignment or intending to reassign. Now Haldane excepted is that true or not?

Cos I think that’s the bit that matters here. Your argument seems to be behavioural that someone who is transitioning and has a passport or medical report saying that they are now ‘not their biological sex’ - which DOES NOT require a GRC to do would have less chance than someone who has a GRC even though the law seemingly says the opposite.

I’d say the data backs up that having a GRC seems somewhat irrelevant to access given people have access without one. Which means imo the debate is less about GRC and more a fundamental one.

However I absolutely concede to you as the expert and your proposition that the law through Haldane or in the future will be tested is fair. I just expect that will be the case regardless of a GRC. But again I accept that the problem of more easily obtaining one makes the likelihood even greater.

[Prufrock]

Pru I think the argument is that a GRC gives you no additional rights (in terms of access) by law currently than being in the middle of gender reassignment or intending to reassign. Now Haldane excepted is that true or not? [1]

Cos I think that’s the bit that matters here. Your argument seems to be behavioural that someone who is transitioning and has a passport or medical report saying that they are now ‘not their biological sex’ - which DOES NOT require a GRC to do would have less chance than someone who has a GRC even though the law seemingly says the opposite. [2]

I’d say the data backs up that having a GRC seems somewhat irrelevant to access given people have access without one. Which means imo the debate is less about GRC and more a fundamental one. [3]

However I absolutely concede to you as the expert and your proposition that the law through Haldane or in the future will be tested is fair. I just expect that will be the case regardless of a GRC. But again I accept that the problem of more easily obtaining one makes the likelihood even greater. [4]

[1] in a strict, narrow sense that's correct but it isn't the end of the issue. Obtaining a GRC doesn't (ignoring Haldane) give you any additional *rights*. In the sense that you either do or don't benefit from the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. The issue is how do service providers determine whether you are caught (because if not they are free to turn you away). This should be a "case-by-case, risk-assessed decision" but how do providers determine that? Somebody having a certificate recognising them in that gender is obviously going to be a big factor for them and it's difficult (and risky, who wants to be sued) to still turn them away if they have one.

[2] I don't really follow this. Having a passport or a medical report is also something that might push a provider to admit someone. But it's less persuasive than a GRC (I'm not sure what you mean that the law suggests the opposite?). You don't need a GRC to change your gender on your passport or driving licence etc, but if you do have one that's enough.

[3] I don't think it's irrelevant. That the current situation is bad (where SPS were prepared to house AG in the women's estate even without a GRC), doesn't meant the reforms wouldn't make it worse, with or without Haldane. It's not that stopping the SG reforms is the silver bullet, the whole area needs considered reform, but step 1 is opposing a law change that would make an already broken system even worse.

[4] I agree with that. Even if the Haldane decision is overturned it doesn't fix it. The frustrating thing in all of this is that it is largely two sides arguing past each other, and in the mean time nothing is done to come to the balanced position needed. It's probably clear that in the "gender critical" v "trans rights" culture war my views tend to lie with the former, but my biggest frustration is that the likes of Sturgeon dismiss as bigots the genuine, good-faith concerns of women worried about their single-sex spaces. There are lots of things that could be done to improve that including self-contained unisex cubicles etc that are sort of going on, but overshadowed.

On the other side you only have to read about the horrific murder of Brianna Ghey to see the vulnerable place genuine trans people have in society.

But the "right side of history mob" are so convinced in their righteousness that everyone wastes their time having the ludicrous argument about how a male rapist ends up allocated to a women's prison. I do feel the blame lies squarely with the likes of Sturgeon, because it's obviously a nonsense but women can't ignore it, because if they hadn't kicked up a fuss AG would be in a women's prison right now.

"Genuine trans people" is the issue though. How do you know? Self-ID is patently not fit for purpose.

[BWFC_Insane]

^^Thanks this has been incredibly educational.

I think on most things I fully agree, I’m unconvinced that Sturgeon is at fault here as her attempts to confer rights to trans people don’t seem poorly intentioned to me and their evidence and consultation was extensive. It’s just an intractable issue as you say with two sides screaming at each other.

