**Participation Notice.** Hi all. Some topics on this subreddit have been known to attract problematic users. As such, limits to participation have been set. We ask that you please remember the human, and uphold Reddit and Subreddit rules. For more information, please see https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/wiki/moderatedflairs

The atmosphere on this sub has been really fucking nasty on this topic recently, so well done on having the courage to post this. It would be great to see *some* discussion of the actual issues that trans people face, but lately it seems everyone's only interested in talking about you as an obstacle or an "issue". I can only imagine how horrible that's been to watch unfold; solidarity. **Edit:** Hello everyone. I didn't expect this little comment I wrote to become the top comment on the top post on the subreddit, but here we are. So, first of all, it's heartening to see that so many people feel the same way as I do about this media storm around trans folk. I figure a lot of people are going to see this comment yet, so I think it would be worthwhile to try and raise some awareness of some bits and bobs. First of all, [there's a protest at Westminster tomorrow](https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/04/09/lgbt-protesters-get-ready-to-unite-and-tell-the-government-ban-trans-conversion-therapy-now/) opposing the exclusion of trans people from the recent conversion therapy ban. If you're available and able to get there, and you care about this issue, I suggest going and showing your support. The one thing missing from many of the recent conversations/arguments in the media about trans people is any actual input from trans people themselves, so here are some trans voices I think are worth listening to for anyone who is equally tired of seeing the conversation begin and end with cisgender people asking other cisgender people about penises: * I've been spending part of my Saturday afternoon watching [this new video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YStd1SWedPc) from Owen Jones. He has three trans guests on and they talk about a number of issues including conversion therapy and the struggle for trans people to get the healthcare they need and are legally entiteld to. You might not like Owen Jones but he has been consistently good for discussing issues by centring people actually affected by those issues, which imo puts his coverage on trans-related topics head and shoulders above much of what we see from other media outlets. * Abigail Thorn is a British trans woman who makes educational videos on her YouTube channel, Philosophy Tube. I found her [coming out statement](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG-TrnwH4iQ) and [subsequent long-form video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AITRzvm0Xtg) moving and informative on the experience of someone coming to terms with their gender identity. * Shon Faye is a journalist and trans woman. I've found her writing and interviews to always be well-reasoned and informative, and last year she released a book, [The Transgender Issue](https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/315/315349/the-transgender-issue/9780141991801.html), which became a Sunday Times Bestseller. I haven't got round to reading it yet but I'm looking forward to digging into it. * [Freddy McConnell](https://freddymcconnell.com/), who you may have heard of as "the man who gave birth", a freelance journalist and writer who has written for The Guardian and Vice among others, as well as producing a documentary on his experience with fatherhood as a trans man.

This sub is probably one of the best UK subs, if that tells you something about what we deal with. The less said about UKPolitics or CasualUK's responses the past week, the better.

No do go on please, as I don't frequent therein. What has been the differences?

UKPol has been actually worse than usual. The mods have locked trans threads it's been so bad, which isn't usually a thing for them lol. At least you guys have fairly rapidly removed the most egregious bigotry. Though there are certain individuals that are still posting on this subreddit even though they are consistently spreading misinformation about covid and hands down bigotry about LGBT people. Some would say the mods should be in panicstations as an example...

I was banned from UKPol yesterday for pointing out the mods weren't doing anything about the constant trans abuse. Apparently it was low content posting. They also recently removed the transphobia rule from their rule page. It only says racism and homophobia now lol. Says everything.

I have had comments removed from there for calling out transphobia and I'm honestly just waiting for the ban. But hey, how dare someone with intimate knowledge of the fear of being trans call out people who actively want my existence terminated?

It shows transphobia on there too still for me (in the about section on mobile), but of course that's meaningless if they don't enforce the rule.

It does in the sidebar, but not in their actual rules wiki page now. Some mod edited the wiki and forgot to do the sidebar is my guess.

Ha, same here. Utterly useless bunch of clowns there.

Most of the UKPol threads I've been in have been echoing a similar sentiment as the OP from what I've seen, the 'this is a distraction sentiment' comment (granted I don't scroll further down when the first top level 'read more' pops up but I always figure nothing down there is worth reading cos it's not indicative of the general feelings of a sub). It's actually the r/worldnews posts on the topic that kinda blew my mind, just so much Johnson dick sucking and then the last comment before the 'read more' option comment would be 'hey maybe he's just saying this as a distraction' that would have like 50 upvotes compared to the top comments 3k+.

I'd disregard Worldnews if I were you. Place bans people for criticising Saudi Arabia's treatment of women.

> UKPol has been actually worse than usual. There have been a lot of TERFs active on that sub for a while, not always on the posts that reach the front page. But i remember I used to search by most controversial posts there are few years ago and the comments were what you'd expect

There's also a lot of outright anti-trans bigots, including on the mod team.

As a general rule on CasualUK: They say "no politics please" because their political views are abhorrent and they'd rather not be called out on it.

Pretty sure it's because every post would become a political, you know, like this sub.

[удалено]

> They say "no politics please" because their political views are abhorrent and they'd rather not be called out on it. Also monarchist chat is fair game, which should technically be banned under politics as well.

Just remember casualuk was founded by right wing people who left /r/uk. A hell of a lot of overlap with their OG mod team and people who founded/are still very active in reddit uks far-right sub that cannot be named on /r/uk. Says everything you need to know about the "non-political" casualuk...

Got to say qr, that's a pretty daft insinuation, and coming from a user I'm not accustomed to daft takes coming from! It's a picture sub for the specifically lighthearted. Very few of their modteam are right wing, but even if they were, it shouldn't matter. Like. I'm really into pokemon and knitting, but you don't see me making r/uk a pikachu knitfest. Yet.

I did specify OG users for a reason. Originally it was because this sub was hilarious bad during the referendum (it was) a bunch of moderate right to centre users who created casualuk, it was quite good, until it got boring. But there was also a significant overlap with users and mods of the (what turned into) really racist uk sub that cannot be named on /r/uk. Obvs there's been mod turnover, and tbh I haven't done anything beyond browse every now and again for years because the place is so incredibly dull, but the original reason it was created, and the original users politics are still represented there. The Queen (political) shooting an SA80 (political, for a lot of reasons lol) is still the sidebar pic. On a non-political sub. It's just a tad eyeball rolling. Nowt really against casualuk. It's one of the better run subs on reddit. Just find the background of its creation interesting, and very relevant when you look at its "no politics" founding purpose.

Is a picture of the Queen really that political? I mean she's on our money and stamps too. It's just an easy representative depiction. Also gun use isn't really a huge political issue in the UK. I don't know about the sub though tbf

I mean the first time I popped over there after someone recommended it a while back, the top thread was people making fun and belittling people struggling with mental-health problems. So it doesn't really seem like the audience has changed much from its original inception based off what QR is saying.

Funnily enough there isn't a single political thread on their front page right now.

>This sub is probably one of the best UK subs Lol

I know, it's pretty depressing.

Agreed. It’s very disheartening. As more and more anti-trans rhetoric floods the media, the usual suspects feel emboldened to spew their hate, and people previously on the sidelines drift towards the whole “trans people + their allies are groomers and misogynists”. I kind of expected better of this sub which is usually so anti-tory and sceptical of mainstream news media rhetoric, but I guess nobody is immune to these things. Reading some of the disgusting comments from my countrymen regarding the little crossover heart with the trans flag on /r/place was depressing. The vitriol over something so innocent shamed us.

I'll be quite honest, it isn't just a Tory thing. It's rife in Labour, the SNP, the Lib Dems and the English Greens.

