Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

'Arrest me!': JK Rowling challenges Scotland's new hate crime laws


pellinore

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Biological science is pretty clear that human gender development is not binary and immutable. Indeed, biological sex is far more complicated than XX or XY (or XXY or just X). In fact, chromosomes do not always hold the key to biological sex. The truth is, biological sex isn’t carved in stone. It is a living system with the potential for change. Really truly. Just ask any geneticist, neurobiologist, endocrinologist or other expert in this area as their education has gone well beyond oversimplified grade school biology lessons.

It is indeed hate speech. These supposedly 'intellectual' assertions made by non-scientists to claim a (false) scientific basis for the dehumanizaton of trans people have real world consequences. But what do you care, right?

If you're so stupid you believe all that, you're not worth talking to. If you're male, you can never be female. The most you can ever be is a glorified surgically altered crossdresser. If that's your choice in life your welcome to live it in peace, but I ain't buying it.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JK Rowling has given a response to recent criticism:

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2024 at 5:41 PM, pellinore said:

The survey is among the athletes themselves. 46% of males believe they would have an unfair advantage if they competed in women's sports. They are probably in a good position to judge.

I don't think they are 

Real world example.

Having a few beers on a Friday afternoon with the blokes is a regular occurrence where I live. One day we were discussing the NRLW. My neighbour blurted out that he could rag doll those girls. 

That comment resulted in bouts of laughter from everyone there except the claimant.

Male egos are larger and more fragile than female egos IMO. 

On 4/5/2024 at 5:41 PM, pellinore said:

The women are more generous- only 24% of them believe men would have an advantage. But as I say, that is still a sizeable amount.

Only 24% believe they have an advantage. You keep omitting that 9% feel strongly. Such as that which Rowling is expressing. 

On 4/5/2024 at 5:41 PM, pellinore said:

If the result of the survey said only about 2% had concerns, I would be more impressed, but even then, not convinced.

If you refuse actual numbers for a personal conviction, then by definition that's a belief isn't it? 

On 4/5/2024 at 5:41 PM, pellinore said:

What is the point of a competitive sport if a proportion of the contestants have an unfair advantage?

What's the point of pushing a belief when the majority of actual participants don't subscribe to it? You're not helping the sport when most of them don't want the general public making decisions for them. Wouldn't that be authoritarian rule be definition? You're basically saying you don't care what mist athletes think, they should just think like you aren't you? 

Think about the term sports. Does having a heavier larger frame actually help in the pool? Are you considering extra energy to move more mass and more resistance which is a huge factor in swimming and why men shave their bodies? What about gymnastics? What would be the advantage? Or horse riding? Shooting? Archery? The list is extensive and I really doubt that every sport favours brute strength. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/5/2024 at 8:44 PM, Hammerclaw said:

No, it won't. Unlike some men, the lady has a pair. 

It's not her blatant unpleasant demeanour that I'm referring to

 It's her agenda. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is what Dawkins has said:Sex is binary as a matter of biological fact. "Gender" is a different matter and I leave that to others to define.

 

Edited by pellinore
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/6/2024 at 2:05 AM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

I'm all for inclusivity, by the way, and have no issue competing against trans women.Trans athletes vary in athletic ability just like cisgender athletes.

I weigh all of nothing and have been bashed about by 200 lb women. Should I have asked that they be removed from the team? Indeed, perhaps I should have also insisted that all women have their blood tested and those with higher than normal testosterone levels be excluded. And while I was at it, asking that all lesbians be prohibited from sharing the same change room would have been a good idea as a predator might have been among them.

It gets really silly after a while, don't you think?

I'm all for inclusivity, by the way,- me too. I don't care who or what people identify as, as long as it makes them happy and doesn't harm others. If my next-door neighbour identifies as a Martian and wants to be addressed in a particular way, good luck to them.

