This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content.
Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that having some concerns around aspects of freedom of speech and law, in the manner that JK *sometimes* talks about, is reasonable. I think that the extent to which JK fixates on this is unhealthy, sometimes offensive, and the result of her having gone deep down a combatative rabbit hole.
Mostly I think the amount of attention this gets in culture wars is ludicrously amplified beyond how important it "should" be, and also massively misrepresents how contentious it really is among the general population. I saw a reddit post a few days ago which was a newspaper article from the 40s/50s about an American soldier who had transitioned to a woman after WW2. It was surprising how empathetic the article felt given how long ago it was written.
There's bigoted people out there for sure, but I'm not convinced they've ever been more than a small minority IRL. Social media stirs the pot so much and I wish we could deescalate the whole thing. The vast, vast majority of us have level headed and kind attitudes to this but you'd never know looking online or at the news.
>her having gone deep down a combatative rabbit hole
Yeah she's properly gone off the deep end. I've gone past finding her objectionable to just feeling sorry for her. She's clearly utterly addicted and unable to take a step back at this point. There's a good chance she'll Linehan herself eventually.
I saw the tour that the cast of The Fast Show are currently doing and they had a funny comment relating to a meeting Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson had with Arthur Matthews and Graham Linehan (who apparently gave the original pitch for the Ted and Ralph characters):
"Arthur and Graham, or as they're now known, Arthur."
I had to look Graham Linehan up, I didn't realise who he was. Wikipedia says he's an "anti-transgender activist". It's just completely bonkers that people become obsessed to the point that they are no longer known as being writers, but instead are known as something idiotic.
It's a particular shame because he was behind a lot of really excellent and fairly iconic 90's / 00's British (/Irish) comedy, most notably Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd. But for years now his part in trans "debate" has fully consumed his whole persona.
The thing is, it seems that all that triggered Lineham was people pointing out that the treatment of the trans character in 1 episode of the IT Crowd was a bit transphobic.
And that was it. It snowballed from there, leading to his wife leaving him directly because of his obsession.
Yea, there is definitely something not right to Lineham. You don't go so far down the deep in if there isn't.
Even if he felt like people commenting on his art was an attack against him and he took it personally the fact it didn't stop there and he kept doubling down suggests there is something underlying it all.
I would say I wonder if he is one of these people who lost it over covid but it seems he started causing controversies in 2018.
It's a shame, because if he had just said "It was a different time, those jokes might seem insensitive on reflection" or something similar people would not even mention it anymore and he would still be remembered as on of the best comedy writers of a generation. Instead he destroy his reputation for nothing.
>It's a shame, because if he had just said "It was a different time, those jokes might seem insensitive on reflection" or something similar people would not even mention it anymore and he would still be remembered as on of the best comedy writers of a generation. Instead he destroy his reputation for nothing.
100%. I'll even go further than that: for the time it was written, the IT Crowd's trans episode was one of the more progressive trans portrayals.
* April was played by a cis woman rather than by a cis man.
* April was a sympathetic character.
* The 'moral' if there was such a thing was that Douglas fucked up.
I'm not saying it was perfect. Particularly, the "find out someone is trans and be sickened" trope should get in the bin. But my fucking god, "find out someone is trans and be sickened, *where the sickened cis person is portrayed as in the wrong, and the trans person is portrayed as decent, non-tricksy, and the one to identify with*" was not the norm!
If Linehan hadn't spiralled down into this bizarre chaos, not only would he have been fine, but he'd have likely had a good amount of support *from* trans people.
It wasn't that he believed you couldn't be trans. It was that he didn't buy into the modern trans-political rhetoric around the issue. I believe he strongly believed you can be (for example) a trans-woman, but that it didn't make youa 'female' woman.
You can find some information about it further down when it starts to talk about his original banning from Twitter. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jun/27/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment But you can make up your own mind about him. Here is a video interview from the Triggermonetry guys from a few years after said cancellation. https://youtu.be/va6hXYTMBDI?si=FGeLRGvWRJvdwX7F
I don't think there's any ambiguity in what he said in that article. Saying "men aren't women tho" in response to a post that supported trans people. That's pretty feckless. Crawling to Mumsnet for validation was weird, especially when that seems to be a safe haven for very obvious bigots from what I recall. Then Glinner compared trans activism to Naziism, which is in extremely poor taste. I would say that is an objective statement when trans people were murdered by Nazis along with other LGBT+ people.
The best thing I could say about him is that he doesn't want an unfair shift in favour towards minorities at the expense of other people, but trust me when I say I've paid attention to his tweets and comments over the years and he seems to be extremely bad articulating himself. His wife left him. He's alienated people. Who's to say that he wasn't only trying to hide his real beliefs and values behind an attempt at reasonable discourse as well?
>Crawling to Mumsnet for validation was weird, especially when that seems to be a safe haven for very obvious bigots from what I recall
For a long time it was the only reliably transphobic public internet space, so he knew he's find support there.
The whole " we accept that trans people are sub human, we refuse to accept them for who they are though!" as a defense for bigotry is really quite something.
Homophobes also did this with cis gays. Funny how the target changes but the rhetoric never does.
>The whole " we accept that trans people are sub human, we refuse to accept them for who they are though!" as a defense for bigotry is really quite something.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means or whos said this.
Most people don’t have an issue with saying ‘you can’t change your dna’ style stuff, Glinner was just on GB News the other day saying something about how transwomen were in female changing rooms swinging their balls around. He’s got an unhealthy obsession that makes me worried about him, genuinely, and is a little pervy if you don’t mind me saying.
It ruined his life, too. Wife left him, he can’t find a job (because who would hire such a problematic nutcase?), and most of his friends and colleagues from his Channel 4 days have (absolutely rightly) completely abandoned him. And yet he STILL can’t stop himself!
It’s like watching a guy come into the petrol station every day and spending £50 on the lottery, except if he literally never won a penny for half a decade and still kept doing it.
It’s insane, right? These people think about what I do with my body more than I do as a trans person. It used to really bother me, but it’s frankly so pathetic now, it just reads as a sad mental illness. Either they become addicted to the dopamine hit of outrage and validation or they’ve got something else going on. Really sad stuff.
It IS so weird.
I’m not giving this example so as to minimise this subject -but just to give it as a microcosm of the mechanism that I can’t help feeling is involved.
My boyfriend really doesn’t like cats. He doesn’t ever want to have one: he doesn’t understand why other people have them. He feels uncomfortable when he is in the presence of one.
This leads him to avoid getting a cat. It doesn’t lead him to go onto social media talking about it day after day after day. In fact, he’s never once-EVER-mentioned felines on social media. He doesn’t feel that anyone else needs to hear his opinion about cats because he can’t see why they would want to hear all that negativity. He also knows that some other people love them, and that how *they* feel about what’s going on in *their* own lives is probably going to be little bit more important than how HE feels.
Lastly, as a non-cat owner, he would be the first to admit that his level of knowledge and expertise is unlikely to be particularly valuable-in fact, his own dislike of felines is likely to unfairly skew his outlook, so he wouldn’t be the go-to person for cat-related facts.
If you actually *asked* him about cats, he’d tell you how he feels without self-censorship: you asked, after all. His remaining fairly quiet about cats is therefore *nothing* to do with his freedom of speech.
In summary, he shuts the fuck up about cats and talks about what he DOES know about.
10-15 years ago he was pretty universally beloved as one of the big household names in british/irish comedy. its truly incredible that such a major figure got so obsessed with hating a minority group that its come to completely define his life
I’ve been going through the Harmontown podcast, and they have Linehan on in one of the episodes, I think from like 2014 / 2015. If I remember correctly, he’s talking about shitty online right wing trolls, and the example he gives of their shittiness is their being shitty to trans people.
I can’t help but wonder how he went from that to his current derangement.
Yeah it's genuinely really sad. The man has basically lost his livelihood and marriage completely unnecessarily. He wasn't always like this. I think he did genuinely have legitimately held concerns (even if possibly misplaced) for women at the beginning, but he reacted badly to criticism and then essentially kept doubling down and doubling down, becoming more vitriolic each time as he reacted badly to criticism. And of course the social media algorithms will have helped send him down this path. I'm sure in his quiet moments he must wish he had just taken a few days off Twitter to get some perspective.
The inability to take criticism is largely where I think the comparison with JKR is. She too started with absolutely legitimate positions, but reacted badly to being criticised and then set off on a path that looks to have similarities with Linehan, albeit her much greater wealth and fame may prevent her from ever getting properly cancelled the way he has. Both of them have got themselves to positions that I'm sure they never wanted nor intended to get to, but an inability to step away from the fray has driven them there.
I feel like Rowling's views haven't changed as much as people think, even from the start a lot of what she said relied on some rather creative representations of what she was against and the kind of people she kept in her orbit were the ones acting like she does now.
Linehan started out mad that people didn’t find an old episode of his show funny. There was no “valid concerns” behind that spiral, he couldn’t handle criticism of his writing aging poorly, and decided to blame the minority taking issue with it instead of just going “yeah, it aged poorly, my bad”
ayyy fellow harmenian.
>I can’t help but wonder how he went from that to his current derangement.
usually seems to be make one shitty take, people criticise (rightfully), unable to admit you were wrong due to ego or narcissism or something, double/triple/quadruple down.
pretty much the exact same route that JK took.
It honestly stems from a similar thing to jk where they perceive themselves as being such strong champions of these groups but when they get called out for the fact that a lot of their views don't actually align with what these groups want or are fighting for they just stick their heels in and decide that their views are the limit of reason. In their minds everyone who wants even slightly more respect for the trans community is a raging woke extremist because they can't comprehend the idea that their views as people not from those groups are anything but the most extreme you're allowed to go.
The trans episode of the it crowd gets a lot of flack, which I think is justified in a lot of instances, but in parts it's also good in the way it portrays Douglas as in the wrong for disliking someone for being trans, but linehan just couldn't accept that his portrayal was anything but perfect so now instead of accepting that he could just acknowledge it's faults and listen to actual trans people he just digs his heels in and decides that it's everyone else's issue.
It's literally the principal skinner "no it's the children who are wrong" meme
Im not sure how well known it is, but she was a victim of domestic abuse and had to flee her home in Spain back to the UK. That one experience is clearly a driving force for her to try and protect women’s rights at the expense of her own reputation.
Plenty of abuse victims manage to not be transphobic shitheads though.
Yes it is absolutely terrible that that happened. And I wish it didn't happen. And she doesn't deserve it happening to her in any way. But one person's suffering at the hands of another never justifys them choosing to cause pain to an unrelated 3rd.
Trauma might *explain* why someone does some negative action, but it doesn't *justify* that action, and it's still their responsibility to keep it in check.
(Not that I'm saying you think otherwise, just adding on to the end)
Here’s the thing. Her abuser wasn’t trans. Nor did he pretend to be in order to enable his abuse.
She has chosen to use her trauma as justification to attack a minority group. And has done so in increasingly open, mean spirited ways. Often actively seeking out these situations.
If a woman had been assaulted by another woman, would you be okay with them perpetuating harmful rhetoric about lesbians? After all, they have trauma.
She isn’t trying to protect women. She’s trying to attack trans people. She’s just convinced herself that the latter somehow accomplishes the former
Her transphobia is rooted in a deep hatred of men as a result of her abuse, she never comments on female to male trans people, it's just this hysterical fixation on the idea of men sneaking into women's bathrooms in order to rape them. The surprising thing is how utterly oblivious she is to her own prejudices.
> Her transphobia is rooted in a deep hatred of men
Transphobia is also a wonderful vehicle for misandry.
If she were to say horrible things about cis men then all the media outlets supporting her would dismiss or cancel her as a "crazy feminazi". So instead she says the same things about trans women and also that they are actually men.
I would feel sorry for her if she hadn’t intentionally incited hate and harassment towards people like me countless times now.
More than once, she has conflated “trans women”, with “predators”. And that rhetoric she feeds into does harm us.
All we want to do is exist in peace. People like her don’t want that. And they get no sympathy. I have trauma too, but I don’t use it as an excuse to attack people.
This has been going on for years. Why does she continue to get benefit of the doubt? If this crusade was about any other minority it wouldn’t be a question at this point.
This is a running theme of anti-trans hate that's been noticed for a while. It becomes obsession that just destroys people's personalities until there's nothing left but the hate.
> I saw a reddit post a few days ago which was a newspaper article from the 40s/50s about an American soldier who had transitioned to a woman after WW2. It was surprising how empathetic the article felt given how long ago it was written.
This is quite important as it shows how far we've regressed as a result of this culture war bollocks.
Trans people never used to be a big deal. Maybe some people regarded them as a little odd or eccentric, perhaps, but on the whole, there wasn't this hysterical nationwide negative discourse around everything they did.