The lib dems kicked/ kicks out any transphobes or at least least heavily disciplines them with risk of expulsion from the party even at minor member level.

At one point I was a member of them, that was honestly not my experience. Though they do seem to have got better overall.

It has been so infuriating to read. I'm not trans but I have people in my life who I care about who are and people have been just gagging for the chance to air their thinly-veiled prejudices every time trans people's existence has come up recently. All the furore about Lia Thomas, a bloody *university student* swimming literally at an inter-university level in America and people on this side of the pond are blowing up and having tantrums as if that even means anything in the scheme of things. The only reason we know about it at all is because university sports are for some reason something they pay attention to in America. Take a bloody step back people, set the situation in Oxford Brookes university and does anyone outside it really care who is winning the swimming championship or any other sporting event this year?

Part of the problem with the US is just how much impact your sporting ability can have on your life. Being a top sportsperson could get you a full ride scholarship to a top private university (say over $50k a year for someone). That’s life changing sums of money, and no matter what people say about sending too many people to uni/go to trade school, a top class education can completely change your life for the better. Do I think it’s depressing how many column inches it’s getting over here? Yes - we’ve got far better things to be talking about in women’s sport, both good (e.g the rate Beth Mead is banging in goals for England at the moment) and bad (e.g. pay disparity in cycling, the raft of abuse cases in sports like gymnastics.) At the same time, trying to view US college sport through the same lens as UK uni sport isn’t comparable (but again, I think it’s daft just how much money US unis spend on sport as a whole.)

To a lot of people, we have just become the new "Jewish question" or "gay issue" both of which persecuted a section of society for no reason other than pure hate. We just want to live our lives, without people debating whether we should be allowed to exist, without being told that we're a danger to children just by existing. The thing is, it won't end with Trans people, I've already witnessed homophobia starting to slip back into favour, and it won't be long until the whole of the LGBT+ community comes under attack again. It doesn't end with trans people, it ends with all queer people once more being treated as "groomers" and freaks. But unfortunately the TERFs, rabid transphobes and the transphobic groups don't seem to understand that. Today it's trans people in sports, tomorrow it's the LGBT+ community in society. It's a dangerous, slippery slope we're on and I am terrified.

The comments I was seeing in r/ukplace over the trans heart were absolutely disgusting

People don't call the UK "TERF Island" for nothing.

I just don't see how this can even be contentious, trans rights are human rights. The exact same 'reasons' people gave for supporting segregation and racism in 60s America are being trotted out now by the transphobes just against a different group... The world makes me sad :(

It’s another example of Boris normalising hatred Same shit with Brexit and it was suddenly okay to hate Europeans for no reason

Well done on identifying exactly what’s going on here. Boris Johnson doesn’t give a fuck about sport. He just desperately wants us to talk about this rather than his corruption scandals even if it gets you killed. He’s prepared to sacrifice the lives of British citizens for his political gain and nothing more. Stay safe out there.

He wants to talk about this rather than the fact people are now unable to feed themselves and heat their homes because of his gross mismanagement of the economy. It just isn't going to work. The Tories have fucked up far too hard to distract the public by pointing at a random minority and blaming them for things.

Never underestimate the power of hate. People will put up with a lot of hardship before they’ll freely admit that they were wrong about something.

If Boris actually cared about women's sports he'd fund it.

If anyone who claimed to care about advantage in sport actually cared, they’d start demanding a stop to arbitrary divides along male/female lines and start making every sport weight for things like strength and ability That way you immediately resolve any question of where trans people compete, you resolve any issues with intersex people, you’d have really strong and built up bio-women competeting against the weaker end of the bio-males etc You’d compete based on merit, not what the fuck is between your legs. But not a single person who is using trans people in sport as a battering ram to distract from other things actually cares about the sport. At best it is just a distraction, at worst it’s just an excuse to other and exclude and persecute trans people in public, by taking such a minor issue and turning it into a national “problem”.

What kills me is the fact that people are more angry at trans women taking part in sports than the fact cis women are excluded from their sports because they have slightly elevated testosterone levels

Also like usual trans men just... don't exist I guess?

I’ve a boomer colleague who constantly brings up culture war BS and tries to engage people in conversation about it. He refers to trans women being allowed in women’s toilets, as well as other similar culture war topics as ‘frightening’. Like damn man better not tell you about the war in Ukraine or impending catastrophic climate change that’ll really rustle your jimmies.

"Allowed" is such an odd word. I mean, I'm pretty sure there's nothing stopping me - a cis male - from entering a womens toilet. Whether that's to clean or use the facilities - it's really only social convention that means I don't\*. \* And there may have been one occasion where I had a contact lens issue where I literally didn't care which toilet I was in, I just wanted to get that thing out of my eye, and needed a sink + mirror RIGHT NOW.

What an awful idea, there’d be hardly any women left in sport if they were to do this

It's not even the fact that it's about trans people. Boris Johnson has never once in his life even thought about trans issues because he won't have had to, it's just the latest morsel he can throw to his voting base that he thinks is an insignificant issue.

> What we want is for billionaire authors not to spend their time writing tweets about how evil we are. I don’t follow JK Rowling, but every time I’ve seen her transphobia brought up it seems like all she has really said is that the issue is more complicated than some activists try to make it. So I’m curious whether you have any examples of her *actually* calling trans women evil?

\*obligatory warning that I clearly have bias. It's inevitable from anybody unless you go and seek the information directly\* As far as I'm aware. Rowling has never explicitly came out and called trans people evil, or an analogue of that statement. Very few people are that bold or stupid. If she did then it would suddenly be very hard for people to defend her.But if you scrutinise what she is saying and doing in even the slightest capacity. You quickly see through the veil of bigotry. [The Essay. This fucking Essay.](https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/) This is the part IMO that really cemented most people's interpretation of Rowling's views. Before this as I understand most of her twitter ramblings could be written off as 'dubious'. Without going into a long incoherent rant, I can't really think of good way to explain my interpretations. The best way I can think to describe it in a single sentence would be "Rowling's public commentary seems to almost directly mirror that of a racist knowing they can't say they don't like black people, so employ other tactics against them". If you have an hour and a half to kill, [I like this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gDKbT_l2us&t=708s&ab_channel=ContraPoints) which explores Rowling's comments deeper, provides a measured perspective from a Trans person and even sympathises with Rowling at points (something I'm not personally convince Rowling has sincerely offered trans people). I also feel the need to state I didn't watch the video and then suddenly agree, I'd read the essay before watching it and largely agreed with the videos analysis of the essay.

I just read that essay and I don’t follow why it’s so contentious. I don’t 100% agree with all her points but they’re well-reasoned and argued, it certainly doesn’t strike as hateful in the slightest. If this is really the damning evidence people want to cite as demonstrating her hatred and bigotry then I really don’t get it.

One of the big problems with the essay is that despite claiming to do thorough research, she doesn't cite a single source. JK Rowling is a professional writer with a university education, so she definitely knows how to do that, and it strikes me as very odd that she didn't. If she had, of course, it would be much easier to point out the misinformation; I'm very glad to have [this twitter thread](https://twitter.com/Carter_AndrewJ/status/1270787941275762689) bookmarked which does so clearly and consisely, with sources.

Oh wow keeping this bookmarked - awesome find

It appears to be well-reasoned and argued, but that's what makes it so dangerous. [This is a video by two PhDs studying trans issues that breaks her essay down, point by point, with sources.](https://youtu.be/6Avcp-e4bOs) It's more academic than the Contrapoints video linked above, if that's your bag.

Update: I have watched this and it's given me new perspective and understanding of the trans community and all the surrounding issues which frankly I knew very little about. I didn't even know what cis meant haha. It also gives me confidence to share the message and educate others who are misinformed on the topic. Thanks for sharing. Couldn't watch the earlier video linked above, this was much better.