I’d absolutely not want to take sides in it as I don’t really think I have one. I think Rowling and some of the gender people have been as distasteful in this as the ‘right side of history mob’ (a fantastic phrase that I I’ll steal). It’s just toxic. And I’m much more interested in the right solutions as you say.

The prison situation in Scotland I would blame Sturgeon for as it’s clearly ludicrous. If you commit a crime as a man against women I don’t think it takes much of a risk assessment to know where you need to go.

I don’t particularly agree with the Scottish GRA legislation but I also think that some of the way the issue is discussed and weaponised by its detractors is utterly appalling. The fact we hear a minority of young people are going to be used to wage a culture war to try and win an election is pretty sickening tbh. And as bad as the debate is that won’t make it any better.

[Worthy4England]

On the other side you only have to read about the horrific murder of Brianna Ghey to see the vulnerable place genuine trans people have in society.

But the "right side of history mob" are so convinced in their righteousness that everyone wastes their time having the ludicrous argument about how a male rapist ends up allocated to a women's prison. I do feel the blame lies squarely with the likes of Sturgeon, because it's obviously a nonsense but women can't ignore it, because if they hadn't kicked up a fuss AG would be in a women's prison right now.

"Genuine trans people" is the issue though. How do you know? Self-ID is patently not fit for purpose.

This last bit - absolutely - how do you know? It's a little bit like "Does ADHD exist or is it just air cover for naughty kids?" The notion that any legislation can protect all people equally, is a nonsense as a starting point, as is thinking you can legislate discrimination out. You can't.

[nicholaldo]

I think Rowling and some of the gender people have been as distasteful in this as the ‘right side of history mob’ (a fantastic phrase that I I’ll steal). It’s just toxic.

On this, and not wishing to dismiss any bigotry that might exist elsewhere, there is only one group in this issue that is comfortable creating placards calling for the decapitation of their opponents, and they aren't on the supposed gender-critical side. Some of the discourse from apparent trans rights activists has been wildly violent and it broadly gets a free pass.

No doubt there are people who involve themselves in this issue simply to try and inflame a "culture war" but it's not difficult to see why it has such purchase. There are very important conflicts to negotiate, particularly surrounding medical interventions at a young age, the rapid increase of young girls identifying as transgender - I believe there's a great deal of correlation between the reduction in the number of young girls being diagnosed with anorexia and the increase in the number of young girls being diagnosed with gender disphoria/self-identifying as transgender - the threat of male pattern violence and the impact on single-sex spaces, etc.

And then there's how it feeds into philosophical arguments relating to universal truth, blank slatism, the conflicts between empiricism and theory - I suspect this is probably the main reason it appears such an intractable problem.

We are mostly being let down, I think, by our policitians and journalists, many of whom I feel only have a superficial understanding of the problems.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think Rowling and some of the gender people have been as distasteful in this as the ‘right side of history mob’ (a fantastic phrase that I I’ll steal). It’s just toxic.

On this, and not wishing to dismiss any bigotry that might exist elsewhere, there is only one group in this issue that is comfortable creating placards calling for the decapitation of their opponents, and they aren't on the supposed gender-critical side. Some of the discourse from apparent trans rights activists has been wildly violent and it broadly gets a free pass.

I agree. I think the problem is that society moves and it’s values and views change especially through generations and it’s very likely that the generations below us will see trans rights as an essential and probably view their opponents in the same way as slavery abolitionists did.

Not that I’m equating the two I’m very much, nor indeed saying they’d be right in that - for me they are not, but history will ultimately decide. I’m not or on either side of this argument. I think basically I’m where most people are. I want to try and offer as much equality for all people as possible but there has to be some balances where it comes to protecting existing rights and vulnerable groups. Equally many people have weaponised the debate in a disgraceful way that promotes hate against trans people and we see the outcomes of that.


I’m also of the view that such an (as you say) complex set of issues should not be reduced to such a horribly toxic debate and also shouldn’t be as ‘black and white’ as one side (as you eloquently outline) want to make it.

I fully agree that the problems are far more complex than simply argued by that community.

[Worthy4England]

I think Rowling and some of the gender people have been as distasteful in this as the ‘right side of history mob’ (a fantastic phrase that I I’ll steal). It’s just toxic.