I weigh all of nothing and have been bashed about by 200 lb women. Should I have asked that they be removed from the team? Maybe. A wrestler called Giant Haystacks has been credited as being largely responsible for the end of UK wrestling in the 1970s.If a 20 stone tub of lard can just lie on an opponent and gain a submission in the first round, without using any skill (okay, we all know wrestling is play acting), what is the point? But in most sports, skill, training and agility wins the day.

lesbians be prohibited from sharing the same change room- of course not. JK Rowling was making the point that some "women" intimidated/assaulted others with their penises. 

All this is a distraction. There are only two biological sexes, and they are different in their body masses- you only have to look at most human pairs- the male is usually taller, bigger, more muscular; the female is smaller, less muscular and the muscle and fat distribution is different.

If you wanted to test the difference, put a 10 stone male boxer in a ring with a 10 stone female - in fact, keep feeding the 10 stone female boxers in. We all know how it ends. A knockout in minutes.

That's how men will eventually dominate female sports.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, pellinore said:

This is what Dawkins has said:Sex is binary as a matter of biological fact. "Gender" is a different matter and I leave that to others to define.

 

You are taking him out of context. He is speaking about academic terms not the political BS. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/3/2024 at 12:10 PM, psyche101 said:

They aren't by any means the most prominent group of abusers. 

That hardly serves as a justification though.  

On 4/4/2024 at 7:26 PM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Imagine throwing a hateful hissy fit because Scottish hate laws have been expanded to protect transgender individuals.

No, the reason people (not just JK Rowlings btw) object to these new laws are many.

The "hate laws" represent a fundamental attack on freedom of speech.  

Nobody should face jail time for not knowing OR choosing not to use someone's correct pronouns.  That's absurd.  Mis-gendering is not a criminal offense.

Very few people in Scotland or anywhere else regard the issue as anything near as serious as the tiny group of trans people (who hate normal people) who are pushing it.

This bill doesn't have the support of the rest of the LGBetc community.

There are lots of related and highly controversial issues related to the trans community and the issue of how they aim to abuse the law with regards to women's sport, access to women's toilets by sexually disturbed trans people resulting in SA,  the dubious practices relating to hormone therapy on young children who are likely falsely diagnosed as trans, the lack of application of talking therapy to resolve trans issues as what they are (body dysmorphia) etc.

There needs to be a LOT of discussion on this topic, not silence, and these laws are an attempt to silence the public and end all discussion. 

These so-called hate laws MUST be struck down.  They are fundamentally undemocratic.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2024 at 8:22 PM, Kittens Are Jerks said:

 

It is indeed hate speech. 

If you are straight and white apparently.

 

Edited by A rather obscure Bassoon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:

You are taking him out of context. He is speaking about academic terms not the political BS. 

 

 

 

I know sex and gender are different. It is trans people who are insisting they are not. 'Men can have periods, too.' 'Women can have penises.' Of course they can't. They can identify as a different sex, but they can't change sex. 

I once had a confusing conversation with a mum over a child referred to services- she mentioned "Rosie" then "Roman", and spoke about them, and referred to what they did. I genuinely thought we were talking about twins, but it turns out it was one teenager. Binary.

How are these people ever going to get jobs if no one, including themselves, can be sure if they are male or female, or one or two people? How can we break the glass ceiling? How can we end gender discrimination?

We need clear, understandable language so we all know where we stand.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

That hardly serves as a justification though.  

It's not justification. It illustrates Rowling's agenda. No doubt her past life has contributed to her current state, but she is on a targetted mission. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, pellinore said:

I know sex and gender are different.

All Dawkins was saying is regarding biology studies pronouns don't even enter the room. He doesn't care about the social constructs, he will adhere to biology when doing biology. 

6 hours ago, pellinore said:

It is trans people who are insisting they are not. 'Men can have periods, too.' 'Women can have penises.' Of course they can't. They can identify as a different sex, but they can't change sex. 

No that's not true. 

A few loudmouths have made some claims to catch attention. Even what you listed will have caveats. 

What you are describing is more like Islamophobia. Every Muslim considered a hateful terrorist when we know that's not the truth at all. A stereotype.

I don't like activists, do you? Extinction clowns causing everyone grief and damaging public property. Anti government morons. Health avoidance. Idiots. I bet transgender people probably don't think much of transgender activists either. 