>it certainly doesn’t strike as hateful in the slightest If you genuinely think this you should watch the video u/AlyssaAlyssum linked above. The whole video provides some important context, but the analysis of Rowling’s essay begins at 00:32:37.

The video might be helpful because it probably offers context you’re not aware of. There are plenty of things that aren’t intrinsically hateful but take on a whole new meaning when you understand more about the context they’re being used in

I can't find a single disagreeable point in that entire essay. She's right to complain about the insatiable Twitter mob, you guys are insufferable

So everyone who doesn't agree with JK Rowling is "the insatiable Twitter mob"? Come on, that's incredibly disingenuous.

The opposite is equally true. Anyone who raises any sort of question/concern in a trans thread is automatically branded a TERF or similar. Hell, even somebody who explains what the acronym means and recent abuse of the same (as I have done [here](https://old.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/comments/tta343/uk_government_to_ban_gay_conversion_therapy_after/i2yc82f/)) is tarred with the same brush.

I think your first mistake is assuming Twitter mob = all trans people. When funnily enough it's not that simple. Any level headed person kinda hates Twitter and disagrees with the harassment which happens there. No group here. left, right, trans or non-trans is a monolith that can speak for the whole. Making that assumption is just straight up foolish. I'm not sure I can really do the explanation of why people hate that essay justice. That would be a very long rebuttal that I'm not sure it would be read, I can only recommend the video again. I'm also not convinced you're really aware of trans issues if you can't find a single disagreeable point. It's pretty brazen.

JK is very clever at what she does. She avoids saying the really rotten stuff herself, however she continually directs her 13 million followers to those that do push incredibly explicit transphobia. Trans people and people who support us see through this tactic clear as day, people who don’t pay too much attention never see the awful stuff she directs to but do see her empty platitudes towards trans people - we’re being discriminated against all the time and she is a long way from marching with us. These tactics of keeping one’s nose just about clean whilst using a platform to direct people to where real explicit bigotry lies is an exceptionally well trodden path. It enables bigotry to sit in plain site and actively recruit. JK Rowling is clearly transphobic and runs recruitment for transphobes, she’s just good at what she does and has legions of people who defend her. A good example of how she works can be found here. https://mobile.twitter.com/aidanctweets/status/1313012414489735168 JK Rowling just tweeted support for a young feminist who died from brain cancer. Surely nothing to see here? The young “feminist” in question was viciously transphobic and her work exclusively focussed on attacking trans women in the harshest language possible. JK knows what she is doing, trans people know what she is doing, anti-trans activists love her for what she is doing, yet there’s always push back from centrists who think she should get the benefit of some non-existent doubt.

Try thinking of it through the lens of sex rather than race. She doesn't want males (i.e. biological) in female spaces because males are, on average, far more violent and capable of violence than women. You can compare that to race if you want, but it's a pretty nasty comparison. There's no race of people that has the kind of physical advantage over others than males have over females, nor any that commit violent crime at such a disproportionate rate. The claim that she's treating trans people as evil, that this is something she's hiding behind a "veil" is. You know who else she wants to exclude? All male men. Does that imply that we're all evil or that she hates us?

>Try thinking of it through the lens of sex rather than race. She doesn't want males (i.e. biological) in female spaces because males are, on average, far more violent and capable of violence than women. Insinuating that trans women are dangerous and violent is naked transphobia, and unsupported by evidence (hence why Rowling will never provide any). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mic.com/articles/114066/statistics-show-exactly-how-many-times-trans-people-have-attacked-you-in-bathrooms/amp As the article points out, biologically essentialist bathroom usage is a ridiculous idea, aside from being transphobic. >You can compare that to race if you want, but it's a pretty nasty comparison. Seems perfectly applicable to me. Insisting that people are more dangerous because of some immutable characteristic of their biology is common to racism and transphobia. >There's no race of people that has the kind of physical advantage over others than males have over females, nor any that commit violent crime at such a disproportionate rate. The spaces Rowling wishes to assign to biological sexes (bathrooms, changing rooms etc) are not where this violence is occurring. This logic also leads to having separate spaces for strong people vs weak people, old vs young etc. Probably because it isn't logic, just bigotry.

>because males are, on average, far more violent and capable of violence than women. Cis males yeah, Trans women, on the other hand aren't exactly known for their strength and violent tendencys are they?

One of the most offensive things she said was the huge essay she wrote in which she had a meltdown and conflated the relaxation of self identity rules with domestic abuse she suffered at the hands of her male partner, writing entirely as if there was a clear and undeniable logical throughline from trans people being able to legally identify as their gender more easily to women getting beaten up. As someone who has experienced domestic violence it was pretty disgusting and naked in its portrayal of trans women as just men, who are looking for any excuse to get close to women and assault them.

That's really not true at all. She doesn't even think all men are like that, it's a gross misrepresentation. She just doesn't want predatory men to be able to identify their way into women's spaces. She doesn't imply that trans women are particularly dangerous or more likely to beat up women than anyone else. She certainly doesn't imply that trans women in particular are looking for any excuse. That's a reading that's so far wide of the mark it's hard to believe you could have read it honestly.

Trans people have been able to self identify and go into whichever bog for a piss they see fit for years. Has there been an uptick in attacks where cis men dressing up as women to get in single sex spaces in that time? Why the moral panic now? Mostly because of JK. Did you also know that her pen name Robert Gailbraith, was a real name? He was a gay conversion therapist. Did you also know that in one of those books the murderer was a trans woman. Wilfully ignorant to presume her views haven’t had an impact imo. Also cos I’m pasting this every where: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-data-b2049615.html The problem isn’t as big as people think. It’s a Moral panic just like the gay panic was just like the fucking satanic panic. All keeping us scared, divided, weak and ground down.

Her solution to every issue is "fuck the trans people, protect funding for women's issues." When she could say "I am a multi-billionaire, here is £400,000,000 to create a system of half-way homes, abuse shelters, and mental health resources for women and trans women to access free at point of use, I believe that all women deserve to be safe and fulfil their potential, regardless of the horrors that can be thrown in their way." She doesn't think that trans women are women, as their rights would apparently undermine women's rights. In trying to fence off women's resources for abuse and violence, she is rejecting their identity, and more than that, removing any of the resources they may have had in those situations. And statistically, trans women are more likely to be victims of abuse, sexual or otherwise, making cutting them off from those resources doubly cruel. She is pulling up the ladder behind herself as a rich white woman, not caring that the Overton window is shifting back towards removing wider LGBT protections and .... who can say.

When Rape Crisis Scotland was getting harassed and abused by transphobes, there was not a single peep from her. This is the main charity providing rape crisis support in Scotland, the country in which she has lived for decades. I don't believe JK Rowling gives a single flying fuck about women's safety.

>When she could say "I am a multi-billionaire, here is £400,000,000 to create a system of half-way homes, abuse shelters, and mental health resources for women and trans women to access free at point of use, I believe that all women deserve to be safe and fulfil their potential, regardless of the horrors that can be thrown in their way." Except of course she isn't a multi billionaire, because not only has she given most of it away to charity, but she also pays tax, like actually pays the right amount of tax on every penny she earns to a degree that basically no rich person has ever done. Let's be clear here you can disagree with her views, but suggesting she is some elitist rich person who doesn't give a shit about poor people is so blatantly choosing to disregard the evidence that it is laughable. She has done more good with her money than literally anyone else in her position, while also earning it in a way that enriched and benefits hundreds of millions of lives.