On this, and not wishing to dismiss any bigotry that might exist elsewhere, there is only one group in this issue that is comfortable creating placards calling for the decapitation of their opponents, and they aren't on the supposed gender-critical side. Some of the discourse from apparent trans rights activists has been wildly violent and it broadly gets a free pass.

No doubt there are people who involve themselves in this issue simply to try and inflame a "culture war" but it's not difficult to see why it has such purchase. There are very important conflicts to negotiate, particularly surrounding medical interventions at a young age, the rapid increase of young girls identifying as transgender - I believe there's a great deal of correlation between the reduction in the number of young girls being diagnosed with anorexia and the increase in the number of young girls being diagnosed with gender disphoria/self-identifying as transgender - the threat of male pattern violence and the impact on single-sex spaces, etc.

And then there's how it feeds into philosophical arguments relating to universal truth, blank slatism, the conflicts between empiricism and theory - I suspect this is probably the main reason it appears such an intractable problem.

We are mostly being let down, I think, by our policitians and journalists, many of whom I feel only have a superficial understanding of the problems.

The JK Rowling thing is absolutely staggering as has been the extension of the activism towards anyone and anything to do with Hogwarts Legacy and "The Wizarding World", Hogwarts Legacy recently became the focal point of yet another "cancellation." She explains her viewpoint in an "essay" - https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/ - this is not some sort of "right wing rant" (whether you agree with it's content or not) - it's reasoned positioning, be it right or wrong.

So what have we seen from some members of the trans community? An attempted cancellation of anyone and anything to do with Hogwarts Legacy (which other than collecting I suspect some royalties, Rowling hasn't been involved in). This has extended to the development studio (Avalanche). WB Games and pretty much any "streamer" who've deigned to actually say they like the game - they were skimming data about people who'd streamed it at one point so they could "cancel them."
Their arguments seem to distil into a few main areas.

1) Because they've designated JK Rowling as a TERF (is there a test for this yet?), any association with anything to do with her IP, means you "literally are killing Trans people".

2) You are a Nazi. The wizarding world contains goblins and everyone knows they're actually charicatures of Jews, don't they? Of course there's no recognition that education might have stretched far enough to enable someone to differentiate between a goblin (which have been around in folklore a fair while) and a real life person who happens to be Jewish.

3) You're a bigot. This is often put forwards fairly aggressively, by trans women who's pictures look mainly like men with wigs and who's views don't seem to shift much either.

4) The game studio seems to have gone out of their way to try and produce an "inclusive" game - there's a Trans bar owner in it (they've complained about the name "Sirona Ryan" as it contains "Sir" and "Ryan") and that it's a token trans character (how many would they accept as representative in a game set in the 1800's that has maybe 100 main characters in it?). Hogwarts Legacy is set in 1800's Scotland. I doubt it was crawling with trans-activists, and I suspect the "lesbian" they've put in there, might not have been quite so open. The only thing they're missing is two male wizards humping in the great hall and representations of all the other letters of the alphabet linked to LGBQTA+

I mean is this really where we're headed? If people don't think an IP is representative of 2023's real world, then sure don't buy it. But I doubt that works of fiction - and this one specifically - are meant to be representative of 2023's real world It has elves, mooncalfs witches and wizards in it FFS.

[BWFC_Insane]

I think Rowling and some of the gender people have been as distasteful in this as the ‘right side of history mob’ (a fantastic phrase that I I’ll steal). It’s just toxic.

On this, and not wishing to dismiss any bigotry that might exist elsewhere, there is only one group in this issue that is comfortable creating placards calling for the decapitation of their opponents, and they aren't on the supposed gender-critical side. Some of the discourse from apparent trans rights activists has been wildly violent and it broadly gets a free pass.

No doubt there are people who involve themselves in this issue simply to try and inflame a "culture war" but it's not difficult to see why it has such purchase. There are very important conflicts to negotiate, particularly surrounding medical interventions at a young age, the rapid increase of young girls identifying as transgender - I believe there's a great deal of correlation between the reduction in the number of young girls being diagnosed with anorexia and the increase in the number of young girls being diagnosed with gender disphoria/self-identifying as transgender - the threat of male pattern violence and the impact on single-sex spaces, etc.