6 hours ago, pellinore said:

I once had a confusing conversation with a mum over a child referred to services- she mentioned "Rosie" then "Roman", and spoke about them, and referred to what they did. I genuinely thought we were talking about twins, but it turns out it was one teenager. Binary.

Because of your upbringing and local culture. Had you been born in Thailand you probably wouldn't have been confused. It doesn't make the west right and east wrong. It just makes them different.

6 hours ago, pellinore said:

How are these people ever going to get jobs if no one, including themselves, can be sure if they are male or female, or one or two people? How can we break the glass ceiling? How can we end gender discrimination?

Transgender people get jobs in every aspect of life. You probably just don't know it because they are so good at being themselves. There are many transgender actors. Even in my industry I see transgender people. Not often I'll grant but there aren't any exclusion zones. I remember 20 years ago a large switchgear manufacturer held a Christmas party and one of the staff transitioned to come out at the event. 

Renée Richards didn't break tennis or destroy female competition. That was fifty years ago. Sport is in no immediate peril. 

6 hours ago, pellinore said:

We need clear, understandable language so we all know where we stand.

I do t find it that difficult. What aspect do you specifically struggle with? 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

All Dawkins was saying is regarding biology studies pronouns don't even enter the room. He doesn't care about the social constructs, he will adhere to biology when doing biology. 

No that's not true. 

A few loudmouths have made some claims to catch attention. Even what you listed will have caveats. 

What you are describing is more like Islamophobia. Every Muslim considered a hateful terrorist when we know that's not the truth at all. A stereotype.

I don't like activists, do you? Extinction clowns causing everyone grief and damaging public property. Anti government morons. Health avoidance. Idiots. I bet transgender people probably don't think much of transgender activists either. 

Because of your upbringing and local culture. Had you been born in Thailand you probably wouldn't have been confused. It doesn't make the west right and east wrong. It just makes them different.

Transgender people get jobs in every aspect of life. You probably just don't know it because they are so good at being themselves. There are many transgender actors. Even in my industry I see transgender people. Not often I'll grant but there aren't any exclusion zones. I remember 20 years ago a large switchgear manufacturer held a Christmas party and one of the staff transitioned to come out at the event. 

Renée Richards didn't break tennis or destroy female competition. That was fifty years ago. Sport is in no immediate peril. 

I do t find it that difficult. What aspect do you specifically struggle with? 

To be absolutely honest, I probably agree with you 99%. And personally, I don't care one jot what other people choose to do, identify with, etc, as long as they don't stop others enjoying their lives.

What I don't like is trans people stoking culture wars by promoting their views. Very good and decent people in public life struggle to support trans and also promote honesty.

In the UK we have a good chance of seeing off the Tories in the next GE but Kier Starmer is labelled as someone who doesn't know what a woman is. PM Sunak has already gone on record as saying women don't have a penis. Starmer can't bring himself to say it, because if he does, off we go in a culture war which only the right wing will win.

Trans activists are like the Left activists in the UK- they don't actually want to be in power to change things, they want to be in perpetual opposition, as heroic victims. Like Mick Lynch urging his union members to vote for Brexit so they can nationalise railways- as James O'Brian has said, it's like giving a shotgun to someone who says he wants to shoot your dog.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 8:03 AM, Alchopwn said:

The "hate laws" represent a fundamental attack on freedom of speech. 

Interesting how people weaponize free speech when it comes to transgender people.

When Canada amended its hate crime laws by adding trans people to a list that already included age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others, many were quick to declare that a law against harassing trans people was the end to free speech — something they didn’t say when the laws were first introduced for every other demographic of people covered. The same thing is happening in Scotland. Similar protections have existed there for years, yet the moment those protections are extended to protect members of the transgender community, all hell breaks loose.

But yeah sure okay, why not tell us then how the new legislation is a 'fundamental attack on free speech.'

On 4/8/2024 at 8:03 AM, Alchopwn said:

Nobody should face jail time for not knowing OR choosing not to use someone's correct pronouns.  That's absurd.  Mis-gendering is not a criminal offense.