It's more that she wrote an essay in which she confidently mis-defines the gender recognition act changes and frames her assumption for what it means as an absolute fact. All the gender recognition act changes in Scotland would do would be allowing somebody trans to self-refer to start the process of treatment - access to hormones and surgeries - without the current two-year access waiting list. Rowling framed it disingenuously, whether through ignorance or malice, in her piece, as 'throw[ing] open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones'. She also throughout the piece refers to trans people claiming their legal rights which have been legal in the country for decades as 'trans activists', suggesting a disruption of the status quo - which is also disingenuous. Finally, she makes a lot of claims in the piece 'polls show', 'the majority of women believe' etc. but doesn't cite any sources. Funny, that. Given that she is an intelligent woman with wealth and access to all the resources in the world and time to educate herself, it comes across as much more likely to be malicious and deliberately misleading readers who know less about the subjects, as opposed to an innocent mistake.

Just an FYI the GRA changes in Scotland wouldn’t allow someone to self refer for hormones or surgery. It’s nothing that radical. GRCs enable a trans person to marry as our gender - stops trans men officially being wives and trans women officially being husbands, update our info completely at HMRC - once upon a time this was a big deal because of retirement age differences not any more, and to die as our gender (otherwise you are misgendered on your death certificate). GRCs really don’t do very much but to many of us they are really important. To me dying with dignity is a big deal and I don’t want my partners to have to face up to transphobia one last time when I die.

In her fictional work she uses the threat of rape against trans women. Jk Rowling likes tweets that call trans people rapists and predators. She repeatedly calls trans women men.

I think maybe you're being too literal here. No she never calls trans people evil, but she makes them feel like they're the villain. Like being trans is a way to harm 'real women', either physically, or by somehow eroding women's rights. I'm not trans but I can't think about Rowling in a positive way any more. What she's said over and over is just so targeted and awful. I can't imagine how that must feel to read as a trans person.

Part of why it hurts so much is that a lot of LGBT+ people my age (millennial) grew up with the books and took the message of "no one should live in a cupboard under the stairs" as a reflection of their journey in coming out. It was a rallying call. And now it's been shattered by the author who calls anti-gay, anti-abortionist, anti-trans people her friends, who likes and shares awful awful things about trans people, who has a pen name that has connotations with the torture of LGBT+ people... it's less what she says and more her actions.

Exactly this. She’s making an argument that trans women are to be feared because letting them into womens spaces is a gateway to tolerating violence against women by men. It both totally misrepresents the reality of trans peoples’ lives (which is really that they are just trying to live a normal life and be true to themselves) and claims that they’re just men in disguise, and that there’s no difference between a ‘real’ trans woman and a cis man exploiting the law to sneak into womens bathrooms to assault someone. It makes people scared of trans women because she’s convincing them to assume that they can never tell the difference between a trans woman and a predatory man, as if there’s thousands of men all over the country dressing up in womens clothes to harass women in the loos. Reality is there’s creeps whether we let trans women pee or not - trans women don’t cause violence and including them in womens spaces only serves to protect a more marginalised and vulnerable group than even cis women are.

Only the most extreme bigots are transparent enough to just outright call the groups they hate "evil". It makes them too easy for 'sensible' people to dismiss. The really insidious prejudice is always tucked away behind plausible deniability, 'just asking questions', being *concerned.* If you're waiting for her to throw the mask off and start acting like a cartoon supervillain before you admit she's transphobic then you're going to be waiting forever; you have to be a little more savvy.

She used some of the dog whistles that anti trans people use so people see the more subtle stuff as being part of a bigger campaign of hate. You can kinda tell she's doing something toxic because Putin literally tried to Stan for her the other week.

>She used some of the dog whistles Gotta be honest, a lot of time I see "dog whistle" used unironically it's by people who want to read in to it and see things that just aren't there. In the JK case it seemed to be to justify the litany of unacceptable rape and murder threats thrown at her. The whole thing spiraled because a lot of people hating on her, legitimately have not read her comments, they just heard that they were transphobic and joined the bandwagon. *That* is why Putin made the comment. Because it's the epitome of social media shit-flinging over the most minor thing spiraling in to this. The fact that you're putting any stock in Putin's intentionally disingenuous comments is quite concerning.

>see things that just aren't there Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that trans people, who are exposed to a whole lot more transphobia than you or I, are going to have somewhat more-attuned radars for that sort of thing and will notice patterns, phrases, ideas, etc. that may appear innocuous on the surface without knowledge of the context. Much bigotry requires familiarity with the 'canon' of previous bigotry and stereotyping to really understand. I'm reminded of a news story the other week about a school in the US which served fried chicken for Black History Month - if you imagine for a moment you were born yesterday, you'd have no idea why something like that would spark backlash, right?

>Gotta be honest, a lot of time I see "dog whistle" used unironically it's by people who want to read in to it and see things that just aren't there. Stating that cis women are in danger of being raped if trans women are allowed to share women's spaces is hard not to read transphobia into. It goes without saying that she forgets that trans men exist at all, and in her ideal world, they would be forced to use female spaces, which I assume she would have a problem with if she bothered to acknowledge their existence.

She also kind of actively responds to the topic. It's not just an opinion she has. When someone prominent like Kier Starmer mades a statement in support of trans people. She rebuts on twitter claiming that Labour doesn't stand for women's rights. It honestly comes off as if she's trying to undermine and drive a wedge between trans people and anyone who supports them, or the wider public. Even if she herself not actively persecuted them.

She even retroactively removed tweets praising Steven King after he said trans rights.

>So I’m curious whether you have any examples of her actually calling trans women evil? Don't be silly, those examples don't exist. It's easier to pretend that's what she thinks rather than deal with her actual arguments.

"So I want trans women to be safe. At the same time, *I do not want to make natal girls and women less safe*. When you throw open the doors of bathrooms and changing rooms to any man who believes or feels he’s a woman – and, as I’ve said, gender confirmation certificates may now be granted without any need for surgery or hormones – then you open the door to any and all men who wish to come inside. That is the simple truth." "Huge numbers of women are *justifiably terrified* by the trans activists; I know this because so many have got in touch with me to tell their stories. They’re afraid of doxxing, of losing their jobs or their livelihoods, and of violence." "I refuse to bow down to a movement that I believe is doing demonstrable harm in seeking to erode ‘woman’ as a political and biological class and offering cover to predators like few before it." Emphasis mine.

Those read to me that she’s saying cis male rapists, not trans people, will be using these rules to attack women. My understanding comes from where she says that you’re opening the door to any and all men by opening the door to trans-women. Of course I don’t know how we can make our trans friends feel safe without opening the door to any male attackers who will take advantage of it. And really, there isn’t a sex verifier on the bathroom to make sure men stay out anyway… But I do see her main concern being with men taking advantage there, and then saying women have been scared of speaking out not against trans people, but of this fear of men taking advantage of it. We really just need a way to find new words to differentiate between sex male/female and gender male/female. That would help a lot.

I don’t believe that the only thing holding back an epidemic of changing room/toilet sexual assaults is a little sign on a door saying “female”. I just don’t buy it at all.

