Her intervention came as Police Scotland confirmed they would log rapes by offenders with male genitalia as being carried out by a woman if the accused identified as female, regardless of whether they had legally changed gender.
According to the article, the Scotland criminal code "defines rape as non-consensual penetration with a penis." In the United States, the criminal code tends to be written so that one can be guilty of first degree sexual assault without having a penis. In any case, in Scotland, the person accused of "non-consensual penetration with a penis" does not escape conviction by identifying as a woman, so what does it matter if the forms designate that the accused is a woman?
Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are? But the criminally accused have rights, and in any case, women can be malevolent.
ADDED: I like the Times's summary of Orwell's issue, government's effort "to prevent citizens from thinking rationally and from challenging the state." And that is not what is going on here. What you have is 2 private citizens with autonomy interests — the complainant, who alleges that her bodily autonomy has been violated, and the accused, who wants autonomy in gender identification. The government isn't trying to disrupt rational thinking in order to strengthen its own power and control. It is only trying to enforce the criminal law, which protects the complainant's autonomy interest, and this doesn't really conflict with preserving the autonomy interest of the accused, which the government has also undertaken to respect.
पोस्ट्स
१३६ टिप्पण्या:
Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are? But the criminally accused have rights
The criminally accused have rights, but I'm not convinced that referring to them by their gender self-identification is one of them.
Its amazing how crazy left Scotland is. But then, anyone with Brains left Scotland a long time ago and they have a lot of irish immigrants too. And how many smart Irishmen leave Ireland for Scotland?
And of course, the Scots are much the English. A massive bunch of conformists who only half-care about public policy or anything else. Just give them a football game to watch and some beer and they're happy.
Women can be malevolent, but men cannot be women.
@Althouse: "Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are? But the criminally accused have rights, and in any case, women can be malevolent."
Really? You too?
It has more to do with the fact that some humans generate sperm/semen and can impregnate those who generate eggs and have a uterus. Regardless of the language a person uses, thereby the notion of gender identity is esoteric and misses the central point: MALES IMPREGNATE FEMALES, AND MALES ARE TYPICALLY PHYSICALLY STRONGER AND MORE OFTEN ABLE TO COERCE FEMALES. JK Rowling produces a lot of words and needs a degree of clarity in those words, or the Harry Potter series would have spent 100 pages out of each novel discussing Harry's gender.
Many of her fantasy characters were physically distinct and/or shape-shifters, but she portrayed them as having some enduring essences (e.g., good/evil) despite their surface appearances.
"Rowling was mimicking the dystopian novel’s 'doublethink,' the ability to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind simultaneously, designed to prevent citizens from thinking rationally and from challenging the state."
Just today Biden's Earpiece claimed he had always been opposed to the war in Afghanistan, a war Biden's Earpiece strongly supported multiple times over 2 decades. Case in point.
Back to Rowling:
In any case, in Scotland, the person accused of "non-consensual penetration with a penis" does not escape conviction by identifying as a woman, so what does it matter if the forms designate that the accused is a woman?
If it involves a penis, then listing the perpetrator as a "woman" is a biological and scientific lie.
A lie.
Designed to advance the destruction of clear common sense, the meaning of words, objective truth and mangle the thought processes of our children and "yutes".
Other than that, no biggee I guess.
It matters for crime statistics. If the person decides to identify as a cocker spaniel do we need to identify the perp as a dog out of courtesy?
Stunning and Brave, Professor. It matters if, say, relatively strong and mentally ill sex criminals enter women's prison by claiming to be women themselves. And yes, JKR is saying that indulging mental illness is not worth the health and well-being of actual women.
Maybe she doesn't want penis equipped persons in women's prisons.
Sorry, Ann, 99.999% of the time, rape is committed by MEN. Someone who uses the dodge of identifying himself as a woman while raping a woman is a MAN. I have no problem with a man wanting to identify himself as a woman and successfully doing the impersonation. I'll play along with the impersonation, but it is an impersonation. I would not want to embarrass the "woman" and call "her" on "her" impersonation. That would be just cruel.
A man who rapes a woman is not trying to live life as a woman but using the impersonation as an entry into women-restricted rooms to be cruel. Sometimes to commit criminal acts, like rape. Chain such rapists to a wall and flog them. They'll consider themselves lucky that they're not thrown into a ring with their victims. That would be cruel and unusual punishment.
I think Rowling is telling the freaks to SD&SU, and good for her.
When is a door not a door? When it's ajar.
When is a woman not a woman? When he has a Y chromosome.
Just for clarity, regarding any awards that are awarded based on demographic criteria I am a muslim, black, transgender, female with disabilities. It would be impolite to suggest I am anything but.
'But the criminally accused have rights, and in any case, women can be malevolent.'
You're off the beam here.
JK is just tired of all the trans bullshit, as are most.
Me identifying as an armchair does not make me an armchair.
You treating me like an armchair are only enabling my mental illness.
And if I am not mentally ill, perhaps I am only having fun at your expense.
In CA, men with penises who identify as female are being housed in women's prisons.
How do you think that will work out?
Btw, my pronouns are 'World's Greatest Stud' and 'Take off my panties now.'
I expect to be addressed as such...after all, that is the applicable courtesy.
Nice attempt at deflection, AA, but a spade is still a spade. Orwell, of course, had a thing or two to say about redefining language and its intent.
"Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are?"
Doesn't this, in some way, show prejudice against, not a neutral behavior, to recognize as FACT a difference from the accusation? Why isn't the accuser allowed to describe the attacker as they experienced it?