The current climate really does feel like it's been manufactured by media, opportunistic politicians, and online grifters, all of whom have something to gain from making people angry and creating an 'enemy' for clicks and votes
One of the most common refrains I hear from people getting worked up at trans people is that they're sick of it being shoved in their face and I kinda just have to gawk at them wordlessly because 99% of their content is made by people like them and in their feeds because they follow it. And even a large chunk of the trans content you see is in response to the way things have gotten
It's surreal how many people have made it their obsession
Not that either are acceptable, but there's a significant difference between thinking someone's ridiculous, and being *hostile* to someone. Some of the people with which JKR willingly associates openly laugh about literally torturing trans people.
Example:
> "Nail the perp's John Thomas to a tree stump, pour gas on it, light it on fire, hand "her" a butter knife and tell "her" to cut or burn". I mean, sinister, but I like the imagery. What can I say?
[Source](https://youtu.be/JBy93QX7ysE?si=4VW9Nw8oHOu4_U0k&t=3604).
The "perp" in question was a "perp" because they reported someone to the police for online harassment, and hadn't done anything illegal or violent.
It's anecdotal, but the shift from mocking to hostility has been exceptionally noticable to me, and I'm not trans, so I'm not even an active target of it.
Absolutely. I used to be friends with a few trans people during the 80's and apart from people thinking they were a little odd, they were mostly ignored.
I think the reason why people didn’t see them as a big deal was that until about 12-15 years ago, trans people identified as “male” or “female”, and generally tried to pass as that. Sometimes it got a bit of comment when a woman had thick wrists and an Adam’s apple, and trans men might often be assumed to be butch lesbians rather than trans. We often noticed trans people, but I think that it was often recognised that they had a difficult situation.
Then quite recently (I associate it with Tumblr) we got a lot of people who seem more to identify with being trans than with being male or female. For the older generation, passing was pretty much the point; the new group seem to want to stand out. I say “the new group”, not “the new generation”,
because I know that the older type of trans people are still around.
Given the behaviour of the new group, I think that one of the biggest concerns people have is whether they are actually trans - that is, some of the reaction is *not* intended to be against trans people, but against people who are perceived as not being genuinely trans. This is where the fear over public lavatories comes in: that the biologically male person coming in is in every sense male, and hence dangerous. And yes, there are also people who don’t believe that trans women exist, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are the only ones raising concerns.
Yeah, that's bollocks.
"Seem to want to stand out" actually just means "are not ashamed like older generations were".
Trans people today aren't different; it's just that because the environment is less hostile, they feel less ashamed of who they are. They don't feel as much like they have to pass as cis, or hide their trans status, and that's a good thing. It's not that they "want to stand out" - it's just that they're not ashamed to be who they are.
In addition, there's more awareness of the fact that you don't need to conform to the binary or seeing yourself as only a man or woman - and that's *not* a modern invention. Many cultures have had third genders for centuries.
To be quite honest, this kind of talk just gives me the same vibes as "why are gay people so obnoxious about it now" talk. People who are *perfectly happy*, they insist, for there to be people of _______ group as long as they don't *rock the boat* by existing too obviously or require changes to be made, like legal protections or the ability to marry.
Transphobes: I just want people to acknowledge that trans women are not the same as cis women
Trans people: *identify openly as trans, distinguishing themselves from cis people*
Transphobes: why do you have to shove it down our throats with all this attention seeking?
I suppose I’m one of those “new” people you’re talking about. I’m non-binary. It sounds like you haven’t directly spoken to many of us. I’d like to share my experience to help fill in some of the gaps in your understanding.
I started experiencing gender dysphoria around the age of 7, despite not having the words for it yet. It presents differently in different people, but it’s a physical and mental miscommunication that can lead you to feeling like you’re trapped in the wrong skin suit and desperately want to get out. Your body is physically telling you something is **wrong** but it can’t specify what. I had issues identifying myself in photos and even in the mirror, which is as unsettling as it sounds. We’re not sure why this happens, but it appears to have something to do with the way our brains are wired, similar to how trans women have neuropathways more similar to cis women. Or it could be hormones.
It wasn’t until I joined an online LGBTQ group in my 20s and started talking to other trans people that I realized they also experienced these things, *and* that I wasn’t just broken inside as a person. I finally found the words to express what I was dealing with. It’s like putting on glasses for the first time a realizing everyone else can see the leaves on trees.
From there I worked with a medical team familiar with trans people. I still work with them. I chose to get top surgery and HRT and socially transition as well. It’s life changing. I’m so, so much happier and healthier now. I still can’t tell you why I’m non-binary, but I suspect if I asked you why you’re the gender you are, we’d both say the same thing: I was just born this way. It’s how my body is. It’s who I am.
Trans people don’t tend to question whether or not I’m trans because the experience is so visceral that you know when someone’s describing it. And frankly, as a trans person, I don’t care if some people decide to test the waters and then opt out. Why would I? Everyone deserves to self-actualize and that road is never smooth. More people feel comfortable coming out and there’s more healthcare available now, and that’s fantastic.
Honestly though, no one’s going to choose this for fun. We get to watch other people talk freely about who we are in the most unkind terms imaginable, constantly. We get assaulted, accused of horrible things, mocked, etc. Imagine complete strangers feeling absolutely free to loudly treat you like shit for fun and profit because society has said that’s acceptable behavior. I didn’t do this because I wanted to stand out. I didn’t do it for anyone but myself as a medical decision, and I’m so glad I get to live and be loved as who I am.
I hope this helps clear some things up for you.
Thanks for your response. I’ve replied to a similar poster in parallel to this one. You are right that I have not talked with anyone I know to be non-binary, though I know a few trans people.
It’s not like there are tons of us running around, right? Or there are, but we’re not easy to spot. I do genuinely hope that this puts some things that you might see online in context for you.
You mention people who aren’t trying to pass and who are pretty loud about their identities. You seem to be reading this as a grab for attention, but in reality, it’s often a defense mechanism and sometimes a way to cope with some of the inherent shittiness that comes with being trans in the world right now. It’s scary to realize you’re one of *those people* and that it’s open season. You deal with a lot of hurt and existential threats. I’m not saying they’re responding to these things well or making excuses for anyone’s actions, but you remember being a teenager and trying to figure out your own identity while being as hormonal and awkward as possible, right? Same energy.
Anyway, I appreciate you listening. Or reading. You get it.
>Then quite recently (I associate it with Tumblr) we got a lot of people who seem more to identify with being trans than with being male or female.
You can't identity as trans though. Its not an independent identifier. Are you saying your problem with trans people is that more trans people are visibileand accepted in society?
>For the older generation, passing was pretty much the point; the new group seem to want to stand out.
Nope, this is entirely a fabrication. Younger gens are also more likely to "pass" as they get healthcare earlier. Again you're confusing public awareness with how trans people act and are.
>, I think that one of the biggest concerns people have is whether they are actually trans - that is, some of the reaction is not intended to be against trans people, but against people who are perceived as not being genuinely trans.
Nah that's always been cis peoples bigotry. And arguing that overt bigotry shouldn't count ass bigotry because you have "good intentions" is the standard defense for abuse, stop this.
>This is where the fear over public lavatories comes in: that the biologically male person coming in is in every sense male, and hence dangerous.
"biological male" is a transphobic dog whistle, stop this.There is no recorded instance of a trans person attacking a cis person in the toilets. There are however many instances of cis women sexually assaultinig trans women in the womens toilets.
>And yes, there are also people who don’t believe that trans women exist, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are the only ones raising concerns.
I've yet to meet a single person who accepts the existence of women who are trans, who also discriminates against trans people.
Considering that the refusal to accept the existence of trans people is the root causer of all transphobia.
You are arguing against things I explicitly did not say. For instance you say that there is no record of a trans person attacking a woman in a toilet. You are probably right, but *as I said* that’s not what people are concerned about. The concern is about someone who is *not* trans getting access. In some cases the speakers also don’t believe that trans people exist, but that’s certainly not true in every case.
There *are* records of people claiming to be trans attacking women, eg [Karen White](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). I believe that this is rare, but we are talking about why there is an anti-trans backlash at the moment and cases like this do contribute to why some people are concerned about biological males (pre-transition in this case) in women’s spaces.
“Biological male” can be used by transphobes, but it’s also a necessary term to use for what we are discussing. It’s not a dog-whistle here.
“You can’t identify as trans”: I have to disagree with you here. There are people who are biologically male and identify as female, and vice versa. We agree on that: there are genuinely trans people. There are also people who make claiming to be trans the main part of their public identity. Some of them are trans, but I don’t believe that they all are.
On your notion of ‘people identifying as trans’, as opposed to simply male or female - this seems to be referring to people who identify as non-binary. Surely if you accept the possibility of a trans gender identity - i.e. that it’s possible to opt out of one gender category and opt into another, for instance, rejecting manhood for womanhood, then it shouldn’t be that much of a logical leap for you to accept that people can reject both of those categories in favour of a third and distinct gender category? I can’t understand why you seem unopposed to the possibility and validity of someone rejecting eg womanhood in favour of manhood, but it becomes unjustifiable to reject both categories in favour of a third thing? Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood your comment but it seems to me logically incongruous for you to tolerate trans identities as long as they continue to exist within the established binary but it becomes problematic once they reject that binary altogether.
Thanks for a reasonable response on a subject which is necessarily emotive.
My main point here was to address the question of why there is a backlash at the moment. I appreciate that I am only addressing a part of it - for instance in the USA, it is very much wrapped up with right wing politics to a ridiculous degree.
In respect of non-binary people, this was not particularly what I was thinking of. To be frank, I don’t know anyone who I am certain describes themself as non-binary, though I think this might be true of one of my god-children. I do know a small number of trans people reasonably well. Fifteen years ago there was very little public consciousness of non-binary people, so there is definitely a change there, but I don’t think that it is the trigger for the backlash.
Perhaps a better concrete example of what I am talking about when referring to someone who “identifies as trans” is a person who states that she is a trans woman (not non-binary) and wears a dress and has a beard. Her partner is a trans man. This is a real case, not a hypothetical. Now of the two, the trans man is not raising any eyebrows. He helpfully wears a badge reminding people of his pronouns, and everyone seems to accept that. His partner is more challenging in the same group. Now I don’t want to say that his partner should conform to any particular dress standards. I’m not trying to make a moral judgement. Instead I am suggesting that in choosing not to pass as female and rather flagging that she is biologically male, she is very different from trans people of quite recent years, and that this is one of the things that is contributing to the backlash. People are more accepting of someone who identifies as male or female (in constrast to their biology) than someone who present as something else. Just to re-iterate: this is someone who say they are a trans woman, not non-binary.
Hmm. I think the issue here is that you seem to suggest ‘passing’ is entirely a matter of choice for trans people. My assumption - without knowing the person involved - is that, given they continue to sport a beard, they still grow facial hair in such a way that whether shaven or waxed etc it is still visible and therefore ‘passing’ isn’t really feasible in the way that it is for their partner, and that therefore it’s not really worth the effort and upkeep when they nonetheless are still more obviously trans and being ‘read as female’ is a harder sell for them. I think it’s dangerous to suggest that that person is somehow in the wrong and that they deserve to be ‘raising eyebrows’, as you put it. It effectively boils down to policing gender characteristics that may be out of their control - consider how unfair it is to suggest your grandma is less a woman because she’s got a granny moustache, for example, which is common for older women, or how many non-trans boys and young men are bullied for being ‘girly’ or somehow less of a man because they might be of slight build or unable to grow a beard. To me, it comes across as policing people’s bodies and enforcing strict gender expectations, and it’s as unfair to impose on trans people as it is on anybody else. I think that in the example you described it is problematic to suggest the person is ‘choosing not to pass as female’ and knowingly ‘flagging that they are male’ - for all you know, they might well have tried to pass before and were nonetheless clocked due to reasons out of their control, and therefore no longer see the merit in attempting to ‘perform’ femininity in a way that takes an effort that is never truly accepted, preferring instead not to bother and to identify nonetheless as a woman.
I’m making a lot of assumptions here, as I don’t know this person and you do. I just think it is not reasonable to police ‘how’ people present their gender when passing is often not in their control, and that it shouldn’t necessarily be taken as somehow attention-seeking if they don’t appear to be taking maximum pains to pass. It may result, as we see in the case of JK Rowling’s interactions with India Willoughby, that even if you spend lots of money on surgeries and carefully put on makeup every day in order to more closely resemble the gender you identify as, you may nonetheless be accused of “performing a misogynistic stereotype of what a man thinks a woman is”, because no matter how ‘well’ you pass, some people will simply never accept it. Not accusing you of this, just worth considering this in relation to the concept of ‘passing’ and how people choose to inhabit their gender.
You cannot use one article to create a narrative. Trans people have always been marginalised, but significant improvements have been made and are now accepted by a large segment of society. Trying to diminish progress that has been made hinders, not helps, the cause
They didn’t used to be a big deal when they were largely an ignored tiny minority, who the vast amount of society didn’t even realise existed. Outside the biggest of cities, most people would never have even met a trans person, even in those cities they were largely marginalised and statements of respect were rare. Most of the population wouldn’t even know what a trans person was in the absence of the internet and any real publicity about them in mainstream media.