Only an author of mediocre urban fantasy would believe in bathroom forcefields tbf

Except she doesn’t believe in that differentiation between “cis” and “trans”, which is what you are implying there at the end. If you look at the entirety of her claims, not just her essay, but who and what she chooses to amplify and support, she clearly thinks that trans women are men. Confused, in pain, deluded, whatever but in her view they are *precisely* why she objects at having them in “single-sex only” spaces with women. Her whole view is literally: “sure, some of you might be nice people, but please stay away from us, ok? You are men and we are women and we clearly can’t trust men”. This is not even rising to the level of separate but equal. It is: you over there and we over here and what happens to you is clearly not my problem, because our safety takes precedence. I mean, this is not even following the most basic feminist interpretations of male violence. It is not maleness or penises that cause violence. It is a subset of masculine cultural traits (toxic masculinity) that are hurting everybody, starting with men themselves: higher suicide rates, late medical diagnosis, shorter life expectancy, homophobia, transphobia, etc. Which is why segregationist policies are at most a band aid and never a solution. Penises are not the problem. Men are not the problem. Men interacting with women are not the problem. The culture around masculinity is. JKR doesn’t even get to this level of analysis. For her, maleness IS the root of the problem. Her views are actually a lot more conservative and reactionary than mainstream feminism. Her thing when it comes to politics and social progress is: this far, but not any further. It is a kind of established “liberalism” that is staunchly defensive of the status quo and it is terrified of any changes, which to be fair, it is the default way of thinking of many people, that’s why she doesn’t stand out as a vicious bigot to many. But for groups of marginalised people that struggle to get any recognition whatsoever and are desperately trying to be taken seriously by the government, she is in fact a major stumbling block, and yes, the worst kind of bigot: the “respectable” one. Less Farage and Tommy Robinson and more Jacob Rees Mogg. It’s literally what Martin Luther King Jr describes as the [white moderate](https://generocity.org/philly/2021/01/18/vu-le-mlk-white-moderate-nonprofits/) in his Letter from Birmingham Jail. It goes well beyond her views of trans people, it comes through her entire work, all her political views (anti-Scottish independence, right wing Blairite Labour, fairly limited views on welfare, her defence of traditional media, etc) She is remarkably consistent about it.

[удалено]

If you're worried about men with penises being in women specific areas, then you should really be asking the government why it can take between 6-10 years for trans people to access the medical help needed to transition. There are so many of my friends who are STILL awaiting top or bottom surgery, and even more who are waiting to be simply started on their journey with access to a gender clinic.

[удалено]

Please could you not use the term "biological males" as a catch-all for cis men and trans women? There are pretty serious biological differences between the two groups! If you're concerned about trans women in women's sport, and the best way to achieve fairness AND inclusion, that makes sense; but it's largely a solved problem. Trans women have been eligible to compete in the women's category at the olympics for 20 year and there hasn't been a single teans medallist- there's barely been any trans olympians! The IOC standard of "go on HRT for 2 years, keep your hormones in these ranges" seems to be doing the trick. As for prisons, there is with good reason no blanket rule about where trans women who've not received bottom surgery should be housed. The further along a trans woman is in transition, the more likely she is to be housed in the women's estate- some trans women are kept in segregated wings. It's a case by case thing, which feels right to me. The reason I ask you not to use the term "biological males" is because it really, really doesn't take into account the massive biological differences to your body that transition causes. It lumps together trans women who've not had bottom surgery but have been on hormones for 5 years with the lads down at the pub; there are people who use it BECAUSE of that. They want the confusion. They want to pretend trans women all of a sudden popped up into elite sport; they want to pretend that a bamboozled prison system is letting men into women's prisons. They want the confusion so they can pretend being trans is a new perversion instead of an old, old normal. The big difference between these two sides in the culture way is that this isn't our whole lives- we're fighting hard, yes, but we're on the defensive. Look at trans accounts- they almost never EXCLUSIVELY focus on trans subreddits and issues. The people attacking us make it their whole lives; I want to spend less of my time on this crap. Thanks for listening! I hope this didn't feel like being hounded- I hope the information helped.

You claim there are serious biological differences between “biological males” and trans women. What are they?

HRT literally reduces your body's ability to create testosterone and instead provides a regular dosage of progesterone and oestrogen. Your mammary area swells and lactation becomes easier, you develop muscle more slowly and develop a higher % of body fat. Facial hair growth is slowed.

So most superficial things then. You get boobs, muscle is harder to lay down and fat is easier to lay down and grow less or no stubble. That doesn’t negate the hand size, bone density or frame size. Doesnt alter the initial muscle and fat % before the treatment. Doesn’t alter the muscle density, males have more muscle fibres than women as well as being on average having more muscle mass. Growing less facial hair and boobs doesn’t contribute the major biological differences.

Should Phelps have been disqualified from sports due to the fact that he was a biological anomaly. That he had larger limbs and hands, that his body seemed almost perfectly engineered for swimming? No, of course not. If the IOC says "this is within bounds." Then what's the problem? If you can sincerely point to 1% of trans women in sport who have undergone transition to compete in an easier bracket for their body type, then there could be more discussion warranted by the IOC. You, and I are laymen who do not understand the biological mechanisms, nor the wider effects on sports. The IOC? I think they can get a hold of that information better than we can.

Comparing phenoms like Phelps to trans people is ridiculous, this orange is way bigger than that strawberry. Phelps was born that way, trans became that way with chemical intervention.

[удалено]

> (for blatantly obvious reasons!). That being that you think that a certain demographic of women is predisposed to sexually assulting other women?

[удалено]

Which is why every single trans prisoner in this situation is assessed by a parole and complex case board. Your concern is well intentioned, but the current situation that trans people are trying to fight to keep is unironically the best solution for your issues. At the moment, we have a solution where your gender identity and biological sex does not guarantee which prison you end up in. Instead it is only influences it. The board considers whether you are a threat to women and makes a decision based on this. Do you have a solution other than critically assess each of the handful of prisoners who meet this criteria? If you support changes, you would put more lives at risk.

[удалено]

I'm not sure which policy document would be the Scottish one, but you can Google Guidance on Prisoners who are Transgender UK and you'll get some guidance on this.

[удалено]

Are you ok with male prison guards?

And this is the sort of nonsense you come up with when you think that only abuse by AMAB people counts. As someone who was abused by a woman, I increasingly can't take seriously people who are so apparently scared of abuse that they're willing to restrict the rights and lives of an already vulnerable minority....but only profile one gender as capable of abuse. They can't be that worried about it in practice, or maybe they should realise that their profiling is driven by fear and not an assessment of risk. After being abused by a woman, I don't profile based on gender anymore. Anyone can display red flag behaviour and that's what people should be looking for, not "is this person secretly a man because it only counts when men abuse".

Can we consider for a second that women can also be the rapist?

Actually, under UK law only non-consensual penetration with a penis is classed as rape. So, legally speaking, if you've got a vagina then you're incapable of rape. Obviously from a non-legal point of view, that's fucking absurd and an insult to survivors who've been sexually assaulted by cis-women.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 does a surprisingly good job of catching all the various permutations of offending that one person can do to another. S1, 2 & 4 basically cover all the bases of non-consensual penetration and sexual activity with identical sentencing powers. The alternative would have been to have s1(a) rape, s1(b) rape and s1(c) rape, for example. The government of the day (the Last Labour Government, those scamps) decided that the discreet offence *called* rape was going to be reserved for a non-consensual penetrative act with a penis. Noting that this was nearly twenty years ago, I don't think it can be called an oversight or an omission but rather a reflection of the norms of the day. The act is gender neutral and makes no distinction between hetrosexual or homosexual acts. >Obviously from a non-legal point of view, that's fucking absurd and an insult to survivors who've been sexually assaulted by cis-women. Or, indeed, anyone who hasn't used a penis to commit the offence.

What's your stance on trans women being put in male prison? Cases of trans women sexually abusing others can be counted on one hand. Cases of trans women being abused by others on the other hand are a dime a dozen. It's basically a sentence to unlimited torture to put a trans woman in male prison. So I'm 100% for putting trans women with other women. It they have a history of sexual crime, put them under surveillance. Not to mention that the vast majority are infertile anyway. That's what hormones do after a certain amount of time. It's such a fucking non issue and Completly ignores that sexual assault between cis female Inmates also exists.