I believe that the police in Scotland are saying that they will accept the perp's gender statement and deal with it accordingly. There have been multiple instances where the chick with a dick was placed in the women's section of the prison and then proceeded to rape and pillage.
It's astounding to me that a national population of 1 Million trannies, according to the NIH,representing .3% of the 330 Million people in the US are able to so completely uproot ordinary and reasonable understandings about sex and who goes into which bathrooms or locker rooms. As Chappell noted, if blacks had the marketing and PR of the trannies, civil rights issues would have been in the distant past.
- Krumhorn
(my preferred adjectives: brilliant/awesome)
There is certainly a courtesy, but it goes beyond courtesy when people are expected to treat the person as a woman *in every way*. Thus, we have the farce of a penised person identifying as a woman who now is on the women's swim team and is defeating every person with a vagina and breaking all the existing women's swim records.
I'll call her a woman to her face but having grown up with male hormones, she pretty much has a male body and an unfair advantage. Some people are XX and identify as female from birth. Some people are XY and identify from male at birth. But that doesn't exhaust human diversity. We really have to "get beyond the binary". Some people don't really fit in either the pure man or pure woman box. That's okay. What's not okay is pretending they do.
That's my solution to gendered bathrooms. Call them penis room and the vagina room, with no gender identity attached.
Is the proper Orwellian response to say that Rowling is right, Rowling is wrong, or that Rowling never existed?
what does it matter? Because: legally changed gender
If there is a legal standard for a person's gender then is that not the law for how to keep legal records in this regard? That's the first thing that comes to mind.
Another is why does the log even ask gender, when the specific crime involves a penis (I suspect that is more Rowling's point). But I much prefer the US law, because it is crazy to believe woman can't rape, so long as they don't have a penis. Go ahead, tell me there is a mental difference between the two types of sexual abuse while I put forward a young girl raped by a woman to hear your argument.
“ Rowling was mimicking the dystopian novel’s 'doublethink,' the ability to hold two opposing ideas in one’s mind simultaneously ….”
That’s not how I interpret Orwell’s trifold doublethink dictum. My view is these are contradictory statements. Big Brother wanted you to redefine war, freedom, and ignorance. To wit: peace comes through strength (war); obsession with individual liberty ironically enslaves the obsessed; ignorance is not really ignorance but intuitive/non-elitist knowledge. IOW, Orwell was showing how controlling meanings of words gave control of everything.
Perhaps Rowling is suggesting that totalitarian states want to build their power by getting citizens to agree to more and more false statements every day, until they are numb to the idea of standing up for the truth. Your speech is violence, but our violence is speech. Silence is violence. We are the powerless ones, while you are privileged. There are four lights.
And a another point easier to understand.
If I (a white-ish guy) identify as a black woman and that is entered into every police record were I to be arrested, how safe would that be?
It's like the current trend of not identifying criminal suspects by race if they happen to be black.
"Be on the lookout for a medium height, medium build, medium age person."
Extremely helpful.
Are you deliberately being obtuse for some reason I can't fathom? Or have I made a mistake in assuming that Rowling would prefer not to have men who have been convicted of rape housed inside of women's prisons?
JK Rowling is richer than the Queen of England and she can say anything she wants, but I still admire her courage. The Left would cancel her if they could.
Side Note: I just recently saw the 1984 version of 1984. It always puts me in the Christmas mood. The movie showed a distressing 1984 sensibility towards nudity. The female lead appeared in several lengthy full frontal nude scenes. John Hurt, the Winston Smith character, appeared in none. The movie thus demonstrated the wish of the film's director and producers to cater to the male gaze. This 1984 sensibility is double plus ungood. This movie, like GWTW, should either be retired from showing or prefaced with a statement about the ungood content of some of the scenes. Ideally they should make a new version of 1984 with a cast that is more diverse. Perhaps Winston could be transgendered. It's time to bring 1984 up to date and give us the version we deserve.
Where did the right to be called a woman even though you are a man come from? What law or court decision created it?
No, I think Rowling would deny that there is, or should be, an "otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are." The example of rapists would be a reductio ad absurdum of that point, but my impression is, she will call adult human males men, and females women, regardless of their protestations.
Because, if convicted, they will be imprisoned with women. Women on whom they will prey.
and in any case, women can be malevolent.
Isn't that kind of a dog whistle for lesbian?
I rather think she's trying to say that they should be imprisoned with other people with penises.
I think she is pointing out the insanity that men think they can be women.
Can a man legitimately say that they are a woman while using their penis to rape a woman? When is it appropriate to not indulge some people living in a fantasy? Seems like this would be an appropriate time.
Feeling strong today, so here goes...
I think Ms. Rowling is saying that if one commits rape in the sense of rape by the Scots, one would have to have a penis and thus, one would have to be, at the time of the rape, a man. I'm not sure though, what the Scots' definition of "rape rape" is so I will have more to say as futhur information come to light.
so what does it matter if the forms designate that the accused is a woman?
Well, truth matters, for one thing.
Also the women in a women's prison might not like being housed with a male rapist.
I always thought the more apt scene in 1984 concerned the freedom to say what you see.
Do you remember writing in your diary that freedom is the freedom to say 2 and 2 make 4?
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
And if the party says it is not 4, but 5, then how many?
I think a rape victim penetrated by a penis has the right to expect the government to treat the crime seriously and to not play word games in an effort to protect the emotional feelings of a male rapist.