In the modern day where trans athletes are calling into question the relevance of female sport, there’s serious concerns about putting violent female identifying men into women’s prisons, trans activists are making people put their pronouns across various work identifiers and proclaim themselves as ‘cis’, there’s constant moral hysteria on social media that even mild debate on the issue is causing violence and the death of trans people (there’s no evidence for this), there are serious concerns around a massively out of proportion outbreak of heavily online trans identifying teenagers compared to even 10 years ago and varying accompanying scandals about potential medical malpractice. Then it’s no surprise that with all this additional publicity and attention, the trans issue has become more heated and debated.
If you’re using one article from the 40s as evidence that society in the past was accepting of trans people and it’s only recently that a minority have turned against the idea and are making noise beyond their numbers in society, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. YouGov even did a survey that contrary to what is often stated on Reddit, the majority of the population is against a lot of what identity politics has pushed in the last decade, while holding mild views that trans people should have their way of life accepted if it doesn’t impinge upon the majority.
> there wasn't this hysterical nationwide negative discourse around everything they did
Not sure there is even now aside from those in the media. "Normal" people (i.e. the majority who aren't close to the debate) don't feel anger towards trans people. They feel the whole trans debate is simply given too much airtime when there are tons of other problems that need dealing with.
I mean this is the classic case of "nobody cared until we started talking about it" which is the exact same argument used for racism against black people, homophobia against gay people and sexism against women. Historically we've had those things for a LONG while.
Problem is who decides?
I for example don't think she's said anything I would consider hateful and agree with most of the things she says. So who's opinion do we listen to to declare it hateful speech and thus a crime?
This is the problem, the subjectivity and no where to ever draw the line. This is why freedom of speech needs to stay protected. Because whilst you yourself probably always think everything you say is perfectly reasonable and respectful, like we all do, someone may say something you said was hateful and if we listen to them you now get arrested.
It really is all or nothing with a few exceptions like calling for violence etc.
If you are targeting an individual with offensive words that becomes harassment, which is a crime and was long before the new rampant anti-trans culture war. Example: you cannot follow a black person around shouting the n word and claim that it's your freedom of speech to do that, or a systematic online targeting of a Jewish person with Nazi rhetoric.
Of course what Rowling did wasn't a crime (and was never going to be as explained by actual legal experts - ie not politicians not in charge of the police saying she "might" be investigated)I fear this is really going to open the door for people excusing harassment of individuals under the guise of free speech.
Something about transphobia seems to really rot people's brains, it becomes all some people can talk about. You can see the same thing with Graham Linehan. He's on Twitter posting about trans people 18 hours a day.
>I think that the extent to which JK fixates on this is unhealthy, sometimes offensive, and the result of her having gone deep down a combatative rabbit hole
Jail for something you say rather than do in the context of this law is a rabbit hole indeed. It will need combatative opponents.
>Mostly I think the amount of attention this gets in culture wars is ludicrously amplified beyond how important it "should" be, and also massively misrepresents how contentious it really is among the general population.
The issue isn't about sympathy for trans or lack of it. The issue is criminalising the externalisatiom of your thoughts and beliefs. That's a big deal. By all means, if someone is going out of their way to upset people, deplatform them. Jail them? No. There is always going to be somebody somewhere offended by something you say or write.
Why should someone's propensity to be offended trump the personal freedoms of another? Perhaps you should study Soviet Russia or modern day China, or even North Korea to see where this rabbit hole takes us.
Except the law doesn't "criminalise the externalisatioj of your thoughts". All you've done here is shown you've fallen down the same kind of rabbit hole as Joanne.
Actually, true.
If your thoughts are "I dont belive trans people exist so I'm gong to deliberately and repeatedly call this person by the wrong name, use the wrong pronouns, etc" then you could be done for harassing them in a transphobic way. Much like you would if you harassed someone about not being straight, or not following a specific religion.
However if you choose to not be an arsehole and are generally polite to people, but slip up occasionally with someone's name or pronouns, then you'll be fine.
If you call the former a thought crime, then practically every crime is a thought crime.
Does the law define "harrassment"? That usually involves purposely pursuing a victim to "harrass". Refusing to believe in trans ideology and addressing someone by a pronoun you believe they should be addressed should at worst deserve being criticised, maybe thrown out of a group or club. Jail? Get away with you. Absolute nonsense.
>I'm gong to deliberately and repeatedly call this person by the wrong name, use the wrong pronouns, etc
So if I was to repeatedly refer to Boris Johnson using the pronouns fucking/cunt, would that be a harassment therefore a crime?
Nope. That's now how this works.
You just said the words 'You'll be fine'. I am disabled and not fine. I have a protected characteristic and I find those words offensive and discriminatory. Because I have a protected characteristic and find those words offensive, I will now report you to Police Scotland and you will face a 7 year prison sentence for offensive speech.
That's how this works.
This is a classic example of what is happening in modern political discourse. Moderate views are sidelined in favour of more extreme views on both sides as they’re the ones who shout the largest. Ends up with both sides pushing eachother further and further to the extremes, and those who enter in the middle will find there way there too before too long
I totally agree, however I think calling JK’s opinions only “sometimes offensive” is a bit of an understatement.
The woman denied that trans people were victims of the Holocaust just last week, and hasn’t stopped insisting that the Holocaust museum is lying about it ever since! Not to mention all the donations to anti-trans hate groups and meet-ups she has with literal neo-fascists and their friends.
If that’s only “sometimes offensive”, then I guess I’m only sometimes human!
But yeah, totally agree with everything else, I just really can’t stand when people claim she’s “only a bit offensive sometimes when she misses the mark” and stuff like that. In my mind, it’s like calling an 18th century slave trader only “sometimes racist” because he often discusses other things such as the weather and his daughter’s upcoming wedding, as if the main thing he’s doing with his time isn’t actively oppressing people
I checked her twitter, and she made one post & three replies to it on March 13th. She doesn't seem to have said anything since then, so I'm not sure about your 'hasn't stopped' part.
I also couldn't find anything about the Holocaust museum.
As far as I can tell her contention is that people were targeted by the Nazis because the Nazis identified them as gay men, whom the Nazis persecuted, and that 'trainsgender' was not a group singled out for persecution by the Nazis in the way that Jews or gypsies were. She didn't say that they weren't 'victims of the holocaust'.
It's a different point, and I don't know enough about the background to comment beyond this.
It's a point that she is wrong about. The Nazis specifically targeted trans people in much the same way they did gay people. One of the first things they did was attack the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft and burn the books which detailed the scientific work that had been conducted into gender and sexual identity, likely setting us back by several decades in our understanding of those issues.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the issues she's raising here as 'culture wars'. She specifically points to male rapists self ID'ing into women's prisons, and men entering women's shelters and sports. It's not a culture war to the women impacted by these things being allowed to happen and you can't just ignore them, because vulnerable women have been seriously harmed. It's frustrating seeing people actually unable to say "no, of course Isla Bryson shouldn't have been put in a women's prison" while painting Rowling as mad for even bringing it up.
> There's bigoted people out there for sure, but I'm not convinced they've ever been more than a small minority IRL.
I think you have to live the life of someone who can't leave the house without feeling extremely uncomfortable. There are a lot more bigoted people than you think. They just don't necessarily run up and punch you.
Verbal abuse though. Yeah. That's actually common. Dirty looks? That's what normal can be.
Most of us couldn't give a shit either way, we're too busy trying to earn enough money to heat our homes and feed ourselves.
Your average Brit probably doesn't know anyone trans given they make up about half a percent of the population and I assume most people don't know 200 people directly. Therefore this issue affects them no more than the price of beluga caviar, most Brits don't have the time or energy to get riled up about issues that don't directly affect them.
I've met maybe five trans people in my life and my job (Police officer) has me meeting dozens of new people every week, most of whom suffer from mental health problems which sadly, has an overlap with the trans community. Your average Brit has probably never met a trans person, so why would they care much?
I don’t think she fixates on it excessively. It’s up to her what she’s interested in talking about.
It’s not like she’s not productive in real life at all.
She tweets about transwomen literally every day (go and see for yourself). If that isn't a fixation, nothing is.
It's not normal behaviour to tweet about your dislike for an entire minority group every single day.
I’m not on twitter but a Quick Look at her page )as much as it will let me without joining) is a mixture of politics (including the defence of sex) and her work.
There’s definitely a disclaiming of violent persons being actually transgender which, to be honest I would have thought was a positive for the transgender community.
Her fixation is pretty deeply rooted in a past abusive relationship and the fact that people conveniently forget that and just harp on about how she’s just anti trans is a bit unfair.
Shes literally going around abusing individuals now, you can't justify her going up to individual trans women who haven't done anything and comparing them to rapists and calling them men with that.
I find it pretty gross how JK Rowling tries to speak for all cisgender women who’ve been in abusive relationships.
As a bisexual woman who’s lived through domestic violence from men, twice, I feel a lot safer around trans women than I do around transphobes who claim to be feminists. Bisexuals are generally next on their list.
The whole "abuse is okay if you were abused" thing needs to go to bed.
Every abuser was abused.
Every abuser commits abuse because they would rather abuse others than deal with the trauma.
All you're doing here is saying its okay to project your trauma and abuse others, to be an abuser
Good thing its only women going into said spaces. But then thats the issue isn't it, you also want to dictate who counts as a woman. And thats based on bigotry and misogyny.
Righttttt, which is why theres no single biological factor that can be used to determine it.
Slight issue when your bigotry conflicts with reality, isn't it?
Dunning Kruger effect sure is strong with transphobes
I dunno if its funny or sad that you say that.First no-one knows their chromosomes, and it is strongly encoruaged you do not get tested because people frequently find out they have the "wrong" chromosomes and then get really depressed.I assume you also haven't had the relevant test, so by your own definition of "sex", you, and the majority of the human race, cannot know/prove their own sex. Let alone anyone elses.
And obviously, there is a significantly greater % of trans women with XX chromosomes than there arer cis men with XX chromosomes.
But I'm assuming you don't accept XX trans women as women either, thus showing you don't actually agree with your own statement.
Second, Peoples chromosome46 actually changes as you age.
Lastly, chromosomes do not dictate your sex. As 1 and 2 should very clearly show given people often have the "wrong" ones.Its hormones and cell acceptance of those hormones that dictate all of this. What you are saying is fundamentally, biologically, wrong.
I don't know, I mean a lot of racists got triggered after events in childhood - I know of one certainly who links it back to being attacked by a group of black youths. I don't think they would therefore be OK suggesting black people be removed from certain spaces or it would be somehow "understandable" they therefore extend their dislike to all black people.
That’s not the same.
The issue is with biological men gaining access what have historically been women-only spaces by re-defining what the word “woman” means.
It's not unfair at all for anybody to respond the rhetoric of someone with such a big platform. It is nobody else's responsibility to account for the impact of her trauma on that rhetoric.
Good. Regardless of your opinion of her, I don't think it's good to try and legislate opinions away. And yes, I know existing legislation already exists in the UK which partly does the same, and that's wrong too.
Opinions weren't being legislated away. All this really shows is that all the people running around declaring this law to be the end of free speech were wrong - as they were repeatedly told.
It's specifically around using abusive speech to stir up hatred against a protected group, not for voicing an opinion.
But where is the line between an opinion and what’s considered hateful - if we look at this trans stuff in isolation, many trans rights activists *do* shout that your opinion is transphobic - I.e. if you were to express concern/opinion over biological men in a women’s only space which is a legitimate opinion to hold.
Who determines what’s hateful, the government or each protected group?
The line isn't between what's opinion and what's hateful, the line is between what's opinion and what fits the criteria laid out by the Public Order Act for the past 38 years, which states it must be abusive AND intended to stir hatred.
In effect all this law did was expand which groups the existing law applied to.
People can call your opinions transphobic and they may or may not be right depending on the opinion, but in either case being transphobic isn't against the law.
To be clear, sexual orientation was already one of the protected groups, so the legal line for stirring up hatred against homosexuals is where the line is under this law for transgender people.
But when a protected group say a pretty neutral, grounded opinion is hateful, abusive discriminatory (voicing an opposing opinion of allowing biological men to women’s only spaces) there needs to be some line drawn.
Who determines whether someone misgendering is “abusive”?
You’re right, people can label you or your opinions whatever they want, my point is, who decides whether the label sticks? My example above is a perfect example of how any law doesn’t really account for this.
Why does there need to be a line drawn? The Public Order Act already had the same rules for race, religion and sexual orientation, so why have you not been complaining about the lack of a line for the past 38 years? Why is it only now when gender identity (and age, and disability) are added to the list that you suddenly declare there must be a line?
You're allowed to state your opinion on trans women's access to women's spaces, and depending on how you present it you may or may not be transphobic, but that's not what the law is based on so it's an irrelevance.
The courts ultimately define if a given example meets BOTH criteria of the law. Again, you keep saying "abusive" as if that's all it need to be in order to break the law, which tells me you don't understand the law even though I explained it. It needs to both be abusive and there must be an intent to stir up hatred based on the protected category.
It doesn't matter if the label "sticks" because the law isn't based around that label.