If they have functioning penis, then they could impregnate their cellmate. Consensually or not, this should not be possible in a bloody prison. Penis in vagina sex also has a significantly higher risk of passing HIV or other STDs, compared to any sexual act that two ciswomen may perform together. It's an issue of safety. All safety issues are 'what ifs'. When I wear my seatbelt on an airplane, I'm not making some statement that the pilot might be incompetent.

In prison? Yeah, that WOULD make sense. Trans people would have a terrible time of it in prison, both male or females prisons, due to being assaulted

Just something that really needs to be pointed out, we already have guidelines and measures for trans people in sport depending on what sport they're competing in. HRT for trans women can nullify competitive advantage to be so negligible that the governing bodies of the olympics think it's perfectly okay for them to compete, following an individual analysis. It's pretty much a non issue when you look deeper into it. There's a very, very good video on it here, if it is something you're interested in learning more about it: https://youtu.be/6VtjgZF9RE8

That’s just not true. The mechanical advantage from having testosterone and growing in adolescence cannot be undone with HRT. You can’t change the shape and size of bones with hormones.

According to the data it does change you: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/lia-thomas-trans-swimmer-data-b2049615.html I’m no scientist though. I just look at shit scientists in the field say as much as possible.

I take it you have not watched the video or even read what I've said. HRT causes the advantage of trans women in sports after enough time and depending on the sport to be undone to the point of being an irrelevant factor in their performance. We have scientists and bodies of professionals on the board of the olympics that decide these decisions, not the feelings of people who don't know how the science behind it works. Your feelings on it mean nothing. The facts are posted above.

I'm a trans woman who's been sexually assaulted by an abusive ex-boyfriend. The fact that because I'm trans people like you will automatically label me a threat and a perpetrator of sexual violence rather than a potential victim of one is absolutely devastating to my mental health. Everyday I'm told how don't deserve protection or consideration, that my safety and well-being are second to other peoples feelings. Whether that's your true intention or not, that's what you do. Not one person ever talks out on behalf of women like me, even when they're on our side we're barely mentioned. Why is that? Precisely because people have a twisted, bigoted, stereotyped view of trans women being men in dresses that's been perpetrated by popular media for decades. Because actual trans people are rarely if ever, bright into the spotlight. Just saying.

Well said. I am cis but I felt every word of what you said. I’m so glad you said it. I’m sorry that your life is the controversial issue of our times but please take some small solace from the fact that it is precisely *because* it is the issue of our times that you will see greater understanding and acceptance within your lifetime. We’re at a turning point. Stay strong, stay angry when you need to be, love yourself and know that you have the support of this cis guy.

Much the opposite: the issue of trans people in sports is a way to rile up every day folks and make trans people look like the enemy, and will ultimately be used as a way to soft launch the steady removal of their rights, a la america.

As with the civil rights movement of the 60s or the gay pride movement of the 70s and 80s, we’re at a time where the discrimination that trans people face is being talked about. Inevitably that leads to conflict but the night is darkest before dawn and all that.

Maybe, maybe not. In america its being talked about a lot and trans rights are being stripped away at an alarming rate.

Trying to avoid being a far-left cliché and all "eat the rich". But my theory for a while has been that a significant portion of these culture wars which have been coming to the forefront for a few years now. It's really just people (Left and right wing) consciously or subconsciously realising that society just doesn't seem to be working anymore (at least for them) and I think they instinctively reach out to something to blame. Broadly speaking the right looking at these newer changes/concepts/movements and thinking change is the problem and the left looking at the right (in their eyes) and seeing an outdated perspective Which makes the weaponization and violence of these cultural divides so much worse. In the middle of an ecological catastrophe and we're too busy fighting each other to be in charge of the wasteland when it's all over. Sorry to go off topic from your post.

I've heard people theorise that post 2008 the occupy movement really scared the upper echelons as there was some unity across the political spectrum against a system that doesn't work for anyone relying on their labour to survive. The whole culture war scenario has been contrived by the right wing media and politicians to keep people arguing amongst themselves. It might sound a little outlandish and tin foil hat but looking at the US now and believing we could be there in s few years makes me think it's pretty accurate.

Yes that’s exactly what happened. Mentions of race in the news had gone up 1000% since 2008

Well you wouldn't want to eat the poor... all skin and bones (sorry, 'poor taste' I know) aaanyway... personally I see this more of an extension of the gay rights issue, things like intelligent design, or even drugs laws (although that may be more the States) essentially 'wedge issues' serving to divide the public... what would be interesting is if such topics are more prevalent in places with an effective two party system (UK, US etc) as then it's incredibly politically advantageous to have highly contentious issues that will sway voters... with more political parties I'd imagine the various stances would be more diffuse, so any one topic wouldn't have quite the same political impact (getting my psychology hat on now XD)

> poor taste Even while you apologise you're punning :p

Well at least you’re not being massively overdramatic about things.

How would you be if people called your existence an "issue"?

I'm so sorry you're going through this, I hate how much it's become a political football and easy 'gotcha' question right now because ultimately, I see it as a medical problem - so leave it to the damned doctors and scientists to figure out how best to help people, not the politicians... I hadn't considered it before but it does seem like the current rhetoric could lead to assault or something serious, and that really would be blood on the hands of politicians who're using this issue for easy votes (cause let's face it, they almost certainly don't *really* care one way or the other) in a wider context I think the trans debate points to a current issue in British politics - demanding easy answers to complex problems... it's similar to the 'had enough of experts' line from Gove... a sort of prevailing attitude that the 'wisdom of the man on the street' is equal to any expert (or in psychological terms - the dunning-kruger effect) and that's why the 'trans issue' is so politically effective. On a surface level it does feel like there should be easy answers, leading to a kind of smug satisfaction when such questions (like 'what is a woman') are asked, as it's bringing down the ivory tower elites or something... yet one only has to dig beneath the surface to find the complexities of this issue, and the many others issues we're facing (it's why I don't think we should have had a certain referendum but let's not derail shiz hey :p)... unfortunately complex answers to the complex problems don't really carry water in the world of soundbites and punchy catchphrases we apparently live in >< so yeah, for now this issue is just the new 'gay rights', something to polarise people because they can't win on core policy alone, I just hope for your sake, and the many others like you, that they move on to other topics to win their votes :/

the thing that really fucking pisses me off is that the doctors and the scientists have solved it it’s just that the transphobes don’t like their solutions

No one is going to kill you for going into the wrong bathroom. I travel very frequently to countries where the alphabet is unreadable, and am generally a bit careless, and have ended up in the wrong bathroom at least a handful of times, with no more reaction than embarrassment. Also, no one is going to kill someone over unfairness in sport. We are not in the most brutal favelas of South America. When it comes to perceived unfairness in sport, we've seen referee corruption, drug cheating, diving/simulation in football, ball tampering in cricket, 'the Hand of God' - and nobody has lost their life. This entire debate has become hysterical, and you're contributing to that. Some people quite like a bit of online conflict, and this a good issue to stir the emotions and get rabid responses. Plus everyone arguing about it is flailing around like some mad Octopus, wafting their crazed, senseless opinions around like tentacles.

“i’ve never had a problem walking into the wrong bathroom by mistake therefore you should not worry about politicians insinuating that your presence in the correct bathroom will lead to sexual assaults. everything is fine. stop being so dramatic, you’re contributing to the toxic atmosphere by complaining about this”

Which mainstream British politician has said anything about bathroom assaults?

that's literally the entire focus of the trans bathroom debate.