You've either not read the new legislation or have misunderstood it. It's not a hate crime under the legislation to misgender a person even if that person finds it really upsetting or offensive. If anything, the legislation sets a very high bar for criminality, stressing its free speech provisions, including the right to express ideas that "offend, shock or disturb."

On 4/8/2024 at 8:03 AM, Alchopwn said:

These so-called hate laws MUST be struck down.  They are fundamentally undemocratic.

Are you then suggesting that protections covered under hate laws be struck down, including those afforded to everyone else? If they're undemocratic for one group then surely they must be undemocratic for every other group as well.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 4/5/2024 at 10:30 PM, Hammerclaw said:

If you're so stupid you believe all that, you're not worth talking to. If you're male, you can never be female. The most you can ever be is a glorified surgically altered crossdresser. If that's your choice in life your welcome to live it in peace, but I ain't buying it.

Your claim that transgender women are just men in dresses or, as you so callously put it, “glorified surgically altered crossdresser[s]”, ignores the fact that sex and gender are far more nuanced and complicated. You’re coming at it from a Platonic essentialism level with firm conviction that science supports you. It doesn't. You're not entirely incorrect, but you're not entirely right either.

Edited by Kittens Are Jerks
Minor edits.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2024 at 6:34 PM, pellinore said:

All this is a distraction. There are only two biological sexes, and they are different in their body masses- you only have to look at most human pairs- the male is usually taller, bigger, more muscular; the female is smaller, less muscular and the muscle and fat distribution is different.

If you wanted to test the difference, put a 10 stone male boxer in a ring with a 10 stone female - in fact, keep feeding the 10 stone female boxers in. We all know how it ends. A knockout in minutes.

Attacks on transgender athletes are fuelled by discrimination, not facts. Whilst it may be true that some transgender people possess physical abilities and attributes that help them in the sport of their choice, the point I was trying to make is that natural variations in physical characteristics are a part of sports, whether transgender athletes compete or not. Don't get caught up in stereotypes.
 

On 4/7/2024 at 6:34 PM, pellinore said:

That's how men will eventually dominate female sports.

That's more fear mongering than reality. In the US, for example, lawmakers in more than 20 states introduced bills banning transgender girls from competing on girls' teams in public high schools, but not one could cite a single instance where such participation caused problems.

https://apnews.com/article/lawmakers-unable-to-cite-local-trans-girls-sports-914a982545e943ecc1e265e8c41042e7

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/8/2024 at 11:44 PM, psyche101 said:

It's not justification. It illustrates Rowling's agenda. No doubt her past life has contributed to her current state, but she is on a targetted mission.

Rowling's past experience has clearly had an impact, so I can certainly understand her concerns about the safety of women. Her worries, however, are based on a false dilemma. Like Rowling, I too am a cisgender woman, but unlike her, I know that a fear of trans people is nowhere near rational. They are not the threat she and others think they are. Indeed, not only have trans women been at the front of many struggles for women’s rights, many are also subject to similar forms of discrimination and misogyny, only worse. Did you know that in the majority of US states it's still considered a valid legal defence to murder a trans person if you found yourself attracted to them? This is the kind of thing irrational fears and prejudice toward trans people results in. It's downright horrifying.

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/panic_defense_bans

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/7/2024 at 7:48 PM, psyche101 said:

You are taking him out of context. He is speaking about academic terms not the political BS. 

 

 

 

medically and academically, gender was interchangeable with sex (unless qualified as in 'gender roles'). along comes a social movement and (intentionally?) confuses matters by making a distinction where there wasn't one historically. that should never have happened and we'd all be in a better place if it hadn't. this is very similar to the way 'disease' and 'disorder' were used interchangeably. whether you think a distinction is due, after a certain threshold of professional and colloquial adoption, it is more useful to use a different term than insist on the rapid adoption of the distinction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Rowling's past experience has clearly had an impact, so I can certainly understand her concerns about the safety of women. Her worries, however, are based on a false dilemma. Like Rowling, I too am a cisgender woman, but unlike her, I know that a fear of trans people is nowhere near rational. They are not the threat she and others think they are. Indeed, not only have trans women been at the front of many struggles for women’s rights, many are also subject to similar forms of discrimination and misogyny, only worse. Did you know that in the majority of US states it's still considered a valid legal defence to murder a trans person if you found yourself attracted to them? This is the kind of thing irrational fears and prejudice toward trans people results in. It's downright horrifying.