And then there's how it feeds into philosophical arguments relating to universal truth, blank slatism, the conflicts between empiricism and theory - I suspect this is probably the main reason it appears such an intractable problem.

We are mostly being let down, I think, by our policitians and journalists, many of whom I feel only have a superficial understanding of the problems.

The JK Rowling thing is absolutely staggering as has been the extension of the activism towards anyone and anything to do with Hogwarts Legacy and "The Wizarding World", Hogwarts Legacy recently became the focal point of yet another "cancellation." She explains her viewpoint in an "essay" - https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k- ... er-issues/ - this is not some sort of "right wing rant" (whether you agree with it's content or not) - it's reasoned positioning, be it right or wrong.

So what have we seen from some members of the trans community? An attempted cancellation of anyone and anything to do with Hogwarts Legacy (which other than collecting I suspect some royalties, Rowling hasn't been involved in). This has extended to the development studio (Avalanche). WB Games and pretty much any "streamer" who've deigned to actually say they like the game - they were skimming data about people who'd streamed it at one point so they could "cancel them."
Their arguments seem to distil into a few main areas.

1) Because they've designated JK Rowling as a TERF (is there a test for this yet?), any association with anything to do with her IP, means you "literally are killing Trans people".

2) You are a Nazi. The wizarding world contains goblins and everyone knows they're actually charicatures of Jews, don't they? Of course there's no recognition that education might have stretched far enough to enable someone to differentiate between a goblin (which have been around in folklore a fair while) and a real life person who happens to be Jewish.

3) You're a bigot. This is often put forwards fairly aggressively, by trans women who's pictures look mainly like men with wigs and who's views don't seem to shift much either.

4) The game studio seems to have gone out of their way to try and produce an "inclusive" game - there's a Trans bar owner in it (they've complained about the name "Sirona Ryan" as it contains "Sir" and "Ryan") and that it's a token trans character (how many would they accept as representative in a game set in the 1800's that has maybe 100 main characters in it?). Hogwarts Legacy is set in 1800's Scotland. I doubt it was crawling with trans-activists, and I suspect the "lesbian" they've put in there, might not have been quite so open. The only thing they're missing is two male wizards humping in the great hall and representations of all the other letters of the alphabet linked to LGBQTA+

I mean is this really where we're headed? If people don't think an IP is representative of 2023's real world, then sure don't buy it. But I doubt that works of fiction - and this one specifically - are meant to be representative of 2023's real world It has elves, mooncalfs witches and wizards in it FFS.

There are a number of problems with what she has said. Not that it justifies the response.

But like I say we have a minority group who feel victimised in the same way, say black people did in the UK back in the day and then a range of people who are defending opposing positions for various reasons.

In the internet age that ends up in a situation where two sides sling mud at each other and what is clearly a very trick issue with a huge set of complexities is reduced to 'our side' vs yours.

I'm not a trans person but if I read that essay and I was I'd no doubt be pretty offended by it. Its Rowling's right to have a view and express it but I think its equally the right of someone to be offended. And its not hard to see why. You only have to imagine if some very famous entertainment figure wrote that in the 1960's about black people in the USA - how incendiary that would be. And I don't really see the difference here necessarily. A minority group who feel like they've had a long history of inequality and mistreatment.

We can all argue the rights and wrongs but I'd say that its just a horribly, horribly toxic debate and its absolutely fair for Rowling to express opinions and those opinions do not justify the reaction (much of the reaction of course is not even driven by trans people but by the usual 'tag on to a cause' extremists online) - however, I'm not sure saying its a fair and balanced thing or not worthy of offence is fair.

[Prufrock]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

[BWFC_Insane]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

If she'd written that exact essay about black people in the USA in the 1960's it would have been 'an acceptable' argument in some circles - it still would have been highly problematic to others.