The government is conflating sex and gender (i.e. physical and mental sex-correlated attributes), and servicing the transgender spectrum with selective interest and conversion therapies by choice and force under the Pro-Choice religion.
"so what does it matter if the forms designate that the accused is a woman?"
A fair rhetorical question, since in these postmodern times nothing matters, certainly not truth. But for those of us deplorably attached to that old notion, and what was once considered basic sanity, it matters that governmental forms do not express the absurdity that a male rapist with a penis is not called a "woman."
"Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are?"
Is it courteous to be forced to speak untruth? Is it courteous of the accused to demand that an entire culture must submit to subversive personal claims? Radical trans subjectivism, the notion that we are what we claim to be and everyone else must bow to that self-definition, is itself the death of courtesy, which depends on the acknowledgment and priority of shared manners.
"The government isn't trying to disrupt rational thinking in order to strengthen its own power and control."
Indeed it is. No citizen shall deny postmodern trans truth.
"It is only trying to enforce the criminal law"
Certainly not. It is also making a new concession to trans demands, itself entirely irrelevant to resolving the criminal case.
As we see here, Althouse has plenty of rationalizations to justify the trans transvaluation of categories. Since the nice women of the West do not care to preserve the culture's basic standards, what does it matter to argue for upholding them?
Perhaps the argument is that raping a woman with your own cock is not something that we normally associate with womanly behavior?
If you want to be a genuine “woman” at least have the courtesy to use a dildo or something. Try acting like a woman.
The government is trying to enforce the delusion that people with penises (what they used to commit the rape) can be called women. They are trying to make the public accept a lie as truth. Rowling is making the connection to Orwell and it is correct.
This isn't about pronouns or being polite. This is about truth and the ability of the state to not only ignore it, but force us to ignore it too. If they can get you to accept that people with penises are women, they can get you to accept any other lie they want to feed you.
That's not Rowling's point at all. She's mocking the wokeness of the Scottish police's new reporting policy regarding rape suspects. Not hard to grasp.
Yes— but what of the autonomy of the persons with vaginas when the persons with penises are locked in a cell with them?
"Applicable courtesy" to a rapist? Or is the criminal, once found guilty, to be assigned to a cell with a second (hetero) female?
And when every Scottish rapist pleads that (s)he is truly a woman, that too will be only a matter between inmates at the women's prison, not concerning the State in any way. Sometimes, cruel neutrality is pretty cruel.
“Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are? But the criminally accused have rights, and in any case, women can be malevolent.“
What is the pretense for this courtesy after somebody has forcibly inserted their penis into somebodies vagina against their consent?
Should courtesies impact how the government logs data?
" The government isn't trying to disrupt rational thinking in order to strengthen its own power and control. It is only trying to enforce the criminal law, "
I don't know. It seems to me if the government can tell you the person who raped you with their penis is a woman, they are indeed trying to disrupt rational thinking. They are certainly not *only* trying to enforce the criminal law.
If the woman with a penis is convicted and sent to prison, will she go to a male or female prison?
But the criminally accused have rights, and in any case, women can be malevolent.
I have no doubt that women can be malevolent, but when the malevolence involves inserting one’s penis where it’s not welcome, then the malefactor (by dint of having said penis) is not a woman.
Automatic caveat - people can dress, act, or describe themselves however they want. But insisting that people lie is not acceptable in a free or healthy society.
Rational thought is rooted in calculation and comparison (hence the tie to the word "ratio"). An important aspect of rational thought is thinking categorically, and subverting categories makes categorical thinking more difficult. Propositions such as "Prisoners in women's prisons should be women" are harder to evaluate when the category "women" becomes contextual and harder still, when the preexisting category is supposed to have become illegitimate and its overt use discrediting.
Whether it is the government's purpose to impose these difficulties on our thinking or merely our moral betters' is irrelevant. People hobbled in this way often make poor decisions and think themselves better for their errors.
There is no autonomy interest in having people share your delusions.
Cue Billy Joel:
She is frequently kind and she's suddenly cruel
But she can do as she pleases, she's nobody's fool
And she can't be convicted, she's earned her degree
And the most she will do is throw boners at you
But she's always a woman to me
Hey, JK: (Blame it all on yourself 'cuz she's always a woman to meeeeeeee!)
What if a woman with a penis is convicted of rape, and sent to a woman's prison? Or to a prison just for women with penises? Seems like extra strength ignorance in action.
As long as the right of the rapist to freely self-identify does not erase right of the public to know who's actually doing the raping...
"The criminally accused have rights, but I'm not convinced that referring to them by their gender self-identification is one of them."
It's a right that Scotland has created for all its citizens, so what is the basis for depriving the criminally accused of that right? You don't just lose all your rights when you are accused! And the state doesn't even want to take away that right.
Whatever you think of that right, there's nothing "doublethink" about the government's choice to protect and defend it.
"Women can be malevolent, but men cannot be women."
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant. The question is how will the government write down information about its citizens. It's choosing a form of address and adopting gender identification as the information to be used.
Just thess questions: Is this peak insanity yet? Is there still greater insanity to come?
"It matters if, say, relatively strong and mentally ill sex criminals enter women's prison by claiming to be women themselves."
The Rowling tweet addresses the filling out of forms. How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake. It's a big deal, as is all violence and rape in prison.