https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/panic_defense_bans

that is not entirely accurate. some states outlaw using a person's concealed gender as a contributing factor, that is they can try to use that defense in court. other states don't even allow that to be used in a defense. it's not as if it's automatically legal to kill a trans person if they tricked you. it's a form of fraud and if a level of fraud can be shown to be a contributing factor to an escalation of a violent incident, that fraud should be able to be noted in court, whether or not the fraud is regarding the person's gender. if someone claimed to be a different person, for instance, that would be context that is allowed. this is part of the overreaction to anything trans related that leads to bad policy.

i would also note that part of the concerns on the part of people like jk rowling are not targeted toward trans people, necessarily. they do have reservations about the way we are unable to question the legitimacy of someone's identity. for example, you are not allowed to question whether someone is really trans (whatever that means, objectively). this de facto protects anyone who wishes to pretend to be trans in order to offend. now, you might argue these cases are on the fringe. i'd argue the same threshold for people killing trans people over their presentation of identity. the stats don't show that trans people are disproportionately targeted by violence and when they are, it is significantly done by other members of the lgbtq+ community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Attacks on transgender athletes are fuelled by discrimination, not facts. Whilst it may be true that some transgender people possess physical abilities and attributes that help them in the sport of their choice, the point I was trying to make is that natural variations in physical characteristics are a part of sports, whether transgender athletes compete or not. Don't get caught up in stereotypes.
 

That's more fear mongering than reality. In the US, for example, lawmakers in more than 20 states introduced bills banning transgender girls from competing on girls' teams in public high schools, but not one could cite a single instance where such participation caused problems.

https://apnews.com/article/lawmakers-unable-to-cite-local-trans-girls-sports-914a982545e943ecc1e265e8c41042e7

usada couldn't come up with a single instance where PED 'X' caused a problem, but intuitively they understood that banning and testing for the substance added real value to the sport and its participants.

but also, it's not like there aren't examples.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a thug. If it hadn't of been for those derivative potboilers plagiarised from Neil Gaiman, nobody would be interested in anything this tedious concerned mother has to say. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Interesting how people weaponize free speech when it comes to transgender people.

I'd have a go at anyone who attacks freedom of speech.  It is the fundamental liberty from which all liberties flow.

I loathe the idea of hate speech laws.  Frankly I'd sooner know what people's opinions are, even if I don't agree with them.

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

When Canada amended its hate crime laws by adding trans people to a list that already included age, race, sex, religion and disability, among others, many were quick to declare that a law against harassing trans people was the end to free speech

And those laws WERE the end of freedom of speech.

"Freedom of speech, just watch what you say" is not freedom of speech.

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

You've either not read the new legislation or have misunderstood it. It's not a hate crime under the legislation to misgender a person even if that person finds it really upsetting or offensive.

Actually, as misgendering someone deliberately can be regarded as abusive behavior, specifically mentioned in the act, it is indeed a crime under the new laws.  You are incorrect.  It is well within the spirit of the hate laws to class misgendering as such, and you can guarantee that while the law protects the right to shock or offend, the bill is only an amendment away from criminalizing such behavior. 

4 hours ago, Kittens Are Jerks said:

Are you then suggesting that protections covered under hate laws be struck down, including those afforded to everyone else? If they're undemocratic for one group then surely they must be undemocratic for every other group as well.

I am suggesting that they will be amended and made unreasonable.  They also represent yet another attack on freedom of speech, and they must be abolished.  I am pretty much an absolutist on that point.  I don't think you should be able to shout "fire" in a crowded theater or the equivalent thereof, but that is about the only abridgement I will personally tolerate, under due consideration.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.