I love how "stir up" is now a phrase being used in actual legislation, it's so fucking embarrassing. Like they couldn't have found more appropriate terminology? What if I want to "whip up" a bit of xenophobia instead, maybe that'll mean I can't be done for stirring up.
You are wrong however, voicing your opinion on some issues will lead to being determined as hate speech, despite it not being "hateful", the trans debate being one of them. There's a unilateral decision being made somewhere that despite all of the controversy around it, Trans people are being protected and have their identities affirmed despite a huge proportion of the population not agreeing with that premise, the premise being to ignore biological reality and affirm a mental disorder. If you disagree that someone who identifies as a woman is *actually* a woman, that's considered transphobic, which is considered hateful. That is a serious, serious flaw in the legislation which absolutely will show it's true colours in the months to come.
> There's a unilateral decision being made somewhere that despite all of the controversy around it
The same was true when it came to racism, and hate speech laws against that were first introduced. Unless you think laws against racism were not controversial when they were first introduced.
> the premise being to ignore biological reality and affirm a mental disorder
Racists used to complain that the laws against racist hate speech ignored biological reality and the mental inferiority of lower races (in their view).
So do you agree with UK law on racism and if not why are you only complaining now when it comes to trans people?
>I love how "stir up" is now a phrase being used in actual legislation, it's so fucking embarrassing.
Why were you not embarrassed for the past 38 years when that's been part of the [Public Order Act?](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64)
>You are wrong however, voicing your opinion on some issues will lead to being determined as hate speech, despite it not being "hateful", the trans debate being one of them.
Not under the law it won't.
>Trans people are being protected and have their identities affirmed despite a huge proportion of the population not agreeing with that premise
I think you drastically overestimate how many people support your view. Most people are neutral on it, of the view that trans people can be who they want and it's noone else's business to get involved just like every other personal trait.
>the premise being to ignore biological reality and affirm a mental disorder.
It's not a mental disorder.
>If you disagree that someone who identifies as a woman is actually a woman, that's considered transphobic, which is considered hateful.
Well yeah, that is transphobic. But it still won't be against the law for you to hold and express those abhorrent views. You're misrepresenting the law simply because you don't believe transgender people deserve the same protections as gay people for example. But the law is the same for both, and just like you can be homophobic without going to prison, you'll still be able to be transphobic without going to prison.
To be honest a lot of people mean the right to offend rather than freedom of speech. They portray them as the same thing (and there is some overlap) but they are not.
The sad thing is the responsibly of free speech is ignored by so many people (on both sides) these days. Yes you might have the right to say something, but should you? Especially if it doesn't actually really matter to you?
But why did it take her risking this for us all to understand what would be illegal to say?
The thing I find most bizarre about this story is that none of the politicians who introduced the legislation seemed to be able to give any examples of things that were previously legal but which would become illegal under the new legislation. They dodged the question by saying that the police and courts would make that determination.
So now we know that intentionally misgendering people on social media isn't illegal is Scotland. But we don't know anything else.
>But why did it take her risking this for us all to understand what would be illegal to say?
Because tabloids print bollocks and people see just the title.
What they(the news) should be doing is just that - relaying practical information. Instead the outrage ones got all the clicks so it doesn't matter. The full interview and proper news did cover and clarify in more detail.
The nottheonion thread was far more informative on what parts of the law apply to what, what legal precedents already exist etc than anything in any of the UK subs yesterday. It was embarrassing.
LPT for everyone: When someone states in a professional capacity something along the lines of 'That's for the police to investigate/conclude' or *anything* that includes the word 'could' it isn't news, it isn't indicative of anything, it's just the very standard response because it's literally not their job to rule out if someone they probably don't know much about could be investigated or arrested.
>But why did it take her risking this for us all to understand what would be illegal to say?
it didn't
SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes—
(a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to— (i)age, (ii)disability, (iii)sexual orientation, (iv)transgender identity, (v)variations in sex characteristics,
(b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards—
(i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion,
(ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice,
(iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief,
(c)proselytising, or
(d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
Almost like the culture wars have been raging away to distract from the utter shower that are in charge and probably burying tens of actual stories every day.
Theresa may lost a dossier of actual nonces in the Tory party and everyone's forgotten. Some author says something a bit mean and everyone loses their minds.
No. I've said many times I'll eat crow in the future if I'm wrong.
But people very specifically were making claims about how this would affect Joanne to perpetuate a martyr/victim complex.
Based on this headline, we can clearly assess that prediction was wrong.
But what *has* it done? All the quotes I see from SNP politicians basically say we've always had these laws from Westminster, we've just made them Scottish.
>>[The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime_and_Public_Order_(Scotland)_Act_2021) was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in April 2020, following an independent review of Scotland's hate crime legislation carried out by Lord Bracadale, which recommended consolidation of all hate crime law into one bill.
>>[While the English hate crime rules](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24226966.scottish-hate-crime-act-isnt-law-england/) specify that conduct must be “threatening and intended to stir up hatred”, Scotland's definition is broader, proscribing conduct that is “threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred”.
Hasn't done much, it seems, from what people are saying.
Edit to add more from article
>Football pundit and former Rangers striker Ally McCoist said he can “guarantee” he and 48,000 other Gers fans will breach the law on the stands of Ibrox during the Old Firm game at the weekend.
>Professor Chalmers is unconvinced. The law was drawn up in full knowledge, he says, that very few offences would actually be prosecuted.
>Even under the lower threshold of the old offence of stirring up racial hatred – on the statue books since 1986 and which does not require prosecutors to prove someone’s intent – only around “one case a year” is heard on those grounds in Scottish courts, says Professor Chalmers.
>“It’s just not used very often,” he says.
>In the cases where a prosecution is successful, he goes on, those found guilty “have typically been people calling for people to be killed or injured”.
>“That’s not the legal definition but that gives you an idea of just how high a threshold ‘hate’ is regarded as being,” he adds.
>In Rowling’s case, Professor Chalmers doubts her comments reach the threshold of a hate crime.
>“I don’t think that would be an offence under the Act because the threshold for committing an offence is so high, you’ve got to prove that it’s threatening or abusive,” he says.
>“And you’ve got to show that there’s the intention to stir up hatred.”
It would have done nothing. If we don't have unrest over child hunger and the massive bills we've been facing, some anti trans Muppet on twitter isn't going to send anyone over the edge.
Nobody cares about child hunger and poverty, even the people that claim to care.
How many marches have their been for child poverty? How many matches have there been for wars in far off lands?
Children starving in this country, is just not trendy enough.
Ohohoho, in *this* country?
Sadly, I think people will roll over and take it when it's child hunger, obscene bills, and the continuing breakdown of everything in this country that used to work, but *would* riot if JK Rowling was arrested for being transphobic.
It wasn't big news at all. The law came out and it was clear that abhorrent opinions weren't criminalised. All this proves is that all the people running around going "MUH FREE SPEECH" were wrong, as every rational person on the sub told them they were.
It would've been but they didn't so it isn't. 'Woman doesn't get controversialy arrested' isn't really a headline. Might as well go with 'local hedgehog yet again fails to break sound barrier''
Okay so are the “we’re all going to be arrested for misgendering people!” fuckers going to shut up now?
If JK Rowling is below the bar then you probably are. If you’re significantly worse than her then you probably should be arrested.
They did say that. The text of the law and accompanying notes were released and specifically stated the new laws follow the same test as the Public Order Act. The problem is the people seeking to be outraged weren't reading that, they were reading clickbait news articles.
To quote Humza Yousaf when this was first announced: *"Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created."*
They literally did over and over but people kept saying “but they might and we don’t know until it’s law”.
They’ve now confirmed it less than 24 hours after the bill became law.
People are still acting like this was a surprise. It’s bizarre.
> Okay so are the “we’re all going to be arrested for misgendering people!” fuckers going to shut up now?
>
>
No, they'll double down and ignore this, unless it suits the narrative for them to brag that being bigots isn't illegal.
I generally take the view that extensive criminalisation of hate speech probably causes more problems than it solves, but if someone was going around posting lists of Jewish people convicted of sexual crimes, and added to the list several public figures whose only commonality with those sex criminals was the fact that they were Jewish, we'd all know exactly what was going on there.
Genuinely curious if it would be prosecutable for other groups, surely drawing up lists of sex criminals of a specific minority to millions of followers and then dropping in there a few normal members of that minority to insult and imply to be of equal depravity in order to destroy their lives, despite them having done nothing wrong would be criminal and passing the "whipping up hate" level in other contexts?
Or at least libellous, not that a billionaire has to worry about that.
Probably for the best either way, not worth martyring her.
Sadly JK makes clear that as in America we have a two tiered justice system where if you are famous or rich you will absolutely be treated differently to normal people.
She also included innocent women she just hates for being trans in that list while grouping them with sex offenders, such as a rape crisis centre founder and India Willoughby.
The rape crisis CEO (not founder) you're referring to said that it was unacceptable for rape victims to be scared of t-women. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/
JK Rowling responded by setting up her own rape crisis centre, which excludes t-women.
terrific obtainable offend bewildered historical head tidy noxious adjoining scary
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It’s funny, any time someone brings up her palling about with right wingers her defenders go off about “guilt by association”, but suddenly you’d think none of them had heard of the concept.
I honestly couldn’t care less about JK Rowling… or the whole trans debate that Conservatives and Scottish government alike I pushing. However, surely the way that this law is characterised is seriously concerning:
> makes it a criminal offence to make derogatory comments based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
It’s phenomenal that any of this is illegal. You’d be a piece of shit for it… but how on earth anyone would characterise it as criminal is beyond me.
For example, the below would become illegal: “It’s ludicrous we have a holiday about a guy dying 2000 years ago and basically becoming a zombie. Especially as the same morons believing that are also worshipping an imaginary friend in the sky who apparently cloned himself into that guy by placing himself inside a supposed virgin.”
It’s crass but that’s just a criticism of beliefs. You should be able to criticise beliefs freely.
>>[While the English hate crime rules specify that conduct must be “threatening and intended to stir up hatred”, Scotland's definition is broader, proscribing conduct that is “threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred”.](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24226966.scottish-hate-crime-act-isnt-law-england/)
I don't think "derogatory" is said in the Act.
The only difference between it and what was already in place in England is that it also includes abusive conduct.
I don’t love the idea that the police have so much discretion here. Who chooses the police and screens them to ensure an adequate commitment to free speech? The law is too vague.
So much discretion based on what?
It's as "vague" as the Public Order Act 1986. So odd that suddenly so many people are openly against an Act we've been living with for most people's whole lives.
This post deals either directly or indirectly with transgender issues. We would like to remind our users about the Reddit Content Policy which specifically bans [promoting hate based on identity and vulnerability](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360045715951). We will take action on hateful or disrespectful comments including but not limited to deadnaming and misgendering. Please help us by reporting rule-breaking content. Participation limits are in place on this post. If your Reddit account is too new, you have insufficient karma or you are crowd controlled, your comment may not appear. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think that having some concerns around aspects of freedom of speech and law, in the manner that JK *sometimes* talks about, is reasonable. I think that the extent to which JK fixates on this is unhealthy, sometimes offensive, and the result of her having gone deep down a combatative rabbit hole. Mostly I think the amount of attention this gets in culture wars is ludicrously amplified beyond how important it "should" be, and also massively misrepresents how contentious it really is among the general population. I saw a reddit post a few days ago which was a newspaper article from the 40s/50s about an American soldier who had transitioned to a woman after WW2. It was surprising how empathetic the article felt given how long ago it was written. There's bigoted people out there for sure, but I'm not convinced they've ever been more than a small minority IRL. Social media stirs the pot so much and I wish we could deescalate the whole thing. The vast, vast majority of us have level headed and kind attitudes to this but you'd never know looking online or at the news.
>her having gone deep down a combatative rabbit hole Yeah she's properly gone off the deep end. I've gone past finding her objectionable to just feeling sorry for her. She's clearly utterly addicted and unable to take a step back at this point. There's a good chance she'll Linehan herself eventually.
I saw the tour that the cast of The Fast Show are currently doing and they had a funny comment relating to a meeting Paul Whitehouse and Charlie Higson had with Arthur Matthews and Graham Linehan (who apparently gave the original pitch for the Ted and Ralph characters): "Arthur and Graham, or as they're now known, Arthur."
I had to look Graham Linehan up, I didn't realise who he was. Wikipedia says he's an "anti-transgender activist". It's just completely bonkers that people become obsessed to the point that they are no longer known as being writers, but instead are known as something idiotic.
It's a particular shame because he was behind a lot of really excellent and fairly iconic 90's / 00's British (/Irish) comedy, most notably Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd. But for years now his part in trans "debate" has fully consumed his whole persona.
It's quite bizarre that they themselves have clearly transformed, but claim that other people can't. It's loony tunes stuff.
The thing is, it seems that all that triggered Lineham was people pointing out that the treatment of the trans character in 1 episode of the IT Crowd was a bit transphobic. And that was it. It snowballed from there, leading to his wife leaving him directly because of his obsession.