I ignore JKR and instead invoke Lola, Ell Oh Ell Aaa, Lola for this comment. The attempt by accused male rapists to identify as female can be reduced to an example of "my grandpa's axe" where replacing bits and pieces does not change the fundamental identity of the American, nor of the accused.
How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake. It's a big deal, as is all violence and rape in prison.
Governments lying, and insisting that their citizens accept and repeat these lies, is also a big deal.
Is an XY rapist identifying as female therefore necessarily a lesbian?
The discussion isn't about post-conviction but prior to trial. I think the police should record events as they observe it. The complainant can say they were raped by a man with a penis (write that down). The accused can say they are a woman, but yes they are pre-op and not yet legally defined a woman (write that down). The alleged crime is rape by vaginal penetration by a penis (write that down). As long as the alleged can be identified clearly by other means, then they can say they were attacked by two men with a MAGA hat in -16F weather. They will still be guilty if the jury finds it was their penis used in the rape. After conviction, then it matters if they are a woman or man as to where they will be imprisoned.
Let's wait to see what Whoopi has to say...
Btw, I don't give two fucks what people do to mangle their genitals.
Just don't make me pay for it and quit pushing it down my throat (see what I did?) as 'normal.'
Your money, your junk? Go crazy.
The Rowling tweet addresses the filling out of forms. How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake.
I disagree. The two are closely bound together.
Can it be entered under "Identifying Characteristics"?
"My client does not identify that organ as a penis."
(I think)the government writes down information about its citizens by using factually sourced information. Well- it used to.
And I don’t think that a man identifying (weasel word) as a woman has any more right to force a lie- my opinion- onto others anymore than I have a right to tell a man how he can identify.
Unfortunately- the rules of the game are not about individual respect and politeness- they are about control, power and coercion. A micro penis% of people scrambling normalities to self- gratify their egos and get off on others uncomfortableness-& I have witnessed this)can now make others say the magic words or pay a hefty fine: if the rules are laws. Which is governmental overstep. My opinion(that matters to me).
A huge part of me wants this craziness to continue- this mindfuck of who matters most and who can out-equal who: the lack of bail for crimes, the w/holding of medications that cure(ivermectin, hydroxicloriquin(sp) etc- the jailing of Jan 6 participants, the incurious press, the lies of a sitting President- ad nauseum… let it burn. Gangs of youth acting like vicious animals and so much more that is brushed off depending on the tribe affiliation.
“Evil walks in small steps. If it were to come all @once, we would not be deceived.” St Paisios of Athos
If we call a dogs penis a leg,
and she sodomizes you with it; how many legs does that dog have?
[THIS JOKE HAS BEEN BANNED DUE TO TRANSPHOBIA]
"What you have is 2 private citizens with autonomy interests — the complainant, who alleges that her bodily autonomy has been violated, and the accused, who wants autonomy in gender identification."
What you have is a man who raped a woman, and a bunch of crazy people who claim he is also a woman. Are you one of them? If he claims he is a dog, do you agree he is a dog? Should the police take him to a dog pound, since he is a dog?
"How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake."
If the person declares themselves a woman, and the state officially sanctions that declaration (it's not just a lot line on a form, it's the state saying "yeah, you are a woman"), then I would think that person could sue the state for denying them access to the prison appropriate to their declared sex.
Ann Althouse said...
The Rowling tweet addresses the filling out of forms. How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake. It's a big deal, as is all violence and rape in prison.
When a the ruling powers of a social convention forces it's citizens to accept obvious untruths there are serious negative affects on the fabric of that society.
If you are trying to be devils advocate that is acceptable. I believe you are trying to put forth some sort of balance on some recent threads.
But at some point you have to deal with the points that matter.
A society can only survive with order when the incompatible elements of that society are suppressed.
You have to choose what you suppress and what you accept. The pressures that you place on individuals in society form the cohesive fabric of that society as individuals adapt and conform to those pressures.
Until they cut their junk off they are men. Forcing individuals to label people something they are not forms a society that has no foundation in reality and is at it's core dishonest.
A society that is fundamentally dishonest will be a low trust society.
You cannot have freedom in a low trust society.
The ultimate target of this very unpopular and frankly stupid crap is to take freedom away from citizens.
If that is what you want be honest about it.
'Can it be entered under "Identifying Characteristics"?'
Ha! : )
Make the investigating officer write down 'Schlong.'
'...how many legs does that dog have?'
Lincoln was no dummy.
"That's your opinion and it's irrelevant."
It's a biological fact. With present day medical technology, a man can simulate the look and feel of a woman, but can't actually become one. Even if technology could accomplish this, that technology involve something more than just wishing it so.
Blogger Ann Althouse said...
"Women can be malevolent, but men cannot be women."
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant. The question is how will the government write down information about its citizens.
Hilarious. The law professor is more concerned about how to fill out forms than rape. Remember the boy who raped the girl in the school in VA? He raped another when they moved him to another school.
Althouse states "That's your opinion."
At what point do we simply abandon all facts and simply say everything is opinion. Once upon a time biology was fact, now it is opinion. But it is only opinion because it is convenient to move the political needle. Biology is fact, feelings are opinions. Dogs are dogs, up is up and red is not blue. Their opinion is that they feel like a woman, but the fact is they are male with delusions of femininity. They have the right to feel that way, and it is not hurtful for me to indulge their pronouns, but it is wrong for them to demand indulgence, and wrong for society to out other people at risk for that indulgence. If Scotland passed a low saying gender choice is a right, then they deserve to be mocked for it. And Rowling is right to invoke Orwell. The victim was not raped by a woman, they were raped by a man with a penis who wants to be referred to as a woman, and that is ridiculous.