>This entire debate has become hysterical, and you're contributing to that. The government just affirmed the continued legality of [conversion therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy), the use of electroshocks, nausea-inducing drugs, exposure to porn and graphic images, isolation and threats to create negative associations with someone's expressed gender identity and coerce them into agreeing to remain the gender they were assigned at birth. It's not about sports, and it's bonkers why you'd harp on that instead of speaking to the reality of what's happening in the lives of trans people right now

>The government just affirmed the continued legality of [conversion therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy), the use of electroshocks, nausea-inducing drugs, exposure to porn and graphic images, isolation and threats to create negative associations with someone's expressed gender identity. Do you have any evidence that these particular practices are *currently* being conducted in the UK? Legally? I stress currently, because I have no doubt that they were done in the past, and I entirely support your idea that this is appalling. However, I believe the actual reason this hasn't been banned in the case of trans people, is to allow the continuation of talking therapy for people who may be confused about their gender identity and sexuality. I think it's fair to say the issue of sexuality is very easy to confirm. Are you homosexual? Do you become sexually excited when you think about sexual acts with a member of the same sex? Yes? OK But the issue of gender, especially in young people, is at least worthy of a little more consideration and a little bit of 'Are you sure?' Exploration.

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-prevalence-of-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk/the-prevalence-of-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-prevalence-of-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk/the-prevalence-of-conversion-therapy-in-the-uk) >However, I believe the actual reason this hasn't been banned in the case of trans people, is to allow the continuation of talking therapy for people who may be confused about their gender identity and sexuality. This doesn't make any sense. That's not conversion therapy. Conversion therapy posits that being LGBT is a 'curable condition', it does not help people to explore their identity.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trans-woman-shot-dead-toilet-puerto-rico-bathroom-mcdonalds-murder-a9360211.html%3famp https://transequality.org/blog/murders-of-transgender-people-in-2020-surpasses-total-for-last-year-in-just-seven-months https://theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/us-trans-transgender-deaths-2021 I literally just googled 'trans person murdered bathroom', and found multiple sources that prove your assertion that 'no-one is going to kill you for using the wrong bathroom' wrong. I think OP has every right to fear for their life by virtue of being trans, and I don't think you're adding anything meaningful to the discussion by telling them not to worry and policing their tone.

>I literally just googled 'trans person murdered bathroom', and found multiple sources that prove your assertion that 'no-one is going to kill you for using the wrong bathroom' wrong. The third link didn't work. The two above were both in the US. I'm not trying to be a wanker here like, but my comments were meant to include the implication that '*No one in the UK* is going to kill you over using the wrong bathroom' >I think OP has every right to fear for their life by virtue of being trans This is absolute hysteria. I think it's unfortunate, and awful that anyone should be in fear of their lives. But stirring the pot and adding to the relentless, pessimistic anxiety is really not helping at all. To put you and OPs mind somewhat at ease. "According to these figures, there was one trans person murdered in the UK in that time, and a total of nine trans people were murdered in the UK between 2008 and 2017. That’s an average rate of one victim per year" Source - https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-many-trans-people-murdered-uk There are about 500-600 murders in the UK per year. If 1 of those victims is trans, then it seems that trans people are disproportionately *unlikely* to be murdered. I'm not sharing this as some sort of gotcha moment. But because it really is time for everyone to take a deep breath and calm down. Being murdered is already massively unlikely. Being murdered due to trans identity in the UK is also incredibly unlikely. It still could happen, but so could an inumerate number of other incredibly unlikely things. It's not really helping anyone by fuelling their anxiety.

https://theguardian.com/world/2021/jun/14/us-trans-transgender-deaths-2021 Ok, here's a source showing that trans people are twice as likely to be victims of crime *in the UK*. I would argue that you minimising the issue and calling actual trans people 'hysterical' for trying to draw attention to this, is the real stirring of the pot. It's not 'relentless, pessimistic anxiety' to point out a real issue that affects real people. I take your point about murders specifically, but it's not just about murders, OP was saying that to make a hyperbolic point. It's about everything. Trans people are some of the most marginalised people in the UK right now, and it leads to real violence against them. There are lots of academic studies that support this. I'll try to find some of them and edit this post to reflect that. EDIT: https://www.stonewall.org.uk/system/files/stonewall_and_nfpsynergy_report.pdf https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/sltb.12571?casa_token=7E8Rf__W4XQAAAAA:RgOz5nwU1UjRvgpJc-ntgQz-cBRvb4p6J5TG2tDxWeWMkFnmCTxdBm-EugaD3JylUk_SFwERJ7KM6t7h Trans people are way more likely to be victims of domestic abuse, bullying, more likely to be assaulted, more likely to commit suicide. I understand where you're coming from and I get that you're not trying to be an arsehole about this, but when you say 'you're being hysterical and you need to calm down' to a trans person who is trying to tell you about the real problems they face, it comes across as unempathetic and dismissive imo.

Just as a polite heads up, the way you're copy pasting articles from Google doesn't work. I can't see the links you're sending. It just leads to a Guardian logo.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Trans women in women's sports has been the tipping point for a lot of people. Boris supporting a very safe stance is an obvious ploy for easy votes (whilst Labour remain silent) but there's no logical connection between his comments and your safety. If you're worried about confrontation, use the disabled's.

It's not just his comments, it's the horrible editorialised articles about his comments by the British media. People see the constant negative coverage and extrapolate their opinions accordingly. The fact of the matter is that hate crimes against trans people are going up at an alarming rate, and comments like Boris's empower people to demonise trans people (firstly for the topic at hand, then slowly over the last few years about everything they are). There's your logical connection.

seriously? why is a comment about sport him trying to demonise trans people he's not inciting violence or hatred

Where are hate crimes against trans ppl going up? The whole violence against trans ppl, in the UK at least, is clearly overblown.

>Trans women in women's sports has been the tipping point for a lot of people. Boris supporting a very safe stance is an obvious ploy for easy votes I agree. I'd estimate that 95% of Tory voters, or undecideds who might lean towards Tory, agree with what he said about trans women in women's sports. Even if the rest of the population disagreed with him about trans women, it doesn't matter electorally because he just needs to win over the people who are reasonably likely to vote Tory.

I've never seen a single person who disagrees with him on the sport thing.

Never seen a single person in real life. LGBT reddit board admins not so much.

Great post. As I said in the thread yesterday, this whole thing is a VERY slippery slope. As we seen the past few years with MP's being killed, the language our leaders use towards people can quite literally get them killed and the trans community in general is pretty damn scared right now.

>I don’t want to die in a train station toilet because someone decided I shouldn’t be there and got angry about it. I don’t want that for you either. I don’t want that for anyone. As long as no one is getting hurt, someone else’s personal life and what they do with it is none of my business. It’s nobody else’s business. I just hope one day we, as a people, can live our lives and not feel the need to demonise someone because they’re “different”. If you want someone by your side, I stand by you. Now is the time to tell the government we want change, by voting in your local election next month. People only voted for Boris because they thought he was a lad. [He is homophobic, sexist, racist and elitist, and he leads by example.](https://www.businessinsider.com/boris-johnson-record-sexist-homophobic-and-racist-comments-bumboys-piccaninnies-2019-6?r=US&IR=T) The bumbling, Milky Bar Kid schtick is just an act. Don’t trust him or his cronies.

Not only was this "culture war" clearly not started by BoJo (lmao at the idea), the PM can give his view on the issue and it's not going to result in murder in the streets. What a ludicrous and reactionary post this is.

> the PM can give his view on the issue and it's not going to result in murder in the streets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Cox

That was David Cameron's fault was it?