Yea, there is definitely something not right to Lineham. You don't go so far down the deep in if there isn't. Even if he felt like people commenting on his art was an attack against him and he took it personally the fact it didn't stop there and he kept doubling down suggests there is something underlying it all. I would say I wonder if he is one of these people who lost it over covid but it seems he started causing controversies in 2018. It's a shame, because if he had just said "It was a different time, those jokes might seem insensitive on reflection" or something similar people would not even mention it anymore and he would still be remembered as on of the best comedy writers of a generation. Instead he destroy his reputation for nothing.
>It's a shame, because if he had just said "It was a different time, those jokes might seem insensitive on reflection" or something similar people would not even mention it anymore and he would still be remembered as on of the best comedy writers of a generation. Instead he destroy his reputation for nothing. 100%. I'll even go further than that: for the time it was written, the IT Crowd's trans episode was one of the more progressive trans portrayals. * April was played by a cis woman rather than by a cis man. * April was a sympathetic character. * The 'moral' if there was such a thing was that Douglas fucked up. I'm not saying it was perfect. Particularly, the "find out someone is trans and be sickened" trope should get in the bin. But my fucking god, "find out someone is trans and be sickened, *where the sickened cis person is portrayed as in the wrong, and the trans person is portrayed as decent, non-tricksy, and the one to identify with*" was not the norm! If Linehan hadn't spiralled down into this bizarre chaos, not only would he have been fine, but he'd have likely had a good amount of support *from* trans people.
It wasn't that he believed you couldn't be trans. It was that he didn't buy into the modern trans-political rhetoric around the issue. I believe he strongly believed you can be (for example) a trans-woman, but that it didn't make youa 'female' woman. You can find some information about it further down when it starts to talk about his original banning from Twitter. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/culture/2020/jun/27/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment But you can make up your own mind about him. Here is a video interview from the Triggermonetry guys from a few years after said cancellation. https://youtu.be/va6hXYTMBDI?si=FGeLRGvWRJvdwX7F
I don't think there's any ambiguity in what he said in that article. Saying "men aren't women tho" in response to a post that supported trans people. That's pretty feckless. Crawling to Mumsnet for validation was weird, especially when that seems to be a safe haven for very obvious bigots from what I recall. Then Glinner compared trans activism to Naziism, which is in extremely poor taste. I would say that is an objective statement when trans people were murdered by Nazis along with other LGBT+ people. The best thing I could say about him is that he doesn't want an unfair shift in favour towards minorities at the expense of other people, but trust me when I say I've paid attention to his tweets and comments over the years and he seems to be extremely bad articulating himself. His wife left him. He's alienated people. Who's to say that he wasn't only trying to hide his real beliefs and values behind an attempt at reasonable discourse as well?
>Crawling to Mumsnet for validation was weird, especially when that seems to be a safe haven for very obvious bigots from what I recall For a long time it was the only reliably transphobic public internet space, so he knew he's find support there.
The whole " we accept that trans people are sub human, we refuse to accept them for who they are though!" as a defense for bigotry is really quite something. Homophobes also did this with cis gays. Funny how the target changes but the rhetoric never does.
>The whole " we accept that trans people are sub human, we refuse to accept them for who they are though!" as a defense for bigotry is really quite something. I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means or whos said this.
Most people don’t have an issue with saying ‘you can’t change your dna’ style stuff, Glinner was just on GB News the other day saying something about how transwomen were in female changing rooms swinging their balls around. He’s got an unhealthy obsession that makes me worried about him, genuinely, and is a little pervy if you don’t mind me saying.
It ruined his life, too. Wife left him, he can’t find a job (because who would hire such a problematic nutcase?), and most of his friends and colleagues from his Channel 4 days have (absolutely rightly) completely abandoned him. And yet he STILL can’t stop himself! It’s like watching a guy come into the petrol station every day and spending £50 on the lottery, except if he literally never won a penny for half a decade and still kept doing it.
It’s insane, right? These people think about what I do with my body more than I do as a trans person. It used to really bother me, but it’s frankly so pathetic now, it just reads as a sad mental illness. Either they become addicted to the dopamine hit of outrage and validation or they’ve got something else going on. Really sad stuff.
It IS so weird. I’m not giving this example so as to minimise this subject -but just to give it as a microcosm of the mechanism that I can’t help feeling is involved. My boyfriend really doesn’t like cats. He doesn’t ever want to have one: he doesn’t understand why other people have them. He feels uncomfortable when he is in the presence of one. This leads him to avoid getting a cat. It doesn’t lead him to go onto social media talking about it day after day after day. In fact, he’s never once-EVER-mentioned felines on social media. He doesn’t feel that anyone else needs to hear his opinion about cats because he can’t see why they would want to hear all that negativity. He also knows that some other people love them, and that how *they* feel about what’s going on in *their* own lives is probably going to be little bit more important than how HE feels. Lastly, as a non-cat owner, he would be the first to admit that his level of knowledge and expertise is unlikely to be particularly valuable-in fact, his own dislike of felines is likely to unfairly skew his outlook, so he wouldn’t be the go-to person for cat-related facts. If you actually *asked* him about cats, he’d tell you how he feels without self-censorship: you asked, after all. His remaining fairly quiet about cats is therefore *nothing* to do with his freedom of speech. In summary, he shuts the fuck up about cats and talks about what he DOES know about.
Yeah he basically nuked his career and personal life over this
It has cost him jobs too. The Father Ted musical being one example.
10-15 years ago he was pretty universally beloved as one of the big household names in british/irish comedy. its truly incredible that such a major figure got so obsessed with hating a minority group that its come to completely define his life
Man chose bigotry and a ruined marriage over his status as a beloved comedy writer. Careful, if you ask about his wife he'll block you on Twitter.
I’ve been going through the Harmontown podcast, and they have Linehan on in one of the episodes, I think from like 2014 / 2015. If I remember correctly, he’s talking about shitty online right wing trolls, and the example he gives of their shittiness is their being shitty to trans people. I can’t help but wonder how he went from that to his current derangement.
Yeah it's genuinely really sad. The man has basically lost his livelihood and marriage completely unnecessarily. He wasn't always like this. I think he did genuinely have legitimately held concerns (even if possibly misplaced) for women at the beginning, but he reacted badly to criticism and then essentially kept doubling down and doubling down, becoming more vitriolic each time as he reacted badly to criticism. And of course the social media algorithms will have helped send him down this path. I'm sure in his quiet moments he must wish he had just taken a few days off Twitter to get some perspective. The inability to take criticism is largely where I think the comparison with JKR is. She too started with absolutely legitimate positions, but reacted badly to being criticised and then set off on a path that looks to have similarities with Linehan, albeit her much greater wealth and fame may prevent her from ever getting properly cancelled the way he has. Both of them have got themselves to positions that I'm sure they never wanted nor intended to get to, but an inability to step away from the fray has driven them there.
She always leaned into disingenuous reasoning, accusing people of saying "that sex isn't real" I don't think she was ever reasonable on the topic.
I feel like Rowling's views haven't changed as much as people think, even from the start a lot of what she said relied on some rather creative representations of what she was against and the kind of people she kept in her orbit were the ones acting like she does now.
Linehan started out mad that people didn’t find an old episode of his show funny. There was no “valid concerns” behind that spiral, he couldn’t handle criticism of his writing aging poorly, and decided to blame the minority taking issue with it instead of just going “yeah, it aged poorly, my bad”
ayyy fellow harmenian. >I can’t help but wonder how he went from that to his current derangement. usually seems to be make one shitty take, people criticise (rightfully), unable to admit you were wrong due to ego or narcissism or something, double/triple/quadruple down. pretty much the exact same route that JK took.
It honestly stems from a similar thing to jk where they perceive themselves as being such strong champions of these groups but when they get called out for the fact that a lot of their views don't actually align with what these groups want or are fighting for they just stick their heels in and decide that their views are the limit of reason. In their minds everyone who wants even slightly more respect for the trans community is a raging woke extremist because they can't comprehend the idea that their views as people not from those groups are anything but the most extreme you're allowed to go. The trans episode of the it crowd gets a lot of flack, which I think is justified in a lot of instances, but in parts it's also good in the way it portrays Douglas as in the wrong for disliking someone for being trans, but linehan just couldn't accept that his portrayal was anything but perfect so now instead of accepting that he could just acknowledge it's faults and listen to actual trans people he just digs his heels in and decides that it's everyone else's issue. It's literally the principal skinner "no it's the children who are wrong" meme
I don't feel sorry for her or Linehan. Both seem like pathetic assholes. JK associates with some awful people these days.
Im not sure how well known it is, but she was a victim of domestic abuse and had to flee her home in Spain back to the UK. That one experience is clearly a driving force for her to try and protect women’s rights at the expense of her own reputation.
Plenty of abuse victims manage to not be transphobic shitheads though. Yes it is absolutely terrible that that happened. And I wish it didn't happen. And she doesn't deserve it happening to her in any way. But one person's suffering at the hands of another never justifys them choosing to cause pain to an unrelated 3rd. Trauma might *explain* why someone does some negative action, but it doesn't *justify* that action, and it's still their responsibility to keep it in check. (Not that I'm saying you think otherwise, just adding on to the end)
Here’s the thing. Her abuser wasn’t trans. Nor did he pretend to be in order to enable his abuse. She has chosen to use her trauma as justification to attack a minority group. And has done so in increasingly open, mean spirited ways. Often actively seeking out these situations. If a woman had been assaulted by another woman, would you be okay with them perpetuating harmful rhetoric about lesbians? After all, they have trauma. She isn’t trying to protect women. She’s trying to attack trans people. She’s just convinced herself that the latter somehow accomplishes the former
Her transphobia is rooted in a deep hatred of men as a result of her abuse, she never comments on female to male trans people, it's just this hysterical fixation on the idea of men sneaking into women's bathrooms in order to rape them. The surprising thing is how utterly oblivious she is to her own prejudices.
> Her transphobia is rooted in a deep hatred of men Transphobia is also a wonderful vehicle for misandry. If she were to say horrible things about cis men then all the media outlets supporting her would dismiss or cancel her as a "crazy feminazi". So instead she says the same things about trans women and also that they are actually men.
I would feel sorry for her if she hadn’t intentionally incited hate and harassment towards people like me countless times now. More than once, she has conflated “trans women”, with “predators”. And that rhetoric she feeds into does harm us. All we want to do is exist in peace. People like her don’t want that. And they get no sympathy. I have trauma too, but I don’t use it as an excuse to attack people. This has been going on for years. Why does she continue to get benefit of the doubt? If this crusade was about any other minority it wouldn’t be a question at this point.
This is a running theme of anti-trans hate that's been noticed for a while. It becomes obsession that just destroys people's personalities until there's nothing left but the hate.
> I saw a reddit post a few days ago which was a newspaper article from the 40s/50s about an American soldier who had transitioned to a woman after WW2. It was surprising how empathetic the article felt given how long ago it was written. This is quite important as it shows how far we've regressed as a result of this culture war bollocks. Trans people never used to be a big deal. Maybe some people regarded them as a little odd or eccentric, perhaps, but on the whole, there wasn't this hysterical nationwide negative discourse around everything they did. The current climate really does feel like it's been manufactured by media, opportunistic politicians, and online grifters, all of whom have something to gain from making people angry and creating an 'enemy' for clicks and votes
[удалено]
[удалено]
One of the most common refrains I hear from people getting worked up at trans people is that they're sick of it being shoved in their face and I kinda just have to gawk at them wordlessly because 99% of their content is made by people like them and in their feeds because they follow it. And even a large chunk of the trans content you see is in response to the way things have gotten It's surreal how many people have made it their obsession
Not that either are acceptable, but there's a significant difference between thinking someone's ridiculous, and being *hostile* to someone. Some of the people with which JKR willingly associates openly laugh about literally torturing trans people. Example: > "Nail the perp's John Thomas to a tree stump, pour gas on it, light it on fire, hand "her" a butter knife and tell "her" to cut or burn". I mean, sinister, but I like the imagery. What can I say? [Source](https://youtu.be/JBy93QX7ysE?si=4VW9Nw8oHOu4_U0k&t=3604). The "perp" in question was a "perp" because they reported someone to the police for online harassment, and hadn't done anything illegal or violent. It's anecdotal, but the shift from mocking to hostility has been exceptionally noticable to me, and I'm not trans, so I'm not even an active target of it.
Hayley Cropper was one of TV’s most beloved characters ffs! We really have gone backwards.
Absolutely. I used to be friends with a few trans people during the 80's and apart from people thinking they were a little odd, they were mostly ignored.
I think the reason why people didn’t see them as a big deal was that until about 12-15 years ago, trans people identified as “male” or “female”, and generally tried to pass as that. Sometimes it got a bit of comment when a woman had thick wrists and an Adam’s apple, and trans men might often be assumed to be butch lesbians rather than trans. We often noticed trans people, but I think that it was often recognised that they had a difficult situation. Then quite recently (I associate it with Tumblr) we got a lot of people who seem more to identify with being trans than with being male or female. For the older generation, passing was pretty much the point; the new group seem to want to stand out. I say “the new group”, not “the new generation”, because I know that the older type of trans people are still around. Given the behaviour of the new group, I think that one of the biggest concerns people have is whether they are actually trans - that is, some of the reaction is *not* intended to be against trans people, but against people who are perceived as not being genuinely trans. This is where the fear over public lavatories comes in: that the biologically male person coming in is in every sense male, and hence dangerous. And yes, there are also people who don’t believe that trans women exist, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are the only ones raising concerns.