There are absolutely loads of responses to it. Lots of academic research responses to - to pick apart some of the things in there. This one seems pretty balanced and reasonable and is arguably how one should respond rather than the utter bile many have spouted.

https://thecorrespondent.com/702/im-tra ... the-answer

[Worthy4England]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

Yup - that's what I thought. I could look to deconstruct it and say what I agree/disagree with, but on the whole, it reads like a genuine response to lay out her position/thinking. I doubt I'd be offended by it (and I genuinely don't see how anyone might be).

The parallel between this and the race issue, I don't think is remotely the same. In the race issue, the argument was that all race should have the same baseline as each other vs discriminatory views. This is totally different and the "argument" is that a sub-set of "society as a whole", should be able to have the same baseline as another subset of society as a whole who have come from ostensibly different places. Not the same thing for me, given the nuances around it.

The part where she's talking about Lisa Littman - my son had what to me seemed like a "weird collection" of friends at one point in his teens - out of maybe 12 of them, they were all (and I mean every single one) allegedly, Bi, Les, Gay and various other "definitions" and my view at the time was, "Hold on, out of 12 friends, not one of them is straight?" stuck out like a sore thumb. Transpires that they're now in their 20's and "straight" apart from one who is apparently bi. And therein lies the problem. At what point is it real vs social engineering?

In another scenario, there's a mate's daughter, who's been pressing for a transition since an early age and is sticking to it, currently. They're a good kid but frankly we're all sat there trying to be supportive and wondering what's best for someone who's still a minor - that's not from a "rabid right wing" perspective, that's from caring parents who want to ensure they do the best/right thing for their child.

[Worthy4England]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

If she'd written that exact essay about black people in the USA in the 1960's it would have been 'an acceptable' argument in some circles - it still would have been highly problematic to others.

There are absolutely loads of responses to it. Lots of academic research responses to - to pick apart some of the things in there. This one seems pretty balanced and reasonable and is arguably how one should respond rather than the utter bile many have spouted.

https://thecorrespondent.com/702/im-tra ... the-answer

So that article, says pretty much what Pru said. It is balanced as an opinion (regardless of whether I think it's well written or agree with it or not), tries to see the other point of view (whilst not agreeing with it) etc. etc. I don't agree with its conclusions, but I'm not and I could look to deconstruct it as some of the linked authors did with Rowling's essay, but there's no point. I'm certainly not going to try and cancel the author...

[BWFC_Insane]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

If she'd written that exact essay about black people in the USA in the 1960's it would have been 'an acceptable' argument in some circles - it still would have been highly problematic to others.

There are absolutely loads of responses to it. Lots of academic research responses to - to pick apart some of the things in there. This one seems pretty balanced and reasonable and is arguably how one should respond rather than the utter bile many have spouted.

https://thecorrespondent.com/702/im-tra ... the-answer

So that article, says pretty much what Pru said. It is balanced as an opinion (regardless of whether I think it's well written or agree with it or not), tries to see the other point of view (whilst not agreeing with it) etc. etc. I don't agree with its conclusions, but I'm not and I could look to deconstruct it as some of the linked authors did with Rowling's essay, but there's no point. I'm certainly not going to try and cancel the author...

I guess the bit I was drawing attention to was why Rowling's essay was hurtful to the trans community - which is well articulated there. Why it has been seen as 'transphobic'.

The thing is that I'm absolutely not on either side of this discussion but I try and see a both sides view. Rowling being subject of a hate campaign is disgusting. But some of her views are hurtful and reflective of prejudice against a minority group - and both of those things seem to be true.

[Worthy4England]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

If she'd written that exact essay about black people in the USA in the 1960's it would have been 'an acceptable' argument in some circles - it still would have been highly problematic to others.

There are absolutely loads of responses to it. Lots of academic research responses to - to pick apart some of the things in there. This one seems pretty balanced and reasonable and is arguably how one should respond rather than the utter bile many have spouted.

https://thecorrespondent.com/702/im-tra ... the-answer

So that article, says pretty much what Pru said. It is balanced as an opinion (regardless of whether I think it's well written or agree with it or not), tries to see the other point of view (whilst not agreeing with it) etc. etc. I don't agree with its conclusions, but I'm not and I could look to deconstruct it as some of the linked authors did with Rowling's essay, but there's no point. I'm certainly not going to try and cancel the author...