So the government will call the person with a penis a woman until they are found guilty of rape, then declare them male? That doesn't make any sense.
"IOW, Orwell was showing how controlling meanings of words gave control of everything "
100% this, M Jordan
I have been thinking about how to bring 1984 up to date and make it more reflective of our sensibilities. I'd like to rework the torture scene. O'Brien is no longer cisgendered but is less binary. I'd like to see him played by a sympathetic actor, maybe Tom Hanks with eye liner. He appears before Winston wearing a robe. He pulls open the robe and reveals himself. He asks Winston how many vaginas he sees. Winston answers none. Zap, zap and more zap. O'Brien keeps increasing the electrical charge until Winston sees the proper number of vaginas. Then O'Brien changes his mind and decides he wants Winston to see a penis. Zap, zap and more zap again until Winston sees a penis. In such a way can Winston be instructed in the harm that the male gaze inflicts upon his fellow humans and how with proper conditioning we can all be led to a brighter, cleaner world.....The ending of 1984 was too downbeat. Maybe in this updated version, Winston and O'Brien can all just get along.
I see it more as a rom-com. Jussie Smollett could play Winston Smith. He and O'Brien overcome their differences and hook up at the end. 1984 doesn't have to be such a downer.
Something to look forward to?
https://4w.pub/mexican-courts-to-allow-dob/
You are as old as you feel/think/want to be.
Saint Croix said...
so what does it matter if the forms designate that the accused is a woman?
*************
I'd say that the perp would point to that form and say, I'm a woman and therefore I can't rape a woman. Penetration? In my view that stuff between my legs is NOT a "penis", since women can't HAVE penises!!"
Laugh? Just you wait.
"Is Rowling trying to say that the accusation of rape ought to deprive the individual of the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are?"
How far does this courtesy have to extend?
Does the rape victim now need to refer to the rapist as 'her' while testifying on the stand?
Is a court that refers to the rapist as 'she' not putting a thumb on the scale?
Does a rape victim now need to validate her rapist's delusions?
How do we accept a finding of truth when a lie is baked into the cake?
As Marie Antoinette might have said: there is enough cake for everybody.
-Loren
A better 1984-Orwell quote is, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."
If the blue-eyed blond suspect identifies as a green-eyed redhead, do the police accept that description too?
Shorter version of AA’s comment: Rowling was citing the wrong classic. Rather than Orwell’s 1984, she should have used Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass.
"but men cannot be women."
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant.
That's not an opinion, it's a fact and facts are not irrelevant.
Man = adult human male; woman = adult human female.
Male = produces smaller gametes, and in humans has XY chromosomes.
Female = produces larger gametes, can normally bear young and in humans has XX chromosomes.
Those definitions are from normal English dictionaries, and people can't change the attributes which make them men or women, and male or female. Your shiny new Newspeak dictionary might say something different, but in that case it would be irrelevant because it would be wrong.
When I get arrested I hope they preserve my bodily autonomy by writing down my claim that I'm 5'2" tall and blond with a pug nose rather than 6'2" tall, dark and handsome as I merely appear to be.
No true Scots woman would rape another woman.
Frank said...It matters for crime statistics.
There are a lot of reasons not to cater to the narcissism of the rapist, but this one is the most objective.
I think that some of this discussion is missing that police forms are intended to form a database that will help solve both past and future crimes. Allowing the accused to decide how he wants to be described is equivalent to asking him if he wants to make it more or less confusing to police looking for similar crimes in the database.
Wa St Blogger said...
Althouse states "That's your opinion."
At what point do we simply abandon all facts and simply say everything is opinion. Once upon a time biology was fact, now it is opinion.
Ann is pointing out to you that what you are saying is not enough.
You all need to up your game.
Understand and be able to articulate how this dishonest activity taken by governments undermines the social contract and creates a dishonest and fundamentally low trust society.
Be able to discuss the results of a low trust society.
The people that are pushing this have evil intent. They will not be persuaded by reason. But they are trying to influence society to achieve their goals.
You are going after the squishy middle in a game of persuasion.
Get better at the persuasion.
When one party and it supporters decide to completely ignore biology in the service of making people feel good, it becomes a little hypocritical when they start criticizing the other party and its adherents for ignoring “science”.
'Something to look forward to?
https://4w.pub/mexican-courts-to-allow-dob/
You are as old as you feel/think/want to be.'
Fernando Valenzuela did this years ago...
Talk about Rape Culture . . .
Reality itself is under constant assault.
Women don't have penises and they don't have the ability to forcibly rape another woman under the law you quoted. Rowling isn't talking about law she's talking about the fantasy that men can breast feed and women can have penises.
Until they cut their junk off they are men.
After they cut their junk off, they're still men, specifically eunuchs.
"How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake. It's a big deal, as is all violence and rape in prison."
Making the prisons unisex will solve that problem. If the girls swim team has to let a guy with a dick join in, then there's no reason to separate the prisoners.
Rowling is probably worried that the victim will be charged with a hate crime for referring to their rapist as "he" or "him".
A lot of Eric Raymond's comments here seem on point to me.
Your identity is not your choice
Read the whole thing but a few bits:
"Your “identity” is a set of predictive claims you assert about yourself, mostly (though not entirely) about what kinds of transactions other people can expect to engage in with you."
...