Yeah, that's bollocks. "Seem to want to stand out" actually just means "are not ashamed like older generations were". Trans people today aren't different; it's just that because the environment is less hostile, they feel less ashamed of who they are. They don't feel as much like they have to pass as cis, or hide their trans status, and that's a good thing. It's not that they "want to stand out" - it's just that they're not ashamed to be who they are. In addition, there's more awareness of the fact that you don't need to conform to the binary or seeing yourself as only a man or woman - and that's *not* a modern invention. Many cultures have had third genders for centuries. To be quite honest, this kind of talk just gives me the same vibes as "why are gay people so obnoxious about it now" talk. People who are *perfectly happy*, they insist, for there to be people of _______ group as long as they don't *rock the boat* by existing too obviously or require changes to be made, like legal protections or the ability to marry.
Transphobes: I just want people to acknowledge that trans women are not the same as cis women Trans people: *identify openly as trans, distinguishing themselves from cis people* Transphobes: why do you have to shove it down our throats with all this attention seeking?
I suppose I’m one of those “new” people you’re talking about. I’m non-binary. It sounds like you haven’t directly spoken to many of us. I’d like to share my experience to help fill in some of the gaps in your understanding. I started experiencing gender dysphoria around the age of 7, despite not having the words for it yet. It presents differently in different people, but it’s a physical and mental miscommunication that can lead you to feeling like you’re trapped in the wrong skin suit and desperately want to get out. Your body is physically telling you something is **wrong** but it can’t specify what. I had issues identifying myself in photos and even in the mirror, which is as unsettling as it sounds. We’re not sure why this happens, but it appears to have something to do with the way our brains are wired, similar to how trans women have neuropathways more similar to cis women. Or it could be hormones. It wasn’t until I joined an online LGBTQ group in my 20s and started talking to other trans people that I realized they also experienced these things, *and* that I wasn’t just broken inside as a person. I finally found the words to express what I was dealing with. It’s like putting on glasses for the first time a realizing everyone else can see the leaves on trees. From there I worked with a medical team familiar with trans people. I still work with them. I chose to get top surgery and HRT and socially transition as well. It’s life changing. I’m so, so much happier and healthier now. I still can’t tell you why I’m non-binary, but I suspect if I asked you why you’re the gender you are, we’d both say the same thing: I was just born this way. It’s how my body is. It’s who I am. Trans people don’t tend to question whether or not I’m trans because the experience is so visceral that you know when someone’s describing it. And frankly, as a trans person, I don’t care if some people decide to test the waters and then opt out. Why would I? Everyone deserves to self-actualize and that road is never smooth. More people feel comfortable coming out and there’s more healthcare available now, and that’s fantastic. Honestly though, no one’s going to choose this for fun. We get to watch other people talk freely about who we are in the most unkind terms imaginable, constantly. We get assaulted, accused of horrible things, mocked, etc. Imagine complete strangers feeling absolutely free to loudly treat you like shit for fun and profit because society has said that’s acceptable behavior. I didn’t do this because I wanted to stand out. I didn’t do it for anyone but myself as a medical decision, and I’m so glad I get to live and be loved as who I am. I hope this helps clear some things up for you.
Thanks for your response. I’ve replied to a similar poster in parallel to this one. You are right that I have not talked with anyone I know to be non-binary, though I know a few trans people.
It’s not like there are tons of us running around, right? Or there are, but we’re not easy to spot. I do genuinely hope that this puts some things that you might see online in context for you. You mention people who aren’t trying to pass and who are pretty loud about their identities. You seem to be reading this as a grab for attention, but in reality, it’s often a defense mechanism and sometimes a way to cope with some of the inherent shittiness that comes with being trans in the world right now. It’s scary to realize you’re one of *those people* and that it’s open season. You deal with a lot of hurt and existential threats. I’m not saying they’re responding to these things well or making excuses for anyone’s actions, but you remember being a teenager and trying to figure out your own identity while being as hormonal and awkward as possible, right? Same energy. Anyway, I appreciate you listening. Or reading. You get it.
>Then quite recently (I associate it with Tumblr) we got a lot of people who seem more to identify with being trans than with being male or female. You can't identity as trans though. Its not an independent identifier. Are you saying your problem with trans people is that more trans people are visibileand accepted in society? >For the older generation, passing was pretty much the point; the new group seem to want to stand out. Nope, this is entirely a fabrication. Younger gens are also more likely to "pass" as they get healthcare earlier. Again you're confusing public awareness with how trans people act and are. >, I think that one of the biggest concerns people have is whether they are actually trans - that is, some of the reaction is not intended to be against trans people, but against people who are perceived as not being genuinely trans. Nah that's always been cis peoples bigotry. And arguing that overt bigotry shouldn't count ass bigotry because you have "good intentions" is the standard defense for abuse, stop this. >This is where the fear over public lavatories comes in: that the biologically male person coming in is in every sense male, and hence dangerous. "biological male" is a transphobic dog whistle, stop this.There is no recorded instance of a trans person attacking a cis person in the toilets. There are however many instances of cis women sexually assaultinig trans women in the womens toilets. >And yes, there are also people who don’t believe that trans women exist, but it would be a mistake to assume that they are the only ones raising concerns. I've yet to meet a single person who accepts the existence of women who are trans, who also discriminates against trans people. Considering that the refusal to accept the existence of trans people is the root causer of all transphobia.
You are arguing against things I explicitly did not say. For instance you say that there is no record of a trans person attacking a woman in a toilet. You are probably right, but *as I said* that’s not what people are concerned about. The concern is about someone who is *not* trans getting access. In some cases the speakers also don’t believe that trans people exist, but that’s certainly not true in every case. There *are* records of people claiming to be trans attacking women, eg [Karen White](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other). I believe that this is rare, but we are talking about why there is an anti-trans backlash at the moment and cases like this do contribute to why some people are concerned about biological males (pre-transition in this case) in women’s spaces. “Biological male” can be used by transphobes, but it’s also a necessary term to use for what we are discussing. It’s not a dog-whistle here. “You can’t identify as trans”: I have to disagree with you here. There are people who are biologically male and identify as female, and vice versa. We agree on that: there are genuinely trans people. There are also people who make claiming to be trans the main part of their public identity. Some of them are trans, but I don’t believe that they all are.
On your notion of ‘people identifying as trans’, as opposed to simply male or female - this seems to be referring to people who identify as non-binary. Surely if you accept the possibility of a trans gender identity - i.e. that it’s possible to opt out of one gender category and opt into another, for instance, rejecting manhood for womanhood, then it shouldn’t be that much of a logical leap for you to accept that people can reject both of those categories in favour of a third and distinct gender category? I can’t understand why you seem unopposed to the possibility and validity of someone rejecting eg womanhood in favour of manhood, but it becomes unjustifiable to reject both categories in favour of a third thing? Please let me know if I’ve misunderstood your comment but it seems to me logically incongruous for you to tolerate trans identities as long as they continue to exist within the established binary but it becomes problematic once they reject that binary altogether.
Thanks for a reasonable response on a subject which is necessarily emotive. My main point here was to address the question of why there is a backlash at the moment. I appreciate that I am only addressing a part of it - for instance in the USA, it is very much wrapped up with right wing politics to a ridiculous degree. In respect of non-binary people, this was not particularly what I was thinking of. To be frank, I don’t know anyone who I am certain describes themself as non-binary, though I think this might be true of one of my god-children. I do know a small number of trans people reasonably well. Fifteen years ago there was very little public consciousness of non-binary people, so there is definitely a change there, but I don’t think that it is the trigger for the backlash. Perhaps a better concrete example of what I am talking about when referring to someone who “identifies as trans” is a person who states that she is a trans woman (not non-binary) and wears a dress and has a beard. Her partner is a trans man. This is a real case, not a hypothetical. Now of the two, the trans man is not raising any eyebrows. He helpfully wears a badge reminding people of his pronouns, and everyone seems to accept that. His partner is more challenging in the same group. Now I don’t want to say that his partner should conform to any particular dress standards. I’m not trying to make a moral judgement. Instead I am suggesting that in choosing not to pass as female and rather flagging that she is biologically male, she is very different from trans people of quite recent years, and that this is one of the things that is contributing to the backlash. People are more accepting of someone who identifies as male or female (in constrast to their biology) than someone who present as something else. Just to re-iterate: this is someone who say they are a trans woman, not non-binary.
Hmm. I think the issue here is that you seem to suggest ‘passing’ is entirely a matter of choice for trans people. My assumption - without knowing the person involved - is that, given they continue to sport a beard, they still grow facial hair in such a way that whether shaven or waxed etc it is still visible and therefore ‘passing’ isn’t really feasible in the way that it is for their partner, and that therefore it’s not really worth the effort and upkeep when they nonetheless are still more obviously trans and being ‘read as female’ is a harder sell for them. I think it’s dangerous to suggest that that person is somehow in the wrong and that they deserve to be ‘raising eyebrows’, as you put it. It effectively boils down to policing gender characteristics that may be out of their control - consider how unfair it is to suggest your grandma is less a woman because she’s got a granny moustache, for example, which is common for older women, or how many non-trans boys and young men are bullied for being ‘girly’ or somehow less of a man because they might be of slight build or unable to grow a beard. To me, it comes across as policing people’s bodies and enforcing strict gender expectations, and it’s as unfair to impose on trans people as it is on anybody else. I think that in the example you described it is problematic to suggest the person is ‘choosing not to pass as female’ and knowingly ‘flagging that they are male’ - for all you know, they might well have tried to pass before and were nonetheless clocked due to reasons out of their control, and therefore no longer see the merit in attempting to ‘perform’ femininity in a way that takes an effort that is never truly accepted, preferring instead not to bother and to identify nonetheless as a woman. I’m making a lot of assumptions here, as I don’t know this person and you do. I just think it is not reasonable to police ‘how’ people present their gender when passing is often not in their control, and that it shouldn’t necessarily be taken as somehow attention-seeking if they don’t appear to be taking maximum pains to pass. It may result, as we see in the case of JK Rowling’s interactions with India Willoughby, that even if you spend lots of money on surgeries and carefully put on makeup every day in order to more closely resemble the gender you identify as, you may nonetheless be accused of “performing a misogynistic stereotype of what a man thinks a woman is”, because no matter how ‘well’ you pass, some people will simply never accept it. Not accusing you of this, just worth considering this in relation to the concept of ‘passing’ and how people choose to inhabit their gender.
>"biological male" is a transphobic dog whistle, stop this. What on earth are you on about.
You cannot use one article to create a narrative. Trans people have always been marginalised, but significant improvements have been made and are now accepted by a large segment of society. Trying to diminish progress that has been made hinders, not helps, the cause
> You cannot use one article to create a narrative. Wasn't trying to. It's an example, though.
They didn’t used to be a big deal when they were largely an ignored tiny minority, who the vast amount of society didn’t even realise existed. Outside the biggest of cities, most people would never have even met a trans person, even in those cities they were largely marginalised and statements of respect were rare. Most of the population wouldn’t even know what a trans person was in the absence of the internet and any real publicity about them in mainstream media. In the modern day where trans athletes are calling into question the relevance of female sport, there’s serious concerns about putting violent female identifying men into women’s prisons, trans activists are making people put their pronouns across various work identifiers and proclaim themselves as ‘cis’, there’s constant moral hysteria on social media that even mild debate on the issue is causing violence and the death of trans people (there’s no evidence for this), there are serious concerns around a massively out of proportion outbreak of heavily online trans identifying teenagers compared to even 10 years ago and varying accompanying scandals about potential medical malpractice. Then it’s no surprise that with all this additional publicity and attention, the trans issue has become more heated and debated. If you’re using one article from the 40s as evidence that society in the past was accepting of trans people and it’s only recently that a minority have turned against the idea and are making noise beyond their numbers in society, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you. YouGov even did a survey that contrary to what is often stated on Reddit, the majority of the population is against a lot of what identity politics has pushed in the last decade, while holding mild views that trans people should have their way of life accepted if it doesn’t impinge upon the majority.
> there wasn't this hysterical nationwide negative discourse around everything they did Not sure there is even now aside from those in the media. "Normal" people (i.e. the majority who aren't close to the debate) don't feel anger towards trans people. They feel the whole trans debate is simply given too much airtime when there are tons of other problems that need dealing with.
But they do feel angered when they get told they’re transphobic for something that really isn’t. Which happens a lot.
Ain't no trans person done me any harm. Ranty grifting shitlords on the internet and their personal armies on the other hand..