I guess the bit I was drawing attention to was why Rowling's essay was hurtful to the trans community - which is well articulated there. Why it has been seen as 'transphobic'.

The thing is that I'm absolutely not on either side of this discussion but I try and see a both sides view. Rowling being subject of a hate campaign is disgusting. But some of her views are hurtful and reflective of prejudice against a minority group - and both of those things seem to be true.

Only if they want to read it from that perspective and are determined to make some points (which I think it broadly the definition of bigoted, the other way around) People bandy around words like "hurtful" and "offended" with alarming regularity to encapsulate the notion that sometimes people disagree with us.

It is not prejudice to ask a genuine question about whether a group in society are themselves being put at some sort of risk by granting rights to another group, where society raises important questions about the wisdom of so doing. We do this all the time, where the outcome is a lot more clear. The minority of schizophrenic murderers might not be able to help themselves not murder, but we agree that we shouldn't accommodate that in our society because of the clear impact it has elsewhere, even if the penalty is mitigated.

What would you do, if you were the parent of a 15 year old that said they wanted to transition? - because there isn't any sort of conclusive test that will show you what the correct decision is...

[BWFC_Insane]

I really don't see how anyone can look at what JK Rowling has said and see anything other than a good faith, honest, kind attempt to advocate articulately for a cause she sincerely believes in whilst being respectful to those who disagree. It's just so obviously within the circle of acceptable argument the response just baffles me.

If she'd written that exact essay about black people in the USA in the 1960's it would have been 'an acceptable' argument in some circles - it still would have been highly problematic to others.

There are absolutely loads of responses to it. Lots of academic research responses to - to pick apart some of the things in there. This one seems pretty balanced and reasonable and is arguably how one should respond rather than the utter bile many have spouted.

https://thecorrespondent.com/702/im-tra ... the-answer

So that article, says pretty much what Pru said. It is balanced as an opinion (regardless of whether I think it's well written or agree with it or not), tries to see the other point of view (whilst not agreeing with it) etc. etc. I don't agree with its conclusions, but I'm not and I could look to deconstruct it as some of the linked authors did with Rowling's essay, but there's no point. I'm certainly not going to try and cancel the author...

I guess the bit I was drawing attention to was why Rowling's essay was hurtful to the trans community - which is well articulated there. Why it has been seen as 'transphobic'.

The thing is that I'm absolutely not on either side of this discussion but I try and see a both sides view. Rowling being subject of a hate campaign is disgusting. But some of her views are hurtful and reflective of prejudice against a minority group - and both of those things seem to be true.

Only if they want to read it from that perspective and are determined to make some points (which I think it broadly the definition of bigoted, the other way around) People bandy around words like "hurtful" and "offended" with alarming regularity to encapsulate the notion that sometimes people disagree with us.

It is not prejudice to ask a genuine question about whether a group in society are themselves being put at some sort of risk by granting rights to another group, where society raises important questions about the wisdom of so doing. We do this all the time, where the outcome is a lot more clear. The minority of schizophrenic murderers might not be able to help themselves not murder, but we agree that we shouldn't accommodate that in our society because of the clear impact it has elsewhere, even if the penalty is mitigated.

What would you do, if you were the parent of a 15 year old that said they wanted to transition? - because there isn't any sort of conclusive test that will show you what the correct decision is...

Well I think possibly I'd go back to 'you wouldn't say that about black people in America in the 60's' and whilst you are correct there are differences the feelings of being compared in that way to a minority community will be the same.

So that's what I'd say there. I don't think for example the piece I linked is looking for offense. There is offense to the trans community in much of what Rowling wrote and that articulates it well. I'm not convinced its fair or relevant to dismiss that because the dismissal essentially only runs along the lines of 'well she is right so even if offensive to a minority she's only speaking the truth' and many might have that view but if you don't...well....

As for your question I mean absolutely I'd be incredibly worried. I don't think we know enough about these situations to really understand it and I'd be personally far from keen in that scenario. I'm simply being honest. The problem is though that again I could go back a short while and that would be exactly what people said about someone being gay. It would as ever come down to an individual judgement wouldn't it? Is someone so unhappy and so genuinely feeling in the wrong sex that transitioning would improve their life or are they overtly influenced by other things? I'm not sure I'd be well placed to take that call - and I'd also admit openly I don't understand it. I really do not. I don't think that's a bad thing to say (though some probably will label me as a Nazi or some such for saying it).