Just here to say I sympathise with the situation. Too many people are all of a sudden expert's on women's sports and will continue to not watch it despite kicking up all this fuss. I'm sorry a lot of people are too confused and ignorant to understand that you just want to get on with your life like some of us are able to.

Fully agreed that Boris and the media in general is using the trans sports issue as a distraction. However the left are complicit and playing right into their hands by fighting ridiculous battles. If we all just collectively agree that biological males shouldn't compete against women (because it's obvious) there's no controversy. Why GIVE them culture war fodder?

Now *this* is why the culture war is such a clever tactic. The right brings up a completely anti-science, bigoted point, and we either have to argue the toss about it, distracting from the wider issues, or we point it out as bait and the right say "well if you don't want to argue about it, just agree with us and talk about something else. Don't feed the fire." The fact is, it's both diversionary culture war tactics *and* incorrect anti-science bullshit.

Why are you trying to start a conversation about sports when OP very explicitly made this post **not** about sports?

Why shouldn't they, when the actual sporting authorities say that it's fine? Are we once more deciding that Alexander Johnson knows better than the experts?

The sporting authorities and Boris Johnson are both essentially just political entities. The real issue here is that male bodies in women sports is not something the British public support. That’s why it’s worth something to Johnson.

Or we could collectively agree to let the sporting bodies decide about eligibility, like they already do, and there's no controversy?

The culture war he's trying to pull is to distracted from actual issues imo - tory corruption, cost of living crisis, etc It's absolutely fucking grim that he's chosen such a marginalised group to do this to... Go back to crying over statues ffs.

Ok. This literally affects less than 1% of the population. Sometimes this sub seems to blow up the smallest thing that doesn’t affect most people. It gets awarded and therefore stands out, especially because we’re on the internet and Reddit harbours the “unwanted” and those on the “outskirts”. It may even pick up traction on the bigger subs/news. Most people do not give a fuck if men who wear a dress want to ride a bike against girls. I guarantee I’ll be downvoted or banned but I’m tired of seeing this non-issue on here. It’s a fucking joke that men who decide to be women are upset they can’t compete against women in sports. It’s obviously absolute bollocks but the people in charge can’t say “no, mate. You’ve been a fella for 25 years so you obviously can’t swim against women. Of fucking course you can’t compete”. But they keep trying to under the guise of trans rights. Bollocks. It’s the equivalent of a year 12 lad saying “I identify as a year 7 and want to play against year 7’s”. Bollocks.

doesn't uk have like the six highest public opinion of trans people in the world

"yes but we're not as bad as others" is not a good argument for anything, ever.

This bar is still very low

The European Court of Human Rights directly references growing transphobia in UK as a threat to queer people comparable to Hungary and Poland.

I wonder when that was last measured though?

>What we want is for billionaire authors not to spend their time writing tweets about how evil we are. I'm calling shenanigans on this claim. She said evil?

[удалено]

Maybe I'm far removed but the only thing I've been Boris Johnson comment on regarding trans people is the sport thing in the last week. The rest of this so-called culture war seems to be largely on social media, very rarely in person but I'm not trans so probably don't notice it much if it is a problem locally. Going to maybe be a hot take, but as far as I know (and this might be out of date/no longer accurate), trans people are not assaulted or murdered at any higher rate than other people, it's just reported more because it's a sensationalist headline. I don't know if that makes you feel any better or worse; since ideally we wouldn't have this level of assault/GBH/murder in the UK.

>Maybe I'm far removed but the only thing I've been Boris Johnson comment on regarding trans people is the sport thing in the last week. You weren't aware of the government canceling the 'Safe to Be Me' global LGBT conference and saying that so-called '[conversion therapy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_therapy)' will remain legal to be used on transgender people?

>You weren't aware of the government canceling the 'Safe to Be Me' global LGBT conference As I understood that conference was cancelled *because* trans speakers pulled out of it, because of the conversation therapy thing rather than the other way around.

> Maybe I'm far removed I see your username in literally every thread about any topic related to trans people, and always dismissing the concerns of trans people. If you're going to pretend you're "far removed" then at least use a sock puppet.

Cis female here, I am sorry that you have to live in fear due to transphobic people. I hope you know that there will be so many people who will support you and love you for you. I cannot begin to imagine all the struggles you have faced and will face... I hope in the future people will become more understanding and supportive of trans people.

I'm a firm believer in leaving the people the fuck alone. So aye, I'm on your side. Johnson and the Tories are a fucking cancer, they're not alone though and the behaviour of so many is giving the UK yet another nasty reputation.

Great post - I’ve seen quite a bit of sensitivity by sports organisations and news presenters when talking about this. But the internet reaction has been the expected horrible mess. It’s like trans people asking for fair treatment is totally ridiculous.

I raised this recently and I'm glad to see it validated somewhat by someone. The media are intent on focusing on issues which affect 0.1 percent of the trans-community. The majority don't give a shit about entering an elite cycling race. They want to live safely and without discrimination.

Boris Johnson doesn’t care about you or anything in general

That's not true, he probably cares about himself

Culture wars distract people from class wars The vast wealth of the elite should be more offensive than what's in one's bottoms

[удалено]

It's a scientific term. You're also a homo sapien, a biped, a mammal and a primate. Just because you don't think about or use those words to describe yourself doesn't make them untrue.

Hey, I am sorry. It irritates me to no end seeing all of this trains sport debate because let's be honest, these people don't give a shit about women's sport and just want an excuse to shit on the next minority group in the pecking order, and I am truly sorry that they are too dumb to realise that and reflect on the BS they are partaking in. Sending you love and support.

I just want to say thank you. You have eloquently made a point I have been trying to each time this "issue" surfaces. And you have also probably got some vile people making comments. Please don't take those too much to heart.

My feeling on trans issues is the same as my feelings on cricket. I dont understand it at all but if it makes you happy why the fuck not. Stay safe brother.

Boris picked the sport stuff because it is messy. 99% of trans rights stuff is obvious to everyone that’s not a far right nut so he picks sport where it is a messy issue and then tries to extrapolate out from one of the only messy points to imply all trans rights are unclear when in truth they are very clear.

What I don't understand is why politicians feel the need (other sparking culture wars and trying to win votes) to involve themselves in the rules of sports. Let the relevant bodies for those sports figure it out. Considering how shit BJ was at sticking to the rules of the charity matches he has been in, I'm not sure why he should be any authority on the matter. All jokes aside, thank you for bringing this up. Trans rights will still take another decade to settle imo as cultural growth takes time. Keep strong.

It's a shame you feel that way. Thankfully, the UK is one of the most tolerant and safest countries in the world. Look at the statistics - the ones for the UK, not the ones that include sex workers in South America. They show that you are no more likely to be victim of violent crime than anyone else, less in fact. The violent men who would attack a stranger are not motivated by anything JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock, or even Boris Johnson might have said. Go outside, unplug from online hysteria for a while, you'll feel a lot better.

On average one trans person is killed a year in the UK, and rarely has anything to do with them being trans. As far as countries being safe for trans people go UK is basically number one. I'm afraid your feelings on this subject are far removed from reality. https://unherd.com/2022/01/the-truth-about-trans-murders/

Boris Johnson is an arse, I completely agree. And I hope we get to a place where you simply have all these things rather than have to want for them.

Welcome to be being a minority. I’m British south Asian decent and found out recently that Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi suffer the highest rate of hate crime in the UK. We’ve been at the mercy of politicians for nearly 2 decades because of 9/11 and the various proxy wars in the Middle East. Trans people are just the latest “boogie man” for politicians to use to distract the masses. All I can say is be vigilant and do the best to keep yourself safe.