"Thus, identity claims can be false (not cashed out in observed behavior) or fraudulent (intended to deceive). You don’t get to choose your identity; you get to make an offer and it’s up to others whether or not to accept."
...
"Cruelty doesn’t enter into this; if I assent to your claim I assist your self-deceit, and if I repeat it I assist you in misleading or defrauding others."
...
"You can’t base “identity” on a person’s private self-beliefs and expect sane behavior to emerge any more than you can invite everyone to speak private languages and expect communication to happen."
...
"As a culture, we got to the crazy place we’re at now by privileging feelings over facts. The whole mess around “identity” is only one example of this. It’s time to say this plainly: people who privilege feelings over facts are not sane, and the facts always win in the end. Though, unfortunately, often not before the insanity has inflicted a great deal of unnecessary suffering."
Achilles said:
The people that are pushing this have evil intent. They will not be persuaded by reason. But they are trying to influence society to achieve their goals.
You are going after the squishy middle in a game of persuasion.
Get better at the persuasion.
Persuasion is not effective when reason is abandoned. I make no effort to persuade those who choose to other means of affecting their goals. Reason is not for them. I have often made the point that power seeks control. Orwell, makes that case, Rowling echoes it. However, there are those in the squishy middle who do not understand the game and will be swayed by logic. Eventually these people will have enough and reject the insanity. The loony left thinks that they have willing allies, and they use the wedge issues to rally their troops not aware that many in their camp simply have not yet realized that they have been misled. They believe the promises of social utopia and turn a blind eye to the damage it causes until such damage lands at their doorstep. It is these people who will begin to listen to arguments of reason. And thus, arguments of reason still must be made.
Talk about Rape Culture . . .
They made the allegation. They tried to deny women's dignity and agency. Many people were surprised when #HimToo and #SheProgressed were exposed as joint enterprises, and even the feminists balked when their sons and husbands were the witches hunted and warlocks on trial.
Can they abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too? Apparently, not in a functional society.
IMHO Rowling was objecting to the rape of language. Language is intimately connected to mind: mind-as-self. Thus in “1984” Orwell depicted the State’s rape of the self through O’Brien’s destruction of Smith’s mind. Language binds us to “the world as it truly is,” and if words can be arbitrarily redefined, the mind loses connection to that underlying reality. Anything becomes possible; one waits to be told what is true and real.
There are many fine comments on this thread (Sebastian, Wa St Blogger, Achilles, others) but one aspect might be worth pointing out. Which is: language is a commons. Each user of it both consumes and produces it; takes and gives meaning. If I persistently misuse a word, I am making it harder for everyone else to use the word correctly. They must try to track if the next user is using the word “as Owen is using it?” Or instead “as everybody else uses it?” In the ordinary mis/use case, I am greatly outnumbered and any confusion is local, minor, transient: people ignore me or tell me to stop horsing around. But: when my misuse is given official weight? Now there is real damage being done. The distortion works its way into official records. Two or more realities are being recorded. My little delusion is preserved and magnified. Everybody is taxed to pay for my madness: not just to remember the new, second meaning, but to trust less the stability of all meanings.
It was not long ago that a trans/homosexual male was a mass rapist of males. A story that was mostly suppressed for the purposes of establishing a political congruence. Rape is typically involuntary sex, but can also be involuntary sexual (e.g. rectal or oral penetration) relationships.
This is a classic case of social progress through wielding a double-edged scalpel. Roe, Roe, Roe your baby, down the river Styx. One step forward, two steps backward.
And does the latter individual’s “autonomy of gender identification” extend to being incarcerated in a women’s prison where he can continue to use his penis on unwilling female victims?
Ann Althouse said...
The Rowling tweet addresses the filling out of forms. How to house transgender persons in prison is a different matter, where the autonomy interests of other prisoners are at stake. It's a big deal, as is all violence and rape in prison.
But it all starts with the filling out of forms. Prisons are big on form filling. If the form says the prisoner is female, the prisoner will be sent to a female prison. If Ann is saying that when it comes to assigning a prison place, the authorities should follow science (as opposed to The Science) then what difference does it make?
"When I get arrested I hope they preserve my bodily autonomy by writing down my claim that I'm 5'2" tall and blond..."
What if your natural hair was brown but you bleached it blond? Can the police have a policy about whether to call your hair brown or blond and choose blond because it's what you've made it? Would we care if some people complained and said no, the original color must be recorded on the forms?
Could the police forms eliminate the place for "sex" or "gender" and just record height, weight, and age and maybe something else related to how physically dangerous the person is, maybe "build" (with answers like muscular and not muscular)? Could sex/gender be eliminated in separating people in prison and go by size and muscularity (and maybe capacity to become pregnant)?
Rape and reality-busting language manipulation are both acts of asserting power over others. In one case, we accuse the perpetrator, in the other we accuse the victim.
I like the Times's summary of Orwell's issue, government's effort "to prevent citizens from thinking rationally and from challenging the state."...The government isn't trying to disrupt rational thinking in order to strengthen its own power and control.
I can see why you like The Times’ summary. It fits the argument you, and they, want to make. That doesn’t make it accurate. It’s too narrow. Undermining people’s ability to question and criticize government is the end purpose in 1984. But we’re not talking about the end purpose, we’re talking about the method used to achieve that purpose. Big brother’s language manipulation undermines people’s ability to think clearly by changing the common meaning of certain words while maintaining the emotional associations. Which is exactly what the Scotland Police are doing.