The thing with this scenario is that there is a point where I agree with lots of views and don't really want to be on a side because genuinely I'm not. I find the constant need for issues like this to force people to be 'one or the other' tiresome. On a basic level lots of the points made by JK Rowling and other people labelled as 'TERF's I agree with. I mean women's sport. No evidence exists that you don't have a considerable puberty advantage. Until someone can actually prove that to be the case then FFS its not right to be expecting to compete in the women's category carrying a potential biological advantage only by virtue of your choice to transition. I mean at least at elite levels. That's a view I agree with and until someone actually does the in depth research then I think we have to preserve fairness.

But I also read Rowling effectively saying 'I was confused but didn't have the luxury of changing my gender so just listened to some music' or some such ridiculously trite nonsense and think 'come on you are brushing away young people's mental health in a horrible horrible manner there that even I as a non trans, non young person find offensive'.

So yeah - there is a huge mix. I think we need to understand far more about it. We need to understand the broader mental health implications and really build up some solid non partisan evidence on impacts at different ages. There

[jimbo]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on. As above, there are some of JKRs comments that I don’t particularly agree with, but they were presented in a reasoned way and were not particularly out there or extreme.

It feels like there’s a vacuum in the middle ground of the argument that people are too scared to step in. That leaves the only people really commenting to be a hardcore trans community on one side, and Daily Mail/Lawrence Fox/Piers Morgan types on the other.

[BWFC_Insane]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on. As above, there are some of JKRs comments that I don’t particularly agree with, but they were presented in a reasoned way and were not particularly out there or extreme.

It feels like there’s a vacuum in the middle ground of the argument that people are too scared to step in. That leaves the only people really commenting to be a hardcore trans community on one side, and Daily Mail/Lawrence Fox/Piers Morgan types on the other.

Yep - I'd say that Rowlings views might not be 'extreme' but some of them would offend me if I were trans.

But the last bit absolutely. We currently have an epidemic of violence and harassment against women and girls that has nothing to do with the trans community, yet interestingly many of the champions of 'womens rights' have nothing to say on that (or will be quite angry if it is raised).

And as you say the vacuum in the middle is what causes this. Two extremes shouting at each other.

[TANGODANCER]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on. As above, there are some of JKRs comments that I don’t particularly agree with, but they were presented in a reasoned way and were not particularly out there or extreme.

It feels like there’s a vacuum in the middle ground of the argument that people are too scared to step in. That leaves the only people really commenting to be a hardcore trans community on one side, and Daily Mail/Lawrence Fox/Piers Morgan types on the other.

I have no further interest in argument than to say "Frightened" and "scared" are maybe not quite the best description to define a whole section of humanity who don't particularly see deviants from Scripture and 2000 years of human behaviour as jolly fine chaps and chapesses, rainbow coloured doyens of a brave new world just because they say so. I'd go so far as to say a great deal of society don't actually care. Live and let live I can accept, but put the placards away and stop celebrating non-events. What you're doing now is what my grandkids will have to live with. It isn't just about you.

[Worthy4England]

To me it feels like a lot of people are a bit frightened to make their modest arguments around the issue, seeing how people that do try get jumped on. As above, there are some of JKRs comments that I don’t particularly agree with, but they were presented in a reasoned way and were not particularly out there or extreme.

It feels like there’s a vacuum in the middle ground of the argument that people are too scared to step in. That leaves the only people really commenting to be a hardcore trans community on one side, and Daily Mail/Lawrence Fox/Piers Morgan types on the other.

I think that in part is driven by the closed questions. How many people get asked "Is a trans-woman a woman?" - They're in a media spotlight so they go for an answer. I'm fairly sure I'm in a position of "dunno and not necessarily but maybe - mostly dunno"

We can't and shouldn't try to make rules that ensure that no-one is ever offended, because the only way that's happening is to ban communications.