JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law
JK Rowling in ‘arrest me’ challenge over Scottish hate crime law
The Harry Potter author described several transgender women as men in a series of social media posts.
JK Rowling has challenged Scotland's new hate crime law in a series of social media posts - inviting police to arrest her if they believe she has committed an offence.
The Harry Potter author, who lives in Edinburgh, described several transgender women as men, including convicted prisoners, trans activists and other public figures.
She said "freedom of speech and belief" was at an end if accurate description of biological sex was outlawed.
Earlier, Scotland's first minister Humza Yousaf said the new law would deal with a "rising tide of hatred".
The Hate Crime and Public Order (Scotland) Act 2021 creates a new crime of "stirring up hatred" relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex.
…
Ms Rowling, who has long been a critic of some trans activism, posted on X on the day the new legislation came into force.
You're viewing a single thread.
I used to not really like JKR for reasons like these: https://stallman.org/harry-potter.html
I am not completely sure where I stand on her substantive opinions in relation to trans issues. I think it's a debate where both sides make some good points.
But she is definitely right about the decline of free speech.
In the nicest possible way, what do you mean by "both sides" in this context? One side says that trans people either don't or shouldn't exist and the other side says they should exist. I know that may sound extreme or combative but that's fundamentally "the debate" so I genuinely want to understand how you reached this "both sides have merit" stance that some people close to me also take but I've never understood.
The only merit that I can see is that some people feel that gender should be nothing more than a description of biological or, at least, physiological sex.
It confuses me to no end that my very girly oldest child identifies male, especially since hearing them talk about it, it seems more a rejection of being seen as a sexual object than any desire to be a man.
If my kid wants to identify male while being born a girl and being super into makeup, dresses, and sparkle, and that helps them deal with their sexual abuse, more power to them. Even if it breaks my old person brain a little.
Nothing excuses hating someone or being angry because they disagree with you about the definition of gender. I mean, if a woman assaults another female person, the punishment should be the same, right? It's not like men can't go into women's bathrooms anyways if their mind is set on it.
Yeah then you start debating the merits of hate crime as a concept and I am not even slightly equipped to deal with that!
I had similar queries around "biological sex" vs gender a while ago and my understanding now is that biological sex is surprisingly hard to define. You can't go by genitalia because sometimes a person creates the "wrong" ones. You can't go by chromosomes because again, sometimes they're different. And you can't go by other physical traits (Adams apple for example) because again sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not, completely unrelated to sex. You can sort of go by hormones but not really (just look at professional sport) so it's all a bit of a mess. It's way easier for me to just accept there's a spectrum and move on, because to me it's way harder to actually define where the line is than to just dismiss the line entirely.
Exceptions don't disprove the rule. I specialized in genetics twenty plus years ago, so most of the stuff people are finding out via the internet is something I've known for a long time.
Of course there's a spectrum, but it's dumbbell shaped. Just getting a bit thicker about the middle, like most of us.
It confuses me to no end that my very girly oldest child identifies male, especially since hearing them talk about it, it seems more a rejection of being seen as a sexual object than any desire to be a man.
Even psychiatrists don't psychoanalyze their own children.
Maybe instead of hearing your child talk about it, talk to your child about it. Children aren't clay that you stick in a you-shaped mold and expect them to come out no different from you.
Maybe your "very girly" oldest child identifies as male because that's what they consider themselves to be and your definition of "very girly" isn't the same as theirs.
Do you self-identify as male? Do you wear any colors other than grey? Congratulations, you're "very girly" according to the first half of the 20th century.
What makes you think I haven't done such an obvious thing as to talk with my kid about it?
Good grief.
Put down the pitchfork.
Because you said "it seems" which suggests you are guessing but don't actually know.
And also because you think your own biased view of what is "very girly" has something to do with your child's gender identity.
So maybe you have talked to them about it, I don't know, but it doesn't sound like you listened.
I mean this alone-
Even if it breaks my old person brain a little.
It should no more break your old person brain any more than it should finding out your child is not heterosexual. If it is breaking your brain, you need to check your prejudices.
I'm glad your wouldn't do anything about a child's self-defined gender, but you still need to look at what you're saying and how you're judging.
Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it? Either that, or you're just a bit histrionic. Either way, trying to attack me and call me prejudiced when you've judged me with very little logic or basic understanding is pretty rich.
Move on, cowboy. You can't shame or intimidate me when you grasp so little about my situation. Bullying is not the way to get people to re-examine themselves, even if it is their best path forward.
I don't think this is an accurate description of the debate.
My understanding of the "TERF" position is that they say that if it is excessively easy to declare oneself as trans, this can be misused by men wanting to get access to spaces reserved for women. Whether one agrees with that point or not, I do not think it is completely illegitimate.
I usually don't say anything about this topic at all on the Internet and I am right now reminded of why. I am already starting to regret stating even my relative neutrality on it.
None of JK's posts on the subject has suggested that she is only concerned with how easy it is to declare oneself trans. She has openly posted numerous times about how all tranwomen are predators who are just trying to gain access to changing rooms and bathrooms to prey on women and children. I don't see how there's any validity in that debate.
I do not think it is completely illegitimate.
Apart from there being virtually no examples.
Unless you take the bigots at their word when they make that claim about someone, obviously.
Without the context of your understanding of the debate as you've outlined here we can only guess what you meant by "the debate" in your previous comment so thanks for taking the time to describe it. I absolutely agree that there needs be great care around the legitimacy of when someone declaring their gender should be taken seriously or not in some limited and extreme circumstances (prisons spring to mind). I think your characterisation of the terf argument if you speak to normal people is about accurate from my limited experience. The media and some outspoken terfs like JK are on the more extreme side of that where they say that it is already "too easy" to legitimately change their gender. Which is where I fundamentally disagree with them since I know the hoops some of my friends have had to jump through to even get the smallest amount of help from health providers.
(I'm using "legitimate" above as a sort of catch all for legal or what the person genuinely feels. I don't think legal and legitimate are the same thing in this context, hence the distinction.)
you can have my neutrality upvote for all its worth
The post you posted clearly shows.that she is on the side that CAUSES the decline in free speech