I’m often surprised at what lawyers will embrace given that the tools of their profession are the precise meanings of individual words.
When trans men get yeast infections whenever they take antibiotics, I'll consider calling them sister, or at least sister of another gender.
Re. rape laws. Ironically, which is the only word going on my gravestone, in the 90's, we second wave feminists removed gendered language from rape laws specifically to include male victims of rape, who were almost always victims of other males. We made all victims equal before the law and focused on the violation itself, not identity politics. That was called equality feminism -- merely leveling the playing field. Equality of opportunity, not outcome. In academia, we were smeared as "capitalist feminists," which categorically doesn't even make sense.
Bygones. Who expects them to learn anything? If capitalist feminism means that one call a rapist with a penis a man whether he rapes a female or a male, I'm on that good ship lollipop. And good on Rawlings.
Many here don't understand how rape and sexual assault laws are structured. Which is fine. In a sane world, few would need to know.
Many rapists penetrate their victims with things other than penises. Often they do both. Different states have different terminology, but most lean towards the term sexual assault instead of rape to encompass all these types of penetration, and they treat them equally severely, with additional penalties for injury inflicted -- fist, stick, knife. Lots of rapists targeting elderly women like to fist their victims, causing severe pain and harm. So the best laws try to move away from the rapist's modus operandi and focus on the violation and additional injuries.
At least they used to. If they try this crap in Georgia, it's over my dead body. Our legislation actually helped trans victims of rape, and we also worked to provide respectful evidence collection for such victims. Unfortunately, since then, the major sex crime nonprofits like RAINN, and many rape crisis centers have gone woke.
But RAINN was betraying women way back in the 90's when they announced that they wouldn't oppose excluding serial stranger rape and murder of straight women from being counted as hate. Anything to submit to the gay lobby. HRC is a disgrace.
How long until pundits cheer that, under Biden, the number of rapes committed by men has fallen?
Ann, can they have a place where they report the presence or absence of a penis?
And why do you think it is fair for a biological male who has bigger bone and muscular structure to compete with females in athletics? Please explain because I don’t understand.
Prof A @ 5:07: “…Could the police forms eliminate the place for "sex" or "gender" and just record height, weight, and age…?” So in order to pursue this putative “autonomy interest” of a deranged sub-population representing perhaps 0.3% of humanity —and of those, the (hopefully) few who fall afoul of the law— you would have the criminal justice system contort itself to NOT collect data on one of the most salient features that every suspect, every citizen, every last autonomous one of us, necessarily exhibits and uses? Is this just more law school seminar fun, playing with the hypotheticals to elucidate some principle?
I would suggest what you have is science denial. You have those with XY, and those with XX, or you have a sport. One is male, one is female, and the other is a one off and vanishingly rare. What is next, is the Scottish Parliament going to repeal the Law of Gravity perhaps?
Oh, and docrev nailed it. Are we going to send a rapist into a prison for women to indulge himself because of some political correctness gone wild? Heinlein's crazy years seem to be upon us.
Blogger n.n said...
It was not long ago that a trans/homosexual male was a mass rapist of males. A story that was mostly suppressed for the purposes of establishing a political congruence
Suppressed pretty good. What are you talking about?
Nouns have gender, people are sexually dimorphic. Men and women are NOT fungible and to count males as females just because they say so, especially in rape cases, is profoundly anti-female. It skews the rape stats just a thoroughly as the Soros District Attorneys in San Francisco and Los Angeles who refuse to file charges in "life style" crimes -- aka shop lifting, public defecation, etc. Local businesses get the message and even calling the police for criminal acts in their stores. No reports are taken and VOILA, "crime is down".
Even the Biden admin has their hand in hiding the stats and will no longer require school districts to report on certain teacher-on-student sex crimes.
If we don't know about it, did it ever happen?
(and maybe capacity to become pregnant)
If you are post menopausal or have had a hysterectomy or tubal ligation, can you not be raped?
"...the otherwise applicable courtesy of calling people by the gender they say they are?"
That's your opinion and it's irrelevant.
See? Two can play silly lawyer games.
I have a theory. Our disgruntled and liberal hostess replies most often to comments here when her logic and ideas are being clearly shown as incorrect or incoherent. There seems to be an effort to gain lost ground by pretending to be above the debate, to be cruelly neutral.
But it's not neutrality. There is a vested interest - probably intellectual, but perhaps just a matter of taste - in maintaining she is correct in all cases.
But this is just my opinion and is probably irrelevant.
Could the police forms eliminate the place for "sex" or "gender" and just record height, weight, and age and maybe something else related to how physically dangerous the person is, maybe "build" (with answers like muscular and not muscular)? Could sex/gender be eliminated in separating people in prison and go by size and muscularity (and maybe capacity to become pregnant)?
That will stop working when muscular people self-identify as scrawny. Once you’ve accepted this ludicrous premise of identification outweighing reality, there’s no reason to expect it to stop where you want it to.
Could sex/gender be eliminated in separating people in prison and go by size and muscularity (and maybe capacity to become pregnant)
Wouldn't it all be easier to say "has penis. Y/N?"
Or more accurately, circle one: xx or xy chromosome set.
"Could sex/gender be eliminated in separating people in prison and go by size and muscularity (and maybe capacity to become pregnant)?"
What if they identify as small and weak, or identify as someone who can get pregnant?
“so what is the basis for depriving the criminally accused of that right?”
The presence of Y chromosomes and a penis.
It’s amazing you delusional and deranged people need this pointed out but here we are.