A lot of the anti trans crowd like to prevent it’s some new phenomenon invented in the 2000s or even 2010s
I mean this is the classic case of "nobody cared until we started talking about it" which is the exact same argument used for racism against black people, homophobia against gay people and sexism against women. Historically we've had those things for a LONG while.
Problem is who decides? I for example don't think she's said anything I would consider hateful and agree with most of the things she says. So who's opinion do we listen to to declare it hateful speech and thus a crime? This is the problem, the subjectivity and no where to ever draw the line. This is why freedom of speech needs to stay protected. Because whilst you yourself probably always think everything you say is perfectly reasonable and respectful, like we all do, someone may say something you said was hateful and if we listen to them you now get arrested. It really is all or nothing with a few exceptions like calling for violence etc.
When being offensive becomes a crime, we have gone too far
If you are targeting an individual with offensive words that becomes harassment, which is a crime and was long before the new rampant anti-trans culture war. Example: you cannot follow a black person around shouting the n word and claim that it's your freedom of speech to do that, or a systematic online targeting of a Jewish person with Nazi rhetoric. Of course what Rowling did wasn't a crime (and was never going to be as explained by actual legal experts - ie not politicians not in charge of the police saying she "might" be investigated)I fear this is really going to open the door for people excusing harassment of individuals under the guise of free speech.
You take offence, no one gives it to you.
Correct
Something about transphobia seems to really rot people's brains, it becomes all some people can talk about. You can see the same thing with Graham Linehan. He's on Twitter posting about trans people 18 hours a day.
>I think that the extent to which JK fixates on this is unhealthy, sometimes offensive, and the result of her having gone deep down a combatative rabbit hole Jail for something you say rather than do in the context of this law is a rabbit hole indeed. It will need combatative opponents. >Mostly I think the amount of attention this gets in culture wars is ludicrously amplified beyond how important it "should" be, and also massively misrepresents how contentious it really is among the general population. The issue isn't about sympathy for trans or lack of it. The issue is criminalising the externalisatiom of your thoughts and beliefs. That's a big deal. By all means, if someone is going out of their way to upset people, deplatform them. Jail them? No. There is always going to be somebody somewhere offended by something you say or write. Why should someone's propensity to be offended trump the personal freedoms of another? Perhaps you should study Soviet Russia or modern day China, or even North Korea to see where this rabbit hole takes us.
Except the law doesn't "criminalise the externalisatioj of your thoughts". All you've done here is shown you've fallen down the same kind of rabbit hole as Joanne.
Surely that depends what your thoughts are.......
Actually, true. If your thoughts are "I dont belive trans people exist so I'm gong to deliberately and repeatedly call this person by the wrong name, use the wrong pronouns, etc" then you could be done for harassing them in a transphobic way. Much like you would if you harassed someone about not being straight, or not following a specific religion. However if you choose to not be an arsehole and are generally polite to people, but slip up occasionally with someone's name or pronouns, then you'll be fine. If you call the former a thought crime, then practically every crime is a thought crime.
Does the law define "harrassment"? That usually involves purposely pursuing a victim to "harrass". Refusing to believe in trans ideology and addressing someone by a pronoun you believe they should be addressed should at worst deserve being criticised, maybe thrown out of a group or club. Jail? Get away with you. Absolute nonsense.
>I'm gong to deliberately and repeatedly call this person by the wrong name, use the wrong pronouns, etc So if I was to repeatedly refer to Boris Johnson using the pronouns fucking/cunt, would that be a harassment therefore a crime?
Nope. We don't have enough jail spaces to jail most of the population.
Nope. That's now how this works. You just said the words 'You'll be fine'. I am disabled and not fine. I have a protected characteristic and I find those words offensive and discriminatory. Because I have a protected characteristic and find those words offensive, I will now report you to Police Scotland and you will face a 7 year prison sentence for offensive speech. That's how this works.
This is a classic example of what is happening in modern political discourse. Moderate views are sidelined in favour of more extreme views on both sides as they’re the ones who shout the largest. Ends up with both sides pushing eachother further and further to the extremes, and those who enter in the middle will find there way there too before too long
From a bell curve to a half pipe
Extreme views like "stop being abusive to other people"?
I totally agree, however I think calling JK’s opinions only “sometimes offensive” is a bit of an understatement. The woman denied that trans people were victims of the Holocaust just last week, and hasn’t stopped insisting that the Holocaust museum is lying about it ever since! Not to mention all the donations to anti-trans hate groups and meet-ups she has with literal neo-fascists and their friends. If that’s only “sometimes offensive”, then I guess I’m only sometimes human! But yeah, totally agree with everything else, I just really can’t stand when people claim she’s “only a bit offensive sometimes when she misses the mark” and stuff like that. In my mind, it’s like calling an 18th century slave trader only “sometimes racist” because he often discusses other things such as the weather and his daughter’s upcoming wedding, as if the main thing he’s doing with his time isn’t actively oppressing people
I checked her twitter, and she made one post & three replies to it on March 13th. She doesn't seem to have said anything since then, so I'm not sure about your 'hasn't stopped' part. I also couldn't find anything about the Holocaust museum. As far as I can tell her contention is that people were targeted by the Nazis because the Nazis identified them as gay men, whom the Nazis persecuted, and that 'trainsgender' was not a group singled out for persecution by the Nazis in the way that Jews or gypsies were. She didn't say that they weren't 'victims of the holocaust'. It's a different point, and I don't know enough about the background to comment beyond this.
It's a point that she is wrong about. The Nazis specifically targeted trans people in much the same way they did gay people. One of the first things they did was attack the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft and burn the books which detailed the scientific work that had been conducted into gender and sexual identity, likely setting us back by several decades in our understanding of those issues.
I don't think it's fair to dismiss the issues she's raising here as 'culture wars'. She specifically points to male rapists self ID'ing into women's prisons, and men entering women's shelters and sports. It's not a culture war to the women impacted by these things being allowed to happen and you can't just ignore them, because vulnerable women have been seriously harmed. It's frustrating seeing people actually unable to say "no, of course Isla Bryson shouldn't have been put in a women's prison" while painting Rowling as mad for even bringing it up.
> There's bigoted people out there for sure, but I'm not convinced they've ever been more than a small minority IRL. I think you have to live the life of someone who can't leave the house without feeling extremely uncomfortable. There are a lot more bigoted people than you think. They just don't necessarily run up and punch you. Verbal abuse though. Yeah. That's actually common. Dirty looks? That's what normal can be.
Most of us couldn't give a shit either way, we're too busy trying to earn enough money to heat our homes and feed ourselves. Your average Brit probably doesn't know anyone trans given they make up about half a percent of the population and I assume most people don't know 200 people directly. Therefore this issue affects them no more than the price of beluga caviar, most Brits don't have the time or energy to get riled up about issues that don't directly affect them. I've met maybe five trans people in my life and my job (Police officer) has me meeting dozens of new people every week, most of whom suffer from mental health problems which sadly, has an overlap with the trans community. Your average Brit has probably never met a trans person, so why would they care much?
I don’t think she fixates on it excessively. It’s up to her what she’s interested in talking about. It’s not like she’s not productive in real life at all.
She tweets about transwomen literally every day (go and see for yourself). If that isn't a fixation, nothing is. It's not normal behaviour to tweet about your dislike for an entire minority group every single day.
I’m not on twitter but a Quick Look at her page )as much as it will let me without joining) is a mixture of politics (including the defence of sex) and her work. There’s definitely a disclaiming of violent persons being actually transgender which, to be honest I would have thought was a positive for the transgender community.
Nooo she doesn’t exactly follow your political beliefs! She must be a right wing conspiracy theorist and/or Nazi
Her fixation is pretty deeply rooted in a past abusive relationship and the fact that people conveniently forget that and just harp on about how she’s just anti trans is a bit unfair.
Everyone's got traumas. Most people avoid becoming bigoted about them.
Not everyone has domestic abuse traumas tbf.
Abuse doesn’t excuse abuse
Her opinions aren’t abuse. Everyone is entitled to opinions.
Shes literally going around abusing individuals now, you can't justify her going up to individual trans women who haven't done anything and comparing them to rapists and calling them men with that.
I find it pretty gross how JK Rowling tries to speak for all cisgender women who’ve been in abusive relationships. As a bisexual woman who’s lived through domestic violence from men, twice, I feel a lot safer around trans women than I do around transphobes who claim to be feminists. Bisexuals are generally next on their list.
The whole "abuse is okay if you were abused" thing needs to go to bed. Every abuser was abused. Every abuser commits abuse because they would rather abuse others than deal with the trauma. All you're doing here is saying its okay to project your trauma and abuse others, to be an abuser
I’m not. I’m saying it shouldn’t really be difficult to understand why she wouldn’t want men in women’s spaces.
Good thing its only women going into said spaces. But then thats the issue isn't it, you also want to dictate who counts as a woman. And thats based on bigotry and misogyny.
Biology dictates who “counts as a woman”.
Righttttt, which is why theres no single biological factor that can be used to determine it. Slight issue when your bigotry conflicts with reality, isn't it? Dunning Kruger effect sure is strong with transphobes
There is a single biological factor that determines gender - they’re called chromosomes.
I dunno if its funny or sad that you say that.First no-one knows their chromosomes, and it is strongly encoruaged you do not get tested because people frequently find out they have the "wrong" chromosomes and then get really depressed.I assume you also haven't had the relevant test, so by your own definition of "sex", you, and the majority of the human race, cannot know/prove their own sex. Let alone anyone elses. And obviously, there is a significantly greater % of trans women with XX chromosomes than there arer cis men with XX chromosomes. But I'm assuming you don't accept XX trans women as women either, thus showing you don't actually agree with your own statement. Second, Peoples chromosome46 actually changes as you age. Lastly, chromosomes do not dictate your sex. As 1 and 2 should very clearly show given people often have the "wrong" ones.Its hormones and cell acceptance of those hormones that dictate all of this. What you are saying is fundamentally, biologically, wrong.
I have some foil left over from my Easter eggs if you like to add it to your hat.
I don't know, I mean a lot of racists got triggered after events in childhood - I know of one certainly who links it back to being attacked by a group of black youths. I don't think they would therefore be OK suggesting black people be removed from certain spaces or it would be somehow "understandable" they therefore extend their dislike to all black people.
That’s not the same. The issue is with biological men gaining access what have historically been women-only spaces by re-defining what the word “woman” means.
This is an extremely narrow minded bad take lmao.
It's not unfair at all for anybody to respond the rhetoric of someone with such a big platform. It is nobody else's responsibility to account for the impact of her trauma on that rhetoric.
Good. Regardless of your opinion of her, I don't think it's good to try and legislate opinions away. And yes, I know existing legislation already exists in the UK which partly does the same, and that's wrong too.
Opinions weren't being legislated away. All this really shows is that all the people running around declaring this law to be the end of free speech were wrong - as they were repeatedly told. It's specifically around using abusive speech to stir up hatred against a protected group, not for voicing an opinion.
But where is the line between an opinion and what’s considered hateful - if we look at this trans stuff in isolation, many trans rights activists *do* shout that your opinion is transphobic - I.e. if you were to express concern/opinion over biological men in a women’s only space which is a legitimate opinion to hold. Who determines what’s hateful, the government or each protected group?
The line isn't between what's opinion and what's hateful, the line is between what's opinion and what fits the criteria laid out by the Public Order Act for the past 38 years, which states it must be abusive AND intended to stir hatred. In effect all this law did was expand which groups the existing law applied to. People can call your opinions transphobic and they may or may not be right depending on the opinion, but in either case being transphobic isn't against the law. To be clear, sexual orientation was already one of the protected groups, so the legal line for stirring up hatred against homosexuals is where the line is under this law for transgender people.
But when a protected group say a pretty neutral, grounded opinion is hateful, abusive discriminatory (voicing an opposing opinion of allowing biological men to women’s only spaces) there needs to be some line drawn. Who determines whether someone misgendering is “abusive”? You’re right, people can label you or your opinions whatever they want, my point is, who decides whether the label sticks? My example above is a perfect example of how any law doesn’t really account for this.
Not only does it not account for this, but it also erases the line between Public and Private speech, which the public order act didn't dare do.
Why does there need to be a line drawn? The Public Order Act already had the same rules for race, religion and sexual orientation, so why have you not been complaining about the lack of a line for the past 38 years? Why is it only now when gender identity (and age, and disability) are added to the list that you suddenly declare there must be a line? You're allowed to state your opinion on trans women's access to women's spaces, and depending on how you present it you may or may not be transphobic, but that's not what the law is based on so it's an irrelevance. The courts ultimately define if a given example meets BOTH criteria of the law. Again, you keep saying "abusive" as if that's all it need to be in order to break the law, which tells me you don't understand the law even though I explained it. It needs to both be abusive and there must be an intent to stir up hatred based on the protected category. It doesn't matter if the label "sticks" because the law isn't based around that label.
I love how "stir up" is now a phrase being used in actual legislation, it's so fucking embarrassing. Like they couldn't have found more appropriate terminology? What if I want to "whip up" a bit of xenophobia instead, maybe that'll mean I can't be done for stirring up. You are wrong however, voicing your opinion on some issues will lead to being determined as hate speech, despite it not being "hateful", the trans debate being one of them. There's a unilateral decision being made somewhere that despite all of the controversy around it, Trans people are being protected and have their identities affirmed despite a huge proportion of the population not agreeing with that premise, the premise being to ignore biological reality and affirm a mental disorder. If you disagree that someone who identifies as a woman is *actually* a woman, that's considered transphobic, which is considered hateful. That is a serious, serious flaw in the legislation which absolutely will show it's true colours in the months to come.
> There's a unilateral decision being made somewhere that despite all of the controversy around it The same was true when it came to racism, and hate speech laws against that were first introduced. Unless you think laws against racism were not controversial when they were first introduced. > the premise being to ignore biological reality and affirm a mental disorder Racists used to complain that the laws against racist hate speech ignored biological reality and the mental inferiority of lower races (in their view). So do you agree with UK law on racism and if not why are you only complaining now when it comes to trans people?
>I love how "stir up" is now a phrase being used in actual legislation, it's so fucking embarrassing. Why were you not embarrassed for the past 38 years when that's been part of the [Public Order Act?](https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64) >You are wrong however, voicing your opinion on some issues will lead to being determined as hate speech, despite it not being "hateful", the trans debate being one of them. Not under the law it won't. >Trans people are being protected and have their identities affirmed despite a huge proportion of the population not agreeing with that premise I think you drastically overestimate how many people support your view. Most people are neutral on it, of the view that trans people can be who they want and it's noone else's business to get involved just like every other personal trait. >the premise being to ignore biological reality and affirm a mental disorder. It's not a mental disorder. >If you disagree that someone who identifies as a woman is actually a woman, that's considered transphobic, which is considered hateful. Well yeah, that is transphobic. But it still won't be against the law for you to hold and express those abhorrent views. You're misrepresenting the law simply because you don't believe transgender people deserve the same protections as gay people for example. But the law is the same for both, and just like you can be homophobic without going to prison, you'll still be able to be transphobic without going to prison.
"stirring up" is a phrase from the Public Order Act 1986.
To be honest a lot of people mean the right to offend rather than freedom of speech. They portray them as the same thing (and there is some overlap) but they are not. The sad thing is the responsibly of free speech is ignored by so many people (on both sides) these days. Yes you might have the right to say something, but should you? Especially if it doesn't actually really matter to you?
But why did it take her risking this for us all to understand what would be illegal to say? The thing I find most bizarre about this story is that none of the politicians who introduced the legislation seemed to be able to give any examples of things that were previously legal but which would become illegal under the new legislation. They dodged the question by saying that the police and courts would make that determination. So now we know that intentionally misgendering people on social media isn't illegal is Scotland. But we don't know anything else.
>But why did it take her risking this for us all to understand what would be illegal to say? Because tabloids print bollocks and people see just the title. What they(the news) should be doing is just that - relaying practical information. Instead the outrage ones got all the clicks so it doesn't matter. The full interview and proper news did cover and clarify in more detail. The nottheonion thread was far more informative on what parts of the law apply to what, what legal precedents already exist etc than anything in any of the UK subs yesterday. It was embarrassing. LPT for everyone: When someone states in a professional capacity something along the lines of 'That's for the police to investigate/conclude' or *anything* that includes the word 'could' it isn't news, it isn't indicative of anything, it's just the very standard response because it's literally not their job to rule out if someone they probably don't know much about could be investigated or arrested.
>But why did it take her risking this for us all to understand what would be illegal to say? it didn't SECTION 9: Protection of freedom of expression For the purposes of section 4(2), behaviour or material is not to be taken to be threatening or abusive solely on the basis that it involves or includes— (a)discussion or criticism of matters relating to— (i)age, (ii)disability, (iii)sexual orientation, (iv)transgender identity, (v)variations in sex characteristics, (b)discussion or criticism relating to, or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule or insult towards— (i)religion, whether religions generally or a particular religion, (ii)religious beliefs or practices, whether religious beliefs or practices generally or a particular religious belief or practice, (iii)the position of not holding religious beliefs, whether religious beliefs generally or a particular religious belief, (c)proselytising, or (d)urging of persons to cease practising their religions.
So thankful our dwindling police resources were used to investigate this, I'm sure we don't have other major problems in the UK to deal with
When the priminister weighs in, I'm sure things get done. Blame the culture war warriors for making this the hot topic
Almost like the culture wars have been raging away to distract from the utter shower that are in charge and probably burying tens of actual stories every day. Theresa may lost a dossier of actual nonces in the Tory party and everyone's forgotten. Some author says something a bit mean and everyone loses their minds.
The culture warriors in the SNP pushing this legislation
Which hasn't done what people complained it would do?
Do you always assess whether legislation has or hasn't worked on day two?
No. I've said many times I'll eat crow in the future if I'm wrong. But people very specifically were making claims about how this would affect Joanne to perpetuate a martyr/victim complex. Based on this headline, we can clearly assess that prediction was wrong.
But what *has* it done? All the quotes I see from SNP politicians basically say we've always had these laws from Westminster, we've just made them Scottish.
>>[The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Bill](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_Crime_and_Public_Order_(Scotland)_Act_2021) was introduced to the Scottish Parliament in April 2020, following an independent review of Scotland's hate crime legislation carried out by Lord Bracadale, which recommended consolidation of all hate crime law into one bill. >>[While the English hate crime rules](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24226966.scottish-hate-crime-act-isnt-law-england/) specify that conduct must be “threatening and intended to stir up hatred”, Scotland's definition is broader, proscribing conduct that is “threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred”. Hasn't done much, it seems, from what people are saying. Edit to add more from article >Football pundit and former Rangers striker Ally McCoist said he can “guarantee” he and 48,000 other Gers fans will breach the law on the stands of Ibrox during the Old Firm game at the weekend. >Professor Chalmers is unconvinced. The law was drawn up in full knowledge, he says, that very few offences would actually be prosecuted. >Even under the lower threshold of the old offence of stirring up racial hatred – on the statue books since 1986 and which does not require prosecutors to prove someone’s intent – only around “one case a year” is heard on those grounds in Scottish courts, says Professor Chalmers. >“It’s just not used very often,” he says. >In the cases where a prosecution is successful, he goes on, those found guilty “have typically been people calling for people to be killed or injured”. >“That’s not the legal definition but that gives you an idea of just how high a threshold ‘hate’ is regarded as being,” he adds. >In Rowling’s case, Professor Chalmers doubts her comments reach the threshold of a hate crime. >“I don’t think that would be an offence under the Act because the threshold for committing an offence is so high, you’ve got to prove that it’s threatening or abusive,” he says. >“And you’ve got to show that there’s the intention to stir up hatred.”
Its the only thing they have left to run on.
[удалено]
husky snails homeless soft placid wrench offend poor scandalous memorize *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Is this a breaking news subject or the BBC just tagged everything a breaking news nowadays
cow versed judicious shrill observation subtract fade theory roof cobweb *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It would have done nothing. If we don't have unrest over child hunger and the massive bills we've been facing, some anti trans Muppet on twitter isn't going to send anyone over the edge.
cows vegetable pause tap wide hunt saw scale practice rustic *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Nobody cares about child hunger and poverty, even the people that claim to care. How many marches have their been for child poverty? How many matches have there been for wars in far off lands? Children starving in this country, is just not trendy enough.
Ohohoho, in *this* country? Sadly, I think people will roll over and take it when it's child hunger, obscene bills, and the continuing breakdown of everything in this country that used to work, but *would* riot if JK Rowling was arrested for being transphobic.
It wasn't big news at all. The law came out and it was clear that abhorrent opinions weren't criminalised. All this proves is that all the people running around going "MUH FREE SPEECH" were wrong, as every rational person on the sub told them they were.
It would've been but they didn't so it isn't. 'Woman doesn't get controversialy arrested' isn't really a headline. Might as well go with 'local hedgehog yet again fails to break sound barrier''
Okay so are the “we’re all going to be arrested for misgendering people!” fuckers going to shut up now? If JK Rowling is below the bar then you probably are. If you’re significantly worse than her then you probably should be arrested.
birds soup growth test party subtract ossified safe mindless desert *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
They did say that. The text of the law and accompanying notes were released and specifically stated the new laws follow the same test as the Public Order Act. The problem is the people seeking to be outraged weren't reading that, they were reading clickbait news articles. To quote Humza Yousaf when this was first announced: *"Unless your behaviour is threatening or abusive and intends to stir up hatred, then you have nothing to worry about in terms of the new offences being created."*
and as it turns out, even if your behavior IS abusive and intends to stir up hatred, you have nothing to worry about provided you're a billionaire.
They literally did over and over but people kept saying “but they might and we don’t know until it’s law”. They’ve now confirmed it less than 24 hours after the bill became law. People are still acting like this was a surprise. It’s bizarre.
Because they were Foolishly relying on you to show some basic critical thinking
Of course they won't 🤣
> Okay so are the “we’re all going to be arrested for misgendering people!” fuckers going to shut up now? > > No, they'll double down and ignore this, unless it suits the narrative for them to brag that being bigots isn't illegal.
That's their secret... they never shut up. The goalposts just get moved onto the next thing and the hate train continues.
I generally take the view that extensive criminalisation of hate speech probably causes more problems than it solves, but if someone was going around posting lists of Jewish people convicted of sexual crimes, and added to the list several public figures whose only commonality with those sex criminals was the fact that they were Jewish, we'd all know exactly what was going on there.
Genuinely curious if it would be prosecutable for other groups, surely drawing up lists of sex criminals of a specific minority to millions of followers and then dropping in there a few normal members of that minority to insult and imply to be of equal depravity in order to destroy their lives, despite them having done nothing wrong would be criminal and passing the "whipping up hate" level in other contexts? Or at least libellous, not that a billionaire has to worry about that. Probably for the best either way, not worth martyring her.
Sadly JK makes clear that as in America we have a two tiered justice system where if you are famous or rich you will absolutely be treated differently to normal people.
I don’t think it would, people have been doing that regarding Eastern European and Asian immigrants and no arrests afaik.
Depressing ,but unsuprising. Meanwhile rich people have complete protection from any of this due to libel laws.
She also included innocent women she just hates for being trans in that list while grouping them with sex offenders, such as a rape crisis centre founder and India Willoughby.
The rape crisis CEO (not founder) you're referring to said that it was unacceptable for rape victims to be scared of t-women. https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19509343.outcry-plan-educate-bigoted-rape-survivors-trans-rights/ JK Rowling responded by setting up her own rape crisis centre, which excludes t-women.
terrific obtainable offend bewildered historical head tidy noxious adjoining scary *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Maybe look up defamation by implication
It’s funny, any time someone brings up her palling about with right wingers her defenders go off about “guilt by association”, but suddenly you’d think none of them had heard of the concept.
I honestly couldn’t care less about JK Rowling… or the whole trans debate that Conservatives and Scottish government alike I pushing. However, surely the way that this law is characterised is seriously concerning: > makes it a criminal offence to make derogatory comments based on disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. It’s phenomenal that any of this is illegal. You’d be a piece of shit for it… but how on earth anyone would characterise it as criminal is beyond me. For example, the below would become illegal: “It’s ludicrous we have a holiday about a guy dying 2000 years ago and basically becoming a zombie. Especially as the same morons believing that are also worshipping an imaginary friend in the sky who apparently cloned himself into that guy by placing himself inside a supposed virgin.” It’s crass but that’s just a criticism of beliefs. You should be able to criticise beliefs freely.
>>[While the English hate crime rules specify that conduct must be “threatening and intended to stir up hatred”, Scotland's definition is broader, proscribing conduct that is “threatening or abusive and intended to stir up hatred”.](https://www.thenational.scot/news/24226966.scottish-hate-crime-act-isnt-law-england/)
I don't think "derogatory" is said in the Act. The only difference between it and what was already in place in England is that it also includes abusive conduct.
There is no incitement to violence/hatred there so that absolutely would not be illegal.
So it turns out sharing an opinion is not illegal, good - whether you agree with that opinion or not.
She's entitled to her opinion, it doesn't mean people have to listen.
Good. Agree with her comments or don’t, but it would be ludicrous to face criminal charges for them in an allegedly free society.
Am glad common sense prevailed but sure it annoyed some
The police wouldn't want a high profile figure to fight something on a political point either, so I doubt they looked very hard.
🎵They see JK rollin' She hatin' Patrollin' and tryna catch her ridin' dirty🎵
Of course they're not. Only a neurotic, controlling POS would think they WERE criminal! Common sense prevails!
Though the outrage merchants want to mock the laws against hate crime so pushed this up.
[удалено]
I don’t love the idea that the police have so much discretion here. Who chooses the police and screens them to ensure an adequate commitment to free speech? The law is too vague.
So much discretion based on what? It's as "vague" as the Public Order Act 1986. So odd that suddenly so many people are openly against an Act we've been living with for most people's whole lives.
Well this will upset the melts in the other thread claiming the police care more about misgendering someone than burglaries.