If I ever get busted I'm going to identify as Innocent Of All Charges.
Ann Althouse said...
"The criminally accused have rights, but I'm not convinced that referring to them by their gender self-identification is one of them."
It's a right that Scotland has created for all its citizens, so what is the basis for depriving the criminally accused of that right? You don't just lose all your rights when you are accused! And the state doesn't even want to take away that right.
Whatever you think of that right, there's nothing "doublethink" about the government's choice to protect and defend it
The entire "right" is about doublethink. it's about government imposed irrationality.
Your feelings about your "gender don't matter.
Do you have a penis? Do more than 1/2 your cells have a Y chromosome in them?
Then you are male, and any claim otherwise is insane doublethink
Do you have a vagina? Do less than 1% of your cells have Y chromosomes in them?
Then you are a female, and any claim otherwise is insane doublethink
Did you have a sex change operation? Do you now have a penis, but no other cells with Y chromosomes? Then, by curtsey, we will pretend that you really are a male. Do you have a vagina because you had your penis chopped off, but lots of cells with Y chromosomes? Then, by curtsey, we will pretend that you really are a female.
But until you've had that sex change operation, your feelings are irrelevant. And demanding that your rape victim be further violated by being forced to refer to you as "she"? That's insane, and only a nut would favor it
Sex. Sex-correlated gender. Evolutionary fitness. A normal distribution.
“so what is the basis for depriving the criminally accused of that right?”
As long as it's practiced in privacy. What compelling cause is there to expect by consensus or force that people repeat a handmade tale? Why construct a political congruence ("=")? Normalize, tolerate, or reject.
On what basis are women denied reproductive rites for an unborn child in the second and third trimesters, the fourth?
Could sex/gender be eliminated in separating people in prison
Yes, for trans/homosexuals, where popular culture has deemed it a compelling cause to conflate sex and gender (e.g. sexual orientation).
If we decide it would be discourteous to deny a rapist the pretense of being female, how will this act of sexual violence appear in a statistical analysis of who is most likely to commit rapes? Let the record show that males are no more likely to commit rape than females. Consequently, one cannot possibly argue that there is any justifiable reason to permit female-only "safe spaces." If women are at no more risk of sexual violence from men than from women, what is the argument for Women's bathrooms, changing rooms, or prisons?
I hate to be impolite, but as a biological female who was violently raped by a biological male as a young women, I prefer a reflection of biological reality when reporting acts of sexual violence.
Finally, the idea that it somehow violates the emotional stability of a penis-having rapist to use their natal gender when filling out a police report recording a sexual crime against a vagina-having person is quite possibly the cruelest form of wokeism I have yet seen.
Ann Althouse said...
Could the police forms eliminate the place for "sex" or "gender" and just record height, weight, and age and maybe something else related to how physically dangerous the person is, maybe "build" (with answers like muscular and not muscular)?
They could, but it would be incredibly stupid to do so.
Could sex/gender be eliminated in separating people in prison and go by size and muscularity (and maybe capacity to become pregnant)?
Well, how would you like to be forced to shower with men, just because they happened to be the same size as you?
Do you seriously not see how nuthouse insane you're being?
Darleen, stop being an idiot.
Apparently your sons are gay. That doesn't give you or them the right to redefine my sexual identity or that of my rapist. Get a fucking grip on reality.
"Once you’ve accepted this ludicrous premise of identification outweighing reality, there’s no reason to expect it to stop where you want it to."
^^^^^THIS^^^^^
There isn't any theoretical reason you can't "identify" as anything you wish, once you have concluded that what you identify as supercedes reality. If a man can identify as a woman, he can also identify as an Asian woman, even if he's as white as Ward Cleaver. Throw reality away and there is no telling what you get.
Greg The Class Traitor said...
Do you seriously not see how nuthouse insane you're being?
12/14/21, 6:00 PM
I'm sure she does, but she lacks courage. This might be too pat of an explanation for JKR's implacable hand on the scale in favor of House Gryffindor, but nonetheless Rowling's steadfast rejection of the trans lie takes spine that most people (including most of her fellow billionaires, and almost all lawyers) will never have.
Are moving on from this one as if everything were fine? If so, this is my takeaway. I would be happy to alter it if more evidence arises or I find that I have interpreted something incorrectly:
JKR, prepared for yet another barrage of sick fantasies that she be raped and murdered for expressing a reasonable opinion based on factual evidence, points out that there are some awful men out there who will say and do whatever it takes in order to gain access to vulnerable women who can be forced to have sex with them and that it would be nice if society were to acknowledge this and take precautionary measures to prevent this from happening
AA: Allow courtesy to be weaponized against women, say and do things you know are not true, or you are a bad person
Apologies, I almost forgot about the forms.
AA: We're not talking about what goes on in prisons, you idiots. We're talking about the forms that are filled out before people are sent to prison. It's all very simple, you discourteous swine.
AA: We're not talking about what goes on in prisons, you idiots. We're talking about the forms that are filled out before people are sent to prison. It's all very simple, you discourteous swine.
If you think they will stop after winning the forms, you've been asleep for the last 40 years.
Either you stop them here, by saying "No, we don't give a sh!t about your feelings, reality trumps, always", or else you've given away the farm.
Do you want to keep male rapists out of female prisons? IOW, are you a good and decent human being?
If you are, then you call BS on this "forms" move.
If you're not willing to do that, you're paving the way for thousands of prison rapes
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा