Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 17, 2018, 04:01:18 AM
-
This comes across as an honest attempt to raise the issues around trans rights.
https://medium.com/@JonnnyBest/the-story-of-my-first-brush-with-trans-activism-and-what-i-learned-3ef13e31fd37
-
And a further discussion
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms
-
And this is one of those very few topics, I end up agreeing with The Spectator
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-it-a-crime-to-say-women-dont-have-penises/
-
And this is one of those very few topics, I end up agreeing with The Spectator
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-it-a-crime-to-say-women-dont-have-penises/
Can't read it, not a subscriber.
-
And a further discussion
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms
Excellent article, and a brave one, given how violent this debate can be.
-
Can't read it, not a subscriber.
Neither am I.
-
Neither am I.
It wants me to sign up for a free month. At the end of which I will forget to unsubscribe. Unless I’m missing something. Which I could be.
-
And this is one of those very few topics, I end up agreeing with The Spectator
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-it-a-crime-to-say-women-dont-have-penises/
Me too. As I've said before, it's all getting a bit silly.
-
It’s difficult. Being female is one of the few things I am entitled to given my chromosomes. We need to treat trans people with compassion; that should extend to natal women as well.
-
It wants me to sign up for a free month. At the end of which I will forget to unsubscribe. Unless I’m missing something. Which I could be.
I think ages ago I registered and I get to read 2 or 3 articles a week, which would be the limit I could stomach. I find it useful as long as I avoid the Rod Liddle/James Delingpole/Taki crap.
-
I think ages ago I registered and I get to read 2 or 3 articles a week, which would be the limit I could stomach. I find it useful as long as I avoid the Rod Liddle/James Delingpole/Taki crap.
No, it wants me to give my payment details. One month free then 8.99 thereafter. Not gonna happen.
-
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-it-a-crime-to-say-women-dont-have-penises/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
You can get the Spectator article free if you copy and paste the above.
-
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-it-a-crime-to-say-women-dont-have-penises/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
You can get the Spectator article free if you copy and paste the above.
Ta!
-
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/08/is-it-a-crime-to-say-women-dont-have-penises/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
You can get the Spectator article free if you copy and paste the above.
Thanks for that. Makes a good (and rather depressing) point.
-
Yes it does. There are stories of transwomen using women's changing rooms and exposing their penises, also raping women in women's prisons. A lot of people think that all transwomen have their male genitals removed, not so.
A poster has been distributed in the Bromley area, I read about but haven't yet seen one.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16184183.__39_Say_no_to_men_in_women__39_s_private_spaces___39__Poster_seen_in_Beckenham_causes_controversy/
-
Yes it does. There are stories of transwomen using women's changing rooms and exposing their penises, also raping women in women's prisons. A lot of people think that all transwomen have their male genitals removed, not so.
A poster has been distributed in the Bromley area, I read about but haven't yet seen one.
http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/16184183.__39_Say_no_to_men_in_women__39_s_private_spaces___39__Poster_seen_in_Beckenham_causes_controversy/
Isn't our thinking getting muddled here? As a woman I feel that women-only spaces maintain my privacy, not my safety. I've used gender neutral toilets and mixed gender changing rooms and never felt threatened. Is a trans woman exposing herself or getting changed? When it comes to women' prisons, we are talking about a very vulnerable group of women (most female inmates have been the victim of abuse of some kind and/or have mental health issues) . The solution there surely is a unit or units for trans women? Remember, trans women are themselves at risk of rape in male prisons regardless of their genitalia.
-
Yes they are, very much so!
There are transmen too who must find themselves in extremely vulnerable situations.
-
As well as the above I've been reading elsewhere about this as I find it a difficult subject to get my head around, and a little uncomfortable about it too, my problem I know.
Anyway I came across the term "TERF" (just what the world needs another acronym) which stands for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists" (I'm guessing Germaine Greer qualifies for this category), this group of people don't seem so very far removed from the hardcore Lesbians I knew in the late 70's who blamed men for everything and generally railed against the unfairness of all things masculine (except of course when they wore denim jackets).
None of the above advances the conversation much except it leads me back to the old saying that "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
-
As well as the above I've been reading elsewhere about this as I find it a difficult subject to get my head around, and a little uncomfortable about it too, my problem I know.
Anyway I came across the term "TERF" (just what the world needs another acronym) which stands for "Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists" (I'm guessing Germaine Greer qualifies for this category), this group of people don't seem so very far removed from the hardcore Lesbians I knew in the late 70's who blamed men for everything and generally railed against the unfairness of all things masculine (except of course when they wore denim jackets).
None of the above advances the conversation much except it leads me back to the old saying that "the more things change, the more they stay the same".
I think the TERF acronym is, as with any such term, capable of being applied in many ways. I've seen it applied by some trans activists to anyone who questions whether trans rights might cause an issue for natal women. Anyone who argued that a woman's refuge might not be suitable to have someone identifying as a women has been called a TERF.
-
I think the TERF acronym is, as with any such term, capable of being applied in many ways. I've seen it applied by some trans activists to anyone who questions whether trans rights might cause an issue for natal women. Anyone who argued that a woman's refuge might not be suitable to have someone identifying as a women has been called a TERF.
Yes, Robbie's comments above would have her labelled a TERF too. It gets us nowhere and fosters hate.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/aug/20/sticker-protest-on-antony-gormleys-beach-statues-accused-of-trans-hatred
-
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html
-
Isn't our thinking getting muddled here? As a woman I feel that women-only spaces maintain my privacy, not my safety. I've used gender neutral toilets and mixed gender changing rooms and never felt threatened. Is a trans woman exposing herself or getting changed?
Well there are women only spaces that are there for privacy and women only spaces that are there for safety. There are also women only spaces for fairness. In the last case, I am thinking of women's sports mainly.
The problem is that excluding trans women from women only spaces denies them their identity but having people who are physiologically male in those spaces may cause distress to some natal women. Whose rights do we consider the more important when we have conflicts of this kind? I don't think it's helpful to try to shut down the debate in the way that some trans-activists do.
In fact, I suspect the reason why they try to do this is because they know that, in the end, they'll have to accept that having a biologically male body does make a difference and they are going to have to make some compromises.
-
Well there are women only spaces that are there for privacy and women only spaces that are there for safety. There are also women only spaces for fairness. In the last case, I am thinking of women's sports mainly.
The problem is that excluding trans women from women only spaces denies them their identity but having people who are physiologically male in those spaces may cause distress to some natal women. Whose rights do we consider the more important when we have conflicts of this kind? I don't think it's helpful to try to shut down the debate in the way that some trans-activists do.
In fact, I suspect the reason why they try to do this is because they know that, in the end, they'll have to accept that having a biologically male body does make a difference and they are going to have to make some compromises.
Multi-gender communal changing areas at swimming pools existed back in the 90's for families to use. Communal changing rooms in shop are a thing of the past, these days there are single cubicles. My local authority has done away with gendered toilets and has a row of identical cubicles accessed through an archway, each of which can be used by any gender, and several of which are equipped for disabilities and baby changing. One of the most popular cafes in town has one set of toilets with two cubicles and one area for hand washing etc.
I agree that closing down the debate is unhelpful and, being honest, to me as a woman it feels threatening. But seeing a penis in a changing room isn't that big a deal - in many parts of Europe mixed gender nudity isn't cause for concern - in Austria I stayed in a place with a spa where it was considered normal for both genders to partake together, and without bathing costumes. There has to be compromises, of course, and safety has to be paramount. Where the lines will end up being drawn, who knows.
-
Another good piece
https://medium.com/@connorskellymusic/what-happened-to-our-movement-a1239d7a11d5
-
Cracking article.
-
How do people here feel about their own position on trans rights? Secure as usual, insecure? it seems to me dangerous territory for the moral butterfly flitting around for another easy win.
-
How do people here feel about their own position on trans rights? Secure as usual, insecure? it seems to me dangerous territory for the moral butterfly flitting around for another easy win.
Perfectly secure. Why would it be otherwise? I paraphrase Thomas Jefferson (in another context): it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg how people choose to identify. It's none of my business, primarily; that said, life is a long show to be miserable so identify however you like and be comfortable in your own skin.
-
So you have a morality that is good for all.
Insofar as holding that people own themselves and should be free to live their lives according to their lights without interference unless they're doing some harm to others is a morality, yes.
I am also now pulling the old religionethics trick of interpreting your appeal to Jefferson as support for slavery.
Not a religionethics trick; a trick either of the incurably dim or the constitutionally mendacious.
-
Insofar as holding that people own themselves and should be free to live their lives according to their lights without interference unless they're doing some harm to others is a morality, yes.
Not a religionethics trick; a trick either of the incurably dim or the constitutionally mendacious.
Oh yes it never happens here that appealing to Christ is escalated tomean support for homophobic murders, child abuse, slavery, childhood cancer.
-
Oh yes it never happens here that appealing to Christ is escalated tomean support for homophobic murders, child abuse, slavery, childhood cancer.
Never heard it invoked in the context of paediatric oncology but as for the others - you clearly don't watch the news, and I can't be bothered to go into the full megillah about some old guy in Ireland ...
-
Never heard it invoked in the context of paediatric oncology but as for the others - you clearly don't watch the news, and I can't be bothered to go into the full megillah about some old guy in Ireland ...
That is like writing off modern atheism on account of Lawrence Krauss.
Jefferson kept slaves and yet here you are suckling on the pizzle of his wisdom.
-
That is like writing off modern atheism on account of Lawrence Krauss.
Jefferson kept slaves and yet here you are suckling on the pizzle of his wisdom.
No, I'm using a phrase of his that simply and clearly exemplifies my position. It doesn't indicate agreement with anything else he may have said and done, though it's typically and wholly unexpectedly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. No surprises so far.
-
No, I'm using a phrase of his that simply and clearly exemplifies my position. It doesn't indicate agreement with anything else he may have said and done, though it's typically and wholly unexpectedly dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. No surprises so far.
This post then is contrary to reply 30 in an act by you of arse clenching special pleading.
-
This post then is contrary to reply 30 in an act by you of arse clenching special pleading.
Er, no.
Which bit are you having trouble with?
-
Cracking article.
Yep, I think it gets it right in talking about respecting that you treat trans as of they are natal women/men in most day to day areas but that it has its limits.
-
Yep, I think it gets it right in talking about respecting that you treat trans as of they are natal women/men in most day to day areas but that it has its limits.
Abd about the need for people to be heard.
-
Abd about the need for people to be heard.
Yes, though I do think that the attempted shutting down of debate is a wider problem than this.
I fear that the issue is going to become even less open to nuanced discussion after what has happened with Aimee Challoner, the battle lines on Twitter, never vulnerable to outbreaks of bonhomie even at Christmas, are diamond hard. I think the Green Party in England have handled it very badly with their statement.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/26/green-politician-pulls-out-of-deputy-leadership-race-over-child-rapist-father-7884459/
-
Yes, though I do think that the attempted shutting down of debate is a wider problem than this.
I fear that the issue is going to become even less open to nuanced discussion after what has happened with Aimee Challoner, the battle lines on Twitter, never vulnerable to outbreaks of bonhomie even at Christmas, are diamond hard. I think the Green Party in England have handled it very badly with their statement.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/26/green-politician-pulls-out-of-deputy-leadership-race-over-child-rapist-father-7884459/
What do you think they should have done?
-
What do you think they should have done?
The statement should have been about distancing themselves for what happened, it should have been much more covering that they would investigate the circumstances, and highlighted that the most important person they needed to consider was the victim of David Challoner's crimes.
-
And another piece
https://medium.com/@tom_farr/the-left-are-abandoning-women-and-in-doing-so-abandoning-everything-they-stand-for-51fd63457d8c
-
And another piece
https://medium.com/@tom_farr/the-left-are-abandoning-women-and-in-doing-so-abandoning-everything-they-stand-for-51fd63457d8c
I agree so much with this. I have direct experience of being abused and hated for being female, for having a female body that did female things. I'm genuinely scared that an understanding of femaleness - which to me has always been dominated by my reproductive system - is going to be erased.
-
I agree so much with this. I have direct experience of being abused and hated for being female, for having a female body that did female things. I'm genuinely scared that an understanding of femaleness - which to me has always been dominated by my reproductive system - is going to be erased.
Yes, it's a different experience and a different fight. That in no way implies that trans people should not be respected in their own right but that that needs reciprocal respect for natal women.
-
Yes, it's a different experience and a different fight. That in no way implies that trans people should not be respected in their own right but that that needs reciprocal respect for natal women.
Exactly. Trans women have a trans female experience that absolutely needs respect. They are vulnerable too.
-
But seeing a penis in a changing room isn't that big a deal
No it isn't for you and a lot of women and it isn't a problem for me to have women accidentally see my penis. However that that isn't always the case for all women in all situations. The rules change based on context.
Where the lines will end up being drawn, who knows.
Agreed but not talking about the lines and where they should be is a bad thing IMO.
Here's an example to think about, Jerry Coyne, a few weeks ago, reported on a college athletics meeting in the USA where the women's 100 metres was won (easily) by a pre-op trans woman who was physically male. This is a case where the line is in the wrong place IMO.
-
No it isn't for you and a lot of women and it isn't a problem for me to have women accidentally see my penis. However that that isn't always the case for all women in all situations. The rules change based on context.
Agreed but not talking about the lines and where they should be is a bad thing IMO.
Here's an example to think about, Jerry Coyne, a few weeks ago, reported on a college athletics meeting in the USA where the women's 100 metres was won (easily) by a pre-op trans woman who was physically male. This is a case where the line is in the wrong place IMO.
Sport just doesn't seem to have any idea what it is doing here. I think it'll get ugly.
Of course we need to talk about where lines get drawn, but at present trying to do so is likely to result in hate mail, cyberbullying violence and/or arrest
-
Another good article
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/09/09/gay-rights-and-trans-rights-a-compare-and-contrast/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
I couldn't get to the end of it - too depressing.
Can I just say as an aside though that I have trans friends who absolutely aren't jumping up and down about this. In fact they don't really talk about being trans at all.
-
I couldn't digest everything in that. I can see there is a clash between gender as I define it for myself, and gender as I define it for others. Traditionally, it was defined for us as kids, and we accepted it, mostly. However, self ID puts a bomb under it, I haven't a clue where this is heading, and the distinction between sex identity (biological), and gender (non-biological), is a car crash now. However, it struck me that everybody does self ID, but using different criteria. Thus "I am a woman because I have a female body" and "I feel like a woman", are colliding?
-
I couldn't digest everything in that. I can see there is a clash between gender as I define it for myself, and gender as I define it for others. Traditionally, it was defined for us as kids, and we accepted it, mostly. However, self ID puts a bomb under it, I haven't a clue where this is heading, and the distinction between sex identity (biological), and gender (non-biological), is a car crash now. However, it struck me that everybody does self ID, but using different criteria. Thus "I am a woman because I have a female body" and "I feel like a woman", are colliding?
I think that is absolutely the case, but I think that sex identity is not a simple matter of self ID, and that in trying to ignore sex identity, some trans people are then going down a route which actually regressively defines gender into traditional societal norms.
-
Yes, I think some feminists have accused some trans women of using conservative cues for femininity, e.g., mini-skirts and tons of make-up. I don't know if this is true, or how many is some.
-
Yes, I think some feminists have accused some trans women of using conservative cues for femininity, e.g., mini-skirts and tons of make-up. I don't know if this is true, or how many is some.
Have a look at the passing tips in the downloadable booklet in the link below.
http://genderedintelligence.co.uk/support/trans-youth/resources
-
One of the FTs top females in business isn't female.
https://www.fnlondon.com/articles/mistranslated-i-split-my-time-as-pippa-and-philip-20171002
-
Bit of a rant but sometimes it's needed.
https://mirandayardley.com/en/so-brave-so-stunning-pippa-bunce-the-transvestite-rebranded/
-
And more suppression of women
https://www.reddit.com/r/GenderCritical/comments/9i4tc9/the_times_girl_guide_leaders_expelled_for/
-
I have serious doubts about this "self-identification" crap. If you've got bollocks and a dick, you're a bloke. I'd like to self-identify as a millionaire, but it wouldn't make me one.
-
I have serious doubts about this "self-identification" crap. If you've got bollocks and a dick, you're a bloke. I'd like to self-identify as a millionaire, but it wouldn't make me one.
It seems OK for you to self-identify as a bloke, but you are also claiming to identify others. That's quite a big step in relation to identity, and personality. I don't want to be told who I am, I had enough as that as a kid. It also shows how unstable gender is, as some people are claiming it's biological, others, social and psychological.
-
I agree with Wiggs. The issue around safeguarding of women and children is separate to the right of anyone to self-identify according to what they know about themselves. There has to be a discussion of how the former works along with the latter. But simply saying that your genitalia equals what you are is nonsensical when the experience of people says otherwise.
-
I agree with Wiggs. The issue around safeguarding of women and children is separate to the right of anyone to self-identify according to what they know about themselves. There has to be a discussion of how the former works along with the latter. But simply saying that your genitalia equals what you are is nonsensical when the experience of people says otherwise.
To me, it's behaviourism gone mad. Why should someone else describe my identity to me? Insane and tyrannical. As I said, I spent half my life removing those attributes given to me by others.
-
I agree with Wiggs. The issue around safeguarding of women and children is separate to the right of anyone to self-identify according to what they know about themselves.
The only problem there is that certain activists are doing their best to make it impossible to separate the issues. For example, upthread there was a link to a story about people asking "is it safe for a self identifying trans woman to be a girl guide or a girl guide leader?" If it's considered trans-phobic to even ask the question, regardless of what the right answer is, the two issues are suddenly conflated.
-
Kathleen Stock on what she sees as the dangers of self ID.
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/06/changing-the-concept-of-woman-will-cause-unintended-harms
-
Pretty much my thoughts.
https://mobile.twitter.com/notlongenoughto/status/1046289234372452355
-
From that link to here.
https://www.byline.com/column/85/article/2300
-
I dread to think what an upbringing that Aimee Challenor had but it doesn't give her special privileges as regards denying a voice to natal women, and that some in the Lib Dems seem inclined to repeat the mistakes of the Green Party is depressing. I almost feel as if she is being used as well by the parties to spruce up their trans credentials without considering the real issues.
-
An Irish perspective
https://womansplaceuk.org/an-irish-woman-speaks/
-
From that link to here.
https://www.byline.com/column/85/article/2300
That’s horrific, but it raises a lot of questions in my mind.
For example, I’m not sure about why the Green Party are being criticized here, unless they took specific measures to prevent David Challenor from being brought to trial. Also, the whole thing seems to be quite alarmist. “This is what trans women will do if we let them have their way”. Well, I don’t know of any evidence that suggests that trans women are more likely to sexually assault people than cis males or that they are more likely to get away with it because they use tactics to shut down the debate about trans women and identity.
-
That’s horrific, but it raises a lot of questions in my mind.
For example, I’m not sure about why the Green Party are being criticized here, unless they took specific measures to prevent David Challenor from being brought to trial. Also, the whole thing seems to be quite alarmist. “This is what trans women will do if we let them have their way”. Well, I don’t know of any evidence that suggests that trans women are more likely to sexually assault people than cis males or that they are more likely to get away with it because they use tactics to shut down the debate about trans women and identity.
I don't read it as that, but rather that we are in a hell of a mess and that a minority are using bullying tactics to close down debate.
I'm not sure of the timeline but it seems that Challenor was still active at the time of his trial? And what is that about care proceedings? It's very confused.
The only statistic that I'm aware of regarding trans women and sexual assault is that three quarters that are in jail and that haven't transitioned are there for sex offences. My personal experience of trans women is that they aren't misogynistic and pose a threat to nobody.
-
And how sex is viewed
https://dailycaller.com/2018/10/14/biological-male-wins-womens-world-cycling-championship/?fbclid=IwAR1-kNgKKdbXvGMrCSCg5QyMc_XxGw3S1SCU3Scw1KaXxKjbdhp8TA3rV3E
-
That’s horrific, but it raises a lot of questions in my mind.
For example, I’m not sure about why the Green Party are being criticized here, unless they took specific measures to prevent David Challenor from being brought to trial. Also, the whole thing seems to be quite alarmist. “This is what trans women will do if we let them have their way”. Well, I don’t know of any evidence that suggests that trans women are more likely to sexually assault people than cis males or that they are more likely to get away with it because they use tactics to shut down the debate about trans women and identity.
So not checking about an agent being accused about sexual assault of children is ok? Never mind that being in the address that the assault was alleged?
-
So not checking about an agent being accused about sexual assault of children is ok? Never mind that being in the address that the assault was alleged?
Isn’t sexual assault a matter for the police?
Obviously, if somebody told the Green Party about the assault and they failed to follow up on it, that is criminally bad, but, unfortunately, not unprecedented. If they actively suppressed the case because Challener claimed to be trans, that’s worse. However, I’m not sure exactly what their role was. I need to read the story again.
-
This is the problem I have. I’ve read the links but the timeline as to who knew what when, and what they did about it, is very confused.
-
An Irish perspective
https://womansplaceuk.org/an-irish-woman-speaks/
I had to look up "terf" - it means "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". I suppose that makes me a temf, since I'm a moderate feminist (or pro-feminist, as sympathetic men are sometimes called, in which case I'm a temp). This self-identification nonsense has gone too far. If you're genetically male and have a male body, you're a man, howver much you like wearing dresses. Even if you have surgery, you'll only be equivalent to a woman who's had a total hysterectomy, and will have to take female hormones for the rest of your life.
-
I don’t have a problem with self identification. I’ve been close to someone who is trans and actually I found that you can’t miss the woman that someone who is trans is, or has inside. It makes sense to allow for that to be recognised without demanding surgery and the like. The problem is that we don’t have boundaries yet. And we need them.
-
I think this is good from Carolyn Leckie
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16982498.questioning-gender-law-is-not-a-form-of-transphobia/?ref=mr&lp=1
-
I think this is good from Carolyn Leckie
http://www.thenational.scot/news/16982498.questioning-gender-law-is-not-a-form-of-transphobia/?ref=mr&lp=1
And another thing - I'm increasingly tired of people sticking "-phobia" on the end of another word, instead of coming up with proper counter-arguments.
-
I had to look up "terf" - it means "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". I suppose that makes me a temf, since I'm a moderate feminist (or pro-feminist, as sympathetic men are sometimes called, in which case I'm a temp). This self-identification nonsense has gone too far. If you're genetically male and have a male body, you're a man, howver much you like wearing dresses. Even if you have surgery, you'll only be equivalent to a woman who's had a total hysterectomy, and will have to take female hormones for the rest of your life.
Well, please stop telling me what identity I have. You can call yourself whatever you like, but I am fucked off with having my own identity described for me. Why should people go around saying to others, you're X and you're Y. No thanks.
-
Well, please stop telling me what identity I have. You can call yourself whatever you like, but I am fucked off with having my own identity described for me. Why should people go around saying to others, you're X and you're Y. No thanks.
Because self ID does that to others too. Telling kids that they are the wrong sex because they don't fit gender stereotypes does that too. Telling women that any bloke who self IDs can be in any safe space does that too.
-
Because self ID does that to others too. Telling kids that they are the wrong sex because they don't fit gender stereotypes does that too. Telling women that any bloke who self IDs can be in any safe space does that too.
The last one is a separate issue, Isn't it? It doen't automatically follows from self ID. As for kids, who's telling them what sex they are? Well, everybody is of course, along the lines of Steve.
-
Because self ID does that to others too. Telling kids that they are the wrong sex because they don't fit gender stereotypes does that too. Telling women that any bloke who self IDs can be in any safe space does that too.
Sorry, but this really is nonsense.
You are confusing sex with gender. Get that sorted and then join the conversation.
-
Well, please stop telling me what identity I have. You can call yourself whatever you like, but I am fucked off with having my own identity described for me. Why should people go around saying to others, you're X and you're Y. No thanks.
Increasingly I've come to think that gender is a spectrum, like sexuality is. Tom Robinson should have sung about being glad to be bi, but instead like most of us he thought he had to pick a side, and then he later changed sides. Life isn't so simple. My experience of being close to someone who is trans is that - at least in their case - they slipped between male and female and back again. I wonder if the reason that so many people who do transition feel no better after is that they fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and should actually just be free to express themselves as both genders, or none. I am female and straight and even within that there is scope for more.
-
Sorry, but this really is nonsense.
You are confusing sex with gender. Get that sorted and then join the conversation.
Well, that confusion is quite prevalent. Gender is not biological, except that now it is, as some people use it to refer to sex. I suppose terms such as man and woman hover between the two.
One of the weird aspects of all this is that most people use self identification, in any case.
-
Increasingly I've come to think that gender is a spectrum, like sexuality is. Tom Robinson should have sung about being glad to be bi, but instead like most of us he thought he had to pick a side, and then he later changed sides. Life isn't so simple. My experience of being close to someone who is trans is that - at least in their case - they slipped between male and female and back again. I wonder if the reason that so many people who do transition feel no better after is that they fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum and should actually just be free to express themselves as both genders, or none. I am female and straight and even within that there is scope for more.
Yes, I am sympathetic to gender fluidity, but I don't know what goes on in gender clinics. Do they really say to kids, you're the wrong sex?
-
Well, that confusion is quite prevalent. Gender is not biological, except that now it is, as some people use it to refer to sex. I suppose terms such as man and woman hover between the two.
One of the weird aspects of all this is that most people use self identification, in any case.
We have to separate out biology, sex and gender, otherwise neither natal nor trans women are going to have safe spaces.
-
Sorry, but this really is nonsense.
You are confusing sex with gender. Get that sorted and then join the conversation.
No, some of those wanting self ID are doing that. That's the danger
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/10/new-childrens-book-transgender-boy/
-
Well, that confusion is quite prevalent. Gender is not biological, except that now it is, as some people use it to refer to sex. I suppose terms such as man and woman hover between the two.
One of the weird aspects of all this is that most people use self identification, in any case.
But self ID has an impact on others when enshrined in law.
-
I actually was involved in gender studies, and we had the distinction, sex (biological), Gender (social and psychological), and sexuality. But this has all slipped sideways, once people started using gender to mean sex.
Self identification, as I was saying, has always been used, but trans people have ruffled feathers by opting for a different identity, than the one given to them, as Steve describes it, you are a man, because I say so.
-
Here's the report from the Student paper on the issue with Edinburgh University's Rector referred to in the Carolyn Leckie piece
-
I actually was involved in gender studies, and we had the distinction, sex (biological), Gender (social and psychological), and sexuality. But this has all slipped sideways, once people started using gender to mean sex.
Self identification, as I was saying, has always been used, but trans people have ruffled feathers by opting for a different identity, than the one given to them, as Steve describes it, you are a man, because I say so.
No, some transgender people are conflating sex and gender as if there is no difference and that's what is causing the problems.
-
Steve's the only one making sense. Personally I don't believe all the midwives throughout history who declared "It's a boy/girl!" based on a quick look at the genitals were mistaken or confusing gender with sex (whatever the bloody hell that's meant to mean anyway).
-
Steve's the only one making sense. Personally I don't believe all the midwives throughout history who declared "It's a boy/girl!" based on a quick look at the genitals were mistaken or confusing gender with sex (whatever the bloody hell that's meant to mean anyway).
;D
Sex and gender may not be exactly the same thing, but they're pretty closely related.
-
;D
Sex and gender may not be exactly the same thing, but they're pretty closely related.
Well, traditionally gender referred to masculinity, and sex to maleness, not the same thing at all, although gender has changed its meaning. I think NS has a good point about some trans people conflating them. But if a boy persists in saying "I'm a girl", it's very dangerous to tell them they're wrong.
-
But self ID has an impact on others when enshrined in law.
Yes, this to me is the issue. There is nothing wrong with self ID; the question is where are the boundaries around that.
-
;D
Sex and gender may not be exactly the same thing, but they're pretty closely related.
No, think of gender things - wearing a dress - in another culture or another time 'dressing like a woman' would be how masculine men dress. It's all a construct. Sex though, that is biological.
-
I actually was involved in gender studies, and we had the distinction, sex (biological), Gender (social and psychological), and sexuality. But this has all slipped sideways, once people started using gender to mean sex.
Self identification, as I was saying, has always been used, but trans people have ruffled feathers by opting for a different identity, than the one given to them, as Steve describes it, you are a man, because I say so.
I think that what you can't get away from is that some trans women hate natal women. I've seen some seriously vicious stuff online. And also I object to how some people define 'female' - it isn't about wearing silk and pearls, it's about bleeding every month and trying to manage a body that feels as though it is escaping from you. I do feel like for some it is about erasing what it means to be a natal woman. Why we can't reclaim the difference between sex and gender when having this discourse is beyond me.
-
No, think of gender things - wearing a dress - in another culture or another time 'dressing like a woman' would be how masculine men dress. It's all a construct. Sex though, that is biological.
Yes, there are lots of transferable things like dresses, and ear-rings, which have crossed over. I had an American girl-friend who was horrified at how I crossed my legs, too girly or something.
-
I was just thinking how much anxiety is caused by sex/gender. It suggests that it is a shifting set of identities, but then maybe it has always been anxiety making. I remember the shibboleths of masculinity, that I had drummed into me as a kid, with a kind of religious ferocity. It still puzzles me. My dad used to say, no, men don't kiss each other, as if it was like murder. My son kissed him once, and he looked like he'd been shot. Of course, Freud would say he wanted it.
-
Yes, there are lots of transferable things like dresses, and ear-rings, which have crossed over. I had an American girl-friend who was horrified at how I crossed my legs, too girly or something.
I grew up in the 80's, there was so much play then around gender, make-up, flamboyance. Steve Strange, Adam Ant, David Sylvian...Then the Stone Roses showed up and it all disappeared overnight. I wonder sometimes how much happier some men would be if they could just put some make-up on, some peacock colours and style their hair, maybe that would solve some of the inner conflict. But no, we all got pushed back in our boxes.
-
I was just thinking how much anxiety is caused by sex/gender. It suggests that it is a shifting set of identities, but then maybe it has always been anxiety making. I remember the shibboleths of masculinity, that I had drummed into me as a kid, with a kind of religious ferocity. It still puzzles me. My dad used to say, no, men don't kiss each other, as if it was like murder. My son kissed him once, and he looked like he'd been shot. Of course, Freud would say he wanted it.
When my son wants to wind his dad up he paints his nails before he sees him.
-
I think that what you can't get away from is that some trans women hate natal women. I've seen some seriously vicious stuff online.
That, unfortunately, is not a one way street. I was reading a report in the gay press last week of horrendous comments by some natal women against trans women:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/12/fair-play-for-women-tweets-1000-cancers/
This debate, like so many others in our society, has become so polarised that I find it hard to see a way forward.
It is a shame that both sides cannot see the harm that is done by resorting to the same kind of viciousness that is actual felt about both groups in other parts of society.
I can't help feeling that this polarisation is not helping with the following deeply worrying facts:
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/third-transgender-people-victim-hate-crime/
-
That, unfortunately, is not a one way street. I was reading a report in the gay press last week of horrendous comments by some natal women against trans women:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/12/fair-play-for-women-tweets-1000-cancers/
This debate, like so many others in our society, has become so polarised that I find it hard to see a way forward.
It is a shame that both sides cannot see the harm that is done by resorting to the same kind of viciousness that is actual felt about both groups in other parts of society.
I can't help feeling that this polarisation is not helping with the following deeply worrying facts:
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/third-transgender-people-victim-hate-crime/
I think that portraying both sides by their extremes is part of the problem. Indeed, it's not really clear what the sides are here it isn't natal women on one side and trans women on the other.
-
That, unfortunately, is not a one way street. I was reading a report in the gay press last week of horrendous comments by some natal women against trans women:
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/12/fair-play-for-women-tweets-1000-cancers/
This debate, like so many others in our society, has become so polarised that I find it hard to see a way forward.
It is a shame that both sides cannot see the harm that is done by resorting to the same kind of viciousness that is actual felt about both groups in other parts of society.
I can't help feeling that this polarisation is not helping with the following deeply worrying facts:
https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/third-transgender-people-victim-hate-crime/
There's no excuse for hate speech. Women are as good at hating as men.
I agree that the polarisation isn't helping. My feeling is that there are a very few, very vocal trans activists who are the visible face of the trans community, and their views on everything from natal women to transitioning to self identification are accepted as being representative as those of the trans community. And generally they bear little resemblance to the views of anyone trans that I know. Maybe the media has a role to play when considering who to give air time to.
It doesn't help when we have stories like the one recently about a sex offender reoffending in a women's prison. I think it is something like three quarters of trans people in jail are there for sex offences. But that is still a very small number of people and it doesn't change the fact that trans women are far, far more likely to be victims; they are very vulnerable to sexual assault.
I have this visceral feeling that it is wrong for men - or trans women - to want to take my biology from me and make it their own (I'm talking about conception and birth here, not just physical bodies). There is a sense that what it means to be born a woman is being erased. Is that right, is that logical on my part? I don't know. But at the same time I am deeply convinced that allowing self-identification is about far more than just tolerance and politeness. There seems to be a very patronising tone in some of that.
I agree, it is so messed up and I don't know how we will go forward with this.
-
No, some of those wanting self ID are doing that. That's the danger
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2018/10/10/new-childrens-book-transgender-boy/
Your link doesn't support your point.
-
Your link doesn't support your point.
Yes, it does since it looks at stereotyped aspects of gender to be the determinant about sex.
-
No, think of gender things - wearing a dress - in another culture or another time 'dressing like a woman' would be how masculine men dress. It's all a construct. Sex though, that is biological.
Yes, but whether you like the girl things or the boy things of your particular culture is strongly correlated with your biological sex even if the link is not genetic.
I also think it is a bit simplistic to say gender identity is about things like what clothes you wear and so on. I have a close female friend who never wears dresses, always trousers. She loves lots of stereotypically masculine things like football and DIY, but she identifies as a woman.
-
Yes, it does since it looks at stereotyped aspects of gender to be the determinant about sex.
I don't think it does. Can you point out some language from it where it confuses sex and gender?
-
I don't think it does. Can you point out some language from it where it confuses sex and gender?
The idea that what gender sterotypes you chose are about choosing a sex to identify as .
-
The idea that what gender sterotypes you chose are about choosing a sex to identify as .
Where does it say that. I don't see anywhere it does.
-
Where does it say that. I don't see anywhere it does.
It touts the idea that there is a simple link. It emphasisrs the gender stereotypes as being what are significant .
-
It touts the idea that there is a simple link. It emphasisrs the gender stereotypes as being what are significant .
You were arguing that it confuses sex and gender. Is this new point about confusing gender and gender stereotypes in addition to, or in place of your previous argument?
I think this new point has validity. The book seems to assume that, if you are a girl that likes doing the things that boys like, then you are identifying as a boy. In my experience, this is not necessarily true.
-
You were arguing that it confuses sex and gender. Is this new point about confusing gender and gender stereotypes in addition to, or in place of your previous argument?
I think this new point has validity. The book seems to assume that, if you are a girl that likes doing the things that boys like, then you are identifying as a boy. In my experience, this is not necessarily true.
I think it's impossble to emphasise the importance of gender sterotypes in relation to sex without conflating gender and sex. The discussion overall is about what it means to be a woman and if the stereotypes are emphasised it then portrays the sex as mere gender.
-
I think it's impossble to emphasise the importance of gender sterotypes in relation to sex without conflating gender and sex. The discussion overall is about what it means to be a woman and if the stereotypes are emphasised it then portrays the sex as mere gender.
Gender stereotypes are not the same as biological sex. Gender stereotypes are cultural, as Rhiannon pointed out upthread.
-
Gender stereotypes are not the same as biological sex. Gender stereotypes are cultural, as Rhiannon pointed out upthread.
Yes, that's the point I making. That's where I see the book and some trans activists conflating gender stereotypes and gender with biological sex and as Rhiannon put it, erasing her sex.
-
There's no excuse for hate speech. Women are as good at hating as men.
I agree that the polarisation isn't helping. My feeling is that there are a very few, very vocal trans activists who are the visible face of the trans community, and their views on everything from natal women to transitioning to self identification are accepted as being representative as those of the trans community. And generally they bear little resemblance to the views of anyone trans that I know. Maybe the media has a role to play when considering who to give air time to.
It doesn't help when we have stories like the one recently about a sex offender reoffending in a women's prison. I think it is something like three quarters of trans people in jail are there for sex offences. But that is still a very small number of people and it doesn't change the fact that trans women are far, far more likely to be victims; they are very vulnerable to sexual assault.
I have this visceral feeling that it is wrong for men - or trans women - to want to take my biology from me and make it their own (I'm talking about conception and birth here, not just physical bodies). There is a sense that what it means to be born a woman is being erased. Is that right, is that logical on my part? I don't know. But at the same time I am deeply convinced that allowing self-identification is about far more than just tolerance and politeness. There seems to be a very patronising tone in some of that.
I agree, it is so messed up and I don't know how we will go forward with this.
It doesn't have to be logical. I support trans people mainly, and many of them seem to say "I feel like X", often a man or a woman. Well, they are presumably telling the truth, they do feel like X, although I might not understand it.
But your feelings are also real, and why should anyone dismiss them? I hope that eventually there is some common ground, but a period of agitation and anger is inevitable, although it can get too nasty, e.g., Mumsnet.
I think the trans movement is very disruptive, but hopefully it will die down, and arrangements made that most people are comfortable with. I can hope.
-
It doesn't have to be logical. I support trans people mainly, and many of them seem to say "I feel like X", often a man or a woman. Well, they are presumably telling the truth, they do feel like X, although I might not understand it.
But your feelings are also real, and why should anyone dismiss them? I hope that eventually there is some common ground, but a period of agitation and anger is inevitable, although it can get too nasty, e.g., Mumsnet.
I think the trans movement is very disruptive, but hopefully it will die down, and arrangements made that most people are comfortable with. I can hope.
While I cannot understand what it feels to someone who says that they feel like a member of the opposite sex, surely that applies to them in that they cannot understand what it is to be a member of the opposite sex?
-
While I cannot understand what it feels to someone who says that they feel like a member of the opposite sex, surely that applies to them in that they cannot understand what it is to be a member of the opposite sex?
I don't understand most gender stuff. For example, I don't know what being a man feels like, is it what I feel like? How would I know that? I can see that there are stereotypes, for example, machismo. And various things have been attributed to me as a male, but so what? I think gender is often in the third person, but subjectively I am full of uncertainty.
-
Yes, but whether you like the girl things or the boy things of your particular culture is strongly correlated with your biological sex even if the link is not genetic.
I also think it is a bit simplistic to say gender identity is about things like what clothes you wear and so on. I have a close female friend who never wears dresses, always trousers. She loves lots of stereotypically masculine things like football and DIY, but she identifies as a woman.
Seriously?
-
While I cannot understand what it feels to someone who says that they feel like a member of the opposite sex, surely that applies to them in that they cannot understand what it is to be a member of the opposite sex?
This is where I was, until I met a man who looked at me and his eyes were a woman's. Strangest thing. They will never understand the lived experience that I have, any more that I can theirs, but he is also female - I saw it.
-
Yes, my oldest friend, who was a Sufi, was very womanly in many ways, and often contemplated transitioning, but never did.
I just said to my wife, that when I young, gender seemed like chains, or a cage, and gradually I got out of it, so now I don't know who I am, in a good way, and nobody is going to tell me. I'm just a placeholder, that's good enough.
-
I don't understand most gender stuff. For example, I don't know what being a man feels like, is it what I feel like? How would I know that? I can see that there are stereotypes, for example, machismo. And various things have been attributed to me as a male, but so what? I think gender is often in the third person, but subjectively I am full of uncertainty.
Yep, I think that it is an area of huge uncertainty, and yet we often see that as a weakness in discussion. So I think that has led some to the more extreme positions on the issue. One of the issues raised by some trans people against the more successfully heard trans movement is that those who are transsexual and have gone through the considerable effort that entails are being erased by transgender which is a much more fluid descriptor.
Then we have on top of that the issue of sexuality, so that some of the transgender movement don't see why those members of a sex wisex same Sex attraction, should be allowed to refuse to be attracted to them if they identify with th e gender that matches that sex. Hence the protest of some lesbians at Pride because they too feel erased.
-
This is where I was, until I met a man who looked at me and his eyes were a woman's. Strangest thing. They will never understand the lived experience that I have, any more that I can theirs, but he is also female - I saw it.
What do you mean by woman and female here?
And presumably you have also met a number of trans people of whom you would not make that statement?
-
What do you mean by woman and female here?
And presumably you have also met a number of trans people of whom you would not make that statement?
Isn't this the problem? Labels? I'm with Wiggs, not everyone has to pick a side.
-
Isn't this the problem? Labels? I'm with Wiggs, not everyone has to pick a side.
I reckon a lot of people don't. I have a hunch that trans women have been going into changing rooms and toilets for years without anybody noticing or caring. But I know that self identification changes this.
-
Isn't this the problem? Labels? I'm with Wiggs, not everyone has to pick a side.
Explaining what you mean isn't just about labelling, and unfortunately law only really works in the area of labelling. If no labels, then no safe spaces for women.
-
I reckon a lot of people don't. I have a hunch that trans women have been going into changing rooms and toilets for years without anybody noticing or caring. But I know that self identification changes this.
Quite. I did notice once. Did I care? No. We were both too busy trying frocks on.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/16/academics-are-being-harassed-over-their-research-into-transgender-issues
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/17/transgender-law-reform-has-overlooked-womens-rights-say-mps
-
No, Pink News, it's not an incredible achievement.
https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1051915615005540357
Meanwhile surely Caster Semenya just needs to self ID?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/amp/athletics/45880309
-
And that's another thing about trans people: men are, on average, stronger and faster than women, so a trans woman, born a man, will have an unfair advantage in some sports.
-
Which is why there needs to be discussion and dialogue, with boundaries put in place.
-
And that's another thing about trans people: men are, on average, stronger and faster than women, so a trans woman, born a man, will have an unfair advantage in some sports.
Although some sports, e.g., IOC, require a period of hormone treatment, resulting in low testosterone, which reduces muscle mass. I think the FA also do this, don't know about other sports. I have read a few trans women, saying that their athletic performance dipped quite a lot after HRT.
-
Yes, that's the point I making. That's where I see the book and some trans activists conflating gender stereotypes and gender with biological sex and as Rhiannon put it, erasing her sex.
Please point out where the book does that.
-
Seriously?
Yes.
-
And that's another thing about trans people: men are, on average, stronger and faster than women, so a trans woman, born a man, will have an unfair advantage in some sports.
That's easy to resolve. The only reason that we separate sports by sex is because we recognise that biological females are, on average, at a significant physical disadvantage. This is probably exaggerated at the top end of the scale. For example, Serena Williams couldn't beat any man in the top 200 at tennis or even number 203 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters). People who are biologically male can not be allowed to compete in women's sports.
-
That's easy to resolve. The only reason that we separate sports by sex is because we recognise that biological females are, on average, at a significant physical disadvantage. This is probably exaggerated at the top end of the scale. For example, Serena Williams couldn't beat any man in the top 200 at tennis or even number 203 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters). People who are biologically male can not be allowed to compete in women's sports.
Which as per my link to Pink News Tweet isn't what some trans think.
-
Please point out where the book does that.
Already done. It regards gender stereotypes as covering sex.
-
Yes.
I can't believe you didn't get that I was already making the point that you made. Or that I've ever been someone who pays heed to gender stereotypes.
-
That's easy to resolve. The only reason that we separate sports by sex is because we recognise that biological females are, on average, at a significant physical disadvantage. This is probably exaggerated at the top end of the scale. For example, Serena Williams couldn't beat any man in the top 200 at tennis or even number 203 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sexes_(tennis)#1998:_Karsten_Braasch_vs._the_Williams_sisters). People who are biologically male can not be allowed to compete in women's sports.
Well, the IOC have been investigating this for 40 years, and have gone through various approaches, e.g., physical examination, chromosome analysis, and now they are focusing on hormone analysis. So they are allowing trans women with low testosterone to compete in women's events. Whether this is biologically male or female, I don't know, not being an endocrinologist. Ironically, the intersex athletes such has Semenya, do have high testosterone, but used to be required to lower it, although not now, I think.
-
Which as per my link to Pink News Tweet isn't what some trans think.
I'm sure that's what some trans people think, but they are clearly wrong.
Edit: The original wording of the above reversed the meaning of what I wanted to say. Apologies to anybody who has already replied.
-
Already done. It regards gender stereotypes as covering sex.
No it wasn't. You have been talking in generalities. Give me a quote.
-
I can't believe you didn't get that I was already making the point that you made. Or that I've ever been someone who pays heed to gender stereotypes.
Sorry. That's why I was confused by your "really?" I thought it seemed a bit aggressive considering I was supporting your point. I apologise that my wording didn't make that clear.
-
Does anyone remember Richard Raskind? He was an amateur tennis player who - at the age of 41 - underwent surgery and left the operating room as Renee Richards. Renee Richards was 6'2" tall.
Richards played tennis as a woman and reached 20 in the world rankings. When challenged that Richards was physically male, his/her surgeon stated:
"With respect to Dr. Richard's internal sex, due to the operation I performed, one would say that Dr. Richards' internal sexual structure is anatomically similar to a biological woman who underwent a total hysterectomy and ovariectomy, Aside from being unable to reproduce, Richards should be considered a woman, classified as a female and allowed to compete as such”.
At the time, the qualifying condition for considering a player to be a female was the presence of Barr bodies in the cell nucleus. Barr bodies are the discarded parts of X-chromosomes which do not form part of the genotype.
-
No it wasn't. You have been talking in generalities. Give me a quote.
About what? You have already agreed gender as stereotype is aboutsex. I am struggling to understand what you think.
-
About what? You have already agreed gender as stereotype is aboutsex. I am struggling to understand what you think.
It's not about what I think. You said the book confuses gender, gender stereotypes and sex. This is what you wrote:
"That's where I see the book and some trans activists conflating gender stereotypes and gender with biological sex"
I read the article and I am at a loss to see how you drew that conclusion about the book. So please humour me and give me a quote from the article which shows the book conflates gender, gender stereotyping and biological sex.
-
Yes, I remember Renee Richards. In athletics, the most controversial case has been Semenya, who is of course, not trans.
It will be interesting to see if IOC rules do provide a level playing field, so that trans women athletes do not have an advantage. But of course, they keep changing the rules!
In fact, the court of arbitration ruled that high testosterone does not lead to better performance, so time for a rethnk.
-
It's not about what I think. You said the book confuses gender, gender stereotypes and sex. This is what you wrote:
"That's where I see the book and some trans activists conflating gender stereotypes and gender with biological sex"
I read the article and I am at a loss to see how you drew that conclusion about the book. So please humour me and give me a quote from the article which shows the book conflates gender, gender stereotyping and biological sex.
Confused, you have already accepted that gender stereotypes not about sex, and yet the book is about gender stereotypes?
-
Sorry. That's why I was confused by your "really?" I thought it seemed a bit aggressive considering I was supporting your point. I apologise that my wording didn't make that clear.
Oh, ok. No worries. :)
-
Clearly there are some sports where it doesn't matter.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/motorsport/45881331
-
Not immediately related - but read on for an environmental suggestion for the origin of individual sexuality. It is not dissimilar to Simon Baron Cohen's suggestion for the cause of autism.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45887691
-
Women reduced to a bodily fuction, menstruators, to avoid offending trans women.
https://mobile.twitter.com/guardian_b2b/status/1055353012426686464?fbclid=IwAR1yjLJq3UqfQ7CoD-Fq9ds_xTYPNFFOSJwK-KdzffJlk3HFdNmPEZT1PX8
-
And post menopausal women, pregnant women, women without wombs and women who use contraception that stops menstruation temporarily.
Not all natal women bleed.
Agree that it's a shit term though.
-
And post menopausal women, pregnant women, women without wombs and women who use contraception that stops menstruation temporarily.
Not all natal women bleed.
Agree that it's a shit term though.
No,I think this is the Guardian being scared of using the term women for one reason.
-
Lesbians and bisexual women are now erased by the triumph of gender above sex and sexuality (the great lost Jane Austen book)
https://mobile.twitter.com/LGBTfdn/status/1055126781374746626
-
It’s so depressing. Do men feel as hated as women do?
-
It’s so depressing. Do men feel as hated as women do?
Caitlin Moran did a Twitter thread about this which was very interesting.
-
Women reduced to a bodily fuction, menstruators, to avoid offending trans women.
And post menopausal women, pregnant women, women without wombs and women who use contraception that stops menstruation temporarily.
Not all natal women bleed.
Agree that it's a shit term though.
Since it was a survey on how period pain affects people who have periods at work, you'd expect the survey to concentrate on women who menstruate or, as the survey says, have menstruated in the past.
I don't think this is the Guardian trying to avoid offending trans women so much as coming up with a succinct term for "women who have experienced period pain". I agree it's a shit term though and it fails to properly describe the group of women who took part in the survey.
-
Since it was a survey on how period pain affects people who have periods at work, you'd expect the survey to concentrate on women who menstruate or, as the survey says, have menstruated in the past.
I don't think this is the Guardian trying to avoid offending trans women so much as coming up with a succinct term for "women who have experienced period pain". I agree it's a shit term though and it fails to properly describe the group of women who took part in the survey.
And which of women who are menstruating, have menstruated, or due to specific medical reasons haven't menstruated are going to be worried about the term women?
It's a sop to transgender, and erases women as a term.
-
Sarah Ditum on the TV drama Butterfly
https://sarahditum.com/2018/10/27/trans-drama-butterfly-is-rejection-and-sexism-dressed-up-as-social-justice-tv/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And which of women who are menstruating, have menstruated, or due to specific medical reasons haven't menstruated are going to be worried about the term women?
Where's your evidence that the Guardian was trying to avoid offending anybody?
It's a sop to transgender, and erases women as a term.
Rubbish.
-
Where's your evidence that the Guardian was trying to avoid offending anybody?
Rubbish.
Why did they change it from the Yougov survey?
-
Why did they change it from the Yougov survey?
\
Well I'm not a mind reader and neither are you.
-
Well I'm not a mind reader and neither are you.
So changing it is evidence of nothing?
-
So changing it is evidence of nothing?
You are confused. You are not looking for what it is evidence of but for evidence for your hypothesis as to why it was changed.
I could advance the alternate hypothesis that the author was simply looking for a one word term to describe the sample of the survey*. There's about as much evidence for my hypothesis as yours. On the other hand, the article did use the word "women" elsewhere which, I think, is a minus point for your hypothesis.
* note that even then Guardian acknowledges the term was wrong - they have changed the article.
-
You are confused. You are not looking for what it is evidence of but for evidence for your hypothesis as to why it was changed.
I could advance the alternate hypothesis that the author was simply looking for a one word term to describe the sample of the survey*. There's about as much evidence for my hypothesis as yours. On the other hand, the article did use the word "women" elsewhere which, I think, is a minus point for your hypothesis.
* note that even then Guardian acknowledges the term was wrong - they have changed the article.
Why were they looking for another word? And given the Guarduan has changed it, that's just further evidence .
-
Free speech irony
https://medium.com/@JonnnyBest/free-speech-and-bullshit-the-truth-to-power-cafe-71a671cfa1c2
-
Caitlin Moran did a Twitter thread about this which was very interesting.
Is that the toxic masculinity one?
-
Is that the toxic masculinity one?
Yep, the very one.
-
Why were they looking for another word?
Who gives a fuck? Maybe they wanted to keep the word count down. Anyway, I'm challenging your hypothesis. It's for you to provide the evidence.
You also haven't addressed the fact that the Guardian was happy to use the term "women" elsewhere in the article.
And given the Guarduan has changed it, that's just further evidence .
What do you mean "further"? You haven't provided any evidence yet.
In any case, the Guardian's stated reason was that the language didn't align with the language of the survey, which is true.
-
Who gives a fuck? Maybe they wanted to keep the word count down. Anyway, I'm challenging your hypothesis. It's for you to provide the evidence.
You also haven't addressed the fact that the Guardian was happy to use the term "women" elsewhere in the article.
What do you mean "further"? You haven't provided any evidence yet.
In any case, the Guardian's stated reason was that the language didn't align with the language of the survey, which is true.
But has been pointed out, if this was about men and their sex lives they wouldn't be describe as 'ejaculators'.
At best it is clumsy.
-
Who gives a fuck? Maybe they wanted to keep the word count down. Anyway, I'm challenging your hypothesis. It's for you to provide the evidence.
You also haven't addressed the fact that the Guardian was happy to use the term "women" elsewhere in the article.
What do you mean "further"? You haven't provided any evidence yet.
In any case, the Guardian's stated reason was that the language didn't align with the language of the survey, which is true.
How does 'women' increase the word count?
-
But has been pointed out, if this was about men and their sex lives they wouldn't be describe as 'ejaculators'.
At best it is clumsy.
I agree it was a shit term to use, apart from being inaccurate, it was clearly deeply offensive.
What I dispute is that the Guardian had any intent to erase the identity of women. I think they were just, as you say, clumsy.
-
How does 'women' increase the word count?
It would be a replacement, not for "women" but "women who have had period pain at work", which is the group of women in the survey.
Anyway, can I take the fact that you have shown no interest in defending your hypothesis means you have conceded the point?
-
It would be a replacement, not for "women" but "women who have had period pain at work", which is the group of women in the survey.
Anyway, can I take the fact that you have shown no interest in defending your hypothesis means you have conceded the point?
No, it was a deliberate action which resulted in lots of complaints from women who see this as part of an ongoing campaign to make the term women about gender rather than sex. This isn't an isolated incident.
-
Interesting thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1055511561987674113.html
-
A point not covered unless Ive missed it, are there similar concerns/objections to MTF trans people?
As I have said before I find the issue confusing and one I personally find hard to comprehend, (I dont know what that says about me, something very worrying probably) what I genuinely find distressing is the hostility generated by the debate. A hostility the trans community could well do withiut. Thats not to say they dont have some responsibility for this state of affairs, but there has to be a recognition that this hostility feeds into the increasing number of attacks on trans people, and the tone of the dialogue needs to change.
I liked the approach of the blogger that NS linked to, which prompted above ramble.
-
Trent, I've never felt hostility towards trans people (I say 'people' because one of my kids has a f to m trans friend). Not ever. I've loved the trans women I've known. But there is a feeling that some trans women want to erase female identity. I just don't get it.
Incidentally, I'm not aware of terfs attacking trans women. I think largely that's bigoted aresholes who do that.
-
Trent, I've never felt hostility towards trans people (I say 'people' because one of my kids has a f to m trans friend). Not ever. I've loved the trans women I've known. But there is a feeling that some trans women want to erase female identity. I just don't get it.
Incidentally, I'm not aware of terfs attacking trans women. I think largely that's bigoted aresholes who do that.
No I dont think most/any women are attacking trans women either, I was however reading an article in the gay press about the number of attacks and murders of trans people in the USA and think that the dialogue thus far is enabling the, as far as I can see, men to feel freer to do these horrible crimes. I'm not saying either side is more or less responsible just that the terms of the debate need to be rejigged to try to minimise the possibility of giving licence to bigots.
-
No I dont think most/any women are attacking trans women either, I was however reading an article in the gay press about the number of attacks and murders of trans people in the USA and think that the dialogue thus far is enabling the, as far as I can see, men to feel freer to do these horrible crimes. I'm not saying either side is more or less responsible just that the terms of the debate need to be rejigged to try to minimise the possibility of giving licence to bigots.
Is there any evidence that asking for the rights of women to be respected is doing that though. Further it isn't women vs trans.
-
In the States though we have Trump’s anti trans rhetoric and the religious right trying to erase trans completely. There’s no surprise there about the rise in attacks on trans people. Here we have the opposite - the acceptance of self identification. I seriously doubt whether your average bigot bothers engaging with feminist thought. But we are seeing the rise of the right and where religion is increasing it isn’t of a tolerant kind.
-
No, it was a deliberate action which resulted in lots of complaints from women
Was it a deliberate action? You have yet to provide any evidence that it was.
-
Was it a deliberate action? You have yet to provide any evidence that it was.
So they accidentally changed women to menstruators?
-
So they accidentally changed women to menstruators?
Sorry, I thought you meant it was a deliberate attempt to erase women or coddle trans women.
-
Sorry, I thought you meant it was a deliberate attempt to erase women or coddle trans women.
I put it was a deliberate action. You asked how I would show that. Glad to see you dropped the silly challenge.
The other point is all the women who saw it as an erasure and complained to the Guardian. Are they all just making it up?
-
I put it was a deliberate action. You asked how I would show that. Glad to see you dropped the silly challenge.
So you are walking back your original claim that you can't support. You said:
It's a sop to transgender, and erases women as a term.
You have no evidence that they did it as a sop to transgender. Of course somebody deliberately made the change but they could have done it for innocent reasons even though it was horribly misguided.
The other point is all the women who saw it as an erasure and complained to the Guardian. Are they all just making it up?
Nobody has denied that it was a terrible idea.
-
So you are walking back your original claim that you can't support. You said:
You have no evidence that they did it as a sop to transgender. Of course somebody deliberately made the change but they could have done it for innocent reasons even though it was horribly misguided.
Nobody has denied that it was a terrible idea.
So, we can agree your point challenging my statement that it was a deliberate act but was just incorrect.
As to evidnce about it being a sop, I've already covered that this is contextual. It's been a set of stuff from the Guardian which went down the route that TERFs were a thing to be condemned, and accepting the idea that trans women are women. I note that you dismiss why the women who complained who saw it as motivated by this.
-
In the States though we have Trump’s anti trans rhetoric and the religious right trying to erase trans completely. There’s no surprise there about the rise in attacks on trans people. Here we have the opposite - the acceptance of self identification. I seriously doubt whether your average bigot bothers engaging with feminist thought. But we are seeing the rise of the right and where religion is increasing it isn’t of a tolerant kind.
It's pretty confusing. I suppose that the right wing preserve a conservative view of sex/gender, and don't want gender to "spread", I mean become a spectrum rather than a single thing. It's also Othering, that is, it says that I get to describe your gender, not you. Well, you are the authority on your own gender, surely. After that, masses of confusion. It's amazing to think of the way gender has changed, from biology, to social construction, to self-identity. But I think that Judith Butler argued that it's a performance, which you regulate. This sounds very postmodern, and unclassifiable and chaotic. As an anarchist, I like that.
I was trying on some jeans the other day, and I realized there were two women in the next cubicle, well, I chuckled.
-
So, we can agree your point challenging my statement that it was a deliberate act but was just incorrect.
No. Because your statement was that it was a deliberate act as a sop to trans women, not just that it was a deliberate act. You have yet to provide any evidence at all that your point is true.
-
I thought that "menstruators" was catering for people who menstruate, but don't identify as women. However, it probably confused and irritated a lot of people, who didn't have a clue what it meant. Having said that, I may have got it wrong as well, as it could be for the benefit of trans women.
-
I thought that "menstruators" was catering for people who menstruate, but don't identify as women. However, it probably confused and irritated a lot of people, who didn't have a clue what it meant. Having said that, I may have got it wrong as well, as it could be for the benefit of trans women.
Well the study it was reporting on was of "women who have experienced period pain at work". The Guardian really should have stuck to the same language. "Menstruators" doesn't mean the same thing (as well as being a made up word). I take your point that the Guardian may have been looking for a term that does not exclude trans men, but they were wrong to do so, if that was their motivation. The survey was of women who experienced period pain at work. That means women who do not currently menstruate would be in the survey and it probably excludes trans men because YouGov would have selected the sample based on the profiles of the candidate respondents where trans men might have put "gender = male".
-
I realized that the idea of gender as performance, something that you do rather than are, is disliked by some trans people, as they argue for a kind of inner identity. This also overthrows the idea of gender as social construction, very much a feminist theme 30 years ago, well, still is.
This raises the question of possible biological foundations for trans, an area which seems to be in an early phase, research on twin studies, and so on. Julia Serano is pushing this, as she is a biologist, and trans, her book is interesting, "Whipping Girl".
Well, you could say there is confusion in gender studies, I guess it will calm down, but it has been confused for 40 years!
-
This is very good
https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/
-
This is very good
https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/
It is.
Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are.
-
It's certainly a good compendium of anti-trans stuff, it's all there, ROGD, contagion, the Littman article, Girl Guides, paedophilia, gender stereotypes, and "the feisty British tabloid press", as a bonus.
-
It's certainly a good compendium of anti-trans stuff, it's all there, ROGD, contagion, the Littman article, Girl Guides, paedophilia, gender stereotypes, and "the feisty British tabloid press", as a bonus.
The use of 'anti trans stuff' is simply an attempt to shut down discussion. It also seems to simplify the discussion in a way that is as the article makes clear and for those involved.
-
I don't mind discussing stuff, but it's remarkable that every anti-trans story of the past few months is given an airing. You have to admire her diligence.
-
I don't mind discussing stuff, but it's remarkable that every anti-trans story of the past few months is given an airing. You have to admire her diligence.
If you think you are being erased then why wouldn't you be diligent? Surely diligent is a good thing?
-
It is.
Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are.
Self-pity soon starts to get tiresome,and turns people off.
-
Self-pity soon starts to get tiresome,and turns people off.
Are you honestly saying that any resistance Rhiannon makes to self ID is self pity?
-
Are you honestly saying that any resistance Rhiannon makes to self ID is self pity?
No, I'm saying that she tends to make everything personal, and comes on with the martyr schtick.
-
No, I'm saying that she tends to make everything personal, and comes on with the martyr schtick.
Everything is personal if it affects you. Your dismissal of the experience of sexual harassment and rape from someone makes you seem the personification of misogyny.
-
Everything is personal if it affects you. Your dismissal of the experience of sexual harassment and rape from someone makes you seem the personification of misogyny.
Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live (go on, then - find some old post of mine which could be called confessional, as if that proves asnything).
-
It is.
Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are.
Yeah, fuck my self entitled self interest making it all about me here.
Except 'women' isn't me.
What nerve is it that I touch with you? Is that you just find rape and sexual assault so tediously boring to discuss while you puff your pipe?
-
Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live (go on, then - find some old post of mine which could be called confessional, as if that proves asnything).
Yeah, keep everyone quiet. Perhaps Paul Stewart and the other footballers shouldn't have spoken out about their abuse on daytime telly. Not very British of them, was it? .
-
Fuck this. Should have walked when I said I would. Screw this place.
-
Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live (go on, then - find some old post of mine which could be called confessional, as if that proves asnything).
Yeah, tell a woman who has been raped to shut up. That's such a non misogynist viewpoint.
-
Let's just say that I think there's a lot to be said for traditional British reserve, in this hyper-confessional age in which we live (go on, then - find some old post of mine which could be called confessional, as if that proves asnything).
What a horrible thing to say. >:( >:( >:(
-
Yeah, tell a woman who has been raped to shut up. That's such a non misogynist viewpoint.
Not to shut up - there are lots of ways to get a message across - and if a message isn't being heard the way the messenger intends then one option is to figure out a different way to present the message. If Rhiannon's current approach is working for her then by all means carry on - maybe she is reaching more people than she is turning off. Presumably it's up to Rhiannon how she uses this forum so long as she doesn't break any rules.
I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be open to the same approach. And just because Rhiannon happens to be a woman talking about her perception that women are there to be used, I don't think it's misogynistic to disagree with her particular approach to the debate on trans issues.
I know I haven't been here for a while but this is a debating forum - a place where people with different styles of debating find things to agree and disagree about in relation to different topics. If this forum was styled as a support group or counselling group I would have a different opinion. Just a thought - maybe there should be a support group thread where people can air their experiences in a safe space.
-
Not to shut up - there are lots of ways to get a message across - and if a message isn't being heard the way the messenger intends then one option is to figure out a different way to present the message. If Rhiannon's current approach is working for her then by all means carry on - maybe she is reaching more people than she is turning off. Presumably it's up to Rhiannon how she uses this forum so long as she doesn't break any rules.
I don't think it's realistic to expect everyone to be open to the same approach. And just because Rhiannon happens to be a woman talking about her perception that women are there to be used, I don't think it's misogynistic to disagree with her particular approach to the debate on trans issues.
I know I haven't been here for a while but this is a debating forum - a place where people with different styles of debating find things to agree and disagree about in relation to different topics. If this forum was styled as a support group or counselling group I would have a different opinion. Just a thought - maybe there should be a support group thread where people can air their experiences in a safe space.
If you are saying, don't say things, then it is precisely to shut up. That the thing you are telling people not to talk about is rape, then reads as misogynistic to me. People can disagree with each other, and still not feel the need to state lines about what should be talked about. To state that because it is personalised and shouldn't be part of the debate, just seems both a cover for someone's own issues, and in addition ludicrous as no one is debating objectively here
-
The irony is that I didn’t make the comment that ‘women are there to be used’ with reference to my rape at all. At the forefront of my mind when I said that were the lesbians who are expected to have a dick they don’t want inside them.
That Steve decided he had to make that about me and my rape speaks fucking volumes.
As I posted on my thread on General, I speak up because there are assumptions made about rape that need challenging. I’m angry but not distressed; what happened to me happened a long time ago. I don’t approach this as a need to get things off my chest, I approach it as a way of getting some fucking ignorant attitudes challenged.
-
If you think you are being erased then why wouldn't you be diligent? Surely diligent is a good thing?
I thought it was a long Gish Gallop. This makes it very difficult to fact-check all the stories, although some have been already, for example, the Littman article has been heavily criticized for its methodology.. I must admit, the paedophilia comparison is new to me, no doubt the Daily Mail will pick that up. Actually, Mumsnet are already all over it.
-
I thought it was a long Gish Gallop. This makes it very difficult to fact-check all the stories, although some have been already, for example, the Littman article has been heavily criticized for its methodology.. I must admit, the paedophilia comparison is new to me, no doubt the Daily Mail will pick that up. Actually, Mumsnet are already all over it.
Do we ever properly fact check stories? That it brings together different examples is surely an entirely reasonable approach as part of this is about a bigger picture than individual examples?
-
This is very good
https://quillette.com/2018/12/04/the-new-patriarchy-how-trans-radicalism-hurts-women-children-and-trans-people-themselves/
From your link, it seems very strange after all the work done to break gender stereotypes that we are going back to activism like this:
Bish, a British website aimed at teenagers, encourages them to work out their “gender identities” by placing themselves on several “gender spectrums” with words like rational, tough, active and independent under “looks masculine,” and emotional, soft, passive and sharer under “looks feminine.”
People who want to express their opinions opposing this kind of thinking and political ideology will just have to learn to ignore the labels of "bigotry" and "transphobia".
Is there a link to evidence that trans women aren't advantaged in some way over natal women if they have gone through male puberty? Would be good to read the scientific evidence-based opinions on how testosterone has advantaged trans women. For example from the link it says:
In 2016, the International Olympics Committee stopped requiring athletes to have undergone gender-reassignment surgery and cross-sex hormone treatment before competing as a member of the opposite sex. Now it simply requires male athletes who wish to compete as women to lower their testosterone levels. That overlooks the permanent effects of having gone through male puberty, which include more muscle and a bigger frame, heart and lungs. But many other sporting authorities do not even require that much.
If I had to choose, I would prioritise safeguarding issues against potential threats of harm from criminal trans people towards others, above the risk of trans people feeling unaccepted or excluded. Obviously it would be nice if there was some way of screening for criminality so both could be accommodated.
-
From your link, it seems very strange after all the work done to break gender stereotypes that we are going back to activism like this:
People who want to express their opinions opposing this kind of thinking and political ideology will just have to learn to ignore the labels of "bigotry" and "transphobia".
Is there a link to evidence that trans women aren't advantaged in some way over natal women if they have gone through male puberty? Would be good to read the scientific evidence-based opinions on how testosterone has advantaged trans women. For example from the link it says:
If I had to choose, I would prioritise safeguarding issues against potential threats of harm from criminal trans people towards others, above the risk of trans people feeling unaccepted or excluded. Obviously it would be nice if there was some way of screening for criminality so both could be accommodated.
The problem with just ignoring labels is that if they are used to shut down discussion, then it doesn't really matter if you ignore them, it's the people labelling that you need to have the discussion with. There is a solution here which isn't about the extreme cases, and to an extent I'll accept wigginhall's point that this is in the main a summary of extreme cases but the better cases from the transgender community seem to me to be mainly on the sides of lesbians, and other women who fear being erased.
-
I try to fact check stories, for example, I think she is wrong about Teacher's Guidance, I think the rule is not to tell parents, if the child requests that, for fear of being punished. But with such an amount of recycled stuff, it would take a week.
-
I try to fact check stories, for example, I think she is wrong about Teacher's Guidance, I think the rule is not to tell parents, if the child requests that, for fear of being punished. But with such an amount of recycled stuff, it would take a week.
You are using 'recycled' here as term of dismissing. All history writing tends to be recycled but you wouldn't use the term there.
-
If you are saying, don't say things, then it is precisely to shut up. That the thing you are telling people not to talk about is rape, then reads as misogynistic to me. People can disagree with each other, and still not feel the need to state lines about what should be talked about. To state that because it is personalised and shouldn't be part of the debate, just seems both a cover for someone's own issues, and in addition ludicrous as no one is debating objectively here
Where is Rhiannon being told to not talk about rape? I looked back to see if I could find a post and couldn't see it.
All I saw was Rhiannon responding in #189 to a link by saying "Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are." and a response by Steve in #194 saying self-pity gets a bit tiresome and in #196 asserting that Rhiannon makes things personal and does the "martyr shtick", which I assumes refers to the line about "women exist to be used and hated". What have I missed?
-
You are using 'recycled' here as term of dismissing. All history writing tends to be recycled but you wouldn't use the term there.
Well, a lot of her stuff is found again and again in the right-wing media, for example, the contagion idea. FFS, this was used about gays, and as far as I can see, has no standing in psychiatry. But the Mail and the Spectator and the Federalist recycle it, plus all the bigoted Catholic web-sites. It's bad science.
-
Well, a lot of her stuff is found again and again in the right-wing media, for example, the contagion idea. FFS, this was used about gays, and as far as I can see, has no standing in psychiatry. But the Mail and the Spectator and the Federalist recycle it, plus all the bigoted Catholic web-sites. It's bad science.
As is the idea that we have a gender identity that is somehow clear. And again, tat the right wing use this doesn't mean i's wrong. All you are doing is a guilt by association thing, and trying to portray it as completely analogous with gay rights where it quit clearly isn't in that affects the rights of women that have been fought for over the last century
-
Where is Rhiannon being told to not talk about rape? I looked back to see if I could find a post and couldn't see it.
All I saw was Rhiannon responding in #189 to a link by saying "Just feels like more evidence that women exist to be used and hated but there we are." and a response by Steve in #194 saying self-pity gets a bit tiresome and in #196 asserting that Rhiannon makes things personal and does the "martyr shtick", which I assumes refers to the line about "women exist to be used and hated". What have I missed?
#198 where Steve doesn't want it aired because it's not good old fashioned Briish reserve
-
The problem with just ignoring labels is that if they are used to shut down discussion, then it doesn't really matter if you ignore them, it's the people labelling that you need to have the discussion with.
True, but as with Brexit, if you meet the obstacle of labels shutting down discussion and people refusing to listen, you might have to find a way to go around or over them - maybe it comes down to changing strategy to tap into social, media or political power to influence public policy.
There is a solution here which isn't about the extreme cases, and to an extent I'll accept wigginhall's point that this is in the main a summary of extreme cases but the better cases from the transgender community seem to me to be mainly on the sides of lesbians, and other women who fear being erased.
Yes - sometimes choices have to be made if logistically you can't champion both causes due to a conflict of interests. Being called names such as "bigot" and "phobic" by some activists rather than engaging in discussion unfortunately goes with the territory in politics, and you have no control over the tactics employed by some activists. Feminists could just loudly and publicly label those activists "misogynists" if negatively labeling critics is an effective strategy? More organised anti-misogynist marches against those particular policies?
-
#198 where Steve doesn't want it aired because it's not good old fashioned Briish reserve
Oh right. Yeah that is horrible if Steve thinks people should not talk about personal experiences of rape or sexual assault. I thought the "martyr shtick" Steve referred to was something to with the perception that women are hated and being erased.
I think talking about it is brave and necessary. Not sure why being reserved about stuff like that is a good thing - the more it's talked about, the more aware people are of how often it happens. Safeguarding measures would not have been widely introduced if people weren't aware of the issues by talking about their frequency. Also better measures to investigate allegations and where evidence exists, to hold criminals accountable, would also not have been introduced if people did not talk about their experiences.
-
I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Some posters, though (more than one) do tend to bring up their horrible past experiences regularly, as though they are arguments for or against anything.
-
I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Some posters, though (more than one) do tend to bring up their horrible past experiences regularly, as though they are arguments for or against anything.
Well, they are aren't they?
If we don't listen to people's horror stories how are we going to learn anything.
Damn those Jews for inconveniently reminding us of the holocaust.
-
Well, they are aren't they?
If we don't listen to people's horror stories how are we going to learn anything.
Damn those Jews for inconveniently reminding us of the holocaust.
You can't (or at any rate shouldn't) generalise from particular instances.
-
I didn't tell anyone to shut up. Some posters, though (more than one) do tend to bring up their horrible past experiences regularly, as though they are arguments for or against anything.
We can all at times write things that when challenged about we react and end up in an entrenched position. I would ask you though to consider what it would sound like if trentvoyager had been talking about his experiences of bullying and physical abuse because of him being gay, and someone had responded that he was doing 'homosexual rights by numbers', and that if he mentioned ait again that it was just because of his 'martyr complex' and that if he were to show proper British reserve he wouldn't talk about them?
-
You can't (or at any rate shouldn't) generalise from particular instances.
I think that depends on how often those particular instances happen. Say there were a situation where maybe black people were being stopped and searched on a regular basis(purely hypothetical you understand ;) ), is not the testimony of the people involved worth considering or are you just saying nah we'll ignore that because common sense/politician/officialdom tells me that's not true.
On occasions nearly all we have in some areas is particular instances from personal experience.
-
My last post on this forum:
Rape victims apparently have 'martyr complexes'.
Bye, all, it's been interesting.
-
Yes it certainly has been interesting Rhiannon. Glad I came back in time to say bye. My opinion is your contributions were a lot more interesting and useful before because I really enjoyed your descriptive writing and it made me think, as you could express the compassion and emotion that I often lack as my approach is more analytical.
My impression is that more recently you seemed to fly off the handle a lot more, and I noticed you claiming you were considered a "stupid woman" if a man (PD the last time I was here) disagreed with your argument and that approach made me switch off to your argument. I would say arguments such as "women are there to be used" or accusing a man who disagrees with you of thinking you were j"ust a stupid woman" sounds like a "martyr complex". I don't think speaking about rape comes across as a martyr complex and I don't think that is what Steve meant when he made that comment, but I could be wrong, and you are certainly free to interpret Steve's comment that way if you want to.
I'm not the kind of person to try to persuade someone to stay if they want to go - I see people as autonomous individuals who are free to make up their own mind if leaving works for them rather than staying. Plus this forum is time consuming and arguing with people can be bruising so I wouldn't blame anyone for walking away from this forum. I don't consider this forum a safe space - it's a place to go to when you want your views challenged.
Hope you come back if you decide to post some of your more thoughtful stuff - they really made me think.
-
I think that depends on how often those particular instances happen. Say there were a situation where maybe black people were being stopped and searched on a regular basis(purely hypothetical you understand ;) ), is not the testimony of the people involved worth considering or are you just saying nah we'll ignore that because common sense/politician/officialdom tells me that's not true.
On occasions nearly all we have in some areas is particular instances from personal experience.
I'm not saying that "it" (whatever it may be) is definitely not true, just that a particular instance doesn't prove anything about the general situation. Police discrimination against blacks is no doubt widespread, but only proper statistics prove it, not one black person's experiences.
-
I'm not saying that "it" (whatever it may be) is definitely not true, just that a particular instance doesn't prove anything about the general situation. Police discrimination against blacks is no doubt widespread, but only proper statistics prove it, not one black person's experiences.
What an unpleasant little piece of work you are. >:(
Stats you want, here they are.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest
-
What an unpleasant little piece of work you are. >:(
Stats you want, here they are.
https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest
I wasn't doubting it, you silly woman! I was simply pointing out an invalid argument. Something can be true, but a particular argument for it may be invalid, for example "some Americans are idiots; Donald Trump is an American; therefore Donald Trump is an idiot." He is, of course, but that argument doesn't prove it.
-
My last post on this forum:
Rape victims apparently have 'martyr complexes'.
Bye, all, it's been interesting.
Hope not... I mostly agree with Gab's post:
Block-head comments need to be countered, though understand how you might feel.
-
I wasn't doubting it, you silly woman! I was simply pointing out an invalid argument. Something can be true, but a particular argument for it may be invalid, for example "some Americans are idiots; Donald Trump is an American; therefore Donald Trump is an idiot." He is, of course, but that argument doesn't prove it.
You gave the impression you were doubting it. ::)
-
Haven’t managed to read the whole thread, but a question occurred to me...
If a person’s sense of gender identity is fundamentally influenced by their experience of a certain biology (like Rhiannon was describing with hecteproductivevsystem etc)... then what is the basis for a trans persons feeling of gender dysphoria? How can you feel you are something that you’ve never experienced?
It’s all so confusing
-
You gave the impression you were doubting it. ::)
Not to anyone capable of reading and understanding a simple sentence.
-
I don't think so LR, I've read it throughly twice and understood what Steve meant.
However what you said illustrates how easy it is to misunderstand. I just read the last three pages of this thread & there have been a few misunderstandings between posters.
Some issues trigger fear, anger, panic, depression in people who have personal experience of them. Not just the memories but the feelings we had at the time come flooding back, it's like being traumatised all over again.
I feel sad that Rhi has gone, I don't post here much but when I look at the forum and see that she has posted, I'm always eager to read what she said.
Gabriella I agree with your post. You're always very clear.
-
Haven’t managed to read the whole thread, but a question occurred to me...
If a person’s sense of gender identity is fundamentally influenced by their experience of a certain biology (like Rhiannon was describing with hecteproductivevsystem etc)... then what is the basis for a trans persons feeling of gender dysphoria? How can you feel you are something that you’ve never experienced?
It’s all so confusing
Bump. Didn't want Samuel's post to get lost.
-
Haven’t managed to read the whole thread, but a question occurred to me...
If a person’s sense of gender identity is fundamentally influenced by their experience of a certain biology (like Rhiannon was describing with hecteproductivevsystem etc)... then what is the basis for a trans persons feeling of gender dysphoria? How can you feel you are something that you’ve never experienced?
It’s all so confusing
I may have got this wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there's a bit of the brain that's about twice as large in one sex as in the other (I can't remember which way round it is). People with gender dysphoria are often found to have the wrong size for their physical sex. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? (Spare us the obvious crack, LR!)
-
Haven’t managed to read the whole thread, but a question occurred to me...
If a person’s sense of gender identity is fundamentally influenced by their experience of a certain biology (like Rhiannon was describing with hecteproductivevsystem etc)... then what is the basis for a trans persons feeling of gender dysphoria? How can you feel you are something that you’ve never experienced?
It’s all so confusing
Especially given the constant confusion of terms the terms gender and sex.
-
I may have got this wrong, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there's a bit of the brain that's about twice as large in one sex as in the other (I can't remember which way round it is). People with gender dysphoria are often found to have the wrong size for their physical sex. Does anyone know what I'm talking about? (Spare us the obvious crack, LR!)
This may be what I was thinking of. White/grey matter
In a 2013 meta-analysis, researchers found on average males had larger grey matter (GM) volume in bilateral amygdalae, hippocampi, anterior parahippocampal gyri, posterior cingulate gyri, precuneus, putamen and temporal poles, areas in the left posterior and anterior cingulate gyri, and areas in the cerebellum bilateral VIIb, VIIIa and Crus I lobes, left VI and right Crus II lobes.[2] [12]On the other hand, females on average had larger grey matter volume at the right frontal pole, inferior and middle frontal gyri, pars triangularis, planum temporale/parietal operculum, anterior cingulate gyrus, insular cortex, and Heschl's gyrus; bilateral thalami and precuneus; the left parahippocampal gyrus and lateral occipital cortex (superior division).[2] The meta-analysis found larger volumes in females were most pronounced in areas in the right hemisphere related to language in addition to several limbic structures such as the right insular cortex and anterior cingulate gyrus.[/url]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences#Amygdala
-
Especially given the constant confusion of terms the terms gender and sex.
Gender seems to be a moveable feast. As a social construct it could be anything, male, female or sunbeam.
-
Haven’t managed to read the whole thread, but a question occurred to me...
If a person’s sense of gender identity is fundamentally influenced by their experience of a certain biology (like Rhiannon was describing with hecteproductivevsystem etc)... then what is the basis for a trans persons feeling of gender dysphoria? How can you feel you are something that you’ve never experienced?
It’s all so confusing
Good question. I don't think there is any clarity at all on this. There is some research that seems to show that trans people share some features in the brain with people of the sex they claim to be. However, I suspect that this is an early finding, and it is too soon to make much of it.
After that, you have a variety of explanations of gender. I know that some trans people argue for a biological basis for trans, however, this is ironic, since feminists have often argued that gender is a cultural product.
Julia Serano is quite interesting, as she is an academic biologist, and trans, she has quite a bit of stuff online, and argues for "subconscious sex", which must mean innate.
And of course, there is a lot of ideology involved.
But then, if you have a kid who is desperate, and says I'm a girl/boy, contrary to birth sex, what are you to do? You could tell them they're wrong, probably very risky.
PS, reading about trans people in India raises interesting questions, supposedly a 4000 year old tradition there, and they have had a certain cultural niche, as hijras, but they are also often looked down on. But other cultures also seem to have trans, e.g., Hawaii.
-
Just as with homosexuality there have always been people who feel that they have the wrong sex and different societies have dealt with these "abnormalities" (in a non-pejorative sense) in different ways. Hijra groups are common in India, essentially treated as a minority caste.
Not really seeing why people of different sex or gender should be treated differently to each other unless there is a danger of, or actual, offensive behaviour or acts.
-
I thought that Christianity tried to suppress gays and trans people, because it was seen as immoral, contrary to Bible teaching, blah blah blah. There are also arguments that patriarchy has also enforced uniformity, or tried to.
Then you get derepression, which is threatening, as all the boundaries become wobbly.
Sorry, I am talking about Europe and US, don't know the history in India, Hawaii, Native American (Two Spirit).
-
Yes, that's how it has been here.
And in the East although, there has generally been more tolerance, patriarchal society certainly enforced the "norms" wherever it could.
Doesn't mean that that was/is best way to do things.
I can't relate to the "morality" argument at all. I suspect god only tells people what they want to hear?
-
There is also a problem with cultural overlay. Native Americans have resented the way that European anthropologists imposed various interpretations on Two Spirit people. In fact, an early word used by them "berdache", was hated by various tribes, and was dropped. And Two Spirit is different from trans as we understand it, the Wiki entry looks OK. I notice Two Spirit groups on many Pride marches.
"In the reservation period, American missionaries denounced berdaches, government agents forced them to do men's work, and boarding school teachers punished children for inappropriate gender behavior", Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, online.
-
Good question. I don't think there is any clarity at all on this. There is some research that seems to show that trans people share some features in the brain with people of the sex they claim to be. However, I suspect that this is an early finding, and it is too soon to make much of it.
After that, you have a variety of explanations of gender. I know that some trans people argue for a biological basis for trans, however, this is ironic, since feminists have often argued that gender is a cultural product.
Julia Serano is quite interesting, as she is an academic biologist, and trans, she has quite a bit of stuff online, and argues for "subconscious sex", which must mean innate.
And of course, there is a lot of ideology involved.
But then, if you have a kid who is desperate, and says I'm a girl/boy, contrary to birth sex, what are you to do? You could tell them they're wrong, probably very risky.
PS, reading about trans people in India raises interesting questions, supposedly a 4000 year old tradition there, and they have had a certain cultural niche, as hijras, but they are also often looked down on. But other cultures also seem to have trans, e.g., Hawaii.
Is the argument that subconscious sex is one factor in gender? A bit like the nature vs nurture argument?
If a kid told me I'm a girl/boy, contrary to birth sex, my question would be how are they defining the words "girl" and "boy". If lots of people define those terms differently, then any public policy decisions should prioritise safeguarding of vulnerable people over individual definitions.
I would help trans people feel included with whatever gender they want to be included in where there aren't any safeguarding concerns. So if you are biologically a woman who wants to identify as a man that loves glitter and make-up (because why shouldn't an individual be free to define "manly" as loving glitter and make-up) and want to wear glitter and make-up when you step into a boxing ring, fine, but you need to fight someone in your weight and strength category who does't have a biological advantage over you that could result in you getting hurt. Same if you are biologically a man who identifies as a woman who loves getting into fist fights in bars and thinks that's a feminine way to behave - you can define feminine how you want but if you step into a boxing ring you can't have a weight or biological advantage over your opponent that could result in them getting hurt.
Testosterone may give you a biological advantage in certain situations - does oestrogen give you a biological advantage in other situations? There is a view that too much testosterone in the boardroom can lead to risky or reckless decisions that can harm a company's economic performance.
-
There is also a problem with cultural overlay. Native Americans have resented the way that European anthropologists imposed various interpretations on Two Spirit people. In fact, an early word used by them "berdache", was hated by various tribes, and was dropped. And Two Spirit is different from trans as we understand it, the Wiki entry looks OK. I notice Two Spirit groups on many Pride marches.
"In the reservation period, American missionaries denounced berdaches, government agents forced them to do men's work, and boarding school teachers punished children for inappropriate gender behavior", Encyclopedia of the Great Plains, online.
Yes. As these identities are socially constructed identities in one society will not have a 1-1 match in another. Hijra does not map directly to either "transgender" or "gay" in the west but a mix of both.
Thailand has many identities not recognized elsewhere.
-
That's interesting, as this seems to be an argument for social construction theories, if trans identities vary a lot. I think over here, trans people get tired of the hunt for causation. As the old song has it, we're here and we're queer, get used to it.
-
That's interesting, as this seems to be an argument for social construction theories, if trans identities vary a lot. I think over here, trans people get tired of the hunt for causation. As the old song has it, we're here and we're queer, get used to it.
The problem is that there is a strand in transactivism, and it appears to be the dominant one which says to natal women/lesbians 'You are not here'. That's where the analogy to gay rights breaks down.
-
And a good summary of discussions in Scottish Parliament and how self ID is erasing women's protections
https://mobile.twitter.com/ForwomenScot/status/1070987804111458304
-
From the most hated lesbian in Baltimore
https://www.afterellen.com/general-news/568221-how-i-became-the-most-hated-lesbian-in-baltimore?fbclid=IwAR0BhjbIJNyzbCJJgNLEVD9K_silJXcp38KxD_Ah-1wd83ULoRPuT_ao1gU
-
And here is someone trying to erase Martina Navratilova's role for women and lesbians.
https://janeclarejones.com/2018/12/21/disciplining-martina-heretics-and-the-church-of-trans-normativity/?fbclid=IwAR2imcH3loClOcvVODkTkP7xn4D2WcKLNjlfWssE3tDx_WkUsOeM3HxOTK8
-
I read something about that yesterday I think. Gosh, blimey, where will it all end?
Great Martina fan here, lovely, caring person, intelligent & insightful. It's quite upsetting.
-
From the most hated lesbian in Baltimore
https://www.afterellen.com/general-news/568221-how-i-became-the-most-hated-lesbian-in-baltimore?fbclid=IwAR0BhjbIJNyzbCJJgNLEVD9K_silJXcp38KxD_Ah-1wd83ULoRPuT_ao1gU
But she is obviously out to antagonize trans people, for example, by going to a meeting and calling a trans woman "he", and describes her "caricature of femininity". Pretty provocative stuff.
-
From the most hated lesbian in Baltimore
https://www.afterellen.com/general-news/568221-how-i-became-the-most-hated-lesbian-in-baltimore?fbclid=IwAR0BhjbIJNyzbCJJgNLEVD9K_silJXcp38KxD_Ah-1wd83ULoRPuT_ao1gU
Those gay gentlemen in her discussion group received shortish shrift. Can't say it was "useless man" territory since nobody seemed to emerge with flying colours.
-
I find Martina's comments odd as the Olympic committee has spent decades researching into gender and sport, and has been through various phases, e.g., genital inspection, chromosome analysis, and more recently hormone analysis. There have been problems at every stage, for example, with chromosome analysis, there are individuals with mosaicism, where different cells in the body have XX or XY chromosomes. They seemed to have settled on hormone analysis, thus requiring intersex women and trans women to reduce testosterone, (which is meant to reduce athletic performance), but there is now a legal block on that. It's extremely complicated. Ironically, one of Martina's coaches was Renee Richards, well known trans tennis player.
-
But she is obviously out to antagonize trans people, for example, by going to a meeting and calling a trans woman "he", and describes her "caricature of femininity". Pretty provocative stuff.
I think if a person was being hostile to me by labeling my concerns as phobic or by acting in a way I thought was misogynistic, which would make a reasonable discussion pretty impossible, I would be hostile back e.g. if they were trans by referring to them as their biological sex. We often see a lot of hostility and antagonism in discussions on here - it goes with the territory when discussing opposing beliefs about social policy. I personally don't subscribe to the idea that being a member of a minority group should let you off the hook from having to hear opinions that hurt your feelings. My perception is that trying to shut down opinions rarely makes them go away - it seems to result in a more divided society and the opinions keep resurfacing in other ways.
-
I find Martina's comments odd as the Olympic committee has spent decades researching into gender and sport, and has been through various phases, e.g., genital inspection, chromosome analysis, and more recently hormone analysis. There have been problems at every stage, for example, with chromosome analysis, there are individuals with mosaicism, where different cells in the body have XX or XY chromosomes. They seemed to have settled on hormone analysis, thus requiring intersex women and trans women to reduce testosterone, (which is meant to reduce athletic performance), but there is now a legal block on that. It's extremely complicated. Ironically, one of Martina's coaches was Renee Richards, well known trans tennis player.
I think it probably needs a study of how trans athletes are performing in competitions over the next few years. My view would be that if there is a trend of trans women winning against biological females, the rules need changing to prevent them from competing in that category with an unfair advantage. This should also apply if there is a trend of trans men winning against biological males.
I don't think being inclusive of a minority should take priority over fairness in athletic competitions. Men tend to be taller than women, and I know height gives an advantage in certain sports such as swimming, and hormones aren't going to make a trans woman shrink as far as I know.
-
Well, that's what the Olympic committee have been investigating for about 50 years, more with intersex people than trans. They have tried various approaches, but they tend to break down, and they are faced with the problem that some intersex women have a high level of performance. So what do you do, ban them, or make them reduce their testosterone level? Then of course, some people are taller - is this unfair in the high jump?
You find people with male chromosomes and female genitals, for example, so-called XY females.
-
Well, that's what the Olympic committee have been investigating for about 50 years, more with intersex people than trans. They have tried various approaches, but they tend to break down, and they are faced with the problem that some intersex women have a high level of performance. So what do you do, ban them, or make them reduce their testosterone level? Then of course, some people are taller - is this unfair in the high jump?
You find people with male chromosomes and female genitals, for example, so-called XY females.
This problem goes back at least to the late 60s, when I remember a Russian female runner was banned from competing in the Olympics as a woman because she was xxy or something, and had the musculature of a man.
-
In fact, it goes back to the 30s. There was a Polish athlete who failed a chromosome test in 1967, and promptly gave birth! And there are women who are androgen insensitive, so can have high levels of testosterone. Some intersex babies used to be operated on, but this seems to have stopped, as they were often designated as female, sometimes with disastrous results.
-
Well, that's what the Olympic committee have been investigating for about 50 years, more with intersex people than trans. They have tried various approaches, but they tend to break down, and they are faced with the problem that some intersex women have a high level of performance. So what do you do, ban them, or make them reduce their testosterone level? Then of course, some people are taller - is this unfair in the high jump?
You find people with male chromosomes and female genitals, for example, so-called XY females.
I think maybe it depends on how much influence an X or Y chromosome has on muscle mass, heart size, lung size, height, amount of fast-twitch muscle fiber as to whether chromosomes are the determining factor in allowing someone to compete in a particular category.
If testosterone gives an unfair advantage - maybe they could categorise races and athletic competitions based on testosterone levels over a certain period of time assessed by regular testing - similar to weight divisions in boxing. Of course people could cheat on the hormone tests as they do now with drug testing.
-
But then some male athletes have lower T levels than some women. I wonder if the Olympics will give up policing this completely, as it is very complex. Every time they think they have found a test for imposters, it fails.
-
There will always be an arbitrary element to any categorisation. The discussion seems to be to determine what criteria for categorisation society will be using this year - it could all change next year depending on people's needs. It could be a mix of chromosomes and hormones - depending on how much each of these influence athletic advantage - and there might not be a need for the male and female categories - see horse-racing.
https://edition.cnn.com/2013/06/28/sport/horse-racing-male-female/index.html
-
Another point being raised is that some intersex women look quite masculine, and have pronounced musculature, so are they being unfairly targeted for not looking feminine enough? I don't know, but the well-known East German athletes who looked masculine, were often suspected of being imposters, but I think they retired, without being tested. But intersex people are not cheats.
-
I agree that intersex people are not cheats. I think it is complicated but given there are objective measurements of attributes that may give athletic advantage such as muscle mass, hormone levels, height, lung size, heart size, it should be possible to arbitrarily categorise people with similar athletically advantageous attributes to compete against each other, and then it will be skill and technique that determine the winner, rather than height or sex or anatomy or hormone levels.
One of the conflicts in trans issues seems to be that some women want a space where they are not being told what they have to think or how they have to behave or conform to be considered "good women" as opposed to irrational idiots (which is presumably what a phobic /bigot is seen as) as that reminds them of their experiences of being pressured to conform under a misogynistic patriarchal system. It seems from the articles linked to, that they seem to want a less combative, less aggressive, more collaborative approach where people are sensitive to everyone's feelings and different voices are heard and disagreements do not have to be competitive i.e. where arguments need to be won, but instead people can agree to disagree without the creation of a victim and harm done just because someone is in disagreement with your concept of what is true or fair or good. So trans women who adopt a collaborative approach might well be welcomed in women-only spaces as they don't remind women of being under a patriarchy but trans women who adopt a combative approach are rejected.
On the other hand, as I have no experience of feminist gatherings other than going to a single-sex school, I do not know if these gatherings tended to be conducted in a collaborative way or if there were alpha-women who told other women what they should think and feel and do and there was no option to agree to disagree without a woman trying to convince you to think otherwise or without being accused by your sisters of some heresy or supporting oppression or harming the sisterhood.
-
just as aside to the question of women and sport, the great Lily Parr, lesbian icon.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lily_Parr
-
Interesting article about Parr. From a social construct perspective, I like the idea that you can be immensely strong/ physically powerful and that can be considered a feminine attribute and is part of being a woman. I note that this idea is portrayed in the Marvel Avengers movies, especially the Dora Milaje in Black Panther, the bodyguards to the King, but also the political advisors and the genius scientist that the King relies on are also female. The historical basis in African society for this portrayal in the Black Panther movie is discussed here:
http://time.com/5171219/black-panther-women-true-history/
Regarding transgender women in sport and safe spaces for women and trans women, not sure if this Economist article has been mentioned before. It raises the following issue:
Most men do not rape or assault random women and children. Nevertheless, almost all societies accept the principle that, for the sake of women’s safety, all men should be kept out of female changing rooms, toilets and refuges. It is impossible to know how many crimes this prevents. However, the Times, a British newspaper, found that the minority of mixed-sex changing-rooms at sports centres were the site of 90% of reported sexual assaults in changing-rooms of all kinds.
This male propensity for violence has a bearing on self-id. Trans people want access to spaces that match their identity. That is partly because it affirms their gender. In the case of trans women, it is also because they are vulnerable to harassment and violence in male-only spaces such as changing-rooms....
...Though trans women would gain from being included in this way, that needs to be weighed against the risks. One question is question about "how much having a trans identity offsets the overwhelming male propensity to violence. Crime statistics do not settle the question, partly because the category “women” often now includes natal males.
https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/10/25/transgender-politics-focuses-on-who-determines-someones-gender
-
And a perspective on the effect of trans in women's sport.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/tw_in_sports/
-
And a perspective on the effect of trans in women's sport.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/tw_in_sports/
And another transphobic group - where do you keep finding them?
-
And another transphobic group - where do you keep finding them?
Generally amongst women who see their fight for equality being erased.
-
You should just call this thread anti-trans news, all the latest transphobic stuff, roll up, roll up.
-
You should just call this thread anti-trans news, all the latest transphobic stuff, roll up, roll up.
You're better than this simplistic ad hominem stuff.
-
You're better than this simplistic ad hominem stuff.
Irony. I'm baffled that you are going along with these transphobic groups. I think feminists who support them are very short-sighted, as the right wing are hovering.
-
the right wing are hovering.
What's the left wing doing - going round in circles?
-
Irony. I'm baffled that you are going along with these transphobic groups. I think feminists who support them are very short-sighted, as the right wing are hovering.
More simplistic ad hominem. The idea that gender is more real than sex is a denial of the fight for sexual equality.
-
Irony. I'm baffled that you are going along with these transphobic groups. I think feminists who support them are very short-sighted, as the right wing are hovering.
So the pro trans agenda is beyond criticism?
-
What's the left wing doing - going round in circles?
Well, I meant that the right wing are taking up an anti-trans position, see the Spectator for example. Labour has been supporting trans people, but I think apart from that, the left don't have any particular position, I think New Statesman has been anti-trans up to now..
-
So the pro trans agenda is beyond criticism?
There isn't a single pro trans agenda. There are different takes.
-
Well, I meant that the right wing are taking up an anti-trans position, see the Spectator for example. Labour has been supporting trans people, but I think apart from that, the left don't have any particular position, I think New Statesman has been anti-trans up to now..
'Twas a joke. I was pretending to think you meant literal wings, on a bird.
-
Well, I meant that the right wing are taking up an anti-trans position, see the Spectator for example. Labour has been supporting trans people, but I think apart from that, the left don't have any particular position, I think New Statesman has been anti-trans up to now..
You can't really simplify down to pro and anti factions as there are a number of different issues that don't line up.
-
And another transphobic group - where do you keep finding them?
That is a blatant ad hominem. Do you have anything to counter the argument made?
It seems to me that, if you allow trans women in women’s sport, it negates the point of having a separate category for women.
-
And another transphobic group - where do you keep finding them?
Have to confess I'm almost afraid of this topic, generally the liberal in me thinks people should be allowed to be what they want to be, but I read the page you said is transphobic and I'm not seeing it.
-
Have to confess I'm almost afraid of this topic, generally the liberal in me thinks people should be allowed to be what they want to be, but I read the page you said is transphobic and I'm not seeing it.
I think it is this:
Fair Play For Women is an apolitical group of ordinary people from all walks of life who have come together to fight for women’s and girls’ rights. We are concerned that in the rush to reform transgender laws women’s voices will not be listened to. Run entirely by a team of volunteers with skills in many different disciplines, we have worked hard over the past year to bring this issue to public attention.
Women get called transphobic for simply asking questions. Women are afraid to speak out and fear for their jobs and reputation if they do. We are the voice of these women.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/about/
It's a group dedicated to fighting for the rights of biological females vis a vis biological males. I don't know if all their arguments stack up because I've only read the About page and the sport article, but I do think they have a point with respect to women's sports. The only reason for having separate competitions for women is because otherwise, they would not be able to compete at the highest level. If you allow trans women into the women's competitions it makes a mockery of that.
-
I think the answer to this is fairly obvious.
https://www.thearticle.com/can-biological-males-be-lesbians/
-
Just Stock beating the transphobic drum again.
-
Just Stock beating the transphobic drum again.
Why not engage with the arguments instead of just posting an ad hominem? Some of the concerns raised by the article do seem valid to me.
-
Why not engage with the arguments instead of just posting an ad hominem? Some of the concerns raised by the article do seem valid to me.
Well, NS has framed this thread around a series of transphobic articles. It would be interesting to start from scratch, and look at what sex and gender and sexuality, mean, how they are nterrelated, or not, the history of gender studies, the rise of the trans movement, and so on. This thread is mainly trans bashing, so it would be like discussing racism in a UKIP magazine.
-
Well, NS has framed this thread around a series of transphobic articles. It would be interesting to start from scratch, and look at what sex and gender and sexuality, mean, how they are nterrelated, or not, the history of gender studies, the rise of the trans movement, and so on. This thread is mainly trans bashing, so it would be like discussing racism in a UKIP magazine.
Your attempts to erase women do you no service. You once again resorted to ad hominem to dismiss Stock. It's not transbashing at all. You seem unable to argue the case.
-
Well, NS has framed this thread around a series of transphobic articles.
Have you read the latest article NS posted? Can you point out how it is trans phobic?
This thread is mainly trans bashing, so it would be like discussing racism in a UKIP magazine.
Nonsense. Whatever you want to believe, the issue of trans rights does raise some concerns for some people. It does nobody any good to label everything trans phobic that is not exactly to the liking of trans women.
For example, the latest NS article claims that allowing trans women into traditionally safe spaces for women can be problematic and it gives the example of trans women demanding that lesbians be prepared to have sex with them. The article alleges that trans women sometimes bring their male characteristics with them when they transition. Now it might all be complete nonsense, but the article makes a case and if you disagree, you should answer the case rather than just say "transphobic".
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46963426
The US supreme court has upheld Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military.
-
I think the answer to this is fairly obvious.
https://www.thearticle.com/can-biological-males-be-lesbians/
There's nothing transphobic about this article. There are men who desire a sexual relationship with a woman or women but who are sexually turned on by themselves having the outward appearance of a woman, retaining their male genitals. They are not trans women, they are men. They cannot be lesbians & lesbians would not be interested in them.
It's not transphobic to state facts.
Women are now being marginalised as a subset of human beings who menstruate or who have menstruated. How insulting is that. Women are women - lesbians are women. We can self identify as we choose, dress and call ourselves as we like but that doesn't change basic facts. I could call myself a black person but it wouldn't make me one.
Some recent trends are quite frightening, especially for women.
Regarding Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military, I haven't made my mind up about that, will have to give it more thought later. Thanks for posting the link lR.
-
All bollocks!
-
I could call myself a black person but it wouldn't make me one.
That’s an interesting analogy. It’s generally considered acceptable for biological males to identify as women (and vice versa), but not for a white person to identify as a black person or vice versa. And that is in spite of the fact that the physical differences between white and black are pretty trivial in comparison to the physical differences between male and female.
-
There's nothing transphobic about this article. There are men who desire a sexual relationship with a woman or women but who are sexually turned on by themselves having the outward appearance of a woman, retaining their male genitals. They are not trans women, they are men. They cannot be lesbians & lesbians would not be interested in them.
It's not transphobic to state facts.
Women are now being marginalised as a subset of human beings who menstruate or who have menstruated. How insulting is that. Women are women - lesbians are women. We can self identify as we choose, dress and call ourselves as we like but that doesn't change basic facts. I could call myself a black person but it wouldn't make me one.
Some recent trends are quite frightening, especially for women.
Regarding Trump's ban on transgender people serving in the military, I haven't made my mind up about that, will have to give it more thought later. Thanks for posting the link lR.
Got any references to these men who are turned on by appearing as women? Just curious who you mean.
-
They are called autogynephiliac transwomen.
A colloquial name is 'transbian'
http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/22005209
https://genderanalysis.net/2016/04/alice-dreger-autogynophilia-and-the-misrepresentation-of-trans-sexualities-book-review-galileos-middle-finger/
(Can't get anything from first of those links now for some reason & clicking on second doesn't take to page tho' if I put in my browser, it does. However there is a lot more about subject on the internet. Sorry.)
-
They are called autogynephiliac transmen.
A colloquial name is 'transbian'
http://www.ncbi.nim.nih.gov/pubmed/22005209
alicedreger.com/autogyn
That term is not used in gender clinics and the NHS; I'm surprised you are using such pejorative terms.. They can't be trans men, who identify as men. Your link doesn't work.
-
I didn't know they were considered to be perjorative terms, wiggi. They are just words used to describe a particular type of person, not uncommonly so I understand.
I have no experience of gender clinics, most of us haven't!
I already know the links don't work, been trying to sort and can't. I mentioned it when editing the post. However there is quite a lot on the internet about this subject so don't take my word for it.
Might try to find something else later if I have time.
Sorry I meant trans women, not transmen. Careless. I've altered.
-
So do you think that children who identify as the opposite sex, are into sexual excitement?
-
I am speaking of adults which you well know.
-
So do you think that children who identify as the opposite sex, are into sexual excitement?
I’m really not sure why you are doing this. Robbie was asked about men who are turned on by appearing as women. I don’t think it was ever implied that trans women are all trans women because they are turned on by appearing as women, much less children who identify as their non biological gender.
-
I am speaking of adults which you well know.
Well, the idea of autogynephilia has been used about trans women, (although when I was a therapist, I met non-trans people who had such fantasies), so I am curious as to when it is supposed to begin. It's not impossible that kids find trans identity exciting, and you seem well informed about it.
-
I'm no more well informed than most posters on here but I do look things up, think about and read them which is what most of us do. What prompted me was you saying that someone posted transphobic stuff; that surprised me. I could not, still cannot, see how any of it is transphobic. People are entitled to question and to seek to understand. One could say you are biased or have a vested interest, I don't know and neither do I want to know.
Since my last post I have been reading more about autogynephilia, in particular a writer called Miranda Yardley (I won't post any links because of the failure of the last two but there's plenty of stuff with her name on it), and she did say that some children present with autogynephilia. So I have learned something.
Nowhere did I read that 'autogynephilia' is a perjorative term. 'Transbian' may be as it is more colloquial but that depends on context.
However I am now going to eat and try to think of other things for a while. Hopefully others will have something to say.
-
It's always useful to hear what trans people have to say.
http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2018/03/autogynephilia-theory-that-ignores_10.html
-
I'm back, thread draws me like a magnet, can't seem to leave it alone.
Thanks for the link, I read that last night and was looking for it earlier. I'll read again, cheers.
-
I think the article makes a lot of valid points but highlights the problem that the language we currently use is completely messed up.
https://notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/i-am-not-and-have-never-been-gender-dysphoric/
-
I think the article makes a lot of valid points but highlights the problem that the language we currently use is completely messed up.
https://notthenewsinbriefs.wordpress.com/2019/01/21/i-am-not-and-have-never-been-gender-dysphoric/
She seems to be saying that being a tomboy would get her labelled trans. I don't think this is correct. The consultants in gender clinics are familiar with tomboys and princess boys. Assuming that she arrived in one, which is itself doubtful, they would ask her, "are you a boy?" If she answers this insistently and persistently in the affirmative, they would start to consider her for treatment. Then, later such kids may do a social transition, a change in names, clothes, pronouns, and so on. This is a very tough task for a child or adolescent, and some back off here. It's not fun and games, and the obvious alternative is that she is gender non-conforming.
-
She seems to be saying that being a tomboy would get her labelled trans. I don't think this is correct. The consultants in gender clinics are familiar with tomboys and princess boys. Assuming that she arrived in one, which is itself doubtful, they would ask her, "are you a boy?" If she answers this insistently and persistently in the affirmative, they would start to consider her for treatment. Then, later such kids may do a social transition, a change in names, clothes, pronouns, and so on. This is a very tough task for a child or adolescent, and some back off here. It's not fun and games, and the obvious alternative is that she is gender non-conforming.
She makes very clear that she thinks she would have replied in the affirmative if asked, and continued to do so, and covers why. The point about children and adolescents is surely that they would not be assumed able to consent to surgery such as this for any other reason?
-
I have always been a tomboy, now an aging one. I never liked girly toys, clothes or makeup, this used to drive my mother crazy when I was a kid. In spite of that I am quite content to be a female, I have no wish to be a male.
-
She makes very clear that she thinks she would have replied in the affirmative if asked, and continued to do so, and covers why. The point about children and adolescents is surely that they would not be assumed able to consent to surgery such as this for any other reason?
I think you have to be 18.
-
But, of course, Navratilova is just a TERF
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/17/martina-navratilova-criticised-over-cheating-trans-women-comments?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
-
But, of course, Navratilova is just a TERF
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/feb/17/martina-navratilova-criticised-over-cheating-trans-women-comments?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Why is she talking about cheating? Trans athletes and intersex athletes follow the rules of the IAAF and Olympic committee, and other bodies. The athletes don't fix the rules.
-
This is good from Joan McAlpine
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1101251118611525633.html
-
Why is she talking about cheating? Trans athletes and intersex athletes follow the rules of the IAAF and Olympic committee, and other bodies. The athletes don't fix the rules.
A trans woman entering a female only sporting event has a built in physical advantage. If Roger Federer started identifying as a woman and started entering the women’s competitions, he would never lose.
-
Through the looking glass
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/03/a-collapsed-case-shows-the-perils-of-policing-transphobia/
-
A trans woman entering a female only sporting event has a built in physical advantage. If Roger Federer started identifying as a woman and started entering the women’s competitions, he would never lose.
If he followed the rules, he would take hormone blockers and estrogen, thus reducing his performance. Intersex and trans athletes are following the rules, so how are they cheating? The only trans tennis player I can remember was knocked out of the US Open in the first round (Renee Richards).
-
If he followed the rules, he would take hormone blockers and estrogen, thus reducing his performance. Intersex and trans athletes are following the rules, so how are they cheating? The only trans tennis player I can remember was knocked out of the US Open in the first round (Renee Richards).
Intersex is a separate issue. And treating transgender and transsexual as the same is for someone informed dishonest.
When I posted links to women's groups using scientific arguments on this, you simply declared it transphobic.
-
If he followed the rules, he would take hormone blockers and estrogen, thus reducing his performance. Intersex and trans athletes are following the rules, so how are they cheating? The only trans tennis player I can remember was knocked out of the US Open in the first round (Renee Richards).
So how do hormone blockers and estrogen remake developed skeletal differences and musculature? There's not a single trans female with a female pelvis.
-
Intersex is a separate issue. And treating transgender and transsexual as the same is for someone informed dishonest.
When I posted links to women's groups using scientific arguments on this, you simply declared it transphobic.
They're not my scientific arguments. It's the Olympics which requires reduction in testosterone. To say that trans women cheat is bizarre, if they adhere to the rules.
-
They're not my scientific arguments. It's the Olympics which requires reduction in testosterone. To say that trans women cheat is bizarre, if they adhere to the rules.
I didn't say they were 'your scientific arguments'. I said that you dismissed the Fair play for women links as transphobic, and didn't engage with them.
-
So how do hormone blockers and estrogen remake developed skeletal differences and musculature? There's not a single trans female with a female pelvis.
Well, I'm not an endocrinologist, but the rules are supposed to reduce performance in trans and intersex athletes, to a comparable level. Most trans athletes I have read about report a considerable diminishment. Well, you can still argue that there is an advantage, I don't know.
-
Well, I'm not an endocrinologist, but the rules are supposed to reduce performance in trans and intersex athletes, to a comparable level. Most trans athletes I have read about report a considerable diminishment. Well, you can still argue that there is an advantage, I don't know.
And again, I posted links to the scientific arguments earlier, and you just dismissed them as transphobic without engaging with them at al l.
-
If he followed the rules, he would take hormone blockers and estrogen, thus reducing his performance. Intersex and trans athletes are following the rules, so how are they cheating? The only trans tennis player I can remember was knocked out of the US Open in the first round (Renee Richards).
You can’t completely negate a male physiology just by taking drugs. No amount of oestrogen is going to shorten your long bones, for example.
-
You can’t completely negate a male physiology just by taking drugs. No amount of oestrogen is going to shorten your long bones, for example.
What has that got to do with trans athletes cheating? Are you saying that they are breaking Olympic and IAAF rules?
Actually, this point has lapsed, since Martina has apologizd for using the word 'cheat'.
-
Well, I'm not an endocrinologist, but the rules are supposed to reduce performance in trans and intersex athletes, to a comparable level. Most trans athletes I have read about report a considerable diminishment. Well, you can still argue that there is an advantage, I don't know.
Never mind subjective reporting by individuals with a conflict of interest.
What is the objective evidence that the hormonal treatments prescribed to trans women reduce their performance to the corresponding level for women that they had as a man?
-
What has that got to do with trans athletes cheating? Are you saying that they are breaking Olympic and IAAF rules?
Actually, this point has lapsed, since Martina has apologizd for using the word 'cheat'.
I’m not concerned with whether trans women are cheating or not within one governing body’s rules but whether they are gaining an unfair advantage.
-
Never mind subjective reporting by individuals with a conflict of interest.
What is the objective evidence that the hormonal treatments prescribed to trans women reduce their performance to the corresponding level for women that they had as a man?
There isn't any. I assume the Olympic and IAAF rules are based on studies of performance, but where that is published, or if, don't know.
-
What has that got to do with trans athletes cheating? Are you saying that they are breaking Olympic and IAAF rules?
Actually, this point has lapsed, since Martina has apologizd for using the word 'cheat'.
But still opposes transgender athletes participating.
-
There isn't any.
That's what I thought might be the case. So instead of pandering to trans women's sense of entitlement, how about telling them no until such time as they present solid scientific evidence that their treatments really do completely compensate for the advantage their male physiology gives them?
-
Entitlement? Wow, you live in a different world from me.
-
Entitlement? Wow, you live in a different world from me.
I'll agree with wigginhall here - entitlement for transgender or transexual is an odd term.
-
Mmm
https://medium.com/@Antonia_Lee/the-iocs-transgender-guidelines-are-unscientific-and-pose-a-serious-risk-to-the-health-of-both-5f5f808748e2
-
Entitlement? Wow, you live in a different world from me.
How about, instead of parading your faux outrage at people with whom you disagree, engaging with the arguments.
Women’s sports exist solely because it is recognized that women are at such a physiological disadvantage to men, that they could not compete at the top levels. If somebody who is physiologically male thinks they have a right to participate in women’s sport despite their physiology disqualifying them, how is that not a sense of entitlement?
-
Indeed
https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787
-
Indeed
https://medium.com/@MForstater/international-development-lets-talk-about-sex-eb9de927c787
I read this with interest. I found the phrase towards the end of the piece to be of particular relevance to the controversy regarding Sharron Davies(former Olympic swimmer) when it said:
5. People who express concern about impacts on women’s rights and women’s spaces should not be dismissed as hateful or bigots.
I listened to what Sharron Davies had to say about the potential unfairness of male to female transgender athletes competing in certain sports in the women's sections. What she had to say seemed to me to be eminently sensible. To label her transphobic or hateful towards transgender people was surely uncalled for, cruel and grossly inaccurate.
-
I think Ms Davies annoyed people by talking about the "wish to be trans", when most GNC people I've met don't think it is voluntary. As to banning trans women, it seems to depend on the Olympics new rules, which are currently locked in court. I don't think a trans woman would be allowed to win gold medals and Grand Slams, they would change the rules immediately.
-
I think Ms Davies annoyed people by talking about the "wish to be trans", when most GNC people I've met don't think it is voluntary. As to banning trans women, it seems to depend on the Olympics new rules, which are currently locked in court. I don't think a trans woman would be allowed to win gold medals and Grand Slams, they would change the rules immediately.
Davis annoyed people, Navratilova is a TERF, but off you go on your MRA support. MacKinnon thinks Davis looks a bit like a man with the 'eyes test'.
-
Davis annoyed people, Navratilova is a TERF, but off you go on your MRA support. MacKinnon thinks Davis looks a bit like a man with the 'eyes test'.
Where have I said Martina is a terf ? MRA?
-
Where have I said Martina is a terf ? MRA?
MRA = Men's Rights Activist
The idea originated (I think) with the perception that, in child custody battles, men don't get a fair hearing. However, it now refers to pretty much every situation where men are perceived by some to be discriminated against in respect of women, including a lot of situations that are bullshit.
-
MRA = Men's Rights Activist
The idea originated (I think) with the perception that, in child custody battles, men don't get a fair hearing. However, it now refers to pretty much every situation where men are perceived by some to be discriminated against in respect of women, including a lot of situations that are bullshit.
This implies that any situation where men are privileged is ok, because challenging it is just a perception. I don't think you mean that?
-
This implies that any situation where men are privileged is ok, because challenging it is just a perception. I don't think you mean that?
No. What you say is what some MRA’s think. For example, some MRAs would say positive discrimination in favor of women in relation to recruiting is unfair but they fail to recognize the historic bias against women. It’s basically men who think feminism has already gone too far.
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1105945831205687296.html
-
https://medium.com/@aniobrien/lets-talk-about-sex-self-id-6e617404bac3
-
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1105945831205687296.html
Whoever made this decision at the Met seems somewhat incompetent in tackling crime. It's bizarre to ignore biological sex stats, which could help explore the prominence of attributes influenced by hormones and cultural experience, and instead focus on gender self-identification, which is meaningless. Even more so where the offender has not undergone treatment to suppress or boost testosterone and sex reassignment surgery. The police could have recorded biological sex as well as gender - and used the biological sex as the relevant characteristic for determining the risk the offender posed to others, which should be the overriding consideration.
What is interesting is the long-term study on transsexuals undergoing sex reassignment surgery:
"Regarding any crime, male-to-females had a significantly increased risk for crime compared to female controls (aHR 6.6; 95% CI 4.1–10.8 ) but not compared to males (aHR 0.8; 95% CI 0.5–1.2). This indicates that they retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime. By contrast, female-to-males had higher crime rates than female controls (aHR 4.1; 95% CI 2.5–6.9) but did not differ from male controls. This indicates a shift to a male pattern regarding criminality and that sex reassignment is coupled to increased crime rate in female-to-males. The same was true regarding violent crime."
It appears from this study that despite surgery and hormone treatment, men who become women retain male pattern criminality and women who become men adopt male pattern criminality.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885
-
I find Martina's comments odd as the Olympic committee has spent decades researching into gender and sport, and has been through various phases, e.g., genital inspection, chromosome analysis, and more recently hormone analysis. There have been problems at every stage, for example, with chromosome analysis, there are individuals with mosaicism, where different cells in the body have XX or XY chromosomes. They seemed to have settled on hormone analysis, thus requiring intersex women and trans women to reduce testosterone, (which is meant to reduce athletic performance), but there is now a legal block on that. It's extremely complicated. Ironically, one of Martina's coaches was Renee Richards, well known trans tennis player.
I have just chosen this contribution to provide a place from which to review one of the variety of discussions in this thread.
In the BBC Radio 4 programme BBC Inside Science, broadcast at 16.30 today, there has been a discussion about gender, sex and sport. It will be available on iPlayer Radio or Sounds (or whatever they call it) if anyone is interested.
-
I read this with interest. I found the phrase towards the end of the piece to be of particular relevance to the controversy regarding Sharron Davies(former Olympic swimmer) when it said:
I listened to what Sharron Davies had to say about the potential unfairness of male to female transgender athletes competing in certain sports in the women's sections. What she had to say seemed to me to be eminently sensible. To label her transphobic or hateful towards transgender people was surely uncalled for, cruel and grossly inaccurate.
I found this on the BBC News website.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-47640359
It is not a scientific paper but a journalistic comment but it is of interest.
-
This is particularly about women who are DSD , that is, with differences of sexual development (formerly intersex), and have a high testosterone level. It is topical right now, as the case of Semenya is in court, as she is challenging the requirement to reduce levels of T. But she is not trans, although it may have implications for trans athletes.
-
Rape relief centre has funding withdrawn because it wants to be women only.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/03/20/discontinuation-of-grant-to-vancouver-rape-relief-shows-trans-activism-is-an-attack-on-women/
-
More on the attempts to defund rape crisis centre
https://www.vancourier.com/trans-woman-hopes-funding-cut-will-send-message-to-vancouver-rape-crisis-group-1.23670430
-
And retrospectively erasing women
http://thevelvetchronicle.com/jennie-hodgers-bravely-defied-sexist-norms-honoring-albert-cashier/
-
A huge worry in the more extreme ideas in TRA is the amount of medical intervention this has on children.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/04/22/the-trans-child-as-experimental-guinea-pig/
-
A huge worry in the more extreme ideas in TRA is the amount of medical intervention this has on children.
https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/04/22/the-trans-child-as-experimental-guinea-pig/
I was shocked when I heard that on this morning's news. :o
-
This is what it feels like to have women's sport killed
http://thevelvetchronicle.com/selina-soule-connecticut-state-championships-the-equality-act/
-
This is what it feels like to have women's sport killed
http://thevelvetchronicle.com/selina-soule-connecticut-state-championships-the-equality-act/
I have to agree that this is a serious problem in allowing MTF trans athletes to compete against natal-women (is that the expression?) athletes.
Only recently there was an case of a natal woman (again ?) with an unusually high, but naturally occurring, jihj l;evel of testosterone in her blood - this being the case how the Hell do these MTF's get away with it?
The problem in ther US is that, in a lot of cases it is winning that matters not how you win - see Lance Armstrong!
-
Good for the Scottish Govt - and major credit to Joan McAlpine - let's hope we get sensible legislation that supports everyone.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-48661777
-
Ok, what he actually means is sex rather than gender but this is just bizarre.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teen-17-who-sparked-row-for-saying-there-are-only-two-genders-suspended-from-school-for-three-weeks-a4173736.html
-
Ok, what he actually means is sex rather than gender but this is just bizarre.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teen-17-who-sparked-row-for-saying-there-are-only-two-genders-suspended-from-school-for-three-weeks-a4173736.html
I agree that he seems to be confusing sex and gender.
On the face of this a 3 week fixed term exclusion seems very harsh. But in these types of case I am always sceptical as we never see the full information. We don't actually know the nature of the exchange in the class room - for example whether there was a TG person present who was actively targeted. We also see nothing of other exchanges - certainly his attitude to the teacher is borderline subordinate and it may be that in further interactions, perhaps with members of the school senior leadership team that he went further, and this is what triggered the 3 week fixed term exclusion.
Now I'm not sure whether the law is different in Scotland, but in England the rules surrounding a 15 day fixed term exclusion (or a series of shorter exclusions adding up to 15 days) are the same as for a permanent exclusion. This requires formal consideration of the head teacher's decision by a panel of governors with the panel following quasi-judicial process and the right to appeal to a further independent local body. No school would do this lightly as the amount of work, stress and pressure on all involved is huge.
-
Ok, what he actually means is sex rather than gender but this is just bizarre.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/teen-17-who-sparked-row-for-saying-there-are-only-two-genders-suspended-from-school-for-three-weeks-a4173736.html
Actually if you look behind the headline, and find other news outlets it appears that what lead to the suspension was him filming the conversation without consent and then posting the footage, which will clearly be in breach of any school's policies.
So as ever the story isn't quite what it appears to be.
-
On the 'transphobia' of sexuality
https://spectator.us/women-penises-transphobic/?fbclid=IwAR2hEkpBsy5nEiHvW09U6viIIwguhHwILSLo-YkxnYrSxGFZNMRPy3pDGyE
-
On the 'transphobia' of sexuality
https://spectator.us/women-penises-transphobic/?fbclid=IwAR2hEkpBsy5nEiHvW09U6viIIwguhHwILSLo-YkxnYrSxGFZNMRPy3pDGyE
I recently joined a transgender group so I could go round punching people in the face in the name of 'tolerance'
-
I recently joined a transgender group so I could go round punching people in the face in the name of 'tolerance'
Many trans people suffer abuse. I think your post must have sounded better in your head
-
Interesting article on the subject of Murray who has been expelled from Mearns Academy.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/battle-mearns-academy
-
Interesting article on the subject of Murray who has been expelled from Mearns Academy.
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/battle-mearns-academy
Mmm one of those articles I feel slightly dirty about reading. Anything voting Vox Dei is likely to be very right wing.
-
Mmm one of those articles I feel slightly dirty about reading. Anything voting Vox Dei is likely to be very right wing.
Never head of any movement called 'Vox Dei', I know what the words mean. I shall have to investigate them.
That link was on a Mumsnet thread, I just thought it might be interesting to those contributing to this thread.
Edit: Oh yeah, Vox Day mentioned, very right wing. I don't know who has been voting for them though (in relation to that article).
Not to worry.
-
This is damning of Stonewall
https://fovas.wordpress.com/response-to-stonewall-2/?fbclid=IwAR1nxIE-DZhr8zfKCnPHrcJZwbNFQtBr0v2_DauIKTk6Ngw0RKj2jUfFgK8
-
Never head of any movement called 'Vox Dei', I know what the words mean. I shall have to investigate them.
That link was on a Mumsnet thread, I just thought it might be interesting to those contributing to this thread.
Edit: Oh yeah, Vox Day mentioned, very right wing. I don't know who has been voting for them though (in relation to that article).
Not to worry.
Should be quoting.
-
This is damning of Stonewall
https://fovas.wordpress.com/response-to-stonewall-2/?fbclid=IwAR1nxIE-DZhr8zfKCnPHrcJZwbNFQtBr0v2_DauIKTk6Ngw0RKj2jUfFgK8
So I'm confused now . Are we supposed to accept a bloke who identifies as a woman or not then?
-
So I'm confused now . Are we supposed to accept a bloke who identifies as a woman or not then?
There are times when your pretend bluntness is just tedious. This is one of them.
-
There are times when your pretend bluntness is just tedious. This is one of them.
It matches your predictability !
-
It matches your predictability !
There are serious issues here but have your little boring I'm so controversial me wank into your face.
-
To Walter: have you ever met any trans women (or men come to that)?
I haven't met many but know one quite well from work. I can honestly say I never think about the fact that she is a trans woman, it's not an elephant in the room, she is just a very efficient colleague. We chew over work matters, occasionally talk about other things if we're on a break at the same time. It wouldn't occur to me to ask her personal questions, I don't know her story, e.g. how far she has gone in the trans process; I just accept her & like her (no idea what anyone else at work thinks, I don't get into gossiping about work mates).
My view is that anyone can call themselves a woman or a man, dress that way and have the outward appearance of the opposite sex; they should be able to move in society without being singled out, ridiculed or persecuted. I'm not being PC, it's just how I feel.
However I do not believe anyone can change their sex, my colleague is still physically a man though, psychologically or by inclination, a woman.
I'm concerned about children being encouraged to take hormones or even have surgery to 'change sex', what happens if they change their mind later? It does seem to be becoming fashionable - yet most people have never even thought about it apart from seeing something on TV.
Regarding Murray, the boy who spoke out at school about gender and recorded the conversation with a teacher, I agree with him. Regardless of whether I agree, he should not have been reprimanded for saying what he believes. He wasn't being 'hateful', just stating facts as he sees them and as most people see them.
-
To Walter: have you ever met any trans women (or men come to that)?
I haven't met many but know one quite well from work. I can honestly say I never think about the fact that she is a trans woman, it's not an elephant in the room, she is just a very efficient colleague. We chew over work matters, occasionally talk about other things if we're on a break at the same time. It wouldn't occur to me to ask her personal questions, I don't know her story, e.g. how far she has gone in the trans process; I just accept her & like her (no idea what anyone else at work thinks, I don't get into gossiping about work mates).
My view is that anyone can call themselves a woman or a man, dress that way and have the outward appearance of the opposite sex; they should be able to move in society without being singled out, ridiculed or persecuted. I'm not being PC, it's just how I feel.
However I do not believe anyone can change their sex, my colleague is still physically a man though, psychologically or by inclination, a woman.
I'm concerned about children being encouraged to take hormones or even have surgery to 'change sex', what happens if they change their mind later? It does seem to be becoming fashionable - yet most people have never even thought about it apart from seeing something on TV.
Regarding Murray, the boy who spoke out at school about gender and recorded the conversation with a teacher, I agree with him. Regardless of whether I agree, he should not have been reprimanded for saying what he believes. He wasn't being 'hateful', just stating facts as he sees them and as most people see them.
Hi Robbie
yes I have met two trans women , I know them quite well , they happen to share a house together .
We have spent many happy and hilarious times together in the pub in a little village I frequent . I like them a lot but to be honest they look ridiculous , both over 6 feet and waring dresses from the 70s . They know they look odd but they don't care so neither do I
as for the rest of your post , I totally agree with you
-
There are serious issues here but have your little boring I'm so controversial me wank into your face.
would you like to try that one again , in English ?
-
would you like to try that one again , in English ?
Your post to Robbie shows you don't have to play your contrarian persona, and on serious subjects when you do put on your little mask, it's just pointless
-
Your post to Robbie shows you don't have to play your contrarian persona, and on serious subjects when you do put on your little mask, it's just pointless
NS
thank you , your rebuke is very important to me .
-
NS
thank you , your rebuke is very important to me .
I know you will cherish it.
-
I know you will cherish it.
NS
I certainly will. In fact I've printed it off and put a hard copy in my wallet so I can look at it in times of doubt and poor reasoning .
Also I have fashioned a stretchy band from the elastic cut from a pair of ladies panties , coloured it green and put it round my wrist so I can enjoy the delicate pain when I snap it against my skin whilst I read the hard copy .
what joy , thanks once again :)
-
NS
I certainly will. In fact I've printed it off and put a hard copy in my wallet so I can look at it in times of doubt and poor reasoning .
Also I have fashioned a stretchy band from the elastic cut from a pair of ladies panties , coloured it green and put it round my wrist so I can enjoy the delicate pain when I snap it against my skin whilst I read the hard copy .
what joy , thanks once again :)
all is right with the world.
-
all is right with the world.
mmmwaaahhh
-
Aw bless! All is good with the world.
Thanks for your reply, Walter. My colleague doesn't look masculline, not very tall - not taller than me and I'm 5'7", slim. Voice not particularly deep. She looks a tomboyish sort of young woman, is actually older than she looks. She's nice, gave me lift home tonight as my car is having some work. (Nothing major I'm glad to say, took it in lunch time will collect in morning.)
-
Aw bless! All is good with the world.
Thanks for your reply, Walter. My colleague doesn't look masculline, not very tall - not taller than me and I'm 5'7", slim. Voice not particularly deep. She looks a tomboyish sort of young woman, is actually older than she looks. She's nice, gave me lift home tonight as my car is having some work. (Nothing major I'm glad to say, took it in lunch time will collect in morning.)
Hi Robbie
the information about your car is obviously the most important part of your post. ;)
Oh and btw your 'friend' sounds less intimidating than on of mine.
One time when we'd had a few at the bar one of them spun round quickly on their bar stool , dress riding right up to reveal a pair of Jacobs hanging out of a pair of knickers
Not a pretty sight and one I wish I could forget however it seems to be etched into my brain .
Oh we did laugh ! (and so did half the pub) :o
-
Eeeeewwww. How can I erase that picture?
-
The ongoing nonsense that is the Jessica Yaniv case
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-b-c-groin-waxing-case-is-a-mockery-of-human-rights
-
More trans issues as regards sports
https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/other-sports/114420264/samoan-pm-tuilaepa-sailele-malielegaoi-hits-out-at-laurel-hubbard
-
And a bit of Bindel
https://unherd.com/2019/08/what-women-really-want-youve-got-no-idea/?=sideshare
-
Good summary of the gender critical position
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168466705678516224.html
-
Madness
https://medium.com/@LaraAdamsMiller/the-american-red-cross-uses-gender-identity-not-birth-sex-to-determine-blood-donor-eligibility-ca809c3b2512
-
In general - three excellent articles.
For clarity - by "Madness" do you mean the decision taken or the extraneous conditions which have forced the American Red Cross into having to adopt this process?
-
In general - three excellent articles.
For clarity - by "Madness" do you mean the decision taken or the extraneous conditions which have forced the American Red Cross into having to adopt this process?
The decision taken
-
From being a confused observer a few years ago, I have to admit my allyship to feminism has been radicalized - this explains a lot of the why.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/10/05/its-time-for-us-all-to-stand-up-against-big-sister/?fbclid=IwAR27Kqvc02ebltggABNmRnY9xEFYNdt6XykIfqAY0MefNTJ8QFKIECXIB8Q
-
And this
https://www.wsj.com/articles/justice-ginsburg-a-woman-isnt-a-demiboy-11570487752?redirect=amp#click=https://t.co/F51PqIcZk8
-
From being a confused observer a few years ago, I have to admit my allyship to feminism has been radicalized - this explains a lot of the why.
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2019/10/05/its-time-for-us-all-to-stand-up-against-big-sister/?fbclid=IwAR27Kqvc02ebltggABNmRnY9xEFYNdt6XykIfqAY0MefNTJ8QFKIECXIB8Q
Well written article.
-
Especially this
"The Left has long since abandoned women to prostitution, pornography, and every last fetish that men can create for themselves. Meanwhile, the Right’s opposition to transgender ideology is soft at best, and comes wrapped in a bundle of misogyny." And that bit on the 'Right' includes their issues on reproductive rights.
-
Powerful piece on the issue of women's sports.
https://nypost.com/2019/10/13/justice-for-trans-athletes-is-unfair-to-girls-like-my-daughter/amp/
-
And some good graphs on it.
http://boysvswomen.com/
-
Treating a boy who likes Frozen medically is ridiculous. This is a tragedy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-father-blocked-from-stopping-gender-transition-of-son-james-7-to-girl-called-luna
-
Treating a boy who likes Frozen medically is ridiculous. This is a tragedy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-father-blocked-from-stopping-gender-transition-of-son-james-7-to-girl-called-luna
WTF? Aged seven?
-
Er.....
https://babylonbee.com/news/categories/lifestyle
-
Er.....
https://babylonbee.com/news/categories/lifestyle
One of the difficulties of the debate is that there are those on the right wing who oppose trans people because they actually believe in the idea of gender but see it as a thing that is melded to sex - so that they think women, the sex, should be sugar and spice and all things pink, and see trans in any sense as transgressive of that. Those second wave feminists who see gender as a construct used to oppress women by the patriarchy are in general what we would describe as left wing and see the idea of transgender as accepting of the idea of woman being defined by pinkosity. That these two different approaches happen to end up in agreement that the mantra that Transwomen are Women is nonsense doesn't mean that they can be seen to be equivalent.
There is a lot of ludicrous stuff done in the name of trans but there is a lot of dangerous stuff to - such as the idea that self ID can allow anyone in the prison population to be a woman, and be in a women's prison.
-
This
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/protect-james-younger-isnt-about-one-child-its-about-jacob-lemay-and-so-many-others/
-
The hidden world of detransitioning
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/andrew-sullivan-hard-questions-gender-transitions-for-young.html
-
Worrying and it has crept up on us.
Mermaids and whichever org did much the same before it, and similar others, have a lot to answer for. Parents too.
-
This is seriously fucked up.
There is no way a seven year old boy can be properly informed about the implications of transitioning (or not). This should be as illegal as having sex with a seven year old.
-
This is seriously fucked up.
There is no way a seven year old boy can be properly informed about the implications of transitioning (or not). This should be as illegal as having sex with a seven year old.
on a list of things requiring consideration , this subject is at the bottom ,along with watching paint dry and electric cars
-
This is seriously fucked up.
There is no way a seven year old boy can be properly informed about the implications of transitioning (or not). This should be as illegal as having sex with a seven year old.
I agree, but it isn't that serious. They can't have a sex-change op or hormone treatment until they're 18. In general, I think this whole identity thing is just getting silly.
-
I agree, but it isn't that serious. They can't have a sex-change op or hormone treatment until they're 18.
I was referring to NS's posting about a seven yer old boy in Texas. His father has lost a legal battle to stop him from being given hormone treatment to gender transition him now. Here is the post I am referring to:
Treating a boy who likes Frozen medically is ridiculous. This is a tragedy.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/texas-father-blocked-from-stopping-gender-transition-of-son-james-7-to-girl-called-luna
In general, I think this whole identity thing is just getting silly.
It would be silly if peoples' lives weren't being destroyed.
-
I agree, but it isn't that serious. They can't have a sex-change op or hormone treatment until they're 18. In general, I think this whole identity thing is just getting silly.
Lots of kids are being put on puberty blockers from young ages. And then there is the damage done by binding as covered in the detrans article. And parents getting hormones privately, or taking their kids elsewhere to get operations.
And that's not covering the removal of women's sex based rights with Self ID where make rapists can claim to be female and get moved to women's prisons.
Or where funding for rape crisis centre is removed because they won't allow men self IDing as women to be in the centre.
Or women losing in sports to men self ID ing as women.
-
Agreed. There are parents in this country who have taken prepubescent children abroad to have puberty blockers. What's with them, do they think they're 'cool' or something? They're not.
Children change their minds.
-
Agreed. There are parents in this country who have taken prepubescent children abroad to have puberty blockers. What's with them, do they think they're 'cool' or something? They're not.
Children change their minds.
Puberty blockers are prescribed here already.
-
Puberty blockers are prescribed here already.
today I self ID as a 27 year old chap .
I've already got the beta blockers , just need some OAP blockers now 😆
-
Agreed. There are parents in this country who have taken prepubescent children abroad to have puberty blockers. What's with them, do they think they're 'cool' or something? They're not.
Children change their minds.
I suspect that some of these parents are suffering from Munchausen's syndrome by proxy, which is a very dangerous condition, not so much to the sufferer as to the object of their transferred hypochondria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another
-
Puberty blockers are prescribed here already.
IMO they should be proscribed, unless there is a legitimate medical reason much like any other procedure that irreversibly mutilates the child's body should be. I'm actually quite shocked you can administer them to your seven year old son who wants to be a girl but has no real understanding of everything that implies.
-
Puberty blockers are prescribed here already.
I didn't know that. Worse than ever.
IMO they should be proscribed, unless there is a legitimate medical reason much like any other procedure that irreversibly mutilates the child's body should be. I'm actually quite shocked you can administer them to your seven year old son who wants to be a girl but has no real understanding of everything that implies.
I agree.
-
I should note that I was sent the link on the detrans issue by a friend in the US who is involved in the medical industry but asked me not to name them if I put it on social media because they are scared of the repercussions of being seen to be gender critical.
-
This is good on the LGB Alliance
https://quillette.com/2019/11/04/meet-the-gay-activists-whove-had-enough-of-britains-ultra-woke-homophobes/
-
Always is removing the female symbol from its products because, apparantly, not everyone who has a period is a woman. You couldn't make this shit up!
-
Always is removing the female symbol from its products because, apparantly, not everyone who has a period is a woman. You couldn't make this shit up!
Linky:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/22/health/always-period-gender-symbol-removed-transgender-nonbinary-trnd/index.html
The story contains this gem:
Getting periods can be a dysphoric experience for transgender and nonbinary people, especially because of the way that periods are generally discussed and addressed as something that only happens to people who are assigned women at birth.
If,as I assume, "assigned woman at birth" means biologically female, then periods do only happen to people who are assigned women at birth.
-
Good
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/labour-activists-launch-declaration-women%E2%80%99s-sex-based-rights#.Xcnazpu5Rpo.twitter
-
Linky:
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/22/health/always-period-gender-symbol-removed-transgender-nonbinary-trnd/index.html
The story contains this gem:
If,as I assume, "assigned woman at birth" means biologically female, then periods do only happen to people who are assigned women at birth.
Assigned women at birth is a nonsense. It's observed. The use of assigned is the idea that gender trumps sex and is real as opposed to sex being a myth.
-
Of course
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2015/03/07/living/feat-planet-fitness-transgender-member/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
As ever, when I read American accounts of the use of toilets, I wonder how people can bathe satisfactorily in a water closet.
-
LOL!
-
Girls safe spaces removed
https://www.dailyherald.com/amp-article/20191114/news/191119456/?__twitter_impression=true ;)
-
Girls safe spaces removed
https://www.dailyherald.com/amp-article/20191114/news/191119456/?__twitter_impression=true ;)
Hmm, "locker room". What is it about urination and defecation that makes Americans run for the Encyclopaedia of Inappropriate Euphemism?
-
Hmm, "locker room". What is it about urination and defecation that makes Americans run for the Encyclopaedia of Inappropriate Euphemism?
In this case it"s a changing room for sports.
-
Hmm, "locker room". What is it about urination and defecation that makes Americans run for the Encyclopaedia of Inappropriate Euphemism?
It's a room with lockers in it. i.e. it's a changing room for sports.
What you're thinking of is rest rooms.
ETA: I don't know why NS's post passed me by.
-
This is a sad tale of how a small women only space became something completely different
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1195553358238453760.html
-
Rachel Dolezal was right apparently
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/whites-can-black-wish-says-lecturers-union/
-
I am a small ripe pink lady.
-
Rachel Dolezal was right apparently
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/11/18/whites-can-black-wish-says-lecturers-union/
If a man is allowed to identify as a woman and vice versa, then logically, a black should be allowed to identify as a white and vice versa. In fact, race is much more of a social construct than gender is.
-
I am a small ripe pink lady.
oh Robbie
You sound delicious 😍
-
If a man is allowed to identify as a woman and vice versa, then logically, a black should be allowed to identify as a white and vice versa. In fact, race is much more of a social construct than gender is.
Honestly don't know how you can tell that. What's the method for calculating % of social construct? What of gender is not a social construct?
The weirdest one though in the link is that being disabled can be self Id'ed
-
oh Robbie
You sound delicious 😍
Just for you:-
https://www.sainsburys.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/gb/groceries/sainsburys-pink-lady-apple-single-c?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIk8OTpsX05QIVjtDeCh19mwKYEAQYASABEgIUdPD_BwE&storeId=10151&langId=44&krypto=8KrhsWdhrrsm7hFJa40gktizFkNlINPMk1imN%2BxP5OTNqu34FiNROdPGWsy3BQb2FYRoeyYuoVRmiWnjPL8oHfQj%2Fxom8xSsfRCHCfCbjHfKHCSHnrHdbxFib4hxoE1yNwTT%2FK4l9%2FaqxMYmgan0xCzoMB0WilUlYebbDxVCnc7K6%2B8e2ZrQ00lWZbnJKeVBR6%2Bn4n0TIF1qpLZLTf45kVnGLxBnVeNl8gEwSTKJuOUiLITVdEgvVxaTJye1fYs17Dbpi3VPO5JH4QUmx1JhLWR6bJBdUSSD50VlEft1UAp0JFsg5bTYdMhwseHoUR5NdR4YN0sFcZ5G5nN3I0gKU7m79CiDKpUdyfA%2BBmTqTgM%3D&ddkey=https%3Agb%2Fgroceries%2Fsainsburys-pink-lady-apple-single-c
-
Robbie
Firm and moist always goes together well 😘
-
Honestly don't know how you can tell that. What's the method for calculating % of social construct? What of gender is not a social construct?
There is a very strong correlation between gender and biological sex. I don't think that any correlation between biology and race holds up nearly as well.
The weirdest one though in the link is that being disabled can be self Id'ed
I must have skimmed over that. I can't see any reason for identifying as disabled when you are really fully able except trying to game the system in some way e.g. you want to win medals in the Paralympics or claim disability benefit fraudulently.
-
If a man is allowed to identify as a woman and vice versa, then logically, a black should be allowed to identify as a white and vice versa. In fact, race is much more of a social construct than gender is.
As with gender, it shouldn't matter - it's only because it does matter that we have the issue. If we got to the point where black people could identify as white and people would accept it, that would be a step forward.
O.
-
There is a very strong correlation between gender and biological sex. I don't think that any correlation between biology and race holds up nearly as well.
I must have skimmed over that. I can't see any reason for identifying as disabled when you are really fully able except trying to game the system in some way e.g. you want to win medals in the Paralympics or claim disability benefit fraudulently.
I assume you mean gender identity here. Gender roles have been ripped away from sex, well, that was one of the battles of early feminism. Gender expression is presumably still closely aligned with sex.
-
There is a very strong correlation between gender and biological sex. I don't think that any correlation between biology and race holds up nearly as well.
I must have skimmed over that. I can't see any reason for identifying as disabled when you are really fully able except trying to game the system in some way e.g. you want to win medals in the Paralympics or claim disability benefit fraudulently.
Sorry but I'm not getting this. What of gender is not a social construct?
-
As with gender, it shouldn't matter - it's only because it does matter that we have the issue. If we got to the point where black people could identify as white and people would accept it, that would be a step forward.
O.
Sex does, however, matter. And any self ID doesn't erase the differences , they validate them
-
Sex does, however, matter. And any self ID doesn't erase the differences , they validate them
And is anyone saying that they've changed sex? Or are they saying that they've changed gender (or gender expression, as some would have it, I believe)?
O.
-
And is anyone saying that they've changed sex? Or are they saying that they've changed gender (or gender expression, as some would have it, I believe)?
O.
Have a look through the thread. There a strand in the trans rights movement that wants sex based rights of women removed because it is oppression of anyone who self ids as a women. Women's sport being an example.
-
Have a look through the thread. There a strand in the trans rights movement that wants sex based rights of women removed because it is oppression of anyone who self ids as a women. Women's sport being an example.
That's not a strand specific to the trans-rights movement, though, there are 'mens rights' activists and all-sorts who are claiming that equality means we shouldn't have sex-specific anything - I hasten to add, I don't agree with them, I just don't see that it's isolated to the trans community or trans-rights agitators.
O.
-
That's not a strand specific to the trans-rights movement, though, there are 'mens rights' activists and all-sorts who are claiming that equality means we shouldn't have sex-specific anything - I hasten to add, I don't agree with them, I just don't see that it's isolated to the trans community or trans-rights agitators.
O.
Don't see what difference that makes. I am using trans rights movement as an umbrella term. And MRAs aren't saying they should be allowed in women's toilets because they are women by self ID
-
Don't see what difference that makes. I am using trans rights movement as an umbrella term. And MRAs aren't saying they should be allowed in women's toilets because they are women by self ID
Trans-women and trans-rights activists aren't saying that men should be allowed in women's toilets, either.
O.
-
Today I self ID as The Invisible Man and expect everyone to "pretend" they can't see me !
-
Trans-women and trans-rights activists aren't saying that men should be allowed in women's toilets, either.
O.
Self ID as they have in Canada allows anyone to declare they are a woman and hence access toilets. Trans women are men in terms of sex. Sex based spaces are therefore erased.
-
Self ID as they have in Canada allows anyone to declare they are a woman and hence access toilets. Trans women are men in terms of sex. Sex based spaces are therefore erased.
Those aren't sex-based spaces, they are gender based spaces.
O.
-
Those aren't sex-based spaces, they are gender based spaces.
O.
No, they are sex based spaces, just as women's sports are sex based.
-
No, they are sex based spaces, just as women's sports are sex based.
Women's sport is sex-based because there are biological checks (some of questionable value) which are done to ensure biological sex of the people taking part. Toilets are assigned based on a gender expression in the general culture - there is no blood test, no DNA check, no sex-organ check... how is it a 'sex based' place? Historically, given that there wasn't a cultural acceptance of the difference between sex and gender, it could be treated as though the two concepts were interchangable, but that's no longer the case.
O.
-
Women's sport is sex-based because there are biological checks (some of questionable value) which are done to ensure biological sex of the people taking part. Toilets are assigned based on a gender expression in the general culture - there is no blood test, no DNA check, no sex-organ check... how is it a 'sex based' place? Historically, given that there wasn't a cultural acceptance of the difference between sex and gender, it could be treated as though the two concepts were interchangable, but that's no longer the case.
O.
That there is no check does not mean that it is not sexed based. Women fought for the right to have women's toilets because they didn't use to provide them because they were expected not to be in such places. That fight wasn't based on gender but on sex. Gender is a social construct that has no real meaning. If you are talking about gender, what is a women in those terms?
ETA: And while we are on sports self ID has been argued for there as well by some TRAs.
-
Thread from the Maya Forstater (sacked for believing in biology) case. Filled with gender nonsense.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1196746253050286080.html
-
That there is no check does not mean that it is not sexed based. Women fought for the right to have women's toilets because they didn't use to provide them because they were expected not to be in such places. That fight wasn't based on gender but on sex.
Was it? Or was it based on both, given that there was no discernible distinction between the two at the time?
Gender is a social construct that has no real meaning.
It might have no meaning to you; you can be pretty sure it has meaning to people whose gender doesn't match their sex...
If you are talking about gender, what is a women in those terms?
It's the expression of traits depicted as typically masculine or feminine in a given culture or society.
ETA: And while we are on sports self ID has been argued for there as well by some TRAs.
I'm aware, and that's an arena where after some consideration I think I have to disagree with it being applied in those circumstances. I think the biological classifications are difficult to adequately determine, so we end up with the horrendous treatment doled out to the likes of Castor Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name escapes me (who aren't, I appreciate, trans women but it's in the arena of what make a particular sex or gender), but I think to have someone with the biological physiology of a man competing in women's sport is no different to having able-bodied people skewing the field in disability sports.
O.
-
Women's sport is sex-based because there are biological checks (some of questionable value) which are done to ensure biological sex of the people taking part. Toilets are assigned based on a gender expression in the general culture - there is no blood test, no DNA check, no sex-organ check... how is it a 'sex based' place? Historically, given that there wasn't a cultural acceptance of the difference between sex and gender, it could be treated as though the two concepts were interchangable, but that's no longer the case.
O.
It depends how much weight you give to 'third gender' in countries such as India, Samoa, Thailand, US. You can argue that the fa'fafine of Samoa are not a separate gender category, just 'cross dressing men', as the tabloids say. However, it's very difficult to talk about it at a distance. In some areas such as Thailand, with its ladyboys (kathoey), there seems to be an overlap with trans, but again distance obscures.
-
It depends how much weight you give to 'third gender' in countries such as India, Samoa, Thailand, US. You can argue that the fa'fafine of Samoa are not a separate gender category, just 'cross dressing men', as the tabloids say. However, it's very difficult to talk about it at a distance. In some areas such as Thailand, with its ladyboys (kathoey), there seems to be an overlap with trans, but again distance obscures.
It's about how masculinity and femininity (and the spectrum between) is depicted within any given culture or subculture - it's not an absolute. At which point, of course, it's worth noting that sex isn't an absolute, either...
O.
-
Was it? Or was it based on both, given that there was no discernible distinction between the two at the time?
It might have no meaning to you; you can be pretty sure it has meaning to people whose gender doesn't match their sex...
It's the expression of traits depicted as typically masculine or feminine in a given culture or society.
I'm aware, and that's an arena where after some consideration I think I have to disagree with it being applied in those circumstances. I think the biological classifications are difficult to adequately determine, so we end up with the horrendous treatment doled out to the likes of Castor Semenya and the Indian sprinter whose name escapes me (who aren't, I appreciate, trans women but it's in the arena of what make a particular sex or gender), but I think to have someone with the biological physiology of a man competing in women's sport is no different to having able-bodied people skewing the field in disability sports.
O.
Yes, it was based on sex - it wasn't women fighting for the right to have toilets, or for the right to vote because they wore skirts, or were meek, or had long hair, and to try and present it as such is deeply sexist.
-
It's about how masculinity and femininity (and the spectrum between) is depicted within any given culture or subculture - it's not an absolute. At which point, of course, it's worth noting that sex isn't an absolute, either...
O.
It's not an absolute but it is binary. It isn't a spectrum and the use of intersex in the debate about gender, is both specious and deeply insulting to people with intersex conditions
-
Yes, it was based on sex - it wasn't women fighting for the right to have toilets, or for the right to vote because they wore skirts, or were meek, or had long hair, and to try and present it as such is deeply sexist.
No, it's simply acknowledging that gender is CULTURE SPECIFIC - so in a culture that doesn't differentiate between sex and gender, anything that is sex-based is gender based as well.
O.
-
It's not an absolute but it is binary. It isn't a spectrum and the use of intersex in the debate about gender, is both specious and deeply insulting to people with intersex conditions
Keep throwing out those ad hominems, that really shows the strength of your case. How we see sex - including intersex - informs how we see gender, including how much it is restricted or freed of the semi-binary nature of sex. Of course, it suits your argument that gender is meaningless if it can be entirely divorced from any sort of context like how our historical view of sex has needed to be updated for a variety of reasons.
O.
-
No, it's simply acknowledging that gender is CULTURE SPECIFIC - so in a culture that doesn't differentiate between sex and gender, anything that is sex-based is gender based as well.
O.
That's simply nonsense people were not being observed female or male at birth because of gender traits - but because of sex. It was the oppressive idea of what a woman was that women fought against. The idea that someone then identifies as a women because of a feeling is then regressive.
-
It's about how masculinity and femininity (and the spectrum between) is depicted within any given culture or subculture - it's not an absolute. At which point, of course, it's worth noting that sex isn't an absolute, either...
O.
I think gender studies initially focused on masculinity and feminity, but writers such as Robert Stoller and Judith Butler branched out to include identity issues, and what Butler calls performativity. I think she means that you do gender, not be it. However, this is a hopeless summary. But you can argue that some 3rd genders live as women, a fraught phrase in itself, but then Butler adds provocatively that all gender is drag.
-
Keep throwing out those ad hominems, that really shows the strength of your case. How we see sex - including intersex - informs how we see gender, including how much it is restricted or freed of the semi-binary nature of sex. Of course, it suits your argument that gender is meaningless if it can be entirely divorced from any sort of context like how our historical view of sex has needed to be updated for a variety of reasons.
O.
If I insult you - which the post didn't - that says nothing about the strength of my case - that's simply a piece of fallacious logic. And no, I'm arguing gender is a regressive expectation which does not exist in the sense sex does. I notice you still haven't gven an answer to what is a women in gender terms that is anything more than handwaving.
-
That's simply nonsense people were not being observed female or male at birth because of gender traits - but because of sex.
Right.
It was the oppressive idea of what a woman was that women fought against.
Right.
The idea that someone then identifies as a women because of a feeling is then regressive.
Nope. Even as the oppression starts - and there's a long way to go - to lessen, there are still cultural expectations around being male or female that do or don't fit with your individual personality. If your personality doesn't match the expectations your culture has of your body, what do you do? As time has gone on, and victories in sex rights have been achieved, so there's room for a better and more nuanced understanding.
The ideal is a culture where male or female is absolutely no limitation or restriction on who or what you want to be, but we aren't there. If and when we are, I can't guarantee there still won't be people who don't feel like they match up to their body - at that time we'll have to be looking at what we're doing that affects them.
O.
-
I think gender studies initially focused on masculinity and feminity, but writers such as Robert Stoller and Judith Butler branched out to include identity issues, and what Butler calls performativity. I think she means that you do gender, not be it. However, this is a hopeless summary. But you can argue that some 3rd genders live as women, a fraught phrase in itself, but then Butler adds provocatively that all gender is drag.
In a sense surely that's true. The current idea that people say they are non binary seems bizarre because I don't (A) know what all the traits are that define the binary position, and (b) of the common ones that we might think of I'm different things at different times, and I've never seen or can possibly conceive of someone who wasn't like that and therefore everyone is non binary. Maybe there are people out there for which the façade is the reality, how would we know? How would they know?
-
Right.
Right.
Nope. Even as the oppression starts - and there's a long way to go - to lessen, there are still cultural expectations around being male or female that do or don't fit with your individual personality. If your personality doesn't match the expectations your culture has of your body, what do you do? As time has gone on, and victories in sex rights have been achieved, so there's room for a better and more nuanced understanding.
The ideal is a culture where male or female is absolutely no limitation or restriction on who or what you want to be, but we aren't there. If and when we are, I can't guarantee there still won't be people who don't feel like they match up to their body - at that time we'll have to be looking at what we're doing that affects them.
O.
You continue the fight to be gender critical. You don't accept the regressive idea and then define what is a woman by the gender stereotypes because that violates those victories in sex based rights. You don't campaign for changes in laws which would allow men to self ID as women. You don't accept awards for woman in business because you dress in what are thought of as 'women's clothes' 2 days a week. You don't campaign for withdrawal of funds for rape crisis centres because they don't want males on the premises. You don't campaign for male sex offenders identifying as women to be placed in women's prisons. You don't campaign for puberty blockers to be given to children.
ETA: You don't call lesbians and gay men transphobic if they say their attraction is based on sex.
-
If I insult you - which the post didn't -
You suggested that I was being sexist - I suspect, like me, you'd see that as an insult.
that says nothing about the strength of my case - that's simply a piece of fallacious logic.
No, it's my experience that insults of the person tend to come in to mask a weak argument.
And no, I'm arguing gender is a regressive expectation which does not exist in the sense sex does.
I agree that gender is a cultural creation, not an assessment of a physical trait like sex, but so is culture itself. As to whether it's 'regressive', in what way? Its increasing the complexity of ways in which we can view people, adding to the understanding that humanity is a diverse spectrum of a multitude of traits. I wish we didn't need the concept, but right now we either have 'gender' or we have people trapped by a limited cultural expectation of them based upon their sex.
I notice you still haven't gven an answer to what is a women in gender terms that is anything more than handwaving.
You don't have to like the definition, but it's what you've got. I can link some sources with their broadly similar definitions, but I suspect that won't make much difference - you don't disagree with the definition, it seems, you just don't want to put any weight in it. That's fine, you don't have to, but you don't get to tell the rest of the world that they have to accept your understanding that 'gender isn't a real thing' either.
O.
-
You suggested that I was being sexist - I suspect, like me, you'd see that as an insult.
No, it's my experience that insults of the person tend to come in to mask a weak argument.
I agree that gender is a cultural creation, not an assessment of a physical trait like sex, but so is culture itself. As to whether it's 'regressive', in what way? Its increasing the complexity of ways in which we can view people, adding to the understanding that humanity is a diverse spectrum of a multitude of traits. I wish we didn't need the concept, but right now we either have 'gender' or we have people trapped by a limited cultural expectation of them based upon their sex.
You don't have to like the definition, but it's what you've got. I can link some sources with their broadly similar definitions, but I suspect that won't make much difference - you don't disagree with the definition, it seems, you just don't want to put any weight in it. That's fine, you don't have to, but you don't get to tell the rest of the world that they have to accept your understanding that 'gender isn't a real thing' either.
O.
I didn't call you sexist in the posts you replied too but if I think you are making a sexist point which I did say in an earlier post, surely I'm allowed to call that out? Your experience is simply you repeating your assertion. I think Boris Johnson is a liar - does that weaken my case against him if I call him that. And I don't want to put any weight on it because the expectation of how a woman should look or behave is what allows sexism. It's what was used to stop women from voting. Using it as definition of women then is surely regressive?
-
In a sense surely that's true. The current idea that people say they are non binary seems bizarre because I don't (A) know what all the traits are that define the binary position, and (b) of the common ones that we might think of I'm different things at different times, and I've never seen or can possibly conceive of someone who wasn't like that and therefore everyone is non binary. Maybe there are people out there for which the façade is the reality, how would we know? How would they know?
I think non binary and gender fluid are attempts to avoid traditional traits. I don't know if these things are temporay, a kind of adolescent phase, but I celebrate them. I found working class masculinity an oppressive strait jacket, full of injunctions. Whether or not new stereotypes will be formed, dunno.
-
That's not a strand specific to the trans-rights movement, though, there are 'mens rights' activists and all-sorts who are claiming that equality means we shouldn't have sex-specific anything
That's true, but nobody listens to the men's rights activists. On the other hand people do listen to trans gender activists to the point where they will shout down not only people who disagree with them but also people who want to have a discussion about whether it's OK to disagree with them.
Take NS's example women only web site from a few posts back. When a trans woman joined, not only did threads about issues that biological women have get banned (not inclusive to the new trans members) but you couldn't even argue about whether such a ban should be in place.
Another example from the popular Stack Exchange web site: they are about to introduce a new code of conduct which says "you shall use preferred pronouns if known". One moderator asked if it was OK to avoid using gendered personal pronouns altogether (e.g. by using the poster's name instead) and she got fired just for asking the question.
-
You continue the fight to be gender critical.
Who's giving up? Making accommodations to make people's lives easier now doesn't remove the drive to get to a better place.
You don't accept the regressive idea and then define what is a woman by the gender stereotypes because that violates those victories in sex based rights.
I don't see it like that, I see it as building on those victories.
You don't campaign for changes in laws which would allow men to self ID as women.
I don't - I think women should be allowed to be women despite having been born in a man's body.
You don't accept awards for woman in business because you dress in what are thought of as 'women's clothes' 2 days a week.
And has anyone done that?
You don't campaign for withdrawal of funds for rape crisis centres because they don't want males on the premises.
Absolutely agree - but why the shift in language from 'women' to 'male'? You're reinforcing the understanding that there's gender (men and women) and sex (males and females). There are time when sex is important, and with people who've gone through traumatic events like rape that's one of the times, I'd say.
You don't campaign for male sex offenders identifying as women to be placed in women's prisons.
Why? If they're women, don't they belong in a women's prison? Or are you suggesting we should be putting women in a male prison?
You don't campaign for puberty blockers to be given to children.
I don't know enough about the psychology of children to be definitive on that; I worry that messing with developing minds in such a drastic way could have devastating effects later on, but equally I can see that early intervention might spare individuals later difficulties... until and unless I can find a strong body of well-researched evidence either way I'd err on the side of caution and wait, personally, but there are clinical experts collectively discussing and debating what the best approach is, and I'll defer to their expertise until there's more publicly available reporting.
O.
-
And I don't want to put any weight on it because the expectation of how a woman should look or behave is what allows sexism.
It is. And despite my - and your, by the sounds of it, best efforts it's still a thing. We can keep working to eliminate that without disavowing the progress that's already been made, or writing off people trapped by those expectations, can't we?
It's what was used to stop women from voting. Using it as definition of women then is surely regressive?
No, it's not, because it's not using the same definition. Women were stopped from voting because, amongst other things, they were considered BIOLOGICALLY too limited to contemplate the implications, and too prone to hysterical outbursts to be trusted - those traits were also what justified reserving women to particular areas of life, and whilst we've come a long way in eliminating those myths about female biology we're still working in a culture that implicitly works on the understanding that women are domestic, caring, supportive and nurturing and men are assertive, domineering, dynamic and stoic. Those stereotypes have implications on both sides, and anything that breaks the cycle of reinforcing particular gender stereotypes with a particular sex is a move forward, not backwards.
The goal, ultimately, is to appreciate the women are people, and men are people, and it's their individual personality that determines whether they are more less assertive or nurturing or anything else, and to appreciate that we can all be any of them in the right situation. Until then, accepting that someone born with male sex organs can live a life where society puts feminine expectations on them is both a start on that path, and makes their individual life a little bit easier.
O.
-
Who's giving up? Making accommodations to make people's lives easier now doesn't remove the drive to get to a better place.
I don't see it like that, I see it as building on those victories.
I don't - I think women should be allowed to be women despite having been born in a man's body.
And has anyone done that?
Absolutely agree - but why the shift in language from 'women' to 'male'? You're reinforcing the understanding that there's gender (men and women) and sex (males and females). There are time when sex is important, and with people who've gone through traumatic events like rape that's one of the times, I'd say.
Why? If they're women, don't they belong in a women's prison? Or are you suggesting we should be putting women in a male prison?
I don't know enough about the psychology of children to be definitive on that; I worry that messing with developing minds in such a drastic way could have devastating effects later on, but equally I can see that early intervention might spare individuals later difficulties... until and unless I can find a strong body of well-researched evidence either way I'd err on the side of caution and wait, personally, but there are clinical experts collectively discussing and debating what the best approach is, and I'll defer to their expertise until there's more publicly available reporting.
O.
For the woman of the year see below
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html
In what sense can someone say they have been born into the wrong body? What is a woman needs to be clearly defined there so you cannot do your handwaving approach especially if you are going to house male sex offenders in a women's prison simply on their say so. And if they are women in that sense then why does the rape crisis centre work on sex for you but not gender?
-
Those stereotypes have implications on both sides, and anything that breaks the cycle of reinforcing particular gender stereotypes with a particular sex is a move forward, not backwards.
O.
This bit makes no sense - saying you are a woman because you want to conform to stereotypes makes the definition of woman based on those stereotyprs - it reinforces them it does not break them.
-
Women's sport is sex-based because there are biological checks (some of questionable value) which are done to ensure biological sex of the people taking part.
No, that's not why sports are segregated based on sex. Sports are segregated based on sex because it is recognised that biological female humans are at a disadvantage in physical activities compared to biological males who are bigger and stronger on average and the difference is more pronounced at the elite end. The checks you mention are just the current way to enforce that segregation.
Toilets are assigned based on a gender expression in the general culture - there is no blood test, no DNA check, no sex-organ check... how is it a 'sex based' place?
Traditionally people with penises went into one public toilet and people with vaginas went into a different one. It's only recently that we've started to accept that there is an issue with that separation. And you have to believe that there are some people with vaginas who get uncomfortable and even intimidated when sharing toilets with people with penises. There's a conflict between the rights of two people to both use the toilet that they feel comfortable in. You can't just wave it away by magically saying "gender is all".
-
For the woman of the year see below
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/gender-fluid-exec-named-on-list-of-top-100-women-in-business-a3942896.html
OK, my misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to a trans-woman, and this is a slighty different case. In this instance, I don't think I'd have voted for them to receive this award, because they aren't a woman. There's only a woman's award at all because there's a range of cultural trends that push against women achieving in business, there's nothing intrinsic that makes them any more or less capable, so in that sense I can understand the decision, but to my mind the problem is that I can't imagine a woman who turned up in male clothing with short hair a few time a week being nominated for the businessman of the year category. It reinforces the idea that male/man is the standard, and women is becoming a category for 'not male/man' rather than a distinct idea. Which raises the question, if there are people who don't identify in gender as either, are gendered awards going to continue to be viable?
In what sense can someone say they have been born into the wrong body?
In the sense that because of the particular sex organs they were born with there are cultural expectations upon them that they don't feel comfortable conforming to.
What is a woman needs to be clearly defined there so you cannot do your handwaving approach especially if you are going to house male sex offenders in a women's prison simply on their say so.
What a woman is - it's the sum of the cultural expectations of women, there's nothing more vague nor precise than that. As culture changes, or if you move cultures, then what a woman is changes, and the expectations and stereotypes change as well.
Of course, it's not purely on their say so, it's not just a guy who gets sentenced and decided 'oh, but I'm a woman now' - there are any number of psychiatric and psychological evaluations involved in the transitioning process, this is something significantly more than merely putting on a dress and speaking in a falsetto.
And if they are women in that sense then why does the rape crisis centre work on sex for you but not gender?
Because in the rape crisis centre it's about the wellbeing of the people who've undergone a traumatic experience who aren't necessarily in the right place to take a nuanced view and shouldn't be expected to. There's a duty of care to them, by the nature of the establishment.
O.
-
Women were stopped from voting because, amongst other things, they were considered BIOLOGICALLY too limited to contemplate the implications, and too prone to hysterical outbursts to be trusted - those traits were also what justified reserving women to particular areas of life
I don't think that is true. I think that is the excuse, not the reason. I think women were viewed by men as possessions. You'd no more allow your wife to vote than you would your cow.
-
No, that's not why sports are segregated based on sex. Sports are segregated based on sex because it is recognised that biological female humans are at a disadvantage in physical activities compared to biological males who are bigger and stronger on average and the difference is more pronounced at the elite end. The checks you mention are just the current way to enforce that segregation.
The decision to segregate at all is based on that understanding, yes. What makes it sex-based rather than gender-based is that there are biological checks conducted to determine sex, not psychological tests to determine gender - that's the distinction I was making.
Traditionally people with penises went into one public toilet and people with vaginas went into a different one. It's only recently that we've started to accept that there is an issue with that separation. And you have to believe that there are some people with vaginas who get uncomfortable and even intimidated when sharing toilets with people with penises. There's a conflict between the rights of two people to both use the toilet that they feel comfortable in. You can't just wave it away by magically saying "gender is all".
I'm not pretending that there isn't, and I'm not castigating people feeling uncomfortable about it, but the way to deal with that discomfort is to be open about what the fears are, how real they might be, and to push back against any implicit or explicit denigration of people who are in that uncomfortable position where they don't feel that they comport to social expectation, and to be clear in discussions like these (which I think people have been, I'm just saying that it's important) so that you can't be accused of implicitly denigrating people.
O.
-
OK, my misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to a trans-woman, and this is a slighty different case. In this instance, I don't think I'd have voted for them to receive this award, because they aren't a woman. There's only a woman's award at all because there's a range of cultural trends that push against women achieving in business, there's nothing intrinsic that makes them any more or less capable, so in that sense I can understand the decision, but to my mind the problem is that I can't imagine a woman who turned up in male clothing with short hair a few time a week being nominated for the businessman of the year category. It reinforces the idea that male/man is the standard, and women is becoming a category for 'not male/man' rather than a distinct idea. Which raises the question, if there are people who don't identify in gender as either, are gendered awards going to continue to be viable?
In the sense that because of the particular sex organs they were born with there are cultural expectations upon them that they don't feel comfortable conforming to.
What a woman is - it's the sum of the cultural expectations of women, there's nothing more vague nor precise than that. As culture changes, or if you move cultures, then what a woman is changes, and the expectations and stereotypes change as well.
Of course, it's not purely on their say so, it's not just a guy who gets sentenced and decided 'oh, but I'm a woman now' - there are any number of psychiatric and psychological evaluations involved in the transitioning process, this is something significantly more than merely putting on a dress and speaking in a falsetto.
Because in the rape crisis centre it's about the wellbeing of the people who've undergone a traumatic experience who aren't necessarily in the right place to take a nuanced view and shouldn't be expected to. There's a duty of care to them, by the nature of the establishment.
O.
There's a duty of care in prisons as well and the aim of many TRAs is to get rid of all of those checks and in ceratin places like Canada they have succeeded. There is no transitioning, there are no medical procedures or medication. There is simply the declaration.
And even here - what checks?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white
-
I don't think that is true. I think that is the excuse, not the reason. I think women were viewed by men as possessions. You'd no more allow your wife to vote than you would your cow.
And when those women started to campaign they were told they weren't capable. Which was the fundamental belief and which the excuse that followed it, there came a time when they were both firmly established in the belief of the men making the rules; the one that they chose to express openly, though, was the claim of a lack of capability; it might have been more convenient than the other, but I think it was genuinely the view.
O.
-
OK, my misunderstanding, I thought you were referring to a trans-woman, and this is a slighty different case. In this instance, I don't think I'd have voted for them to receive this award, because they aren't a woman. There's only a woman's award at all because there's a range of cultural trends that push against women achieving in business, there's nothing intrinsic that makes them any more or less capable, so in that sense I can understand the decision, but to my mind the problem is that I can't imagine a woman who turned up in male clothing with short hair a few time a week being nominated for the businessman of the year category. It reinforces the idea that male/man is the standard, and women is becoming a category for 'not male/man' rather than a distinct idea. Which raises the question, if there are people who don't identify in gender as either, are gendered awards going to continue to be viable?
There are many TRAs who see Bunce as a transwoman - what are your criteria for a transwoman?
-
There's a duty of care in prisons as well and the aim of many TRAs is to get rid of all of those checks and in ceratin places like Canada they have succeeded.
The duty of care to people in prison, though, is owed to people in a profoundly different psychological place.
There is no transitioning, there are no medical procedures or medication. There is simply the declaration.
According to Wikipedia (not an absolute authority, but generally a reasonable first point of call) all the territories require medical back-up to any self-made declaration of a change of gender on official forms such as birth certificates (Except Novia Scotia, which will accept an affirmation from other professionals than medical, but which hasn't published the list of what those professions are, yet). Perhaps more of an issue is the number of people who have gender-neutral determinations on their state documentation, which might make such determinations difficult in the future.
O.
-
There are many TRAs who see Bunce as a transwoman - what are your criteria for a transwoman?
That they identify as a woman - Bunce, in their own words, identifies as gender fluid.
O.
-
That they identify as a woman - Bunce, in their own words, identifies as gender fluid.
O.
So the only criterion you have is a declaration. Oh and while Bunce is gender fluid he thinks he's a woman when he says so.
-
The duty of care to people in prison, though, is owed to people in a profoundly different psychological place.
According to Wikipedia (not an absolute authority, but generally a reasonable first point of call) all the territories require medical back-up to any self-made declaration of a change of gender on official forms such as birth certificates (Except Novia Scotia, which will accept an affirmation from other professionals than medical, but which hasn't published the list of what those professions are, yet). Perhaps more of an issue is the number of people who have gender-neutral determinations on their state documentation, which might make such determinations difficult in the future.
O.
See in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white
And many women in prison will come from abusive relationships where they will have been raped and sexually assaulted not sure that having committed a crime puts them in a sufficiently psychologically different position for their trauma to be ignored.
-
The decision to segregate at all is based on that understanding, yes. What makes it sex-based rather than gender-based is that there are biological checks conducted to determine sex, not psychological tests to determine gender - that's the distinction I was making.
Yes but you are wrong. The intention is to segregate based on sex. The tests are designed (perhaps poorly) to segregate based on sex in order to align the tests with the intention.
I'm not pretending that there isn't, and I'm not castigating people feeling uncomfortable about it, but the way to deal with that discomfort is to be open about what the fears are, how real they might be, and to push back against any implicit or explicit denigration of people who are in that uncomfortable position where they don't feel that they comport to social expectation, and to be clear in discussions like these (which I think people have been, I'm just saying that it's important) so that you can't be accused of implicitly denigrating people.
But how do you resolve the conflict? On the one hand, you have a person who is unhappy with sharing a toilet space with biological males. On the other hand, you have a person who feels they are being denigrated if they are excluded from a facility that all the other women are allowed in.
With toilets, maybe the answer is just to design them based on the particular bodily function you need to be dealing with and remove all gender distinctions altogether. I don't really know.
-
See in the UK
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/sep/09/sexual-assaults-in-womens-prison-reignite-debate-over-transgender-inmates-karen-white
And, from my work in prisons, this isn't about White's transgender nature - a woman with a history of violent sexual assaults against women shouldn't have afforded that level of freedom, and arguably shouldn't have been at that category of prison. That's not about her transgender status, it's about her criminal status.
And many women in prison will come from abusive relationships where they will have been raped and sexually assaulted not sure that having committed a crime puts them in a sufficiently psychologically different position for their trauma to be ignored.
It's the immediacy of the event, rather than that they've never undergone it.
O.
-
And, from my work in prisons, this isn't about White's transgender nature - a woman with a history of violent sexual assaults against women shouldn't have afforded that level of freedom, and arguably shouldn't have been at that category of prison. That's not about her transgender status, it's about her criminal status.
It's the immediacy of the event, rather than that they've never undergone it.
O.
And yet it was their transgender status that led to the transfer so saying it doesn't have anything to do with it seems idiotic to me. And referring to White as a woman then leads to the nonsense where various police forces have recorded gender rather than sex leading to a spike in woman raping people which given the definition in this country is both remarkable and disturbing.
So women in prison who have been raped just need to get over that when a bloke is placed in their prison?
-
Yes but you are wrong. The intention is to segregate based on sex. The tests are designed (perhaps poorly) to segregate based on sex in order to align the tests with the intention.
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. They identified that there are biological differences between males and females, and instituted a segregate sporting category for females. Entry into that category is determined by biological/medical tests which identify (with varying degrees of success) sex, and that makes the intent and the actual segregation sex-based; this is in contrast to things like which toilet people use, where there are no medical tests, there is a self-identification gender test.
But how do you resolve the conflict? On the one hand, you have a person who is unhappy with sharing a toilet space with biological males. On the other hand, you have a person who feels they are being denigrated if they are excluded from a facility that all the other women are allowed in.
You help people to understand that someone being a 'biological male' doesn't make them a man, and you try to design unisex facilities so far as you can.
With toilets, maybe the answer is just to design them based on the particular bodily function you need to be dealing with and remove all gender distinctions altogether. I don't really know.
I'm not trying to pretend that this is an easy thing, there are always going to be ingrained beliefs and long-held traditions and some practical concerns, considerations and difficulties. Our ideas of gender and sex are, in some ways, fundamental to who we are; that's at one and the same time why it's so difficult to navigate, and why it's so important that we try.
O.
-
And yet it was their transgender status that led to the transfer so saying it doesn't have anything to do with it seems idiotic to me.
It was their transgender status that led to them being transferred from a men's prison to a women's one, it didn't determine which category they would go to, it didn't determine what oversight should have been in place when they got there.
And referring to White as a woman then leads to the nonsense where various police forces have recorded gender rather than sex leading to a spike in woman raping people which given the definition in this country is both remarkable and disturbing.
You wanted equality, right? White is a woman, that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts.
[/quote]So women in prison who have been raped just need to get over that when a bloke is placed in their prison?[/quote]
A 'bloke' isn't being placed in their prison, though. They might feel as though one is, and that understanding can be discussed and dealt with in a way that simply isn't available in the immediate aftermath of a rape. What's your alternative? Leave a woman in a male prison?
O.
-
It was their transgender status that led to them being transferred from a men's prison to a women's one, it didn't determine which category they would go to, it didn't determine what oversight should have been in place when they got there.
You wanted equality, right? White is a woman, that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts.
So women in prison who have been raped just need to get over that when a bloke is placed in their prison?
A 'bloke' isn't being placed in their prison, though. They might feel as though one is, and that understanding can be discussed and dealt with in a way that simply isn't available in the immediate aftermath of a rape. What's your alternative? Leave a woman in a male prison?
O.
A bloke is. A man is. Again prisons are sex based not gender. And I can cite you many medical experts who will tell you that woman is a sex based classification and that you can't change sex.
-
A bloke is. A man is. Again prisons are sex based not gender.
No, they aren't. There isn't a medical check of sex to gain entry, it's a cultural assessment of man or woman.
And I can cite you many medical experts who will tell you that woman is a sex based classification and that you can't change sex.
And, medically, you can't - you can do surgery, you can alter the outer shape, you can remove some glands and provide hormone treatments, but you've still got someone that's biologically male or female (or, in vanishingly rare cases, something that's a mixture of both). In situations where that's important that's worth remembering, but in situations where it's irrelevant, like which prison you're in, it's meaningless.
How many penises you have do or don't have isn't a factor in prison interactions to anything like the extent of whether you're a man or a woman.
O.
-
No, they aren't. There isn't a medical check of sex to gain entry, it's a cultural assessment of man or woman.
And, medically, you can't - you can do surgery, you can alter the outer shape, you can remove some glands and provide hormone treatments, but you've still got someone that's biologically male or female (or, in vanishingly rare cases, something that's a mixture of both). In situations where that's important that's worth remembering, but in situations where it's irrelevant, like which prison you're in, it's meaningless.
How many penises you have do or don't have isn't a factor in prison interactions to anything like the extent of whether you're a man or a woman.
O.
And again prisons are based not gender based. Cultural assessment as not medical areas of expertise. Especially since your only assessment can be based on expectations of women being defined by regressive stereotypes. We're back at the issue that you have no real definition of man and woman as you want to use it. And that you are willing to stop 'women' in your terms entering a rape crisis centre means I think you know that.
-
And again prisons are based not gender based.
Can you show me the bit in the Prison guide where it explains what medical or biological checks are conducted to make it a sex-based check?
Cultural assessment as not medical areas of expertise.
Which would be important if this were a medical assessment, but it's not.
Especially since your only assessment can be based on expectations of women being defined by regressive stereotypes.
That's your opinion of them, it's not a universally accepted assessment.
We're back at the issue that you have no real definition of man and woman as you want to use it.
You mean it's not a simple black-and-white issue - no, that's sort of part of the point. It's a judgement call in a few isolated instances - I'd rather have a better measure, but there isn't one available.
And that you are willing to stop 'women' in your terms entering a rape crisis centre means I think you know that.
No, it means I accept that it's not the right time to be trying to convince someone else.
O.
-
Can you show me the bit in the Prison guide where it explains what medical or biological checks are conducted to make it a sex-based check?
Which would be important if this were a medical assessment, but it's not.
That's your opinion of them, it's not a universally accepted assessment.
You mean it's not a simple black-and-white issue - no, that's sort of part of the point. It's a judgement call in a few isolated instances - I'd rather have a better measure, but there isn't one available.
No, it means I accept that it's not the right time to be trying to convince someone else.
O.
If it's not medical then why would I trust 'that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts' to quote you.
I don't think it's ever the right time to 'convince' a woman who has been raped that she's wrong about seeing someone with a penis as a man.
And to try to it on the basis of something that is both moveable and cannot be defined seems horrific to me. And yes it is my opinion, but then that's all it would seem we have so what makes the other opinion more valid and why should women be endangered because of that opinion?
-
If it's not medical then why would I trust 'that's not my opinion that's the determination of the medical experts' to quote you.
Different use of medical - not my best moment, but still - medical in the sense of biological checks vs medical professionals in the form of psychologist and psychiatrists.
I don't think it's ever the right time to 'convince' a woman who has been raped that she's wrong about seeing someone with a penis as a man.
But then, you don't think there's a case to explain to anyone that someone with a penis isn't a man, so you wouldn't, would you?
And to try to it on the basis of something that is both moveable and cannot be defined seems horrific to me. And yes it is my opinion, but then that's all it would seem we have so what makes the other opinion more valid and why should women be endangered because of that opinion?
Are they endangered? By contrast, we see that non-conformist people who adopt transgenderism often do so to escape danger they feel because they aren't living their lives how people around them expect. And, when it's known that they're transgender, they are more often in danger than the rest of the populace then, as well. If we're looking to reduce harm, then acknowledging and accepting transgender people and ensuring their safety is a big step forward.
Yes it's a moveable feast, yes it's messy and open to potential abuse and misunderstanding, but what are the alternatives? To leave people suffering who don't need to, or at least don't need to suffer as much. This is real life, this is messy and lacking in clear definitions and nice delineations, but it's what we've got, and to try to force people into boxes because it's a cleaner definition... that definitely feels regressive to me.
O.
-
Different use of medical - not my best moment, but still - medical in the sense of biological checks vs medical professionals in the form of psychologist and psychiatrists.
But then, you don't think there's a case to explain to anyone that someone with a penis isn't a man, so you wouldn't, would you?
Are they endangered? By contrast, we see that non-conformist people who adopt transgenderism often do so to escape danger they feel because they aren't living their lives how people around them expect. And, when it's known that they're transgender, they are more often in danger than the rest of the populace then, as well. If we're looking to reduce harm, then acknowledging and accepting transgender people and ensuring their safety is a big step forward.
Yes it's a moveable feast, yes it's messy and open to potential abuse and misunderstanding, but what are the alternatives? To leave people suffering who don't need to, or at least don't need to suffer as much. This is real life, this is messy and lacking in clear definitions and nice delineations, but it's what we've got, and to try to force people into boxes because it's a cleaner definition... that definitely feels regressive to me.
O.
I have a friend who is in the psych profession. I'm not going to go into more detail than that who won't put out any public pronouncement on this subject because they fear being hounded out of the profession. I linked to a thread earlier from Twitter into the tribunal hearing about her sacking for arguing that men cannot become women. I'm not sure I trust any 'expertise' here given that sort of approach
I've seen various stats on both sides here in terms of danger, it's not clear to me that you can claim that women aren't endangered and given the reason for sex segregated prisons is in part based on that assumption of danger, you need to me to show that you aren't increasing danger, and that's before you get to possibly causing trauma to rape victims.
Until you have evidence that it is safe, the only approach that seems to work to me in terms of prisons is trans prison wings. And saying that men cannot become women and enter sex based safe spaces is not saying anyone shouldn't be able to live the way they want. It looks like women are having there safe spaces removed because male violence - one of the reasons to have those spaces - cannot be controlled. And any safeguarding is actively being campaigned against by some TRAs
-
Until you have evidence that it is safe, the only approach that seems to work to me in terms of prisons is trans prison wings.
That would be a workable solution - I don't see any of the parties in the upcoming election putting up the money for it, though.
And saying that men cannot become women and enter sex based safe spaces is not saying anyone shouldn't be able to live the way they want. It looks like women are having there safe spaces removed because male violence - one of the reasons to have those spaces - cannot be controlled. And any safeguarding is actively being campaigned against by some TRAs
There are extremist nutters out there, I'm not arguing there aren't. It's an area where we're developing the rules on the fly to an extent, and whilst that's a recipe for mistakes, it's prompted by the very real fact that there are people suffering in the current understanding - change is going to happen, one way or another, and the best we can do is look at the situation with the best of intentions and try to make decisions that will minimise the harm done whilst educating everyone that we're all people trying to make our way through a complicated life.
O.
-
That would be a workable solution - I don't see any of the parties in the upcoming election putting up the money for it, though.
There are extremist nutters out there, I'm not arguing there aren't. It's an area where we're developing the rules on the fly to an extent, and whilst that's a recipe for mistakes, it's prompted by the very real fact that there are people suffering in the current understanding - change is going to happen, one way or another, and the best we can do is look at the situation with the best of intentions and try to make decisions that will minimise the harm done whilst educating everyone that we're all people trying to make our way through a complicated life.
O.
The problem is the extremist nutters seem to be driving the push for self ID, and they seem to be winning. If you want to make changes to women's rights to accommodate transwomen then it needs to be done a more evidentiary basis than what seems to be the current approach to me. Another friend asked the Lib Dems if they could be in the part and be gender critical and were told no. The Greens regularly proclaim the mantra Transwomen are Women, and Partick Harvie regularly retweets and has made speeches attacking 'TERFS'. Labour has allowed transwomen on all women shortlists - shortlists set up tpo deal with a sex based exclusion. There SNP has office holders who regularly attack Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry, demanding they are thrown out the party because of their views on gender. Meetings held by women to discuss how they approach it, and how they accommodate trans rights with trans speakers are regularly blocked, or picketed. The strand that is pushing this seems to be the ones in control
-
The problem is the extremist nutters seem to be driving the push for self ID, and they seem to be winning.
We are in a society where whomever shouts loudest seems to get their way, at the moment, and I don't agree with the entirely self-ID concept (as much to protect impressionable people as anything else) but I don't think we need to roll everything back, either.
If you want to make changes to women's rights to accommodate transwomen then it needs to be done a more evidentiary basis than what seems to be the current approach to me.
I don't think we can appreciably slow the movement that's happening, we can just try to steer it. That said, I'm not convinced that it's moving unnecessarily fast at the moment - we're implementing changes because we identifiably have people being harmed as things stand; I'm sure I can justify saying 'we should stop' on the possibility that some people might take offence.
Another friend asked the Lib Dems if they could be in the part and be gender critical and were told no.
'Gender critical' - is that where you hold to the idea that gender is an irrelevant new-age construction that should be ignored? If so, I'd agree with the party. Additionally, at the moment, where they are still struggling to overcome the toxicity they were smeared with during their coalition days, they're trying to ensure they have consistent messages throughout and are sticking to a party line fairly strictly - that doesn't make it right in itself, it simply explains why they're a somewhat narrower church than they have been historically.
The Greens regularly proclaim the mantra Transwomen are Women, and Partick Harvie regularly retweets and has made speeches attacking 'TERFS'.
Trans women are women, they're just not female ones. I don't know Patrick Harvie, but if you wanted to identify a group that shouts louder than its content might warrant, TERFS fit the bill.
Labour has allowed transwomen on all women shortlists - shortlists set up tpo deal with a sex based exclusion.
Again, I'd define a political shortlist as a gender-based exclusion - I'm pretty sure no-one's going to be expecting DNA or blood tests to prove sex in order to take part. Whether those electing a candidate feel that a trans-woman has the lifetime of experience to adequately represent them and elect them is down to the electorate, but that they are women is fair enough.
There SNP has office holders who regularly attack Joan McAlpine and Joanna Cherry, demanding they are thrown out the party because of their views on gender.
And there are special interest groups demanding all sorts of people be thrown out of all sorts of parties - I don't agree with it. How they express their ideas might be a justification - and I've not been keeping up with Scottish politics to know - but just holding to the idea which doesn't seem to me to be fundamental to Scottish Nationalism shouldn't be enough to have them thrown out.
Meetings held by women to discuss how they approach it, and how they accommodate trans rights with trans speakers are regularly blocked, or picketed. The strand that is pushing this seems to be the ones in control.
That just doesn't make any sense, to me - why block that, it's your chance to make your case and get involved. Even if you can't actively take part, you can send information, submit a written statement... to shut down discussion is never the answer.
O.
-
Don't have time to deal with Outrider's last post while on phone but to go back to the subject of toilets, here is one of the reasons why single sex toilets are needed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html
-
Don't have time to deal with Outrider's last post while on phone but to go back to the subject of toilets, here is one of the reasons why single sex toilets are needed.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/single-sex-toilets-unesco-un-international-womens-day-period-a8244776.html
That's an article talking about the need for schools to have toilets for girls and women, which I'd agree is needed. Doesn't really cross over with a perceived need to keep transgender women out of women's toilets, that I can see, but I only had the chance to skim it before I leave work.
O.
-
That's an article talking about the need for schools to have toilets for girls and women, which I'd agree is needed. Doesn't really cross over with a perceived need to keep transgender women out of women's toilets, that I can see, but I only had the chance to skim it before I leave work.
O.
Single sex not single gender
Oh and watch the video in this link and tell me that the girl who is upset just needs to be convinced.
https://www.dailyherald.com/amp-article/20191114/news/191119456/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Commentary on the commentary of the Maya Forstater (sacked for saying men cannot become women) tribunal mentioned earlier.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1196754856645709825.html
-
Just to note that today's is the Transgender Day of Remembrance. While I have issue with some of the movement and the numbers that might be seen here in terms of determining danger, it remains true that 1 murder for this is too many. I will refrain from posting on this topic today other than this.
https://www.unison.org.uk/article/2019/10/transgender-day-remembrance-20-november/
-
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. They identified that there are biological differences between males and females, and instituted a segregate sporting category for females. Entry into that category is determined by biological/medical tests which identify (with varying degrees of success) sex, and that makes the intent and the actual segregation sex-based; this is in contrast to things like which toilet people use, where there are no medical tests, there is a self-identification gender test.
Your implication was that it was the nature of the tests which led to the segregation being based on sex rather than gender. i.e. the segregation based on sex was caused by the nature of the tests.
You help people to understand that someone being a 'biological male' doesn't make them a man
Would that it were so simple.
I think the issue is deeply ingrained because men have been doing bad things to women since the beginning of history - probably before and I think some of the reasons why are physiological: greater size and strength and more testosterone. As long as there are men and women, some women are going to be uncomfortable sharing certain spaces with men.
-
Another good piece from James Kirkup
https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
This
https://rdln.wordpress.com/2019/12/06/to-advance-civil-rights-oppose-transgender-extremism/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And on the LDs
http://archive.is/mHYzA
-
And on the LDs
http://archive.is/mHYzA
Yes - as a woman I decided I definitely wasn't voting Lib Dem after I saw the Newsnight interview with Sarah Wallaston. She refused to acknowledge that it was reasonable for women to be concerned about the danger to women from giving a blanket freedom to any man to self-identify as a woman that then allowed him access to female-only spaces. She could only focus on the needs of transgender people to the exclusion of the needs of women to feel safe from men who weren't transgender but could self-identify as trans in order to gain access to women.
She was asked about the danger to women from men with an urge to commit criminal sexual acts against women and just said if there was evidence that a person was dangerous they would be restricted - presumably after they had finished attacking a woman to provide that evidence. Her attitude was that the danger to women had been exaggerated.
She had no interest in discussing stats e.g. all the voyeuristic men and the male criminals who currently have the urge (that doesn't seem to be similarly statistically present in women) to sneak into women's showers and toilets to secretly plant cameras and illegally film women, to molest women etc who would be able to exploit and have easier access to victims due to the gender self-identity rules.
So Labour or Tory...based on their stance on transgender not much difference it would seem.
-
She was asked about the danger to women from men with an urge to commit criminal sexual acts against women and just said if there was evidence that a person was dangerous they would be restricted - presumably after they had finished attacking a woman to provide that evidence. Her attitude was that the danger to women had been exaggerated.
How do you tell if a man is dangerous to women before he has attacked a woman?
I have no evidence but my speculation is that a trans woman in a male prison is in more danger that the women in a female prison are from a trans woman, unless that trans woman is in there for committing a violent crime, especially a sexual one.
She had no interest in discussing stats e.g. all the voyeuristic men and the male criminals who currently have the urge (that doesn't seem to be similarly statistically present in women) to sneak into women's showers and toilets to secretly plant cameras and illegally film women, to molest women etc who would be able to exploit and have easier access to victims due to the gender self-identity rules.
What are the stats?
The reality is that it has never been about actual danger - at least with respect to public bathrooms. It's always been about how people feel about certain situations. Probably only about 1% of the population is trans sexual. That means only about one person out of every hundred you come across in a public toilet is a trans woman. Of that one percent, only a fraction is likely to be there for voyeuristic reasons. So the chance that the person in the next cubicle is there to perv is really quite small.
However, that's not the point. The point is that some women get uncomfortable by having what they thought of as a female only space invaded by people with penises. No amount of me telling them that their fears are virtually unfounded is going to help and they would not be wrong to point out that trans women only want to use women's bathrooms because they get uncomfortable at having to use the men's room.
-
How do you tell if a man is dangerous to women before he has attacked a woman?
My impression from the interview was that Sarah Wallaston wanted someone to be attacked by the self-identifying man before the authorities should be allowed to conclude that that particular man who was self-identifying as a woman in order to gain access to potential female victims was a threat that would warrant him being denied access.
What are the stats?
The reality is that it has never been about actual danger - at least with respect to public bathrooms. It's always been about how people feel about certain situations. Probably only about 1% of the population is trans sexual. That means only about one person out of every hundred you come across in a public toilet is a trans woman. Of that one percent, only a fraction is likely to be there for voyeuristic reasons. So the chance that the person in the next cubicle is there to perv is really quite small.
However, that's not the point. The point is that some women get uncomfortable by having what they thought of as a female only space invaded by people with penises. No amount of me telling them that their fears are virtually unfounded is going to help and they would not be wrong to point out that trans women only want to use women's bathrooms because they get uncomfortable at having to use the men's room.
Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities. Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html
Sarah Wallaston seems to be saying that as the reported numbers are not very high in the current single-sex environment, we can assume these stats will not change once men can self-identify and gain access to single-sex spaces and therefore the threat to women is being exaggerated.
Or she seems to be saying the number of attacks on women is an acceptable level of risk in order that people who genuinely feel they have a particular gender specific 'essence' (though there is no scientific evidence that this essence exists) can have their essence enforced and recognised by law. As I've argued before, to me it's a bit like people believing they have a soul or immaterial spiritual essence and other people being forced by law to accept that the individual's experience and labelling of this soul is a factual reality. The alternative to enforcing acceptance of someone's gender 'essence' or their soul is that we could humour people and respect their beliefs in and experiences of their gender 'essence' or 'soul' while asking for objective evidence that the gender 'essence' or soul exists.
The issue is not about men who genuinely identify as women but about the threat of men pretending to identify as women using the self-identity route to gain access to female victims. In this scenario you would not know that the men are not genuine or have benign intentions until they have proved otherwise by actually attacking a woman. Presumably we started the policy of single-sex spaces in certain defined areas rather than adopting a policy of innocent until proven guilty in order to try to minimise the risk of attack to women because women were getting attacked? What's the justification for changing that policy now?
-
Is the policy being changed now? I thought it changed in 2010, with the Equality Act.
-
Is the policy being changed now? I thought it changed in 2010, with the Equality Act.
The Liberal Democrats have pledged to reform the Gender Recognition Act in their election manifesto, so it no longer includes a requirement for medical reports to be submitted to get a GRC. This makes it easier to obtain a GRC, which is the legal recognition of your gender. There seems to be ambiguity around the interaction between a GRC and the Equality Act exemptions for excluding trans people from single-sex services. The onus seems to be on someone manning reception at a business to know the complex issues involved and make a decision on a case by case basis - they run the risk of either causing the business to end up in court for discrimination and the prohibitive legal fees that entails or allowing a woman to be attacked by a male criminal pretending to self-identify as a woman . That seems a ridiculous state of affairs to me. The lawyers cannot agree on the outcome of changing the law regarding GRCs.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-reforms-six-legal-views-transgender-debate
You are allowed to provide single-sex services (services just for men or just for women) where this is objectively justified and:
- the services may be used by more than one person at the same time and a woman
might reasonably object to the presence of a man (or vice versa), or
the services may involve physical contact between a user and someone else and that
other person may reasonably object if the user is of the opposite sex.
Generally, a business which is providing separate services or single-sex services should
treat a transsexual person according to the sex in which the transsexual person presents
(as opposed to the sex recorded at birth), as it is unlawful to discriminate against someone
because of gender reassignment. Although a business can exclude a transsexual person
or provide them with a different service, this is only if it can objectively justify doing so.
A business may have a policy about providing its service to transsexual users, but this
policy must still be applied on a case-by-case basis. It is necessary to balance the needs
of the transsexual person for the service, and the disadvantage to them if they are refused
access to it, against the needs of other users, and any disadvantage to them, if the
transsexual person is allowed access. To do this may require discussion with service
users (maintaining confidentiality for the transsexual service user). Care should be taken in
each case to avoid a decision based on ignorance or prejudice.
Where a transsexual person is visually and for all practical purposes indistinguishable from
someone of their preferred gender, they should normally be treated according to their
acquired gender unless there are strong reasons not to do so.
Transsexual people should not be routinely asked to produce their Gender Recognition
Certificate (if they have one) as evidence of their legal sex. If a business requires proof of
a person’s legal sex, then their birth certificate should be sufficient confirmation.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/what-equality-law-means-for-your-business-2018.pdf
-
Has the case of the transgender person who wanted a Brazilian wax from specifically female beauticians already been posted on here? They needed a court to settle this.
“No woman should be compelled to touch male genitalia against her will,” irrespective of identification, Jay Cameron, Justice Centre litigation manager said in a statement.
"Ultimately, the tribunal concluded that human rights legislation does not oblige a beautician to wax genitalia they have not consented or had training to wax."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/10/23/canadian-transgender-woman-loses-case-against-beauticians-refused/
-
My impression from the interview was that Sarah Wallaston wanted someone to be attacked by the self-identifying man before the authorities should be allowed to conclude that that particular man who was self-identifying as a woman in order to gain access to potential female victims was a threat that would warrant him being denied access.
How would you conclude that a trans woman is dangerous to women before that trans woman has attacked a woman?
Perhaps your answer is that they should all be considered potentially dangerous in some situations. If that is your answer, you need to be careful not to apply the principle too broadly.
Just under 90 per cent of complaints regarding changing room sexual assaults, voyeurism and harassment are about incidents in unisex facilities. Of 134 complaints over 2017-2018, 120 reported incidents took place in gender-neutral changing rooms and just 14 were in single-sex changing areas.
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/women/sexual-assault-unisex-changing-rooms-sunday-times-women-risk-a8519086.html
That's not what we are talking about: we are talking about the dangers of allowing trans women into women only changing rooms. For all we know, none of those incidents in unisex changing rooms were by trans women.
All that statistic shows is that unisex facilities are not the answer to the problem of where trans women should get changed / go to the toilet.
Presumably we started the policy of single-sex spaces in certain defined areas rather than adopting a policy of innocent until proven guilty in order to try to minimise the risk of attack to women because women were getting attacked?
No. I don't think that's it at all. We started the single sex spaces thing because of the perception of danger or embarrassment or discomfort. A lot of women don't like using toilets when there are men about. Frankly, I think that is enough justification.
What's the justification for changing that policy now?
In my opinion there is none, but that still leaves us with the problem of where the trans women go.
-
How would you conclude that a trans woman is dangerous to women before that trans woman has attacked a woman?
Perhaps your answer is that they should all be considered potentially dangerous in some situations. If that is your answer, you need to be careful not to apply the principle too broadly.
That's not what we are talking about: we are talking about the dangers of allowing trans women into women only changing rooms. For all we know, none of those incidents in unisex changing rooms were by trans women.
All that statistic shows is that unisex facilities are not the answer to the problem of where trans women should get changed / go to the toilet.
No. I don't think that's it at all. We started the single sex spaces thing because of the perception of danger or embarrassment or discomfort. A lot of women don't like using toilets when there are men about. Frankly, I think that is enough justification.
In my opinion there is none, but that still leaves us with the problem of where the trans women go.
What are transwomen? The issue with self ID is that there is only self definition which means every one can be a transwoman.
-
How would you conclude that a trans woman is dangerous to women before that trans woman has attacked a woman?
How do we know the person being given access to vulnerable women really is a trans woman and not a man pretending to be a trans woman?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/rapist-karen-white-in-women-s-jail-was-trans-faker-lbcwjp8jc
Perhaps your answer is that they should all be considered potentially dangerous in some situations. If that is your answer, you need to be careful not to apply the principle too broadly.
That's not what we are talking about: we are talking about the dangers of allowing trans women into women only changing rooms. For all we know, none of those incidents in unisex changing rooms were by trans women.
All that statistic shows is that unisex facilities are not the answer to the problem of where trans women should get changed / go to the toilet.
No. I don't think that's it at all. We started the single sex spaces thing because of the perception of danger or embarrassment or discomfort. A lot of women don't like using toilets when there are men about. Frankly, I think that is enough justification.
In my opinion there is none, but that still leaves us with the problem of where the trans women go.
Embarrassment is certainly one issue but I am more concerned by safety issues. I think that in the current toxic political climate it is misogyny when the feelings of someone having gender identity issues trumps the risks to women, given that anyone can self-identify. I can't support misogyny in order to alleviate transphobia.
-
What are transwomen?
Biological males who identify as women.
The issue with self ID is that there is only self definition which means every one can be a transwoman.
I'm sure there must be a legal definition but I don't know what it is.
-
How do we know the person being given access to vulnerable women really is a trans woman and not a man pretending to be a trans woman?
That doesn't answer my question.
Embarrassment is certainly one issue but I am more concerned by safety issues. I think that in the current toxic political climate it is misogyny when the feelings of someone having gender identity issues trumps the risks to women, given that anyone can self-identify. I can't support misogyny in order to alleviate transphobia.
But you don't know how serious the safety issues are. Karen White is only one person and, yes, in "her" case, the dangers should have been obvious. However, that doesn't mean all trans women, or even a significant proportion of them are out to do women harm.
-
Biological males who identify as women.
I'm sure there must be a legal definition but I don't know what it is.
What does 'identify ' mean here? Is Pip/Phillip Bunce a transwoman 2 days a week? There is a specific definition at the moment but that isn't what self ID proposes - it's a change to the law.
-
That doesn't answer my question.But you don't know how serious the safety issues are. Karen White is only one person and, yes, in "her" case, the dangers should have been obvious. However, that doesn't mean all trans women, or even a significant proportion of them are out to do women harm.
Self ID though allows any man to be a transwoman - that's the point - there are no safeguards
-
That doesn't answer my question.But you don't know how serious the safety issues are. Karen White is only one person and, yes, in "her" case, the dangers should have been obvious. However, that doesn't mean all trans women, or even a significant proportion of them are out to do women harm.
I think that given the statistics around sex crimes and the high proportion of women who have reported being sexually assaulted by men when those men have had the opportunity, there is a strong argument for preventing men from being in a place where women are more vulnerable. A man (who is sexually attracted to women) self-identifying as a woman does not prevent that transwoman (if he really is one and not just pretending) having sexual urges towards women and nor does self-identifying decrease the level of testosterone, aggression or greater physical strength, height, weight that person has compared to women. So any situation where a man would be denied access to interact with smaller, weaker people, a self-identifying woman should also be denied access as the risks are the same - whether it is prisons or sports competitions.
As you mentioned before, a trans man would be in increased danger in a male prison or a male sporting competition such as boxing because self-identifying as a man does not suddenly increase your testosterone, muscle-mass, height, weight, bone density, aggression etc etc
We can humour people who identify in opposition to their biology but not by expecting women to bear the increased risk of physical harm - in my view that is misogyny.
-
I think that given the statistics around sex crimes and the high proportion of women who have reported being sexually assaulted by men when those men have had the opportunity, there is a strong argument for preventing men from being in a place where women are more vulnerable.
But you are not talking about trans women, you are talking about men in general. You're argument seems to be some men are dangerous, therefore all men are dangerous, therefore trans women are dangerous.
You are demonstrating my point. You are claiming it is dangerous to allow trans women in a women only space based on only a few well publicised incidents. Your problem is not the actual danger of trans women, it is the perception of danger.
Personally, I think that bar is high enough already. If there are women who get uncomfortable or suffer anxiety because a trans woman might be in the women's toilets, that's good enough for me to stop the trans women going in.
As you mentioned before, a trans man would be in increased danger in a male prison or a male sporting competition such as boxing because self-identifying as a man does not suddenly increase your testosterone, muscle-mass, height, weight, bone density, aggression etc etc
I didn't say that before, although I would agree with it. What I said before was that trans women are likely to be in danger in a male prison.
-
How do you stop a trans woman going in a toilet?
-
How do you stop a trans woman going in a toilet?
How do you stop a man going into a toilet?
-
Close it, due to budget cuts.
-
But you are not talking about trans women, you are talking about men in general. You're argument seems to be some men are dangerous, therefore all men are dangerous, therefore trans women are dangerous.
Sort of - I don't actually think all men and trans women are dangerous but I don't know which ones are and which ones aren't. And if there was a justification for single-sex facilities previously (we as a society did not decide some men were prevented from entering women's facilities while others were allowed), I don't see how self-identifying as a woman suddenly removes that justification for barring someone. The person self-identifying could retain all the biological characteristics that justified single sex facilities in the first place regardless of what is going on in their heads.
I think what is going on in that person's head about one aspect of themselves doesn't necessarily cancel all the other aspects that goes with their biology and which would ordinarily preclude them from a single-sex facility. It may or it may not but a blanket rule ignoring the risks to women seems misogynistic. I don't see the justification for prioritising the risks to the self-identifier (biological males) over the risks to biological females.
On a practical note - washing your period blood from your clothes in a bathroom is a reality for some women and they really do not need even benign self-identifying men walking in. If you have polycystic ovaries it can cause periods to be irregular and really, really heavy and painful. I remember helping someone at work in the bathroom who had been wearing 2 thick maternity pads in her knickers - the type you wear after childbirth to stem the heavy blood flow that occurs for about a week after delivery - and despite this the sudden gush of menstrual blood she experienced meant it soaked through the pads, soaked through her knickers, soaked through her black trousers and was all over her chair. She eventually had surgery to remove some of the cysts, which helped reduce the symptoms.
Self-identifying men claiming they know what it feels like to be a woman because they want to wear a dress is a not very funny joke. How many of them know what a gush of blood from their vagina feels like, and for those of us who don't have polycystic ovaries it is still an uncomfortable moment of stressing that only another menstruating woman could relate to. And you have to deal with this from puberty - every month for years and years. A dress and liking pink doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what being a woman means and that trans women think it does just demonstrates how clueless they are. The trans women cannot relate to these defining moments and the thoughts and emotions that run through your head as you navigate this and similar issues, any more than I can relate to what it feels like to be a trans woman fantasising about their version of womanhood. But I could respect their feelings enough to not disagree with the projections of their minds in most situations, but I think we should each form our own groups and have our own facilities while there is self-identification and a safety or embarrassment issue.
You are demonstrating my point. You are claiming it is dangerous to allow trans women in a women only space based on only a few well publicised incidents. Your problem is not the actual danger of trans women, it is the perception of danger.
Yes true - perception based on not being able to tell the criminals from the benign - whether that is men, men pretending to be trans women, or actual trans women who retain biologically male physiology.
Personally, I think that bar is high enough already. If there are women who get uncomfortable or suffer anxiety because a trans woman might be in the women's toilets, that's good enough for me to stop the trans women going in.
I guess yes - based on my story above. I have been ok using gender-neutral toilets even though I feel wary when I come out of the toilet and there is a man at the sink. But that's because I don't have polycystic ovaries and haven't had any adverse experiences from a yob making sexist comments in the toilet ..yet. I would always accompany my daughter to a gender neutral toilet because while hopefully I would go to the extent of ripping a guy's throat out with my teeth if I had to in order to stop him sexually assaulting me, I suspect if she got attacked she would freeze if she was on her own.
I didn't say that before, although I would agree with it. What I said before was that trans women are likely to be in danger in a male prison.
Ok sorry - noted.
-
This is good
https://medium.com/@JonnnyBest/why-im-not-non-binary-86cf033b270d
-
Interview with Joan McAlpine
https://womansplaceuk.org/2019/12/17/sex-based-discrimination-an-interview-with-scottish-parliamentarian-joan-mcalpine/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Ridiculous decision
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/18/test-case-rules-against-tax-expert-sacked-transgender-tweet/
-
A slightly more positive news story about trans gender people
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50660839
-
A slightly more positive news story about trans gender people
https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50660839
Yep, that's all rather lovely.
-
Ridiculous decision
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/12/18/test-case-rules-against-tax-expert-sacked-transgender-tweet/
Quite worrying too that someone can be sacked for speaking the obvious truth. There was no 'hate', she stated a fact. This sets a precedent.
-
Quite worrying too that someone can be sacked for speaking the obvious truth. There was no 'hate', she stated a fact. This sets a precedent.
It doesn't set a precedent as tribunals don't work quite that way. If appealled it could.
#IStandWithMaya
-
Speaking the obvious truth can cause a lot of trouble, often best to avoid it...
-
Speaking the obvious truth can cause a lot of trouble, often best to avoid it...
As JK Rowling found out...
https://metro.co.uk/2019/12/20/jk-rowling-called-amnesty-human-rights-campaign-terf-tweet-defending-maya-forstater-11938467/
-
I think this issue should be legally scrutinised further. JK Rowling's support is helpful, provided she does not back-track through fear from the trans lobby. She could help further by donating towards Maya's crowd-funded legal fees.
From the legal documents submitted by Maya to court it appears her employer objected to Maya using the words "material reality" in relation to male and female as some colleagues objected to and found offensive the idea that there was a material reality for biological sex. The employer seems to be saying that people can identify as whatever sex (as opposed to gender) that they want.
The employer's stance contravenes Section 11 of the Equalities Act 2010, which has sex as a protected characteristic.
Schedule 3 allows services not to include people who have changed their sex per a Gender Recognition Certificate if it can be shown this is proportionate and meets a legitimate end. Schedule 9 of Act similarly allows employers to limit certain roles to those who have a particular sex by birth.
"This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified."
Parliament's Explanatory notes to the legislation state that " A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7
-
I think this issue should be legally scrutinised further. JK Rowling's support is helpful, provided she does not back-track through fear from the trans lobby. She could help further by donating towards Maya's crowd-funded legal fees.
From the legal documents submitted by Maya to court it appears her employer objected to Maya using the words "material reality" in relation to male and female as some colleagues objected to and found offensive the idea that there was a material reality for biological sex. The employer seems to be saying that people can identify as whatever sex (as opposed to gender) that they want.
The employer's stance contravenes Section 11 of the Equalities Act 2010, which has sex as a protected characteristic.
Schedule 3 allows services not to include people who have changed their sex per a Gender Recognition Certificate if it can be shown this is proportionate and meets a legitimate end. Schedule 9 of Act similarly allows employers to limit certain roles to those who have a particular sex by birth.
"This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified."
Parliament's Explanatory notes to the legislation state that " A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7
I think JK Rowling would have been well advised to keep out of it because I am under the impression that we don't really have the full story. For example, I have read that the woman in question wasn't fired but her contract, which was fixed term, was not renewed (I haven't fact checked this, so it may not be true). What is definitely true is that she failed to call a customer by their preferred pronoun which she claims was a mistake. We are just hearing Maya's side of the story here and quite often in these cases, the plaintiff's side of the story omits some of the facts.
-
I think JK Rowling would have been well advised to keep out of it because I am under the impression that we don't really have the full story. For example, I have read that the woman in question wasn't fired but her contract, which was fixed term, was not renewed (I haven't fact checked this, so it may not be true). What is definitely true is that she failed to call a customer by their preferred pronoun which she claims was a mistake. We are just hearing Maya's side of the story here and quite often in these cases, the plaintiff's side of the story omits some of the facts.
I disagree about JK Rowling staying out of it. Extremist elements of the trans lobby appear to be well-funded, so JK Rowling's money would be very useful in discovering another version of the 'truth' from the one the extremists in the trans lobby like to promote. Any attempt to discover 'truths' invariably involves spending a lot of money.
I am actually more interested in upholding the belief that biological sex is a material reality and a protected characteristic than I am about renewal of contracts. Per her witness statement to the courts, if Maya's contract was not renewed because she expressed the belief biological sex is a material reality, I find that worrying.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GSKWvdY2upHqAoc0veA35wZWPrpSBr10/view
Funding further legal examination of the issues involved in this story would be useful to balance out the well-funded biological male extremists' position that try to silence dissent from biological females.
-
I thought it was because Forstater made a series of transphobic tweets, misgendred trans people, and her colleagues were sick of her.
-
I thought it was because Forstater made a series of transphobic tweets, misgendred trans people, and her colleagues were sick of her.
Yeh saying Gregor Murray is a man by sex is transphobic. Facts get you sacked.
-
I thought it was because Forstater made a series of transphobic tweets, misgendred trans people, and her colleagues were sick of her.
Not surprising. A lot of misogynists express that opinion of Maya Forstater. That would be misogynistic biological males trying to erase the reality of biological sex.
-
Yeah, I know it's from Spiked but it's still right.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/01/08/what-are-your-preferred-genital-nouns/
-
Heard on Radio 4 today a spokesman for World Rugby with a sports science background stating that the scientific evidence seems to show that suppressing testosterone does not negate the significant biological/ physical advantages that biologically male athletes have built up before they started suppressing their testosterone. He said the idea was for people on different sides of the debate to have a conversation so they can all appreciate each other's perspectives and understand that this is not a simple issue to solve. He seemed to suggest that fairness and safety of other players was the priority, while also trying to find somewhere for transgender athletes to play and feel included.
World Rugby is looking into the need for a 'rugby-specific' transgender policy separate from IOC
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51662872
Kelly Morgan, who, as Nicholas Gareth Morgan played teenage representative rugby for East Wales, accepted that her pre-transition past gave her an advantage over team-mates as she played women's rugby for Porth Harlequins Ladies.
"I do feel guilty, but what can you do?" she told BBC Sport Wales in August. "I don't go out to hurt anybody. I just want to play rugby."
-
"I do feel guilty, but what can you do?" she told BBC Sport Wales in August. "I don't go out to hurt anybody. I just want to play rugby."
She can stop being selfish. She wants to play rugby but so do biological women and they want to play it on a level playing field without fear of serious injury.
-
What is stopping her playing in a men's team?
-
Staff at Guardian wanting one of their main columnists cancelled
https://www.buzzfeed.com/amphtml/patrickstrudwick/guardian-staff-trans-rights-letter?__twitter_impression=true
Here is the article
https://www.theguardian.com/society/commentisfree/2020/mar/02/women-must-have-the-right-to-organise-we-will-not-be-silenced
-
A story of detransition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-51806011
-
That's something I'll listen to. I've heard of other cases & they're troubling, it happens more often than we are led to believe.
-
This is something that I have heard, Robbie. Unfortunately, I do not have any references, but I have come across several stories about people who come to resent or reject their reassigned gender identities.
-
What is stopping her playing in a men's team?
Maybe men's teams won't let women play for safety reasons? Maybe she might get hurt in a men's game - unless the men do not play as competitively as they would normally play.
It seems strange that there are some activists who arbitrarily decided to prioritise the feelings and safety of transgender people over the feelings and safety of women - how did they calculate which should have higher priority?
It's a bit like the narrow focus of some corporations that decide that while accidents and deaths of others are "regrettable" a few accidents and deaths cost them less in the long run than spending time on researching and coming up with an alternative solution.
-
Maybe men's teams won't let women play for safety reasons? Maybe she might get hurt in a men's game - unless the men do not play as competitively as they would normally play.
It seems strange that there are some activists who arbitrarily decided to prioritise the feelings and safety of transgender people over the feelings and safety of women - how did they calculate which should have higher priority?
It's a bit like the narrow focus of some corporations that decide that while accidents and deaths of others are "regrettable" a few accidents and deaths cost them less in the long run than spending time on researching and coming up with an alternative solution.
Well, she or he or they, played as a male prior to transition so that must have been safe enough. Maybe they think male rugby players will feel obliged to give way to a 6ft female?
-
JK Rowling and the 'debate'
https://genderheretics.substack.com/p/jk-rowling-does-not-have-time-for?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR1VDWkK-dKn5ZBla2w8vK8H-laNnC1ClMuuCBxJsrdQSZNIAmWLZCH5vbg
-
There is a big difference between love and hate.
Just as the fact is that there is only two sexes. The genders are male and female. Because someone transgenders does not mean they are a different sex.
They have simply gone from male to female or vice versa. It is not necessary to know if someone has transgendered. They do not need rights. They just need to be allowed to live as
the sex they now are. Whatever a persons view they have a right to that view as long as it is nothing which harms people physically. Employers do not have to tell others whom they have employed and the only people who need to know are medical because of the drugs they take in connection with their transformation.
-
Just a point of clarification, Sassy.
Sex and gender are not the same thing. You are correct when you say that there are two sexes - male and female, but gender is an expressive, culturally-determined continuum that goes between masculinity and femininity.
A transgendered person has not "gone from male to female or vice versa" - that is physiologically and anatomically impossible. They may have had surgical and pharmacological treatments what make them appear to be members of the sex they were not born into. The real changes they have undergone are behavioural and attitudinal.
-
Just a point of clarification, Sassy.
Sex and gender are not the same thing. You are correct when you say that there are two sexes - male and female, but gender is an expressive, culturally-determined continuum that goes between masculinity and femininity.
A transgendered person has not "gone from male to female or vice versa" - that is physiologically and anatomically impossible. They may have had surgical and pharmacological treatments what make them appear to be members of the sex they were not born into. The real changes they have undergone are behavioural and attitudinal.
Gender is regressive
-
Good piece
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-and-the-road-to-terfdom/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Good piece
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-and-the-road-to-terfdom/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Interesting points.
To me at it strikes a chord on at least one issue. Time for Twitter to go. Unpopular opinion perhaps? I don't care.
It's ability to turn any debate into a binary situation is fucking annoying. It's lack of accountability, in that you can say anything without it being subject to the ordinary standards of Journalism (not even talking honesty here just the standards of journalism) is dangerous.
I know the same can be said for other social media platforms, but Twitter is just a shit show. It gives credence to the crass and bolsters the bigoted. I wish it did not exist.
-
Interesting points.
To me at it strikes a chord on at least one issue. Time for Twitter to go. Unpopular opinion perhaps? I don't care.
It's ability to turn any debate into a binary situation is fucking annoying. It's lack of accountability, in that you can say anything without it being subject to ordinary the standards of Journalism (not even talking honesty here just the standards of journalism) is dangerous.
I know the same can be said for other social media platforms, but Twitter is just a shit show. It gives credence to the crass and bolsters the bigoted. I wish it did not exist.
The effect of Twitter on this type of debate is one I have raised before. You can feel the pull to the extreme because you see so much of the other extreme. It has been clear on Brexit, Scottish independence, Covid 19, and this debate - but it also applies to any subject under the sun no matter how inconsequential.
In addition, even within sides, the pull to extreme views happens because of the problems of small differences which leads to the purity spiral - I've posted this article before but it's a good piece -
https://unherd.com/2020/01/cast-out-how-knitting-fell-into-a-purity-spiral/
I am always careful of the idea of golden ages, and have seen this before many times without social media. I don't think that yoi can put Twitter back in Pandora's Box, and there are always instances of many small and big kindnesses, even on Twitter that give hope. That said, the proposed hate crime reform in Scotland may cause some problems, though as this article covers it may well have been Rowling who would be caught by it
https://wingsoverscotland.com/jail-time-for-joanne/
As with a lot of such reforms, I fear badly drafted legislation will lead to many unintended consequences that will make matters much worse.
-
As outlined that sounds like an unworkable piece of legislation.
I know there was no golden age. But we are descending into chaos. Only today I've had to factcheck 2 photographs that appeared on my timeline on fB because my mind went " that's not right". My instinct was correct and my cousin (in this case) had been totally taken in and believed what he saw. How much worse is this going to get with "deepfake". Fucking depressed, my friend.
Anyway I've digressed enough from the thread and have nothing useful to add other than my usual plea for people to talk to each other in a reasonable fashion. I know, fuck all chance of that in this debate.
-
JK Rowling
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
-
Good piece
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/jk-rowling-and-the-road-to-terfdom/amp?__twitter_impression=true
One of the tweets in response to JK Rowling's latest tweet about menstruating people is that "'I disagree with her opinion that cis-women are the most vulnerable minority in this situation and I think she's on the wrong side of this debate." At least the person acknowledged that Twitter was the wrong forum for these discussions to take place.
It's very odd when it all become a competition about who gets raped more, who gets attacked more, who feels more traumatised and suicidal after an assault, whose life gets ruined more? After centuries, just as women finally start to feel like things are moving in the right direction to give them more protection, they get thrown under the bus because men who merely self-identify as women are suddenly more deserving of protection.
Who has the right to make the calculation that cis women's vulnerability is less important? It's not exactly surprising if there are many people fighting back against the notion that a certain number of vulnerable women being sexually assaulted by men who have gained access to them by pretending to be women is a price worth paying to protect the identity, and dignity of a minority of vulnerable trans women. That the trans lobby want to ignore this moral issue and want to silence the voices of those who bring it up rather than work towards discussions and solutions that protect cis women from being raped seems highly misogynistic to me.
It's amazing how easy some people seem to find it to make these calculations about how much trauma different groups of people should be put through. End of discussion - all those who don't agree with the dogma should be cast out of society immediately. Apparently people who accept their biological identity are less deserving of protection because....sexual assault for cis women is less traumatic than the trauma of people who feel mentally unstable because their biology is different from their current, self-proclaimed, arbitrary identity based on a feeling (which based on evidence may change a few years later as the mood takes them).
It's similar to the issue of complainants being automatically believed when they allege sexual assault or rape against a man - and his trauma in being arrested, and publicly shamed, potentially losing his job, his home and his family's trauma over a false allegation is considered less important. Not surprisingly that's an on-going discussion too because many people think it damages society to be so dismissive of someone else's very real trauma.
-
JK Rowling
https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/
Glad she as written that - it must have been hard for her. I forgot that she was a survivor of sexual / domestic violence at the hands of a man. Glad she put that out there to try to counteract the "privileged white female" narrative that passes for discussion on Twitter. Though fully expecting some people on Twitter to still try to dismiss the lived experiences and trauma of survivors of sexual violence, if they are white women and not transgender.
Who are the people physically attacking trans people - I assume it is men and not women who are the perpetrators, so why is the response to put women at risk and threaten women with violence? Because women are perceived by the trans extremists as weaker and easier to control?
-
Glad she as written that - it must have been hard for her. I forgot that she was a survivor of sexual / domestic violence at the hands of a man. Glad she put that out there to try to counteract the "privileged white female" narrative that passes for discussion on Twitter. Though fully expecting some people on Twitter to still try to dismiss the lived experiences and trauma of survivors of sexual violence, if they are white women and not transgender.
Who are the people physically attacking trans people - I assume it is men and not women who are the perpetrators, so why is the response to put women at risk and threaten women with violence? Because women are perceived by the trans extremists as weaker and easier to control?
It's always men, and then of course there are transwomen attacking women. It doesn't mean all transwomen ars predators any more than all men are.
-
And some of the reactions to JK Rowling's tweets. Note not suitable for work, or indeed anywhere.
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d
-
Good piece
https://medium.com/@helensaxby1/jk-rowling-and-the-reality-of-sex-9acbc6310234?fbclid=IwAR1bBoSxWU1lWeEFSmDUblARGcRZxDuqSXNF40X_W4LWhEYIzjzRvwQhxUY
-
And some of the reactions to JK Rowling's tweets. Note not suitable for work, or indeed anywhere.
https://medium.com/@rebeccarc/j-k-rowling-and-the-trans-activists-a-story-in-screenshots-78e01dca68d
Well, that was disturbing.
Support for Rowling:
But singer Alison Moyet added: "Regardless how I feel about anything, I always hated a pile on since schooldays. Even against those that've been hateful to me. As it happens JK Rowling is not hateful.
"I see a woman convicted and hung and wonder where the same venom is for the men that do actual harm to all womankind."
That last sentence is key to me.
-
Well, that was disturbing.
Support for Rowling:
But singer Alison Moyet added: "Regardless how I feel about anything, I always hated a pile on since schooldays. Even against those that've been hateful to me. As it happens JK Rowling is not hateful.
"I see a woman convicted and hung and wonder where the same venom is for the men that do actual harm to all womankind."
That last sentence is key to me.
Yep, Alison Moyet is good on this - towards the end of last year she dropped off twitter for a while because of the abuse she was receiving. And it always seems to be women who receive the worst abuse on this.
-
Good piece
https://medium.com/@helensaxby1/jk-rowling-and-the-reality-of-sex-9acbc6310234?fbclid=IwAR1bBoSxWU1lWeEFSmDUblARGcRZxDuqSXNF40X_W4LWhEYIzjzRvwQhxUY
Very valid points. It makes no sense to point to the minority of people with biological sex development characteristics that do not correspond to their chromosomal makeup in this debate when the debate is about trans people whose biological sex development does correspond to their chromosomal makeup.
And it makes no sense to require people to be courteous enough to not mention biological sex and biological sexual characteristics when discussing trans people. The key point is that people want to have a discussion about their concerns about letting biological males into spaces that are for biological females - whether that is sports, single sex changing rooms, shelters etc. That discussion requires pointing out that trans women have biological male characteristics that differentiate them from biological females and that is a reasonable basis for exclusion. There is a time and a place for being inclusive and it is misogynistic to demand that females who feel harmed by the presence of a biological male in their safe spaces are required to be inclusive. Especially given all the rape and sexual assault threats from the trans extremists with a penis towards females who question the trans dogma.
-
Interesting points.
To me at it strikes a chord on at least one issue. Time for Twitter to go. Unpopular opinion perhaps? I don't care.
Not unpopular with me. Twitter is a disaster for human communication.
It's ability to turn any debate into a binary situation is fucking annoying. It's lack of accountability, in that you can say anything without it being subject to the ordinary standards of Journalism (not even talking honesty here just the standards of journalism) is dangerous.
I know the same can be said for other social media platforms, but Twitter is just a shit show. It gives credence to the crass and bolsters the bigoted. I wish it did not exist.
Twitter amplifies the people who shout the loudest. Most people who read JK Rowing's comments will not have replied at all. Many of the people who did comment will be on her side. Many people who agree with her won't comment on Twitter because they know the shit show that will descend on them. The media will pick up on the tweets that vilify her because that's what makes the story.
-
And of course
http://www.takepart.com/article/2014/09/08/highest-paid-female-ceo-transgender/
-
Good piece
https://medium.com/@aeso/istandwithjkr-is-metoo2-0-8827bae0c390
-
And another
https://spectator.us/speak-jk-rowling-trans-issues/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Not unpopular with me. Twitter is a disaster for human communication.Twitter amplifies the people who shout the loudest. Most people who read JK Rowing's comments will not have replied at all. Many of the people who did comment will be on her side. Many people who agree with her won't comment on Twitter because they know the shit show that will descend on them. The media will pick up on the tweets that vilify her because that's what makes the story.
People have been banned from Twitter for saying men are not women, so I assume those who support JK Rowling will be having their conversations elsewhere. I have never used Twitter or Instagram etc but I sent JK Rowling an email of support after I read her recent essay.
-
Not unpopular with me. Twitter is a disaster for human communication.Twitter amplifies the people who shout the loudest. Most people who read JK Rowing's comments will not have replied at all. Many of the people who did comment will be on her side. Many people who agree with her won't comment on Twitter because they know the shit show that will descend on them. The media will pick up on the tweets that vilify her because that's what makes the story.
No, the main thing that makes this story is Rowling. I have seen women on twitter receive this sort of abuse continually for years for saying woman is an adult human female. That didn't appear on the news, it didn't mean the Sun would do an execrable front page giving voice to a domestic abuser. Rowling has been brave here.
-
People have been banned from Twitter for saying men are not women, so I assume those who support JK Rowling will be having their conversations elsewhere. I have never used Twitter or Instagram etc but I sent JK Rowling an email of support after I read her recent essay.
There are a lot of people supporting Rowling on Twitter but many people have been banned as you note. What has been sickening is those who encouraged not listening to Rowling about her domestic abuse then complaining about The Sun's shocking front page. Hypocrisy writ in 28 font.
-
Excellent piece on the issue of 'intersex'
https://differently-normal.com/2020/06/10/example-post-3/amp/
-
Leaked paper - apparently plans to reform Gender Recognition Act allowing legal change of gender without medical diagnosis is on hold/ abandoned by the current government.
"At the same time, the government was said to be preparing to set out new safeguards to protect female-only spaces – including refuges and public lavatories – to stop them being used by those with male anatomy."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-transgender-rights-reforms-theresa-may-diagnosis-a9565001.html
-
I heard a brief discussion about it on the Andrew Marr programme. And possibly to stop the practice (presumably by medical practioners) of certifying "females" without an appropriate clinical investigation.
-
Looks like the trans phobes have won.
-
Looks like the trans phobes have won.
You still just doing the lazy ad hominem stuff?
-
I have to admit, the combination of anti-trans feminists and the right wing, is very powerful.
-
I have to admit, the combination of anti-trans feminists and the right wing, is very powerful.
Do you actually want to have a discussion?
-
Do you actually want to have a discussion?
Too depressed now. Anyway, tons of non-binary friends freaking out, they need support.
-
Too depressed now. Anyway, tons of non-binary friends freaking out, they need support.
Yeah, and a wee bit of name calling will give them so much support.
-
Yeah, and a wee bit of name calling will give them so much support.
Well, you must be pleased.
-
Well, you must be pleased.
This says it better than me about how I feel
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1272121959489449990.html?fbclid=IwAR0tk80ILiL0nMj0mNu0ln1yBKf8peUpi0U4PgM-WZWTEOkNmt7QgcG0HWg
-
Non-binary people are fucking naive. They could see that right wing regimes are cracking down on gender diversity, e.g., Hungary, Poland, US, but believed somehow that the UK was exempt. Not so.
-
Non-binary people are fucking naive. They could see that right wing regimes are cracking down on gender diversity, e.g., Hungary, Poland, US, but believed somehow that the UK was exempt. Not so.
And of course you are then 'arguing' that women who speak up for their sex based rights, that you want to give away, are just right wing or dupes of the right wing
https://medium.com/@radicalgirlsss/radical-girlsss-statement-in-support-of-jk-rowling-f5e5a5ac9922?fbclid=IwAR0NSDTJqYfIvtbzi8TufjRit165C64KBskMGPkIBVFWm6U7178dMlqCGVY
-
Looks like the trans phobes have won.
If women had the confidence that statistically they faced the same risk of harm from biological women as from biological men that would probably help your argument. If after 10 years, the Ireland experiment is working out fine for biological women, then you might have more of the evidence you need to support your argument that there is not a higher statistical risk of harm by allowing anyone to access single sex spaces or by allowing anyone to access single sex services by a process of self-declaration.
https://www.scottishlegal.com/article/gender-recognition-reform-taking-place-under-the-radar-across-europe
Also, if you could demonstrate that biological men were able to discuss rather than talk over women, call people names or threaten violence, we would also not need single sex spaces for women to protect them from biological men.
All the trans extremists threatening women who disagree with them and telling them to suck their trans dick really does not inspire confidence in letting biological men enter women's single sex spaces. How would we tell the difference between the tolerant, vulnerable, non-violent trans woman who gives us permission to have a voice while sharing our space versus the aggressive misogynists trans women who tell us to "shut the fuck up"?
I assume your trans friends will no be arguing that women are as aggressive as men, as that detracts from your argument that trans women need protecting from biological men? What is about some men and their obsession with their dicks?
-
Gabriella, not sure what you are arguing about. If Boris supports a bathroom bill, trans women will disappear. Some people are saying it's a classic Murdoch stitch-up, don't know. (Sunday Times story).
-
Gabriella, not sure what you are arguing about. If Boris supports a bathroom bill, trans women will disappear. Some people are saying it's a classic Murdoch stitch-up, don't know. (Sunday Times story).
Just erasing men's violence against women. Telling the little woman not to be concerned, and using a bit of guilt by association so to be consistent you are then supporting those people who told Rowling, a survivor of domestic violence, to suck on their 'female' dick.
-
Very goodNS, and Gabriella. Not before time. Hats off to JKR.
-
Gabriella, not sure what you are arguing about. If Boris supports a bathroom bill, trans women will disappear. Some people are saying it's a classic Murdoch stitch-up, don't know. (Sunday Times story).
I assume I am not supposed to read that literally - trans women won't disappear. I don't buy into the argument that this focus on being "seen" trumps safety issues though. Can we focus on the actual harm before we get onto the "what ifs"?
I find it very strange that you are so dismissive of harm to women that you would ignore all the points I raised in my post about trans extremists threatening women with literal violence. It would be like me ignoring Muslim extremists and never commenting on how they contribute to the problems. Either threats of violence are harmful or they are not. If threats of violence are not harmful then what is the problem if trans women face threats of violence from people?
-
If people were not allowed to change sex, that would solve the problem.
-
If people were not allowed to change sex, that would solve the problem.
It's a bit more complex than you seem to think sex and gender are not the same. There is a confusion in the law.
-
I agree with you NS. Wigginhall I don't understand your point of view nor why you object to a proposed 'bathroom' bill. It's not unreasonable for women to want to female only places when they are doing personal things. That doesn't make them transphobic.
Spud I just saw your post before posting this. Nobody can change theirsex but they can change some aspects of their body and their appearance and live as the opposite gender. I've no objection to that, I wouldn't wish unhappiness on anyone and there's no doubt many have had miserable lives forced to live in a persona with which they are unhappy. However a man can never be a woman or vice versa. I don't want to be in a communal changing room at the swimming baths with a transwoman who has a willy and doubt many would. Another but more extreme example is a transwoman in a womens prison, a place where there is little safety or privacy anyway.
-
It's a bit more complex than you seem to think sex and gender are not the same. There is a confusion in the law.
It is complex when someone has parts characteristic of each sex, definitely. Which do they live as, and do they want to remove some bits and not others? The less tampering with the body, the better.
-
It is complex when someone has parts characteristic of each sex, definitely. Which do they live as, and do they want to remove some bits and not others? The less tampering with the body, the better.
Sorry, that's just more ignorance about what is being talked about, and a non sequitur.
Try reading this about the idea of 'intersex' and considering why you are way off beam
https://differently-normal.com/2020/06/10/example-post-3/amp/
-
So much this
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2017/07/26/white-feminism-thing-gender-identity-ideology-epitomizes/
-
And also this
https://t.co/VqD1Z80jt7?amp=1
-
Try reading this about the idea of 'intersex' and considering why you are way off beam
Thanks for the link, I've read about this condition before. The reason I joined the conversation was because I'm sometimes served by a person at the chemist, where I do a regular pick-up for a family member, and I have no idea whether it's a he or a she. It would be quite good to know because then I would know how to talk, but I get the feeling he/she wants to be a mixture, and not treated as one or the other, which is confusing. Maybe I'll get the opportunity to ask someone about it.
-
Thanks for the link, I've read about this condition before. The reason I joined the conversation was because I'm sometimes served by a person at the chemist, where I do a regular pick-up for a family member, and I have no idea whether it's a he or a she. It would be quite good to know because then I would know how to talk, but I get the feeling he/she wants to be a mixture, and not treated as one or the other, which is confusing. Maybe I'll get the opportunity to ask someone about it.
Just talk to them as a person. Don't impose your sexist nonsense.
And you managed to miss that there are multiple differential sexual developments which the article makes clear so perhaps you need to read more carefully
-
Spud I saw a documentary about intersex which you might find informative. You'll see it has nothing to do with trans. There are two parts to the doc.
https://www.my5.tv/secret-intersex
Mermaids written an open letter to J K Rowling.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/mermaids-writes-open-letter-to-jk-rowling-following-her-recent-comments-on-trans-people/ar-BB15t1iQ?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=mailsignout
This has annoyed me - that very young child may well change her/his mind in a couple of years. Many say they'd rather be a boy when they're small, why can't the adults around them just be casual instead of making a big deal about it? "Very nice dear, would you like a sandwich?".
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jun/15/trans-transgender-children-gender-family-project
-
Hi Robbie
Thanks for your msn link to Mermaid's response to JK Rowling. I have linked to the Mermaid's website as well for the full letter:
https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/dear-jk-rowling/
It's interesting how Mermaids and other trans lobbyists try to convey the idea to the less well-informed public that the Equality Act 2010's protection from discrimination for people who are changing gender allows trans women access to single-sex spaces. This allows them to try to claim that people are being discriminatory when they are not in order to create a toxic climate of phobia accusations. Mermaids say in their open letter to JK Rowling that “Trans women are already entitled to use the facilities that align with their gender identity, and those protections have been in place since the Equality Act 2010,”
However, the Equality Act 2010 and accompanying explanatory notes makes clear that sex is a protected characteristic and that sex is separate from gender reassignment and that it is lawful to prevent trans women from accessing women-only spaces if it can be justified.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/notes/division/3/16/20/7
One of the many examples provided in the legislation is:
Gender reassignment: paragraph 28
Effect
739.This paragraph contains an exception to the general prohibition of gender reassignment discrimination in relation to the provision of separate- and single-sex services. Such treatment by a provider has to be objectively justified.
Background
740.This paragraph replaces a similar provision in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Example
A group counselling session is provided for female victims of sexual assault. The organisers do not allow transsexual people to attend as they judge that the clients who attend the group session are unlikely to do so if a male-to-female transsexual person was also there. This would be lawful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think Mermaids would be better off addressing the actual concerns expressed by women. These concerns are not usually about trans women sexually preying on girls or women but one concern was about male predators stating they are trans women in order to gain access to women-only spaces.
The other concerns I have read about - and many examples of this happening in real life are on this thread - were about erasing women's voices and experiences of being women by allowing trans women into single sex spaces and allowing trans women to define what women are and are not allowed to talk about in those spaces, with threats of social ostracism, emotional, financial and physical harm if women did not comply. Women, whose experiences are based on their biology, want to be able to have access to services that take into account their biology, without those spaces being invaded by biological men trying to tell them what being a woman should or should not mean.
Regardless of the complications in biology of whether you have a SRY or RSPO1 genes https://www.nature.com/news/2006/061009/full/061009-14.html that may cause XX chromosomal people to have external male genitalia or XY chromosomal people to have external female genitalia (with associated health complications eg. usually infertility or skin-thickening issues) the issue is the lived experiences of biology and associated social and cultural effects for the majority of girls and fertile women (which trans women have not experienced) e.g. being socialised from a young age to please others at the expense of themselves in order to have value which is not something little boys face to the same extent, being sexualised and objectified from a young age, being labelled negatively if you are too assertive or competitive while boys are praised for displaying assertiveness, puberty, privacy needs, menstruation issues, physical inferiority in comparison to men (such as height, weight, strength, stamina), worrying about the risk of sexual assault that affect freedom of movement and study and work choices, worrying about the loss in economic and social value and the physical, financial and social risks of pregnancy and childbirth from a young age for a significant portion of your life, body shape changes, changing vaginal secretions, hair removal etc
These experiences due to biology often result in women having negative outcomes in many areas, and a requirement for single sex services to try to redress the balance to lead to a fairer outcome.
-
Thanks Gabriella. You're wasted, you could write some good articles for publication in the media, everything clear and balanced.
-
No, the main thing that makes this story is Rowling. I have seen women on twitter receive this sort of abuse continually for years for saying woman is an adult human female. That didn't appear on the news, it didn't mean the Sun would do an execrable front page giving voice to a domestic abuser. Rowling has been brave here.
JK Rowling probably received many tweets of support over her comments. But we don't hear about them in the news because they're boring and don't make a good story. If she had received nothing but support, the Tweet would have disappeared without trace and none of us would know about it unless we were following her.
-
Thanks Robbie :)
Some info on the Girl Guides case, where 2 leaders were expelled for questioning the new transgender policy introduced by the Girl Guides
https://medium.com/helen-watts/inspired-by-the-guides-a-response-to-the-friend-a20cfb8b1011
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/expelled-from-girlguiding/
-
JK Rowling probably received many tweets of support over her comments. But we don't hear about them in the news because they're boring and don't make a good story. If she had received nothing but support, the Tweet would have disappeared without trace and none of us would know about it unless we were following her.
Again women including some reasonably prominent women such as Suzanne Moore having been receiving this sort of abuse for a number of years now. And it's not just been on Twitter with a physical attacks on Maria McLachlan and Julie Bindel. The hypothetical of there just being supportive comments is therefore irrelevant, and the difference between the attention that this got, and the attention paid to the similar abuse received by others over the years is Rowling's prominence.
-
What is interesting in the idea that trans women are women and trans men are men is the intersection with sexual orientation.
If you are a man attracted to people of the same sex, and you find out that the person you are being sexual intimate with is a trans man, would you being transphobic if you were no longer attracted to that person because you thought trans men are not really men, or would you only be transphobic if you felt disgusted at the idea of having engaged in foreplay with a woman who identified as a man? Is sexual attraction superficial so you are attracted only to a person's appearance and if they look like a man, then that should be sufficient and sex toys can make up for any lack of the relevant anatomy or a lack of relevant anatomy in good working order?
I thought I would frame the question in terms of a man, because it is well-documented that some trans activists have argued that lesbians who do not want to be in a sexual relationship with a trans woman are being transphobic. I thought there might be a different perspective if it was framed in terms of men.
UK law requires people to disclose their gender history before sexual relations with others so that the other person has given informed consent to the sexual encounter, but this appears to not be the case in the US, where the trans person's right to privacy trumps the requirement to disclose for informed consent purposes. Not sure if this is in every US state.
-
There is some pressure out there for gay men to accept transmen but it seems lesser because many of the FtM trans seem in terms of sexuality to be lesbian, also because of the imbalance between men and women in terms of size, on average they would be less able to be threatening. Also there seems to be evidence that MtF trans maintain an offending rate closer to men.
-
It was so much easier when sex was the same as gender .. now the further confounding with sexuality is ridiculous!
-
I was thinking more about whether you can be considered phobic for not being sexually interested once you know the biological sex of the person - if it is being argued that it's all in your head it seems to take away the idea of a biological attraction.
Once you start thinking about this you end up contemplating living in a society where objective evidence or non-trans people's perception become unimportant in certain situations. It seems to being argued by some people who want to stop criminalising sexual fraud regarding gender that if you as a heterosexual claim that you would not have wanted to have sexual relations with someone if you had known they were the same biological sex as you, you are being homophobic and this homophobia should not be upheld by the courts criminalising a trans woman who did not reveal her biological sex to you prior to sexual relations. I assume this works the same way for a homosexual man who objected to having sex with a trans man - they are being heterophobic.
Trying to get my head around the basis of sexual attraction that is being argued for. Is it being argued that you can think yourself into being attracted to someone regardless of their biological sex because attraction is based on outward appearance or is it being argued that biology is irrelevant and you should be attracted to the spirit of the person rather than the body that spirit is encased in? What happens if you don't believe in spirits and only believe in the biological evidence? Or is it being argued that you should be attracted to the abstract identity of the person - whoever they think they are is the reality and not what can be objectively determined, in which case are they arguing that there are no biological sexes?
I might be wrong about the US right to privacy regarding transgender history. There is a legal website that claims that you do not need to disclose gender history to someone before marriage but I can't find any case law on it.
https://www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/trans-marriage-law-faq
A person’s transgender status is deeply personal and private, and it is constitutionally protected. In the U.S., there is no legal duty to disclose to a partner even if you are getting married. It is ultimately up to each transgender person to decide whether to tell your partner that you are transgender. This may not be true in other countries, such as England, where the 2004 Gender Recognition Act requires people to disclose their transgender status or risk having their marriages annulled.
-
Anyway this is good news
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53055632
-
https://wildwomanwritingclub.wordpress.com/2020/06/10/what-it-costs-women_speak-out/
-
Given how hard it was for women to fight the patriarchy to gain the vote around 100 years ago or how hard it was for women to gain control of their reproductive rights, it seems very unrealistic for certain parts of the trans lobby to believe that they can silence women today from standing up for their right to discuss their lived biological experiences, which are very different from those of trans women.
I think that the most likely outcome of this lack of acceptance of women's experiences will be that trans women will feel less and less acceptance from women. Each side's reaction will provide the impetus for the next round of mutual rejection. This could lead to increased mental health issues.
-
Womanhood is eyeliner
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-eyeliner-defines-my-womanhood-54595?fbclid=IwAR086mfR5uzoKLw1fEuXK72HJ_-2OqC7FjYGiMzQ5GDiRCHSvTfHBH_ZFaw
-
I have not posted on this thread because I worked with Trans in the strip-joints of Sydney, Australia's Kings Cross when I lived there '69-'75.
I never met, at that time, any female-to-male Trans but male-to-female were quite common, in fact, Les Girls club had no natal women strippers at all.
In that 6 year period, there was, to my knowledge, no antagonism between female and Trans strippers, they all used the same dressing rooms without problems.
Times change as do perspectives.
Now I would say that any Trans who still has male genitals has no right to expect to be accepted as a "Woman" - after surgery unless the 'woman' tells everyone they are Trans who is to know?
-
This
https://4w.pub/i-disclosed-my-abuse/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Odd that they were happy with Tyson Fury being represented
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/22/authors-quit-jk-rowling-agency-over-transgender-rights
-
Womanhood is eyeliner
https://www.bustle.com/p/how-eyeliner-defines-my-womanhood-54595?fbclid=IwAR086mfR5uzoKLw1fEuXK72HJ_-2OqC7FjYGiMzQ5GDiRCHSvTfHBH_ZFaw
Well it’s clearly not being clean shaven.
-
Graham Linehan suspended permanently from Twitter.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/tv-radio-web/twitter-closes-graham-linehan-account-after-trans-comment-1.4290547?mode=amp#.XvdOKejxdRs.twitter
-
Long but very interesting article
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/an-expert-and-an-activist-my-journey-to-gender-critical-banned-from-medium/
-
That is one excellent article NS & I will return to it.
-
Thank you for posting this, NS. I found it moved me greatly … but also made me very angry.
-
Hmm...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8490821/Best-selling-childrens-author-sacked-posting-hashtag-stand-JK-Rowling-Twitter.html
-
I am not clear if the publishers are saying she used the Erin Hunter Twitter account rather than her own Gillian Phillip Twitter account to support JK Rowling.
-
I am not clear if the publishers are saying she used the Erin Hunter Twitter account rather than her own Gillian Phillip Twitter account to support JK Rowling.
it was her twitter handle.
-
Good clear article from Maya Forstater about some misconceptions about her case.
https://medium.com/@MForstater/five-myths-and-truths-about-my-case-8466d69f9489?source=friends_link&sk=21c599e848f4918b8e8a2f3ba8e88133
-
Long sad piece from Beatrix Campbell on why she is leaving the Green Party.
http://www.beatrixcampbell.co.uk/bad-dreams-greens-and-gender/
-
And on the attack on the idea of lesbianism as same sex attraction
https://lesbian-rights-nz.org/shame-receipts/
-
And on the attack on the idea of lesbianism as same sex attraction
https://lesbian-rights-nz.org/shame-receipts/
Fucking hell. I've tried to read all of that and I just can't.
Does this mean I've got to have sex with a woman because it doesn't matter that she hasn't got a dick? Or have I got to have sex with FTM trans post op because she has got a dick? Or with a MTF pre-op trans because they've still got a dick. Answers on a postcard please.
Life was much less complicated in the 70's.
You had straights, puffs, dykes and some friendly but strange men who dressed as women. What there wasn't between these groups (leaving out the straights, because that was a whole other level of nastiness) was this level of hostility.
-
Fucking hell. I've tried to read all of that and I just can't.
Does this mean I've got to have sex with a woman because it doesn't matter that she hasn't got a dick? Or have I got to have sex with FTM trans post op because she has got a dick? Or with a MTF pre-op trans because they've still got a dick. Answers on a postcard please.
Life was much less complicated in the 70's.
You had straights, puffs, dykes and some strange men who dressed as women. What there wasn't between these groups (leaving out the straights, because that was a whole other level of nastiness) was this level of hostility.
This is Merriam-Webster dictionary now
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homosexual
Much of this is because a strand of TRA sees same SEX attraction as wrong. It's been much more obvious about lesbianism because men are much more aggressive.
-
On reading further I find out that because I identify as a "same sex attracted" gay (is there any other type?) I am automatically a TERF.
I am pleased to have achieved this accolade, although I think the person who thinks I am this perhaps ought to check the definition of "exclusionary". And also, although I'm all for equal rights for women I don't think I really deserve the appellation "radical feminist".
After giving this some consideration, I don't think I deserve this high praise.
-
I don't just believe in equal rights for women. I believe in women's sex based rights which are exclusionary as part of the redress of how society works.
But that doesn't make me a feminist - because I am a man. I can only be an ally. Oddly lots of men willing to declare themself as feminists want to say that any man who says he's a woman can access women's spaces.
-
Good piece
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/why-feminists-me-stand-jk-rowling-trans-rights-row-susan-dalgety-2910085
-
You had straights, puffs, dykes and some friendly but strange men who dressed as women. What there wasn't between these groups (leaving out the straights, because that was a whole other level of nastiness) was this level of hostility.
Nothing has changed. The trans women who are focusing all this nastiness on lesbians are biologically the same as the straight men who subjected you to the "whole other level of nastiness" you experienced in the 70's.
What's quite interesting is that straight men don't seem to be subject to this kind of hate from trans women who are attracted to men and I doubt if you are subjected to the same kind of hate from trans men who are attracted to men. The problem seems to be entirely with trans women who are attracted to women i.e. heterosexual biological males.
-
Nothing has changed. The trans women who are focusing all this nastiness on lesbians are biologically the same as the straight men who subjected you to the "whole other level of nastiness" you experienced in the 70's.
What's quite interesting is that straight men don't seem to be subject to this kind of hate from trans women who are attracted to men and I doubt if you are subjected to the same kind of hate from trans men who are attracted to men. The problem seems to be entirely with trans women who are attracted to women i.e. heterosexual biological males.
Yes. That sounds about right to me.
-
This is a 'gender' test. It shows just how strongly the idea of gender is based on regressive patriarchal stereotypes. Dangerous nonsense to be touting this to and about young children as the 'charity' Mermaids does.
Utter unmitigated pish.
My wife scored 100% masculine, 8% feminine so would be wheeched off to the 'gender' clinic tomorrow.
Whereas I am 38% masculine, and 29% feminine so am undifferentiated androgynous.
Fact is though she is a woman, and I am a man because those are facts. I am more likely to suffer badly were I to catch covid and my undifferentiated androgynousness will have fuck all to do with that.
https://www.idrlabs.com/gender/test.php
-
I got 25% masculine & 56% feminine.
I am casually feminine. Whatever the fuck that is. I did say that I didn't avoid cursing on the test ;)
-
I got 25% masculine & 56% feminine.
I am casually feminine. Whatever the fuck that is. I did say that I didn't avoid cursing on the test ;)
You casual, you.
-
I too am casually feminine - 33% masculine, 47% feminine.
I suspect that the instrument has been validated in the USA and makes few (if any) allowances for behaviour, values and attitudes in other cultures.
Supplementary information: From Wikipedia
The Bem Sex-Role Inventory was created by Sandra Bem in an effort to measure androgyny. It was published in 1974. Stereotypical masculine and feminine traits were found by surveying 100 Stanford undergraduate students on which traits they found to be socially desirable for each sex. The original list of 200 traits was narrowed down to the 40 masculine and feminine traits that appear on the present test. Normative data was found from a 1973 sample for 444 males and 279 females and a 1978 sample of 340 females and 476 males all also from Stanford University undergraduates.
-
I too am casually feminine - 33% masculine, 47% feminine.
I suspect that the instrument has been validated in the USA and makes few (if any) allowances for behaviour, values and attitudes in other cultures.
Supplementary information: From Wikipedia
Which just goes to show what a lot of dangerous stereotypical specific bollocks it is.
-
This is a 'gender' test. It shows just how strongly the idea of gender is based on regressive patriarchal stereotypes. Dangerous nonsense to be touting this to and about young children as the 'charity' Mermaids does.
Utter unmitigated pish.
My wife scored 100% masculine, 8% feminine so would be wheeched off to the 'gender' clinic tomorrow.
Whereas I am 38% masculine, and 29% feminine so am undifferentiated androgynous.
Fact is though she is a woman, and I am a man because those are facts. I am more likely to suffer badly were I to catch covid and my undifferentiated androgynousness will have fuck all to do with that.
https://www.idrlabs.com/gender/test.php
Undifferentiated androgynous 47-36
-
Undifferentiated androgynous 47-36
I t occurs to me that, at least, they can't call me an "old white man" anymore.
Anyway, you can't call me "he" anymore. My preferred pronouns are xi/xog/xam unless you are talking behind my back, in which case "that fucking twat" is probably appropriate.
-
Stella Perrett on being removed from the Morning Star
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/stella-perrett-right-of-reply-morning-star/
-
Makes a lot of sense
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?__twitter_impression=true
-
Idiotic regressive drivel from the Green party
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bKaQRTdcds0
-
Not been following this transsexual malarkey. Sorry, I got diverted a bit by a fucking fat wanker trying to destroy the British economy and parliamentary democracy, climate change and a global pandemic.
Can anybody bring me up to speed on this?
-
Makes a lot of sense
https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jul/19/transwomen-face-potential-womens-rugby-ban-over-safety-concerns?__twitter_impression=true
The only thing that surprises me about that is that trans women are not already banned from women's rugby. Also, it's not just about tackling. The scrum is a very dangerous place if one or two of the players are significantly stronger and heavier than the others.
-
Idiotic regressive drivel from the Green party
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bKaQRTdcds0
"Unity in diversity". That's a good one.
Only the last speaker even attempted to answer the question and her answer was incredibly problematic. "Being a woman is an attitude". I would be interested to know which attitude it is she thinks all women share.
-
https://www.patreon.com/posts/emperors-new-as-19166406?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=postshare&fbclid=IwAR2Ria4P0FeizOVjZcRnJVfft8HI3yK-tqLfc7HaqSi83_iLAkzirWFBAdI
-
https://www.patreon.com/posts/emperors-new-as-19166406?utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=postshare&fbclid=IwAR2Ria4P0FeizOVjZcRnJVfft8HI3yK-tqLfc7HaqSi83_iLAkzirWFBAdI
Thanks for that article NS.
One of the clearest explanations I have seen covering this issue so far.
The Suppository of Human Wisdom could do worse than to start here to bring himself up to speed.
-
The Suppository of Human Wisdom could do worse than to start here to bring himself up to speed.
Calling himself a Suppository goes to show just how far up himself he really is.
-
Calling himself a Suppository goes to show just how far up himself he really is.
To be fair on this thread he's asked about what he should read. Trent's post suggests something he should read.
-
To be fair on this thread he's asked about what he should read. Trent's post suggests something he should read.
On his past record, I cannot see him using anything worthwhile that he reads being used to any useful purpose other than material for more bad jokes.
Still I suppose we can but hope.
-
To be fair on this thread he's asked about what he should read. Trent's post suggests something he should read.
For which I'm most grateful to you both Mr S and Mr T.
-
JK Rowling on the medicalisation of gender issues for minors.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1287015013513920512.html
-
Good piece
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/feminism-not-right-wing-and-word-woman-not-discriminatory-susan-dalgety-2929851
-
What is a woman?
http://archive.is/DBcxh
-
Good thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1290241809583505409.html
-
Trans woman "fears losing rugby as a community".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/53667683
I'm sorry for her, but if mixing trans women with women makes the game too dangerous for the women, then it's too bad.
-
https://medium.com/@drtonylycholat/rugby-and-transgender-inclusion-4d16bebde239
-
Hmm....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8632995/amp/Two-police-forces-slammed-refusing-job-applications-candidates-gender-critical-views.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Hmm....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8632995/amp/Two-police-forces-slammed-refusing-job-applications-candidates-gender-critical-views.html?__twitter_impression=true
In that case, I suspect there is another side to the story.
-
In that case, I suspect there is another side to the story.
Evidence?
-
Evidence?
1. It's the Daily Mail
2. Details are sparse.
We don't know the context in which the applicant said that they don't believe a person can change sex. Perhaps they were asked if they would treat trans gender people differently when "on the beat". We don't know.
-
1. It's the Daily Mail
2. Details are sparse.
We don't know the context in which the applicant said that they don't believe a person can change sex. Perhaps they were asked if they would treat trans gender people differently when "on the beat". We don't know.
So no evidence. There is a Telegraph story that covers much of it but it's paywalled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/15/british-police-forces-not-welcoming-gender-critical-job-applications/
-
So no evidence. There is a Telegraph story that covers much of it but it's paywalled.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/08/15/british-police-forces-not-welcoming-gender-critical-job-applications/
I can't read that, but, in the few lines I can read, it talks about "a woman". One person who flunked an interview because she came across as transphobic is not really an indictment of British police forces.
-
I can't read that, but, in the few lines I can read, it talks about "a woman". One person who flunked an interview because she came across as transphobic is not really an indictment of British police forces.
not what it says. Btw the way what is a woman?
-
not what it says.
It is what it says:
A woman was told a role in the police 'would not be suitable for you' after she said people can't change their biological sex
Do you know in what context she said that? Were you present at the interview?
Btw the way what is a woman?
Adult human female. Why do you think her sex or gender is relevant?
-
It is what it says:
Do you know in what context she said that? Were you present at the interview?
Adult human female. Why do you think her sex or gender is relevant?
There wasn't an interview.
I didn't say her sex was relevant. I asked you about what you thought a woman was. Your answer would have meant the 2 police forces would have refused an application from you for being transphobic
-
There wasn't an interview.
Have you seen the application?
I didn't say her sex was relevant. I asked you about what you thought a woman was. Your answer would have meant the 2 police forces would have refused an application from you for being transphobic
Was she asked "what is a woman?". What was the exact wording of the question? What was the context in which it was asked?
-
Have you seen the application?
Was she asked "what is a woman?". What was the exact wording of the question? What was the context in which it was asked?
She wrote to them asking if she would be acceptable - there wasn't an interview. It wasn't an actual application. There was no question. She wrote that 'I must point out that I am gender critical, which means that while I am firmly against abuse and discrimination to trans people, I do not believe you can change your biological sex.'
-
She wrote to them asking if she would be acceptable - there wasn't an interview. It wasn't an actual application. There was no question. She wrote that 'I must point out that I am gender critical, which means that while I am firmly against abuse and discrimination to trans people, I do not believe you can change your biological sex.'
Sounds like somebody with an axe to grind. Why would you put that in a job application letter?
-
Sounds like somebody with an axe to grind. Why would you put that in a job application letter?
It wasn't an application for a specific job, it was a letter asking about their hiring policies. Why is being concerned about being able to state scientific facts 'grinding an axe'?
-
Why is being concerned about being able to state scientific facts 'grinding an axe'?
I've never seen a job application or even an enquiry into applying for a job in which the potential applicant felt it necessary to warn us of their views with respect to certain scientific facts. People just don't do it.
-
I've never seen a job application or even an enquiry into applying for a job in which the potential applicant felt it necessary to warn us of their views with respect to certain scientific facts. People just don't do it.
And yet when someone did they got 2 responses that meant a belief in scientific facts would be a problem. But you are much more concerned about belittling the person to be bothered about that.
-
And yet when someone did they got 2 responses that meant a belief in scientific facts would be a problem. But you are much more concerned about belittling the person to be bothered about that.
They were clearly looking for a fight. So yes, I criticise them.
-
They were clearly looking for a fight. So yes, I criticise them.
Nice to see you standing up for the suppression of facts.
And wanting people standing up for free expression to shut up because they are just 'looking for a fight'
-
Nice to see you standing up for the suppression of facts.
What facts? All we have is two short articles in newspapers, one of which is inaccessible to me.
And wanting people standing up for free expression to shut up because they are just 'looking for a fight'
In a job application
-
What facts? All we have is two short articles in newspapers, one of which is inaccessible to me.In a job application
The facts that people can't change sex - which 2 police forces seem to want no one who applies to them to say.
In a query about whether it would be problematic to think that people can't change sex and apply for a job.
Don't you think that knowing there are 2 police forces don't want their employees stating facts about sex is a good thing to have found out?
-
Don't you think that knowing there are 2 police forces don't want their employees stating facts about sex is a good thing to have found out?
I wouldn't want my employees stating facts about sex in the course of their duties. It's totally irrelevant to writing computer software.
-
I wouldn't want my employees stating facts about sex in the course of their duties. It's totally irrelevant to writing computer software.
But if you are recording the sex of a person committing a crime it will be relevant.
-
But if you are recording the sex of a person committing a crime it will be relevant.
No it won't. You would just record the sex and not make comment about it.
-
No it won't. You would just record the sex and not make comment about it.
And yet we have police forces recording sex based on self ID.
-
And yet we have police forces recording sex based on self ID.
That's a policy decision made a long way up the chain of command. If you are a constable arresting somebody, you just have to record what they say. Their actual sex and/or gender doesn't become an issue until you need to choose a prison to put them in while they are on remand. Even then, there's no room for personal views: you have to do what the guidelines say.
-
https://rdln.wordpress.com/2020/08/21/olympian-lorraine-moller-speaks-up-for-womens-sports/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
That's a policy decision made a long way up the chain of command. If you are a constable arresting somebody, you just have to record what they say. Their actual sex and/or gender doesn't become an issue until you need to choose a prison to put them in while they are on remand. Even then, there's no room for personal views: you have to do what the guidelines say.
The factual sex of people is an issue if you are putting out warnings to the public about a potentially dangerous criminal - it becomes an issue well before the prison stage. It is also an issue when trying to justify policing or policy decisions based on evidenced statistics on the sex of people committing certain crimes. Presumably anyone interested in preventing or policing crime would want to know how stats are being recorded in order to make policing suitably effective in trying to prevent crime.
If suspected rapists or domestic abusers decided to self-ID as women that would change the arrest stats. It's not just a prison issue.
-
There certainly seems to be a large number of these questionable gender people and it must be very difficult for anyone that has to deal with them in the fairest even handed manner possible and then having dealt with them feeling confident they've got it right.
It's an area where it's a certainty that there are no easy answers.
-
here certainly seems to be a large number of these questionable gender people
Not sure there are. We just here more about it nowadays.
Looked it up and a couple of sources give an estimate of 1 in 500 in the UK. Which equates to about 135,000 (ish) people.
-
Agree with Trent.
-
Depends on how many types of gender non-conformity you include. If you include non-binary, genderqueer, and trans, plus others, estimates vary a lot.
-
Depends on how many types of gender non-conformity you include. If you include non-binary, genderqueer, and trans, plus others, estimates vary a lot.
I just looked up figures for transgender.
I lose track of the various categories and sub categories, etc.
-
Also depends on which culture, once you include two spirit, kathoey, hijras, etc., the idea of third gender is elastic.
-
Not sure there are. We just here more about it nowadays.
Looked it up and a couple of sources give an estimate of 1 in 500 in the UK. Which equates to about 135,000 (ish) people.
Made a point of not quoting numbers therefore the 'seems' in that sentence, no judgement offered either way just thought it worth a mention about the difficulties.
-
The numbers are in many ways irrelevant. The question to me is women's sex based rights. If you want to give them up for 1 self ID, then they are gone.
-
Made a point of not quoting numbers therefore the 'seems' in that sentence, no judgement offered either way just thought it worth a mention about the difficulties.
You said there seems to be a large number. I was merely pointing out one of the possible reasons why there "seems to be a large number" and then provided rough numbers from a couple of sources to try to give the numbers some perspective.
Pardon me for even trying to be fucking helpful.
-
You said there seems to be a large number. I was merely pointing out one of the possible reasons why there "seems to be a large number" and then provided rough numbers from a couple of sources to try to give the numbers some perspective.
Pardon me for even trying to be fucking helpful.
Pardon me for trying to be succinct and not arguing any particular corner, oh yes the language bit nothing particularly shocking about that, more disappointing to see it than anything else.
-
Interview with couple of the founders of the LGB Alliance
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/unbelievably-i-have-an-exclusive
-
And just ffs!
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2020-08-28/strike-jk-rowling-trans-controversy/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And just ffs!
https://www.radiotimes.com/news/tv/2020-08-28/strike-jk-rowling-trans-controversy/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Don’t take a position in opposition to the radical trans women, because it’s exhausting for them.
-
And more points to JK Rowling
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-53944773
-
Ffs
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/use-transgender-pronouns-or-face-possible-dismissal-new-guidelines-nis-23000-civil-servants-2954685
-
Size, speed, and strength - not to do with sport
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/8/31/usa-rugbys-naima-reddick-let-trans-women-play?amp&__twitter_impression=true
-
Size, speed, and strength - not to do with sport
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/8/31/usa-rugbys-naima-reddick-let-trans-women-play?amp&__twitter_impression=true
What's not to do with sport? The lady has stated that she is not big, doesn't mention speed, and explains that she makes up in skill for any lack of strength! She is a fully qualified coach, has played right up to the highest level of the women's game. Even in the women's game, you do not last long if you can't take more than a few, sometimes very hard, knocks.
Might it just be that she knows what she is talking about? Might it just be that, unless you can match her in those areas, you do not know what you are talking about?
-
What's not to do with sport? The lady has stated that she is not big, doesn't mention speed, and explains that she makes up in skill for any lack of strength! She is a fully qualified coach, has played right up to the highest level of the women's game. Even in the women's game, you do not last long if you can't take more than a few, sometimes very hard, knocks.
Might it just be that she knows what she is talking about? Might it just be that, unless you can match her in those areas, you do not know what you are talking about?
It might. However the science behind World Rugby's decision indicates that she is wrong.
-
What's not to do with sport? The lady has stated that she is not big, doesn't mention speed, and explains that she makes up in skill for any lack of strength! She is a fully qualified coach, has played right up to the highest level of the women's game. Even in the women's game, you do not last long if you can't take more than a few, sometimes very hard, knocks.
Might it just be that she knows what she is talking about? Might it just be that, unless you can match her in those areas, you do not know what you are talking about?
What she said was "I’m a solid force to be reckoned with in the domestic club game, but at 5’5” and roughly 185 lbs. in season, I’m significantly under the average weight and height for international players in my position. It’s never been a factor for me. I’ve taken on cisgender male athletes in training and female athletes much bigger than me without hesitation because I’m confident in my skill set. Being small didn’t stop me from getting 19 caps."
She has not said that she has beaten biologically male elite athletes in a competitive Rugby match - only that she has taken on male athletes in training without hesitation. That just tells us about her attitude, not her ability against male elite athletes. I'm smaller than average and I've taken on male kick boxers many times but I'm not living in some fantasy world where I claim I could have beaten them in a competition - during training they are pulling their punches and kicks and trying to help me train and improve. In a competition they would be trying to win and I would get hurt. My 15 year old daughter is a club swimmer and swims competitively. She is below average height and would not stand a chance of winning a competition against a similarly trained male competitive swimmer as they would probably all be taller, stronger, and with a longer reach than her so would be faster than her - there might be an exceptionally short boy with similar muscle tone her age but it's very unlikely. But during training the girls and boys compete together in mixed team relay races.
It's misogynistic to claim that the feelings of transwomen trump the danger to biological women of getting physically injured or the injustice of biological women competing for recognition against a whole category of people who have natural biological advantages over them.
I don't see how the risk of mental harm to biological men caused by not playing rugby can be more important than the risk of physical harm to physically weaker, more vulnerable people from being allowed to play -pretending physical injury is less important because biological women are the victims seems to go against everything feminism and equality stands for.
I find this a very strange argument from the trans lobby. I'm all for allowing people their beliefs - whether it is about religion or whether it is people getting comfort from believing they are a particular gender that is different from their biological sex or people believing that their physical handicaps can be ignored. But biological advantages of being male are a reality. We can't pretend they do not exist any more than we pretend that the advantages of being able-bodied do not exist, hence disabled people are allowed to compete in their own distinct categories so that they are not unfairly disadvantaged against able-bodied people.
Some people get comfort from believing that death is not a biological fact and that there is a part of them that goes on living for eternity regardless of the biological/ physical evidence of death. But it would be unreasonable for society to ignore the biological facts and require us all to act as though we believed that death is something "assigned " by doctors and the dead person is actually alive. There are no doubt many people who strongly believe in eternal life and this belief forms part of their core identity and it is probably mentally distressing for them to have their belief in eternal life contradicted by biological facts. However, we don't allow them to ignore other people's rights to not be physically harmed because they feel really really distraught if someone challenges their belief that no one ever really dies.
-
What she said was "I’m a solid force to be reckoned with in the domestic club game, but at 5’5” and roughly 185 lbs. in season, I’m significantly under the average weight and height for international players in my position. It’s never been a factor for me. I’ve taken on cisgender male athletes in training and female athletes much bigger than me without hesitation because I’m confident in my skill set. Being small didn’t stop me from getting 19 caps."
She has not said that she has beaten biologically male elite athletes in a competitive Rugby match - only that she has taken on male athletes in training without hesitation. That just tells us about her attitude, not her ability against male elite athletes. I'm smaller than average and I've taken on male kick boxers many times but I'm not living in some fantasy world where I claim I could have beaten them in a competition - during training they are pulling their punches and kicks and trying to help me train and improve. In a competition they would be trying to win and I would get hurt. My 15 year old daughter is a club swimmer and swims competitively. She is below average height and would not stand a chance of winning a competition against a similarly trained male competitive swimmer as they would probably all be taller, stronger, and with a longer reach than her so would be faster than her - there might be an exceptionally short boy with similar muscle tone her age but it's very unlikely. But during training the girls and boys compete together in mixed team relay races.
It's misogynistic to claim that the feelings of transwomen trump the danger to biological women of getting physically injured or the injustice of biological women competing for recognition against a whole category of people who have natural biological advantages over them.
I don't see how the risk of mental harm to biological men caused by not playing rugby can be more important than the risk of physical harm to physically weaker, more vulnerable people from being allowed to play -pretending physical injury is less important because biological women are the victims seems to go against everything feminism and equality stands for.
I find this a very strange argument from the trans lobby. I'm all for allowing people their beliefs - whether it is about religion or whether it is people getting comfort from believing they are a particular gender that is different from their biological sex or people believing that their physical handicaps can be ignored. But biological advantages of being male are a reality. We can't pretend they do not exist any more than we pretend that the advantages of being able-bodied do not exist, hence disabled people are allowed to compete in their own distinct categories so that they are not unfairly disadvantaged against able-bodied people.
Some people get comfort from believing that death is not a biological fact and that there is a part of them that goes on living for eternity regardless of the biological/ physical evidence of death. But it would be unreasonable for society to ignore the biological facts and require us all to act as though we believed that death is something "assigned " by doctors and the dead person is actually alive. There are no doubt many people who strongly believe in eternal life and this belief forms part of their core identity and it is probably mentally distressing for them to have their belief in eternal life contradicted by biological facts. However, we don't allow them to ignore other people's rights to not be physically harmed because they feel really really distraught if someone challenges their belief that no one ever really dies.
Not sure what the relationship is between Trans and women Rugby players and the afterlife is?
-
Size, speed, and strength - not to do with sport
https://www.advocate.com/commentary/2020/8/31/usa-rugbys-naima-reddick-let-trans-women-play?amp&__twitter_impression=true
Reading the article, it doesn’t seem like she’s played a game of rugby against players with a strong male build. On the other hand we do have a report that says it would be more dangerous than normal for her to do so.
-
Ffs!
https://www.vice.com/amp/en_uk/article/mvk33x/this-gender-neutral-athlete-wants-to-end-sex-segregation-in-sports?__twitter_impression=true
-
Don't identify as black when you're biologically white:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54008495
-
Not sure what the relationship is between Trans and women Rugby players and the afterlife is?
I was making the point that it does not surprise me when people who don't share my beliefs, the ones for which I am unable to provide testable evidence, decide they do not want to act as if my beliefs are true or factual.
As a theist, for example, I may interpret my experiences in a particular way that maximises the beneficial outcome of those subjective experiences for me but I do not assume that everyone else will interpret subjective experiences the same way or gain a similar beneficial outcome by adopting my interpretations. The example I used is that a belief in the eternal life of the soul can lead to people acting in a way that harms others as they do not believe that the people they harm really die as they believe their soul exists in some other place (usually more important than the material world we live in). Therefore society would be causing harm if they enacted laws based on eternal life in a more important supernatural abode being factually true rather than an untestable belief.
It works the same way for gender issues - a transgender individual should not assume that what benefits their lifestyle choices based on their subjective interpretations of their experiences is similarly beneficial for those who do not share their beliefs. The transgender athlete in the article dismisses the objective evidence for the physical limitations of the human body based on sex and the danger and inequality of mixed sex competitive sports, in favour of acting on unevidenced gender beliefs that could physically harm or penalise others.
-
I was making the point that it does not surprise me when people who don't share my beliefs, the ones for which I am unable to provide testable evidence, decide they do not want to act as if my beliefs are true or factual.
As a theist, for example, I may interpret my experiences in a particular way that maximises the beneficial outcome of those subjective experiences for me but I do not assume that everyone else will interpret subjective experiences the same way or gain a similar beneficial outcome by adopting my interpretations. The example I used is that a belief in the eternal life of the soul can lead to people acting in a way that harms others as they do not believe that the people they harm really die as they believe their soul exists in some other place (usually more important than the material world we live in). Therefore society would be causing harm if they enacted laws based on eternal life in a more important supernatural abode being factually true rather than an untestable belief.
It works the same way for gender issues - a transgender individual should not assume that what benefits their lifestyle choices based on their subjective interpretations of their experiences is similarly beneficial for those who do not share their beliefs. The transgender athlete in the article dismisses the objective evidence for the physical limitations of the human body based on sex and the danger and inequality of mixed sex competitive sports, in favour of acting on unevidenced gender beliefs that could physically harm or penalise others.
Yes, I guess your suggestion would have currency on this forum and I have heard that some burnt heretics and witches to preserve the immortal soul.
However I still believe the parallel to be highly if not amusingly tenuous considering you summed up the transgender issue beautifully without mentioning the afterlife.
-
Yes, I guess your suggestion would have currency on this forum and I have heard that some burnt heretics and witches to preserve the immortal soul.
However I still believe the parallel to be highly if not amusingly tenuous considering you summed up the transgender issue beautifully without mentioning the afterlife.
I just find it an interesting comparison, being a theist. Some transgender people state that they were born into the wrong body - I just think the concept of a "they" as a separate entity from the body lends itself to comparison with theists who talk about their souls or consciousness in a religious sense. I don't know if the transgender person who says that thinks their brain was born into the wrong body or they mean their consciousness/ mind that is separate from body and brain is in the wrong body/ brain.
-
Apart from the reification of gender stereotypes in such a regressive way, of course they were going to call the child Zoomer
https://time.com/5885697/gender-creative-parenting/#click=https://t.co/Bf6yW1KHjP
-
Dreadful people.
I wonder how they will be remembered in history.
'Zoomer' indeed.
-
But you do realise that they have problems with English. They seem to think that the appropriate impersonal pronoun for a single child of undisclosed sex is plural.
But then, I was able to read very little of the article before it was obliterated by a message from its publisher.
-
I just find it an interesting comparison, being a theist. Some transgender people state that they were born into the wrong body - I just think the concept of a "they" as a separate entity from the body lends itself to comparison with theists who talk about their souls or consciousness in a religious sense. I don't know if the transgender person who says that thinks their brain was born into the wrong body or they mean their consciousness/ mind that is separate from body and brain is in the wrong body/ brain.
Then I apologise for trivialising and belittling your line of thought. My apologies.
-
Then I apologise for trivialising and belittling your line of thought. My apologies.
Kudos
-
This is brilliant
https://theharlequinpub.wordpress.com/2020/09/10/formal-complaints-gross-misconduct-and-a-swift-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR1XjD3mGp9rFcDuEU9HX9jTjKjjo92vUVjLYGvnuOxZUinUW1qBVge_uA8
-
This is brilliant
https://theharlequinpub.wordpress.com/2020/09/10/formal-complaints-gross-misconduct-and-a-swift-resolution/?fbclid=IwAR1XjD3mGp9rFcDuEU9HX9jTjKjjo92vUVjLYGvnuOxZUinUW1qBVge_uA8
This is one of those times when "Brilliant" is an understatement!
-
Ffs!
https://amp.thepostmillennial.com/billboard-company-to-take-down-tribute-to-jk-rowling-after-one-complaint-of-trans-phobia/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Ffs!
https://amp.thepostmillennial.com/billboard-company-to-take-down-tribute-to-jk-rowling-after-one-complaint-of-trans-phobia/?__twitter_impression=true
I wonder how long it will be before people start realising that the world won't collapse if you ignore these whiny brats.
-
Following on from the banning of the I Love JK Rowling poster, there is a major trending twitter hashtag yesterday and today #RIPJKRowling triggered by the release of her new book under the pseudonym Robert Galbraith which apparently features the possibility of a killer who is a man wearing a dress - note the book wasn't released till today so the vast majority of those commenting on the thread have not read the book. While there were some saying that it was her career they were talking about, there were many death and rape threats, just as she has been receiving since she first liked a tweet by Maya Forstater.
-
This
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/j-k-rowling-s-latest-novel-isn-t-transphobic-/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
And here we have the erasure of James Dreyfus because of his views.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-dreyfus-affair
-
Stickers on the seafront!
.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/mum-hate-crime-probe-after-22563314.amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
I support that woman for supporting JKR, what trans-activists are saying about her (Galbraith's) latest book is ridiculous.
-
If this story is true then it suggests that official attitudes are ... well ... arse over tit.
Police action ignores the hate campaign against Joanne Rowling for expressing a rational, science and experience based argument against extreme views held by some transgender individuals but investigates reports from these individuals about people who support Joanne Rowling.
Or have I got it wrong?
-
No, I think your assessment is spot on HH.
I feel sorry for the police who have to 'police' this. A policeman's life is certainly not a happy one in many respects. What a waste of their time!
-
Pat Robertson thinks people can be born in the wrong bodies. The thing about this prevalent idea in trans activism is that it is essentially as dualistic as the idea of a soul, and with precisely as much evidence
https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/pat-robertson-transgender_n_3672244?ncid=other_twitter_cooo9wqtham&utm_campaign=share_twitter&guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL2dwMVlZQWNyY2Q_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAANG27F9-PT6r8NObc552L0CPdKPt0otl_0-IdTjqMU_CKjg-vC-gHDBiGcvIzqYRZzd075I1k6AfhGmgooyOvAxtFzugJkyG3Ashrwl-al_wozzGUntLJ7Ev_9aWwuNfephJjyqiOwsjPrNivnDYUyIUp4ipZ1XHckHuD8QngqE9
-
Pat Robertson thinks people can be born in the wrong bodies. The thing about this prevalent idea in trans activism is that it is essentially as dualistic as the idea of a soul, and with precisely as much evidence
Actually, I don't think it is impossible that male brains and female brains are different and that you might occasionally get a female brain in a male body or vice versa. The evidence is lacking but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility.
-
Actually, I don't think it is impossible that male brains and female brains are different and that you might occasionally get a female brain in a male body or vice versa. The evidence is lacking but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility.
I don't understand that concept. Most of the studies I have seen show that in samples while there are some features in certain regions of the brain that are more common in one sex compared to the other, most people just have a mix of features. There is no evidence of any clear cut gender profile based on brain structure presumable because brains are plastic and develop based on their interaction with the environment. Hence, it seems unlikely that trans people have a gender identity that could be caused by having a brain linked to the sex that they are not.
And because people's brain structure, pathways and nerve connections etc cannot be characterised in a binary way when it comes to sex, one of the values society was trying to develop was that gender was artificial - so liking pink, soft, fluffy, pretty things or being caring and nurturing should not be pigeon-holed as gender characteristics that belong to the female sex whereas liking dirt and sport and being analytical and competitive should not be pigeon-holed as male characteristics. So we were trying to get away from the idea that people should be conditioned to act a certain way based on gender.
-
Actually, I don't think it is impossible that male brains and female brains are different and that you might occasionally get a female brain in a male body or vice versa. The evidence is lacking but it doesn't seem beyond the bounds of credibility.
The evidence being lacking makes my point correct.
-
I support that woman for supporting JKR, what trans-activists are saying about her (Galbraith's) latest book is ridiculous.
I belong to a few LGBT groups on FB and on one in particular there is a strong representation of transgender activists. Their postings appear to come from the same kind of mindset that dominates the supporters of Donald Trump (which is kind of ironic!). Anyway they appear to be "triggered" by any suggestion that nuance or compromise be applied to a discussion.
So a typical example of a description of JK Rowling reads "Homophobic, transphobic cunt". It is impossible to move the discussion on from these blunt insults. I don't actually understand it, these people are so angry, so unreasonable and so vicious that I fear that this issue is not going to be resolved in any sensible way that addresses the issues of both women and trans women, which I believe is completely achievable. Very depressing.
They now have a new hobby horse and think that the pseudonym that Rowling uses for her Strike novels is derived from the name of an infamous practitioner of gay conversion therapy, story here:
https://metro.co.uk/2020/09/16/jk-rowling-denies-unfounded-and-untrue-claims-that-robert-galbraith-pen-name-is-connected-to-conversion-therapist-13278545/
I was warned by another poster on here that entering this type of discussion was like going down the "rabbit hole". That poster was not wrong!
-
Have you been called transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a transman yet, Trent?
-
Have you been called transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a transman yet, Trent?
Not yet. I've been called a cisgender tourist which I didn't understand as an insult, so it didn't really offend me!
-
It seems to me that the male/female brain/body mismatch experience is possibly acquired. There is evidence in other species of sensitive periods where, if appropriate stimulus is absent then particular behaviours do not develop - for instance, if kittens or puppies do not have human contact within a few weeks of birth (two to four in the case of kittens) then the animals cannot be tamed.
A human ability which is also exposure sensitive is spoken language. A baby needs exposure to speech before about 18 - 20 months or it will never acquire language and significant exposure to any language up to about the age of six will result in the child acquiring such languages. (I have grandchildren who are fluent in English and Dutch - their parents' languages.) A problem many primary schools have is having to deal with children who come from linguistically impoverished home environments.
Sexuality in homo sapiens is not primarily concerned with reproduction but with maintaining bonds and is expressive rather than merely instinctive. The length of time humans spend in becoming mature adults is far longer than that of any other species and is due to the time needed for the brain to fully develop. Is it not possible that there are sensitive periods during which exposure to particular experience determines such factors as sexuality and self-perception?
-
Not yet. I've been called a cisgender tourist which I didn't understand as an insult, so it didn't really offend me!
Cisgender is a nonsense term, and as it is used is also a regressive patriarchal concept.
-
It seems to me that the male/female brain/body mismatch experience is possibly acquired. There is evidence in other species of sensitive periods where, if appropriate stimulus is absent then particular behaviours do not develop - for instance, if kittens or puppies do not have human contact within a few weeks of birth (two to four in the case of kittens) then the animals cannot be tamed.
A human ability which is also exposure sensitive is spoken language. A baby needs exposure to speech before about 18 - 20 months or it will never acquire language and significant exposure to any language up to about the age of six will result in the child acquiring such languages. (I have grandchildren who are fluent in English and Dutch - their parents' languages.) A problem many primary schools have is having to deal with children who come from linguistically impoverished home environments.
Sexuality in homo sapiens is not primarily concerned with reproduction but with maintaining bonds and is expressive rather than merely instinctive. The length of time humans spend in becoming mature adults is far longer than that of any other species and is due to the time needed for the brain to fully develop. Is it not possible that there are sensitive periods during which exposure to particular experience determines such factors as sexuality and self-perception?
Indeed that seems to be what the evidence points to. The whole idea of being born in the wrong body is empty headed woo.
-
The evidence being lacking makes my point correct.
How do you explain gender dysphoria then? Some people feel strongly enough about it that they will go through some pretty drastic medical treatment to make their bodies into some facsimile of the sex they'd rather be.
-
How do you explain gender dysphoria then? Some people feel strongly enough about it that they will go through some pretty drastic medical treatment to make their bodies into some facsimile of the sex they'd rather be.
So is an anorexic born in a slimmer mind?
-
Have you been called transphobic for not wanting to sleep with a transman yet, Trent?
What I find interesting about that particular issue is that you never hear trans men demanding to sleep with gay cis men or straight cis women. You never hear of trans women demanding to sleep with straight cis men. It's almost as though this assumption of a right to sleep with a person of your choosing (as opposed to it being a mutual decision) is a phenomenon associated with biological heterosexual males.
Also, something that struck me when surveying the RIP JK Rowling hashtag is that a lot of the messages are very similar to the messages that feminists are often subjected to by male rights activists.
I theorised above that gender dysphoria might be something to do with male and female brains, but these two phenomena suggest to me that trans women do retain some male traits.
-
So is an anorexic born in a slimmer mind?
You are drawing a parallel between gender dysphoria and a psychological illness. Do you think, with therapy, trans women can be cured (if that is the right word). I don't think many trans women would agree with you on that point.
-
Good article from The Indy about JK Rowlings virtual lynching:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jk-rowling-new-book-troubled-blood-trans-transphobic-tweet-boycott-b497844.html?
-
You are drawing a parallel between gender dysphoria and a psychological illness. Do you think, with therapy, trans women can be cured (if that is the right word). I don't think many trans women would agree with you on that point.
Depression and anxiety are considered mental illnesses - so if the anxiety and depression is caused by feeling your psychological identity (gender) does not match your body then the depression and anxiety can be treated. I don't know that anyone cures depression and anxiety - but they can be managed and people can learn healthier coping mechanisms.
As we do not have a lot of detail of the mechanics of people forming psychological identities it would be difficult to change psychological identities - these are based on memories, experiences, relationships, and values, the beliefs people hold about themselves and their place in a group, society or the world, and it is unlikely that we will be able to teach people to choose their beliefs - I think we already decided that people can't choose their instincts, desires or beliefs - religious or otherwise.
-
Good thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1215336108776706050.html
-
Good article from the great Joan Smith
https://unherd.com/2020/09/keir-starmers-women-problem/
-
Good article from the great Joan Smith
https://unherd.com/2020/09/keir-starmers-women-problem/
Misogyny in the Labour party. Umm...hope that doesn't leave women heading towards having to vote for Tories to protect their rights.
I also read a blog describing an attempt by the Labour Campaign for Trans Rights (LCTR) to pressure Labour Party politicians to no platform Pragna Patel, co founder of Southall Black Sisters, from a meeting about violence against women and girls, because Patel once spoke about women’s rights at a Women's Place UK (WPUK) meeting. LCTR describe WPUK as a hate group - having looked at WPUK's website https://womansplaceuk.org/our-5-demands/ I can't see what's hateful about calling for the following demands - is there something I'm missing?
- Respectful and evidence-based discussion about the impact of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act to be allowed to take place and for women’s voices to be heard.
- The principle of women-only spaces to be upheld – and where necessary extended
- A review of how the exemptions in the Equality Act (which allow for single sex services, or requirements that only a woman can apply for a job such as in a domestic violence refuge) are being applied in practice.
- Government to consult with women’s organisations on how self-declaration would impact on women-only services and spaces.
- Government to consult on how self-declaration will impact upon data gathering – such as crime, employment, pay and health statistics – and monitoring of sex-based discrimination such as the gender pay gap.
What's worrying is the lack of discussion on complex and contentious issues because of the worry of the Twitter Mob whose tactics seem to be seeking to undermine the democratic process. As pointed out by Joan Smith, Keir Starmer sitting on the fence about misogynistic comments from Labour ranks and supporters can be compared to Corbyn sitting on the fence about anti-Semitic comments from Labour members and supporters.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-54246686
Although I'm sure there is more detail than I am aware of attached to this, it sounds on the face of it like a sensible approach to me.
-
Nick Cohen on JK Rowling
https://thecritic.co.uk/braving-the-goblet-of-fire/
-
Hmm....
https://www.straight.com/news/stuart-parker-resigns-as-leader-of-bc-ecosocialists-citing-a-slew-of-false-allegations-about
-
There has been much approval in some TRA circles about the article below based on an interview with Judith Butler. For the sake of balance, I am putting it up.
For the sake of honesty, I have to say it's badly thought out in the extreme.
https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times
-
My opinion of Mr Radcliffe goes down
https://wegotthiscovered.com/movies/daniel-radcliffe-reportedly-open-harry-potter-return-jk-rowling-involved/amp/?fbclid=IwAR3AzoRvRCxthzcTpbW8Llm7QxF67q7CnxwsLZzIW6KjWJiiu8As1gDArMk&__twitter_impression=true
-
There has been much approval in some TRA circles about the article below based on an interview with Judith Butler. For the sake of balance, I am putting it up.
For the sake of honesty, I have to say it's badly thought out in the extreme.
https://www.newstatesman.com/international/2020/09/judith-butler-culture-wars-jk-rowling-and-living-anti-intellectual-times
I would certainly agree that this part of what Judith Butler said is ill-thought out.
"The feminist who holds such a view presumes that the penis does define the person, and that anyone with a penis would identify as a woman for the purposes of entering such changing rooms and posing a threat to the women inside. It assumes that the penis is the threat, or that any person who has a penis who identifies as a woman is engaging in a base, deceitful, and harmful form of disguise. This is a rich fantasy, and one that comes from powerful fears, but it does not describe a social reality."
The argument is not that anyone with a penis would have the purpose of posing a threat to women or anyone with a penis is engaging in a base, deceitful and harmful form of disguise. That would be as nonsensical as claiming all men are rapists or a threat to women. The reason for single-sex spaces is presumably because it was recognised that some men could be a threat and allowing all men to enter would therefore create an unacceptable level of risk to women's safety.
The other issue is that women have a right to have their feelings of wanting privacy respected and to have their own space that caters for their biological differences from men. The trans extremists trying to take those rights away from women are using the very tactics of threatening rape or telling women to suck on their trans dicks that women want to protection from. Which reinforces why some trans women are a threat to women and why therefore single sex spaces need to exist in order to protect women from these trans women.
Women are often disregarded and told to sit down and shut by men and the world is often designed to suit the needs of men, so women need a space where men are excluded and women can have a voice, and where the the environment is set up for their biological needs, and not the biological needs of men. The last thing women need is for trans women to invade that space and then proceed to tell women to sit down and shut up - as these extremist trans women are doing with their online bullying of any woman who disagrees with their misogynistic, extremist trans dogma.
-
Nick Cohen on JK Rowling
https://thecritic.co.uk/braving-the-goblet-of-fire/
I remember speaking to a friend when I was at university - he was doing a PhD related to psychology and human behaviour and he said the same thing about a woman being a hole. He did not say it in a horrible way - I was questioning him about relationships and sex and the simplicity and control in masturbation so he was giving me a perspective by bringing ideas down to a very basic level in terms of sex. His actual values were very pro-relationship and respect for women but we were deconstructing the point of a relationship. Very interesting perspective on life when you look at yourself in terms of being a hole.
-
Some welcome and long overdue clarity from the Department of Education that teachers should not reinforce gender stereotypes in schools by suggesting that a child has been born in the wrong body if they are a girl who enjoys what is seen as traditionally masculine pursuits.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2020/sep/25/government-issues-gender-identity-guidance-for-teachers-in-england?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/let-s-kick-gender-identity-out-of-school
-
The reason for single-sex spaces is presumably because it was recognised that some men could be a threat and allowing all men to enter would therefore create an unacceptable level of risk to women's safety.
I think it depends on the space in question. I think, with respect to changing rooms and toilets, the idea was to "preserve modesty" and that has simply become ingrained into our society. With spaces like rape counselling centres, I think it's more about protecting women from the stress that results from the trauma. To me it is totally understandable that if your mere presence triggers anxiety and stress in a vulnerable person, you should stay away.
The other issue is that women have a right to have their feelings of wanting privacy respected and to have their own space that caters for their biological differences from men. The trans extremists trying to take those rights away from women are using the very tactics of threatening rape or telling women to suck on their trans dicks that women want to protection from. Which reinforces why some trans women are a threat to women and why therefore single sex spaces need to exist in order to protect women from these trans women.
It's quite telling to me that these trans extremists use very similar tactics to MRAs. If you wanted to be accepted as a woman by other women, maybe stop behaving like a man.
-
...
It's quite telling to me that these trans extremists use very similar tactics to MRAs. If you wanted to be accepted as a woman by other women, maybe stop behaving like a man.
Over the years I've known, maybe, half a dozen trans-women but none of them have ever exhibited any aggression at all, let alone the viciousness we have seen from "trans activists". My guess is that many of the extremists are not trans at all, but just misogynists that have taken up another weapon to attack women.
-
Over the years I've known, maybe, half a dozen trans-women but none of them have ever exhibited any aggression at all, let alone the viciousness we have seen from "trans activists".
Twitter amplifies the outspoken views. My guess is that none of the trans women you have met would take to Twitter to defend (e.g.) JK Rowling, and even if they did, theirs would not be the Tweets that get the attention.
My guess is that many of the extremists are not trans at all, but just misogynists that have taken up another weapon to attack women.
Unfortunately, there are still plenty of trans and non trans people (of both sexes) who think it is a good idea to defend their position by calling people who disagree with them on even fairly minor points bigots.
-
Very interesting perspective on life when you look at yourself in terms of being a hole.
That IS interesting... reductive, obvisouly, but interesting.
I think the importance of 'the hole' where men find womens bodies desireable is unquestionable. But, weirdly, I'd say its also trivial. Sexual relationships are surely far more weighted towards a need for intimacy, closeness, connection, affirmation than simply the primal need to penetrate someone? Even rape, after all, is never really about 'the hole', its about power.
I don't really know where to go with this, but its got me thinking all sorts of things!
appologioes for the de-rail
-
This is good
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2020.1720429?src=recsys
-
I've just been shat on from a great height on the Book of Faces for expressing sympathy with Jake Rowling's views on trannies. She was described as "transphobic": I said that not having suitably woke opinions didn't make her transphobic. Some silly woman said that not only women menstruated!
-
I've just been shat on from a great height on the Book of Faces for expressing sympathy with Jake Rowling's views on trannies. She was described as "transphobic": I said that not having suitably woke opinions didn't make her transphobic. Some silly woman said that not only women menstruated!
I've had similar experiences. The crowd that represent trans issues in some places on FB don't do nuance.
-
I've just been shat on from a great height on the Book of Faces for expressing sympathy with Jake Rowling's views on trannies. She was described as "transphobic": I said that not having suitably woke opinions didn't make her transphobic. Some silly woman said that not only women menstruated!
Some trans men menstruate (I don't know if they would consider themselves as women) and some women don't.
I think JK Rowling's comment on the specific usage of "people who menstruate" was a bit unfair in context because the article was about menstruation in the context of the coronavirus pandemic.
-
This is good
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20502877.2020.1720429?src=recsys
Fascinating. Although the article looks at a specific context I think it just highlights the general situation - that society is simply not equipped to deal effectively with the legitimate recognition of trans people. When I refer to 'soceity' I mean all of us, even trans people themselves. None of us can figure it out.
There is undoubdtedly a lot of work to do on the non-trans side, starting with understanding more about what trans people want and need. However, it seems clear that the trans community themselves have no definitive answer to this question. Sadly, we appear to be stuck in a rut where any discussion is highjacked by ideology, prejudice and entrenched positions.
I can not accept that sex is a spectrum in any meaningful sense, or that the objective biological reality of it should give way to the subjective notion of gender, which is itself compromosied by the inadequacies of a culture still wrestling with highly prejudiced idea of what men and women are. These inadequacies, for me, are the root of all the apparent inconsistencies within the trans-rights movement. For example, if it is right to advocate for the acceptance of non-binary people, then why such aggresion in the claim to womanhood? or manhood?.
The only answer, in my eyes, is that we somehow come to a place where sex and gender are recognised equally, honestly and with compassion. As long as we play a game where one should trump the other, which I think is the mistake being made on both sides of the argument, it will never be resolved.
Of course, that is just one white-middleclasee-cis-man's opinion. And so, possibly, easily dismissed* as total horse shit.
*other reasons to dismiss it are also available
-
Some trans men menstruate.
Really? Not according to Wikipedia: Sex reassignment surgery (male to female)
Would you explain your statement, please?
-
Really? Not according to Wikipedia: Sex reassignment surgery (male to female)
Would you explain your statement, please?
I expect Jeremy is referring to female to male trans ...
-
Ffs!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1310992210125520896.html
-
I expect Jeremy is referring to female to male trans ...
You are correct. I misinterpreted JeremyP's post. It shows how confusing the rationale behids "trans" can be.
-
Fascinating. Although the article looks at a specific context I think it just highlights the general situation - that society is simply not equipped to deal effectively with the legitimate recognition of trans people. When I refer to 'soceity' I mean all of us, even trans people themselves. None of us can figure it out.
There is undoubdtedly a lot of work to do on the non-trans side, starting with understanding more about what trans people want and need. However, it seems clear that the trans community themselves have no definitive answer to this question. Sadly, we appear to be stuck in a rut where any discussion is highjacked by ideology, prejudice and entrenched positions.
I can not accept that sex is a spectrum in any meaningful sense, or that the objective biological reality of it should give way to the subjective notion of gender, which is itself compromosied by the inadequacies of a culture still wrestling with highly prejudiced idea of what men and women are. These inadequacies, for me, are the root of all the apparent inconsistencies within the trans-rights movement. For example, if it is right to advocate for the acceptance of non-binary people, then why such aggresion in the claim to womanhood? or manhood?.
The only answer, in my eyes, is that we somehow come to a place where sex and gender are recognised equally, honestly and with compassion. As long as we play a game where one should trump the other, which I think is the mistake being made on both sides of the argument, it will never be resolved.
Of course, that is just one white-middleclasee-cis-man's opinion. And so, possibly, easily dismissed* as total horse shit.
*other reasons to dismiss it are also available
Not dismissing it, but I think it falls into a massive oversimplification by talking about the 'trans side' and the 'non trans side'. First of all that seems to imply that all 'trans' are on the same side which is not the case. In particular many people who gone through full surgeries to be what used to be referred to as transsexuals are less likely to be supportive of the idea of self ID with no surgery. Indeed I think the debate is often confused not just about what might trans people want but what trans means.
Secondly there are many Trans Rights Activists, TRAs, who are not trans in any sense but buy into certain beliefs that reify gender.
Third there is implicit in the idea of 'non trans' and more compassion that anyone who is standing up for women's sex based rights is both lacking in compassion and is some sense anti-trans. If you want to complain about entrenched positions, I think you need to be more careful with your phrasing.
Also the 'non trans' side itself is a gallimauffry of contradictions, with left is gender critical feminists, and right wing supporters of the idea of gender stereotypes on the 'same side' because of not accepting that a 'Transwoman is a woman'. And that sort of contradiction is true on the 'trans side'.
I don't agree that sex and gender should be, or indeed can be, recognised as equally. One is a basic biological fact and is the basis for sexism throughout history. Gender has been used as a control to impose that sexism with the idea that women should behave in a certain way. I would much rather get rid of the odea of gender and just have people act and dress how they feel comfortable.
-
Really? Not according to Wikipedia: Sex reassignment surgery (male to female)
Would you explain your statement, please?
"Trans men" means females who present as men. Unless they've had surgery to remove their uterus or are past the menopause, they will menstruate.
-
Thank you, Jeremy, for that clarification.
-
This
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/sep/30/feminists-anti-trans-idea-sex-gender-oppression?__twitter_impression=true
-
Not dismissing it, but I think it falls into a massive oversimplification by talking about the 'trans side' and the 'non trans side'. First of all that seems to imply that all 'trans' are on the same side which is not the case. In particular many people who gone through full surgeries to be what used to be referred to as transsexuals are less likely to be supportive of the idea of self ID with no surgery. Indeed I think the debate is often confused not just about what might trans people want but what trans means.
Secondly there are many Trans Rights Activists, TRAs, who are not trans in any sense but buy into certain beliefs that reify gender.
Third there is implicit in the idea of 'non trans' and more compassion that anyone who is standing up for women's sex based rights is both lacking in compassion and is some sense anti-trans. If you want to complain about entrenched positions, I think you need to be more careful with your phrasing.
Also the 'non trans' side itself is a gallimauffry of contradictions, with left is gender critical feminists, and right wing supporters of the idea of gender stereotypes on the 'same side' because of not accepting that a 'Transwoman is a woman'. And that sort of contradiction is true on the 'trans side'.
I'll take that. The wording was perhaps clumsy and I never intended to deny the complexity across the whole issue. I think that point about compassion is a little unfair though. I was thinking about the way the public discourse around trans rights often becomes toxic. I wasn't suggesting that anyone is lacking compassion.
I don't agree that sex and gender should be, or indeed can be, recognised as equally. One is a basic biological fact and is the basis for sexism throughout history. Gender has been used as a control to impose that sexism with the idea that women should behave in a certain way. I would much rather get rid of the odea of gender and just have people act and dress how they feel comfortable.
Perhaps you're right, but I think you are being clumsy here. Biology is a fact but that fact is not a basis for sexism and prejudice... we invented that ourselves. Nor does a persons biology come anywhere close to being a satisfactory description of a sense of self, a sense of identity. There is no point in denying that sex is matter of reality, but neither is there any point in denying that gender, or something like it, is required to 'fill in the rest' if you like. Reducing identity to the ability to 'act and dress how you feel comfortable' is also an oversimplification.
-
The illiberal Libs
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1311622071609421825.html?fbclid=IwAR1udlkoWPNfpgHja0lGn423isy0gflaQUMXCxRs6UMs_jTRj_xbCe68zss
-
Perhaps you're right, but I think you are being clumsy here. Biology is a fact but that fact is not a basis for sexism and prejudice... we invented that ourselves. Nor does a persons biology come anywhere close to being a satisfactory description of a sense of self, a sense of identity. There is no point in denying that sex is matter of reality, but neither is there any point in denying that gender, or something like it, is required to 'fill in the rest' if you like. Reducing identity to the ability to 'act and dress how you feel comfortable' is also an oversimplification.
Yes, if you read the point about sexism as being anything other than it being something we invented then I was being clumsy. The point is that sexism can only be properly fought if you understand that sex is real, and the mantra trotted out by some TRAs the 'Trans women are women' denies that.
As to your point about 'gender' surely that's just personality. The over simplification is being done by some TRAs in equating womanhood to a set of regressive patriarchal stereotypes.
-
"Trans men" means females who present as men. Unless they've had surgery to remove their uterus or are past the menopause, they will menstruate.
But they're not actually men, are they? Even if they've had a total hysterectomy, they are still women genetically. There is no surgery which can change a fully-functioning woman into a fully-functioning man, or vice-versa: a "Trans man" will be effectively a man who's been castrated, and a "Trans woman" will be effectively a woman who's had a total hysterectomy. I've no objection to them identifying as a person of the opposite sex, but those are the realities.
-
But they're not actually men, are they? Even if they've had a total hysterectomy, they are still women genetically. There is no surgery which can change a fully-functioning woman into a fully-functioning man, or vice-versa: a "Trans man" will be effectively a man who's been castrated, and a "Trans woman" will be effectively a woman who's had a total hysterectomy. I've no objection to them identifying as a person of the opposite sex, but those are the realities.
Transmen and transwomen in the current discussion do not have to have had any surgery. And a transman in the current discussion is a female to male, whereas a transwoman is male to female.
-
But they're not actually men, are they? Even if they've had a total hysterectomy, they are still women genetically.
That's why I said "trans men".
I've no objection to them identifying as a person of the opposite sex,
I do. They are not of the opposite sex. I do, however, have no objection to them identifying as the opposite gender.
-
Gender definition OED:
The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
Definition of sex (Male/Female):
Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Leaving this here because I keep getting confused (I know I'm easily confused), so it might be helpful to others. It ties in with JeremyP's point above which sounds like a reasonable position to take.
-
Gender definition OED:
The state of being male or female as expressed by social or cultural distinctions and differences, rather than biological ones; the collective attributes or traits associated with a particular sex, or determined as a result of one's sex. Also: a (male or female) group characterized in this way.
Definition of sex (Male/Female):
Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Leaving this here because I keep getting confused (I know I'm easily confused), so it might be helpful to others. It ties in with JeremyP's point above which sounds like a reasonable position to take.
Gender though has been used to oppress women with its expectations of how they should behave. By people declaring that transwomen are women, they go back to the stereotypes that women like pink and wear dresses.
-
Sex is dichotomous - it is a state in which one is exclusively male or female. Maleness is determined by the presence of "Y" and "X" chromosomes. Females have two "X" chromosomes. Sometimes an individual may be born with a "mosaic" genome, XXY or XYY. My understanding is that this generally results in an extreme presentation of the expected sex - for example XYY males tend to be taller than XY males. I am not aware of any research which demonstrates an effect on gender.
Gender is a continuum along which one moves between masculinity and femininity. It is a cultural not a biological phenonemon.
There appears - in some quarters - to use "gender" as euphemism for "sex", as though sex is an unpleasant word which is inappropriate in polite company. It is even present on official forms as a field to be completed after name, address and date of birth.
A couple of thoughts:
When describing individuals "male" and "female" are both adjectives. I have noticed that official police reports treat the two words as nouns.
Biologically, the basic mammalian state is female. An ovum, left to its own devices, would develop into a female. Males are females to which "amendments" are made during the individuals "manufacture" in the womb. Any genuine virgin birth would broduce a female infant not a male. Something funny happened in Nazareth, nine months before a confinement in a stable in Bethlehem ...
This is just an aside - not an invitation for a derail.
-
Another person being hounded for being 'anti trans'!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scottish-poet-by-trans-activists/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Another person being hounded for being 'anti-trans'!
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-hounding-of-a-scottish-poet-by-trans-activists/amp?__twitter_impression=true
And, if such actions continue to achieve such results many more such vitriolic attacks are going to succeed until they become the norm.
Goddess help us all - free speech is becoming a crime!
-
I am friends with a couple of the founders of LGB Alliance and this is a good summary of why they set it up.
https://unherd.com/2020/10/why-i-cant-trust-stonewall-any-more/
-
I am friends with a couple of the founders of LGB Alliance and this is a good summary of why they set it up.
https://unherd.com/2020/10/why-i-cant-trust-stonewall-any-more/
It might be a good summary of why they set it up, and I agree with much of this article, but I can't get on board with the LGB Alliance.
Two little words "Heritage" and "Foundation". I don't care how "useful" or "politically expedient" it is to get into bed with this organisation, Bev Jackson really should know better.
For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
-
It might be a good summary of why they set it up, and I agree with much of this article, but I can't get on board with the LGB Alliance.
Two little words "Heritage" and "Foundation". I don't care how "useful" or "politically expedient" it is to get into bed with this organisation, Bev Jackson really should know better.
For context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation
I know of Bev Jackson's twitter posts defending people that worked with the Heritage Foundation but know of no actual links between LGB Alliance and the Heritage Foundation.
-
Perhaps not. They just invite people to speak at their launch:
One of the speakers at LGB Alliance launch event was Gary Powell, a man who has allied with the Heritage Foundation against gay surrogacy rights and has written for Public Discourse, a division of The Witherspoon Institute which staunchly opposes gay marriage.
Source: Rational Wiki.
Also odd for an "LGB" organisation to promote this stance:
Co-founder Malcolm Clark, who apparently works on contract for the BBC, has stated that LGBT school clubs are "unnecessary and dangerous" and "encourage predators", Victim blaming children for the existence of predators because they organised supportive social clubs is a curious stance for a supposedly pro LGB organisation - it is usually heterosexual right wingers that assume orientation is inherently sexual (think of the children.)
Rational Wiki.
For me to start supporting this group because their views on Trans issues chime somewhat with mine, does not mean that I can simply ignore the rest of their, quite frankly, worrying and damaging stances.
-
Perhaps not. They just invite people to speak at their launch:
Source: Rational Wiki.
Also odd for an "LGB" organisation to promote this stance:
Rational Wiki.
For me to start supporting this group because their views on Trans issues chime somewhat with mine, does not mean that I can simply ignore the rest of their, quite frankly, worrying and damaging stances.
I don't trust rationalwiki on this subject see the following:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Trans-exclusionary_radical_feminism
As fir Malcolm's position it was a lot more nuanced than that - I know because I've known him for nearly 40 years. I think having Powell speak was a mistake.
-
Well from all I have read (and I read quite a lot when they first launched) there is too much wrong with their approach for me, like cosying up to right wing groups.
AS you rightly in my view, pulled up Steve as being homophobic for not supporting gay marriage originally, I wonder what you make of the confused stance taken by the LGB Alliance on the matter.
There are just too many areas where they have made, to be charitable, mistakes and I can't support them. Mind you I don't support Stonewall anymore, so maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly, I don't think so though.
-
Well from all I have read (and I read quite a lot when they first launched) there is too much wrong with their approach for me, like cosying up to right wing groups.
AS you rightly in my view, pulled up Steve as being homophobic for not supporting gay marriage originally, I wonder what you make of the confused stance taken by the LGB Alliance on the matter.
There are just too many areas where they have made, to be charitable, mistakes and I can't support them. Mind you I don't support Stonewall anymore, so maybe I'm just being curmudgeonly, I don't think so though.
I haven't seen any opposition to gay marriage from them. And I also read a lot about it and attended one of their launch events where I met a lot of people who I had marched with to support gay rights and women's rights over the last 40 years.
There is an ongoing issue with the strange bedfellows this issue has created but I hope you agree that given rationalwiki's TERF article it is not an honest source.
-
There is an ongoing issue with the strange bedfellows this issue has created but I hope you agree that given rationalwiki's TERF article it is not an honest source.
All the accusations against LGB Alliance are documented in other places besides RatWiki so that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the LGB Alliance reliance on right wing support. I can't go along with it, unfortunately.
-
All the accusations against LGB Alliance are documented in other places besides RatWiki so that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the LGB Alliance reliance on right wing support. I can't go along with it, unfortunately.
Then I think you have to show it from reliable sources.
-
All the accusations against LGB Alliance are documented in other places besides RatWiki so that is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the LGB Alliance reliance on right wing support. I can't go along with it, unfortunately.
As an aside I have just watched the Voyager episode Nemesis, and part of it reminds me of trying to deal with issues like this on social media. It is too easy to see everyone on the other side of an issue as the worst extremists. I always have to try and review my own biases here, and your points because I respect you help me to do that.
-
As an aside I have just watched the Voyager episode Nemesis, and part of it reminds me of trying to deal with issues like this on social media. It is too easy to see everyone on the other side of an issue as the worst extremists. I always have to try and review my own biases here, and your points because I respect you help me to do that.
Had to look that one up. Remember it, but not well as it focused on the (to me) least interesting character on Voyager (can't be doing with all that animal spirit bollocks), but I can see what you refer to.
I, try to review my biases too (I've recently allowed the Daily Mail to pollute my FB feed in an attempt to counteract FB's confirmation bias tendencies - that's not really working) but social media is a difficult beast for issues like this.
I know I should get out more and participate in real life but there are several things mitigating against that:
1. I'd have to go out and meet actual people
2. Since work finished I've relished the freedom from attending meetings so don't really want to go down that path
3. Currently of course, Covid.
Basically on gay politics I hate the splits. It weakens our collective strength. The LGB Alliance may well be none of the things I suspect it of, and support none of the positions I suspect it of supporting, but there just seem to be too many inconsistencies from one organisation. I'll read more when I feel up to it and see if perhaps my take on them is unduly harsh.
-
Had to look that one up. Remember it, but not well as it focused on the (to me) least interesting character on Voyager (can't be doing with all that animal spirit bollocks), but I can see what you refer to.
I, try to review my biases too (I've recently allowed the Daily Mail to pollute my FB feed in an attempt to counteract FB's confirmation bias tendencies - that's not really working) but social media is a difficult beast for issues like this.
I know I should get out more and participate in real life but there are several things mitigating against that:
1. I'd have to go out and meet actual people
2. Since work finished I've relished the freedom from attending meetings so don't really want to go down that path
3. Currently of course, Covid.
Basically on gay politics I hate the splits. It weakens our collective strength. The LGB Alliance may well be none of the things I suspect it of, and support none of the positions I suspect it of supporting, but there just seem to be too many inconsistencies from one organisation. I'll read more when I feel up to it and see if perhaps my take on them is unduly harsh.
Yep, Chakotay is tiresome but it's a good episode and there are no spirit animal bollocks in it.
I understand why you are worried by the split but given Stonewall's move to accept that homosexuality is transphobic don't see how it could be avoided.
That I know Malcolm and have been protesting with him for over 38 years does make me biased.
-
Ffs!
https://thecritic.co.uk/expelled-from-the-tory-party-conference/?fbclid=IwAR33PaX__V-jLvwcPJNLOo4Of9q8z-eGIUUWfB68LorDF2ktha99bQvqCXk
-
So I came across this person:
https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/mr-gay-englands-first-trans-finalist-chiyo-gomes-terfs-genuinely-want-to-destroy-the-trans-existence-1/23833/?
He is a trans man (that is FTM) but describes himself as a drag king. I kinda thought the idea of drag kings was to mirror drag queens in that you pretend to be the sex that you aren't. So if you are now saying you are a man, can you still claim to be a drag king - this used to be called having your cake and eating it.
Anyway kind of a side issue as drag, however subversive it may once have been, has long since been subsumed into main stream culture. It has lost its ability to shock(something Paul O'Grady realised earlier than most drag queens) and it has either become panto or sanitised TV; or grossly crude and cruel club/pub/Ru Paul fodder acts.
So this drag act transman has entered into Mr Gay England, yet more irony, entering a competition that celebrates male physique in it's various forms. And yes I get that he is perhaps, subverting the format by appearing as a Trans man, but surely a much better thing to do would be to question what place an (in essence) beauty pageant that celebrates the male physique above all other considerations, still has in the LGBT community.
The other issue is that he may have had the surgery but his face still looks like a woman's face, and I know we've had effeminate men throughout history, but it's not the face of a Mr anything. I know that sounds like I'm locked into my own maleness. So be it.
I haven't thought this all through yet because I find too many contradictions inherent in the situation. My brain is starting to hurt.
-
So I came across this person:
https://www.attitude.co.uk/article/mr-gay-englands-first-trans-finalist-chiyo-gomes-terfs-genuinely-want-to-destroy-the-trans-existence-1/23833/?
He is a trans man (that is FTM) but describes himself as a drag king. I kinda thought the idea of drag kings was to mirror drag queens in that you pretend to be the sex that you aren't. So if you are now saying you are a man, can you still claim to be a drag king - this used to be called having your cake and eating it.
Anyway kind of a side issue as drag, however subversive it may once have been, has long since been subsumed into main stream culture. It has lost its ability to shock(something Paul O'Grady realised earlier than most drag queens) and it has either become panto or sanitised TV; or grossly crude and cruel club/pub/Ru Paul fodder acts.
So this drag act transman has entered into Mr Gay England, yet more irony, entering a competition that celebrates male physique in it's various forms. And yes I get that he is perhaps, subverting the format by appearing as a Trans man, but surely a much better thing to do would be to question what place an (in essence) beauty pageant that celebrates the male physique above all other considerations, still has in the LGBT community.
The other issue is that he may have had the surgery but his face still looks like a woman's face, and I know we've had effeminate men throughout history, but it's not the face of a Mr anything. I know that sounds like I'm locked into my own maleness. So be it.
I haven't thought this all through yet because I find too many contradictions inherent in the situation. My brain is starting to hurt.
WAP as in Wet Ass Pussy?
-
WAP as in Wet Ass Pussy?
I assume that is what he refers to, which again seems to be wanting some special categorisation for one's self that is beyond the "usual" experience of males.
-
On further thought and reading, his surgery and statements indicate that rather than being a transman he/she has converted themselves into a person that fits the categorisation "intersex".
-
On further thought and reading, his surgery and statements indicate that rather than being a transman he/she has converted themselves into a person that fits the categorisation "intersex".
I think people with differences in sexual development (DSD) as intersex is more accurately known would argue that it is not the case.
-
I think people with differences in sexual development (DSD) as intersex is more accurately known would argue that it is not the case.
Yes, maybe not. But I don't see how you can claim to be a man yet want to retain the functioning genitalia of a woman. Makes no sense to me. You've had surgery to remove your breasts. I think maybe I'm too old and set in my ways for this brave new world.
-
Yes, maybe not. But I don't see how you can claim to be a man yet want to retain the functioning genitalia of a woman. Makes no sense to me. You've had surgery to remove your breasts. I think maybe I'm too old and set in my ways for this brave new world.
Breasts can be taped down. To dress as a man and be in a stable relationship with a woman does and will make it easier for a lesbian couple to live openly together and make anti-lesbians less likely to twig what you are doing.
-
Breasts can be taped down. To dress as a man and be in a stable relationship with a woman does and will make it easier for a lesbian couple to live openly together and make anti-lesbians less likely to twig what you are doing.
Well possibly, but I'd hope there is less need for that in this day and age and that would still be two lesbians.
It is the claim that they are a trans man that I find confusing.
-
And more ffs!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8819877/Etsy-bans-sellers-heart-JK-Rowling-items-promoting-products-F-JK-Rowling-slogan.html?fbclid=IwAR1Js0fR9T1ZLrlu1QLk2-qf_g6_hfa0Svm9gUYTYg-9XP5lhnL1u6nL3gA
-
Good for World Rugby
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/54491179
-
Good article
https://www.thearticle.com/a-non-binary-tomato-walks-in-to-a-bar?fbclid=IwAR2xTyOUKP0VDLE1PxpToGGkOU9e0n_7qds5Hb7H27oaSAntkYxMALG9dSM
-
And this
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/we-need-to-stand-up-for-rosie-duffield/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Ffs!
https://amp.thepostmillennial.com/woman-fired-by-restaurant-after-posting-support-for-jk-rowling-on-facebook/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Dreadful. In real life I know no one who does not support JKR.
-
Dreadful. In real life, I know no one who does not support JKR.
Of course! Those attacking her and any who support her can only operate with anonymity! Well, most of them, anyway!
-
Good article
https://standpointmag.co.uk/sex-matters/
-
The Cambridge porter and the Clare students
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-trans-debate-could-cost-this-cambridge-porter-his-job/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
Transcript of brilliant speech
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/men-know-what-a-woman-is-in-holbeck
-
The Cambridge porter and the Clare students
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-trans-debate-could-cost-this-cambridge-porter-his-job/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Hopefully his employers - the college - will tell them to fuck off.
-
Transcript of brilliant speech
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/men-know-what-a-woman-is-in-holbeck
Fantastic speech. So many great lines.
"our sex is what makes us a class, Our sex which makes us uniquely vulnerable to male violence. Our sex which means we bear the entire burden of reproductive labour. The structural oppression which women face as a class is because of their sex. And that is why all women need legal recourse to separate and sex-segregated spaces."
"If you cannot define women, then you cannot defend them."
"You cannot identify into an oppressed class because you cannot identify out of an oppressed class. And women are uniquely oppressed across the planet: reproductive health and autonomy, Female Genital Mutilation, violence, rape, child marriage, no right to vote, death in childbirth, post-natal illness, denied access to education, lower wages, chemical contraception, sex trafficking, surrogacy, pornography, prostitution and objectification."
Can totally relate to the bit about being bombarded with billboards, videos, magazines to tell me my body is wrong in order to persuade me to buy something to fix it. The women's fashion and beauty industry makes billions out of this and the environmentally unfriendly "junk" marketed to women suggesting their lives would be oh so rosy and perfect if only they used this product or service to hide or "fix" their outward appearance (even if it's often hidden under clothing) is nearly always so much more expensive than the equivalent male product...if there is an equivalent male product. Slight tangent but many young women have said this was the reason they rejected the minimal, tight, sexy fashion trends and felt more empowered by covering up as a kind of FU to the intrusiveness of other people's judgements, which objectify and sexualise their bodies, and the cultural manipulation by certain parts of the fashion industry - the Grammy award-winning, American, teenage, singer-songwriter, Billie Eilish, has sparked a new trend for oversized clothing for teen girls. Though I appreciate that many other women say they feel more empowered by wearing less clothes.
-
Fantastic speech. So many great lines.
"our sex is what makes us a class, Our sex which makes us uniquely vulnerable to male violence. Our sex which means we bear the entire burden of reproductive labour. The structural oppression which women face as a class is because of their sex. And that is why all women need legal recourse to separate and sex-segregated spaces."
"If you cannot define women, then you cannot defend them."
"You cannot identify into an oppressed class because you cannot identify out of an oppressed class. And women are uniquely oppressed across the planet: reproductive health and autonomy, Female Genital Mutilation, violence, rape, child marriage, no right to vote, death in childbirth, post-natal illness, denied access to education, lower wages, chemical contraception, sex trafficking, surrogacy, pornography, prostitution and objectification."
Can totally relate to the bit about being bombarded with billboards, videos, magazines to tell me my body is wrong in order to persuade me to buy something to fix it. The women's fashion and beauty industry makes billions out of this and the environmentally unfriendly "junk" marketed to women suggesting their lives would be oh so rosy and perfect if only they used this product or service to hide or "fix" their outward appearance (even if it's often hidden under clothing) is nearly always so much more expensive than the equivalent male product...if there is an equivalent male product. Slight tangent but many young women have said this was the reason they rejected the minimal, tight, sexy fashion trends and felt more empowered by covering up as a kind of FU to the intrusiveness of other people's judgements, which objectify and sexualise their bodies, and the cultural manipulation by certain parts of the fashion industry - the Grammy award-winning, American, teenage, singer-songwriter, Billie Eilish, has sparked a new trend for oversized clothing for teen girls. Though I appreciate that many other women say they feel more empowered by wearing less clothes.
Like your post agree with every word, have a look at one of those forties or fifties films and try to not explode if you're female, the whole bit the way the men talk to the women and the general way they are treated, patronised and on and on, I often think how on earth did they get away with it?
The only slight critique of your post, could it be the disparity of expense on care products could be marked down to men being so damn good looking in the first place etc?
I've got my tin hat on ready.
ippy.
P S Seriously V G, a good post.
-
Like your post agree with every word, have a look at one of those forties or fifties films and try to not explode if you're female, the whole bit the way the men talk to the women and the general way they are treated, patronised and on and on, I often think how on earth did they get away with it?
The only slight critique of your post, could it be the disparity of expense on care products could be marked down to men being so damn good looking in the first place etc?
I've got my tin hat on ready.
ippy.
P S Seriously V G, a good post.
Hahaha - thanks Ippy. Actually, research apparently shows that especially after menopause women's skin ages faster than men's - apparently 3 times faster than men's after menopause. So women may develop significantly more wrinkles than a man the same age. Though lifestyle choices such as heavy drinking, smoking, sun exposure etc also affects the number of wrinkles on men and women. And the salt and pepper hair look is often described as distinguished when it comes to men but not so much in relation to women. So you're right that women offer businesses a more lucrative market to tap into because they are more affected by insecurities about appearance, the worship of youthfulness ..or as you put it, because men are so damn good-looking to begin with ;)
So something trans women will not experience due to their biology, which reinforces the need for biological sex-based provisions in certain issues. Anyone seeking to deny biological sex-based provisions to women is either misguided or a misogynist.
I actually enjoy 1940s and 1950s films - yes in many films the women look very glamourous and are often patronised by the men and scream or cry a lot and need protecting - after all how mobile can you be in high heels and a tight, restrictive dress, not to mention the biological, social and legal obstacles to self-sufficiency. A few exceptions to this in 1950s films where the female character is portrayed as self-reliant and heroic. Again, this means that men can only identify as women on a very superficial level when they have not experienced any of the biological, social or legal obstacles. But I think the male characters in many of these films often come across as pretty stupid too - some exceptions off the top of my head are roles played by Gregory Peck and Sidney Poitier.
-
Hahaha - thanks Ippy. Actually, research apparently shows that especially after menopause women's skin ages faster than men's - apparently 3 times faster than men's after menopause. So women may develop significantly more wrinkles than a man the same age. Though lifestyle choices such as heavy drinking, smoking, sun exposure etc also affects the number of wrinkles on men and women. And the salt and pepper hair look is often described as distinguished when it comes to men but not so much in relation to women. So you're right that women offer businesses a more lucrative market to tap into because they are more affected by insecurities about appearance, the worship of youthfulness ..or as you put it, because men are so damn good-looking to begin with ;)
So something trans women will not experience due to their biology, which reinforces the need for biological sex-based provisions in certain issues. Anyone seeking to deny biological sex-based provisions to women is either misguided or a misogynist.
I actually enjoy 1940s and 1950s films - yes in many films the women look very glamourous and are often patronised by the men and scream or cry a lot and need protecting - after all how mobile can you be in high heels and a tight, restrictive dress, not to mention the biological, social and legal obstacles to self-sufficiency. A few exceptions to this in 1950s films where the female character is portrayed as self-reliant and heroic. Again, this means that men can only identify as women on a very superficial level when they have not experienced any of the biological, social or legal obstacles. But I think the male characters in many of these films often come across as pretty stupid too - some exceptions off the top of my head are roles played by Gregory Peck and Sidney Poitier.
It's a good job John Wane was on our side in the second world war, we'd more than likely lost it without him and I wonder if you've ever noticed wherever or whenever J W got wounded in any of his films leg, head, little toe, they always put his arm in a sling, so just as you say how daft the men often looked.
The trans thing, I can only put it down to my age and how things were for the most of my life, whilst I'll support equality of treatment for these people, I'd even support them in a protest march etc, but if I know there's a play or a stage show based on trans/gay anything I'll do my very best to avoid viewing these sorts of things a sort of they have every right to be as they are but I don't want to know, good luck with it but no thanks.
ippy.
-
The erasure of the words woman/women
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/woman-is-not-a-dirty-word?r=7vxvn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0e2VaKR_Aifli_vneVudUAnSSg1QXHuE60mB-vtvFlanQQ5mwHUGSP_Lw
-
Cancel culture
https://kotaku.com/ubisoft-to-remove-controversial-host-from-watch-dogs-le-1845596398/amp?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=kotaku_twitter&__twitter_impression=true
-
Trans in acting
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/tales-from-the-wokeplace-an-actor?r=7oafk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
-
And trans activists get bisexual actor cancelled
https://amp.theguardian.com/culture/2020/nov/18/its-not-about-cancel-culture-hedwig-and-the-angry-inch-postponed-after-trans-led-petition?__twitter_impression=true
-
Selina Todd (has a share token so you don't need a subscription to read)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5eb66d6-2a88-11eb-9d71-3a8cfebe9319?shareToken=325c46432179a736f184c8ebea4c4439
-
Whatever the right treatment is for trans kids, it's important that they are seen by specialists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55015959
-
Whatever the right treatment is for trans kids, it's important that they are seen by specialists.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55015959
The boy is waiting for gender reassignment treatment. I don’t know what that means exactly but if it’s surgery or hormone treatment, I think it’s a good thing he has to wait.
-
The boy is waiting for gender reassignment treatment. I don’t know what that means exactly but if it’s surgery or hormone treatment, I think it’s a good thing he has to wait.
He's not been seen yet for anyone to help in any way.
-
Selina Todd (has a share token so you don't need a subscription to read)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a5eb66d6-2a88-11eb-9d71-3a8cfebe9319?shareToken=325c46432179a736f184c8ebea4c4439
I had made a recent financial contribution to the Guardian and got a thank you from the Membership editor, Mark Rice-Oxley. But after Suzanne Moore's resignation I emailed him and the editor, Katharine Viner (katharine.viner@theguardian.com), to say I would not be contributing further. My email said:
Dear Mark and Katharine
Thanks for Mark’s email following my first financial contribution to the Guardian. I was hoping to be a regular contributor. However, after the recent lack of support by the editor, Katharine Viner, for Suzanne Moore I am shelving my plan to contribute further donations. I enjoy many of the Guardian articles and thanks to this email have recently discovered some of the excellent articles on mental health by Mark, which I forwarded to my daughter. Mark noted in an article from 2017 that the voice in your head is not who you are. Unfortunately, the bullying culture demonstrated by 338 Guardian staff against one individual journalist, Suzanne Moore, is a lot more than a voice in her head. Katharine’s lack of support for independent journalism or freedom of speech to question dogma or hold a differing opinion means that I cannot in good conscience continue to financially support such a culture by continuing to make financial contributions to the Guardian.
Best regards
-
I had made a recent financial contribution to the Guardian and got a thank you from the Membership editor, Mark Rice-Oxley. But after Suzanne Moore's resignation I emailed him and the editor, Katharine Viner (katharine.viner@theguardian.com), to say I would not be contributing further. My email said:
Dear Mark and Katharine
Thanks for Mark’s email following my first financial contribution to the Guardian. I was hoping to be a regular contributor. However, after the recent lack of support by the editor, Katharine Viner, for Suzanne Moore I am shelving my plan to contribute further donations. I enjoy many of the Guardian articles and thanks to this email have recently discovered some of the excellent articles on mental health by Mark, which I forwarded to my daughter. Mark noted in an article from 2017 that the voice in your head is not who you are. Unfortunately, the bullying culture demonstrated by 338 Guardian staff against one individual journalist, Suzanne Moore, is a lot more than a voice in her head. Katharine’s lack of support for independent journalism or freedom of speech to question dogma or hold a differing opinion means that I cannot in good conscience continue to financially support such a culture by continuing to make financial contributions to the Guardian.
Best regards
Don't know if you have seen Suzanne Moore's piece that was published today on why she left? Link below.
https://unherd.com/2020/11/why-i-had-to-leave-the-guardian/?fbclid=IwAR1DhBAJC0lduE6yfOpxbtMxJyhJhSKM4i7dnu2AN0UiG7cA2rxG5QFC5Zo
-
It is a great shame that Suzanne Moore has left. She was one of the few writers I would always read in The Guardian, even though I didn't always agree with her.
Her and strangely enough Hadley Freeman who Moore mentions in this article.
The kind of polarisation that is occurring is no good for anyone.
-
Don't know if you have seen Suzanne Moore's piece that was published today on why she left? Link below.
https://unherd.com/2020/11/why-i-had-to-leave-the-guardian/?fbclid=IwAR1DhBAJC0lduE6yfOpxbtMxJyhJhSKM4i7dnu2AN0UiG7cA2rxG5QFC5Zo
No I hadn't seen it. Thanks. Very interesting that she felt she did not feel like she had ever really fitted in at the Guardian. I agree with a lot of what she said.
-
It's certainly interesting listening to all sides of this debate. Apparently opposing sides feel that Keir Starmer is not speaking up for them:
Labour members plead with Keir Starmer, Marsha de Cordova and the party to come out swinging for trans rights in the wake of alleged Tory attacks
https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2020/06/19/keir-starmer-trans-rights-gender-recognition-act-labour-party-marsha-de-cordova/
Keir Starmer’s woman problem. The Labour leader has done nothing to tackle trans extremists' assault on sex-based rights
https://unherd.com/2020/09/keir-starmers-women-problem/?=refinnar
Labour’s official policy is apparently still promoting trans equality but defending powers in equality law that let organisations exclude trans women from all-female spaces in exceptional circumstances.
One definition of a woman is offered here:
https://clareflourish.wordpress.com/2020/04/16/woman-transwoman-definition/
Some trans activists rejecting the patriarchy clearly expected unquestioning support from biological women who also reject the patriarchy. The response from some activists (who claim to be women) for not getting that unquestioning support is to threaten women who disagree with them with rape. Wonder if there is any evidence of biological women threatening trans activists with rape? If there isn't evidence of that phenomena, that probably goes some way to explaining the need for single sex spaces rather than the alternative, which is to only exclude male criminals and allow all other men into female spaces. Male biology seems to lead to some unique problems for female biology.
What's troubling is having to pin hopes on Liz Truss/ the Tories on this issue depending on Keir Starmer's future statements on this issue. It might get to the point where I will have to vote Tory for the first time since I have been voting, despite all the Tory party's other failings, of which there are too many to list.
-
The boxer ceiling. Gay men being accused of being transphobic for being same sex attracted
https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipN6bUPUugEzmNmC-nZTunsVPUtgAuMANMmoVSD1j5gmROqY5E53VSCukHKc8zSRHA?fbclid=IwAR3u-vUa6DZbcXsFkY6EHxBbeqQ0_BgxyeeBr70cEQ2VUBP1YXMQ8ph7yYo&key=bTMzMDNKeC1vbkFkRjlqTHJKM284RU1IQ3JkSlF3
-
Well that's one more thread I can't unsee.
What is it with all this hatred?
At the risk of being pilloried by some stray trans activist I'd just like to say that I will stick to sleeping with gay men thank you. In my case one gay man.
-
Well that's one more thread I can't unsee.
What is it with all this hatred?
At the risk of being pilloried by some stray trans activist I'd just like to say that I will stick to sleeping with gay men thank you. In my case one gay man.
I'd be sceptical if it was actual trans men making those tweets.
It's an argument I've seen before that it's only female attracted trans women or female attracted cis men who complain that women won't sleep with them, not trans men or cis women or gay people of either sex. The common thread is heterosexual men... actually, it's an argument I've made before. So I think those tweets you see that NS posted were probably posted by trans women activists trying to pretend the problem is one of attitudes towards trans people not the attitudes of heterosexual males.
The tactics of some trans rights activists seem to me to be very similar to those of MRAs.
-
The trans thing, I can only put it down to my age and how things were for the most of my life, whilst I'll support equality of treatment for these people, I'd even support them in a protest march etc, but if I know there's a play or a stage show based on trans/gay anything I'll do my very best to avoid viewing these sorts of things a sort of they have every right to be as they are but I don't want to know, good luck with it but no thanks.
ippy.
A perfectly reasonable position. I feel the same about gay men (bot not about lesbians).
-
The trans thing, I can only put it down to my age and how things were for the most of my life, whilst I'll support equality of treatment for these people, I'd even support them in a protest march etc, but if I know there's a play or a stage show based on trans/gay anything I'll do my very best to avoid viewing these sorts of things a sort of they have every right to be as they are but I don't want to know, good luck with it but no thanks.
ippy.
A perfectly reasonable position. I feel the same about gay men (bot not about lesbians).
I feel the same way about a lot of Muslims - especially listening to their speeches, sermons and talks. Some parts are interesting but a lot of it is so simplistic and one-sided, reverential and uncritically celebratory - it irritates me. I would prefer to spend my time focusing on people who have gone above and beyond - risked their life or sacrificed considerable amounts of their time or freedom for someone else - and celebrate that act / acts rather than uncritically celebrate a person, who is usually complicated with lots of flaws despite their heroic act/ acts.
With the trans issue, I find there are real heart-breaking problems with girls as young as 5 living on the streets or in poverty in developing countries facing child marriage, kidnap and rape/ murder due to their biological sex; or young girls not being able to attend school because they don't have sanitary products. It's depressingly unsurprising that in the developed world some biological males equate frivolous femininity with womanhood or think that they can define the word "woman" and have access to female single sex spaces when they have never had to contemplate the risk of any of that happening to them. It's like putting your hair in corn rows and wearing black face and then thinking that means you get to define what being black means because you have this undefinable feeling of affinity for hip hop culture in you.
-
It is a great shame that Suzanne Moore has left. She was one of the few writers I would always read in The Guardian, even though I didn't always agree with her.
Her and strangely enough Hadley Freeman who Moore mentions in this article.
The kind of polarisation that is occurring is no good for anyone.
I got a response to my email to the Guardian the next morning from Mark Rice-Oxley:
Thanks for your note - I'm deeply touched that you have found my work on mental health useful enough to share with your daughter. I hope this email finds you both well.
We are truly sorry that Suzanne Moore has decided to leave the Guardian - she has been a fantastic columnist for us over the past decade. But I feel I should explain one or two things about the situation here, to give you a fuller picture.
The Guardian believes very strongly that our pages should feature a plurality of viewpoints, even on very complex and controversial subjects, and in that spirit we have continued to publish a range of views on all sides of the gender and sex debate. The issue is a delicate one. There are very strong feelings on both sides, accusations that we are unfair both to women and to the trans community. These are sensibilities that we try to remain aware of as we go about our work. Rest assured that even after Suzanne’s departure, regular columns by the likes of Nesrine Malik, Hadley Freeman and Gaby Hinsliff will ensure that women's rights remain strongly represented.
Much has been made of the petition that a large number of Guardian employees signed in the wake of one of Suzanne’s columns. We expect from all our staff a culture of respect and tolerance for those with opposing views, and we have made this point again this year in the most unambiguous fashion. When necessary, we also remind them that those standards apply on social media, too. Hundreds may have signed this petition. A much larger number did not.
Please rest assured that the decisions by individual writers will not deflect us in any way from our core values and a robust commitment to plurality - one of the Guardian’s most important principles. We will never become a mouthpiece for one lobby or another, and resist any cliques that try to push us in that direction.
I hope this goes some way to assuaging your concerns and convincing you that the Guardian remains a fair, open-minded organisation worthy of your support.
All the best
-
A perfectly reasonable position. I feel the same about gay men (bot not about lesbians).
It's always good to see that a bit of lesbian action does it for some heterosexual men ::)
-
It's always good to see that a bit of lesbian action does it for some heterosexual men ::)
Yes. I've heard that said & remember one (revolting) man saying he wouldn't like it if his wife was involved. Ha! Thing is it would be like watching porn = quite unrealistic. Two lesbian women or two paid women doing the deed in front of a male audience would be performing, not showing genuine affection or passion.
We can't assume that is why all men aren't bothered by lesbian women though, it can be because it doesn't affect them. They can't imagine themselves in that position whereas they could if it was two men & not like it. Women generallyhave very different reactions than men to sex. As a straight woman if I knew two women were lovers the details wouldn't enter my head & I have no wish to watch anyone have sex. It's private.
(When I was a kid I admit used to wonder what people did. I wouldn't have wanted to see but read. Idevoured Well of Loneliness & learned nothing.)
-
We can't assume that is why all men aren't bothered by lesbian women though, it can be because it doesn't affect them. They can't imagine themselves in that position whereas they could if it was two men & not like it.
I wasn't making that assumption. I just find it odd that some people react that way.
I, as a gay man, can watch dramas about gay men, gay women, heterosexuals, transexuals, whatever without feeling the need to say "Oh I don't watch that because it somehow challenges my view of myself." It's just odd. Of all the criteria to apply it seems, somehow the behaviour more fitting of a teenager than an adult. Surely the first question should be is the drama good, worthwhile, revealing something you hadn't thought of or realised.
-
I ddn't think for one moment you were assuming that Trent. There's nowt as strange as folk.
"Surely the first question should be is the drama good, worthwhile, revealing something you hadn't thought of or realised."
Perhaps that's what scares some ;).
-
I wasn't making that assumption. I just find it odd that some people react that way.
I, as a gay man, can watch dramas about gay men, gay women, heterosexuals, transexuals, whatever without feeling the need to say "Oh I don't watch that because it somehow challenges my view of myself." It's just odd. Of all the criteria to apply it seems, somehow the behaviour more fitting of a teenager than an adult. Surely the first question should be is the drama good, worthwhile, revealing something you hadn't thought of or realised.
I agree. It'completely baffling to me why someone would have a problem with gay people, or trans people in a drama.
-
Great thread from Malcolm Clark on the LGB Alliance
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1333248030259044352.html
-
Noticed from your Malcolm Clark link that there is a court case due to be heard in Scotland brought by a group pf women challenging the right of the Scottish government to erode women's sex-based rights, with a link to fund the legal fees for this case, so I donated.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/stop-scottish-government-redefining-woman/
-
I ddn't think for one moment you were assuming that Trent. There's nowt as strange as folk.
"Surely the first question should be is the drama good, worthwhile, revealing something you hadn't thought of or realised."
Perhaps that's what scares some ;).
That's what I thought they meant when they said they weren't interested in gay/ trans plays - as opposed to that they did not want to view any explicit sex scenes. Lesbian sex scenes would make me feel queasy so I guess I can understand some men's views of male gay sex scenes from a male heterosexual perspective. The limited sex scenes in Boys Don't Cry made me uncomfortable. And obviously sexual violence of any kind on film is extremely uncomfortable viewing but presumably that's the point.
I thought 3 Generations was an interesting film about young trans issues - where a teenage female wants to transition to a boy - though it did not get great reviews. No sex scenes.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/3_generations/reviews
-
Ffs!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8997405/amp/Breastfeeding-charity-sparks-outrage-allowing-men-identify-female-attend-meetings.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Decision today on Keira Bell case
https://www.expressandstar.com/news/uk-news/2020/12/01/high-court-to-rule-on-case-over-experimental-puberty-blockers-for-children/
-
It would appear that the legal challenge has been successful.
I have been looking at photos of Keira Bell. Her facial bone structure now appears rather masculine. If i were not aware that she is a woman in her twenties I would have guessed from her current appearance that was a boy in his mid to late teens. Photos which show her as a child show someone unmistakeably a girl.
-
And a thread from Malcolm Clark on puberty blockers
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1334132885138370561.html
-
That's a good article and frightening. Mermaids is a charity that persuades parents to allow their children to have the whole works where possible which is so dangerous. Keira is not the only person who has regretted having puberty blockers, male hormones and mastectomies. When is this trend going to change and what can we do about it?
-
Excellent piece on Keira Bell and Elliot Page
https://sisteroutrider.wordpress.com/2020/12/02/on-the-same-page/amp/?__twitter_impression=true :D
-
And a piece by Suzanne Moore on the Keira Bell case
https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/what-does-the-keira-bell-case-tell/comments
-
Good balanced leader from the Economist
https://amp.economist.com/leaders/2020/12/12/other-countries-should-learn-from-a-transgender-verdict-in-england?__twitter_impression=true
-
Good article on the goings on around The Forensic Medical Services (Victims of Sexual Offences) Bill in Holyrood this week.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,six-little-words-for-the-word-gender-substitute-sex
-
Good to see
https://nypost.com/2020/12/11/tulsi-gabbard-introduces-protect-womens-sports-act/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Good to see
https://nypost.com/2020/12/11/tulsi-gabbard-introduces-protect-womens-sports-act/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
I hope Tulsi Gabbard doesn't pay any attention to Twitter.
-
Oh ffs!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2019/10/29/new-research-reveals-facial-recognition-software-misclassifies-transgender-non-binary-people/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Andy Wightman, one of the better MSPs, resigns from the Scottish Green Party over their position on women's rights
https://andywightman.scot/resignation-from-the-scottish-green-party
-
Alex Massie on Wightman's resignation
https://archive.is/Ubeho
-
Sorry, Eddie, you are not a lesbian
https://news.avclub.com/eddie-izzard-uses-only-she-her-pronouns-now-i-just-wa-1845923664 ;)
-
No, he's just a thespian.
-
Oh ffs!
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessedamiani/2019/10/29/new-research-reveals-facial-recognition-software-misclassifies-transgender-non-binary-people/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Why are they remotely surprised? If you're going on facial features, of course it's going to classify people according to biology.
-
Why are they remotely surprised? If you're going on facial features, of course it's going to classify people according to biology.
No idea, and if what would be the test for nonbinary?
-
No idea, and if what would be the test for nonbinary?
I don't know. I'd be interested to see how they train this thing to recognise trans genders. I can't help thinking it will come down to "this is a man wearing makeup" or some other stereotypical nonsense.
In fact, I want to ask what does it mean to live as a woman? I can't think of an answer to that that doesn't reduce to the level of "wear a dress".
-
Excellent article by James Kirkup on a dreadful BBC article
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bbc-should-be-ashamed-of-its-reporting-on-trans-teenagers/amp?__twitter_impression=true
-
And a twitter thread from a woman who set up an online space for women and initially allowed transwomen, and why they changed that policy
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1339464360712830976.html
-
That's a good article and frightening. Mermaids is a charity that persuades parents to allow their children to have the whole works where possible which is so dangerous. Keira is not the only person who has regretted having puberty blockers, male hormones and mastectomies. When is this trend going to change and what can we do about it?
Talk to people. Tell them what is happening
-
Great thread from Dr Kathleen Stock on the silencing of women in academia on the subject of gender.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1344525004973682689.html
-
Piece on the transwoman elected Co-Chair of Green Party Women
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1344573750591844352.html
-
A piece on the transwoman elected Co-Chair of Green Party Women
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1344573750591844352.html
Why are such operations and operators allowed to continue unchecked?
Adults should be able to access such treatments but children?
Owlswing
)O(
-
Why are such operations and operators allowed to continue unchecked?
Adults should be able to access such treatments but children?
Well there's no point in prescribing puberty blockers to adults.
On a serious note: I really can't believe that prescribing puberty blockers to children is legal. I also don't believe that any person who has not gone through puberty can have any idea of what it really means to be male or female and therefore cannot be competent to make such life altering decisions. I think it's barbaric to administer puberty blockers to otherwise healthy children.
-
Just ffs!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/congress-prayer-cleaver-amen-awoman-b1781843.html
-
Just ffs!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/congress-prayer-cleaver-amen-awoman-b1781843.html
That's Scunthorpe levels of stupidity.
-
Liked this in the comments:
"Political correctness, if taken to this extreme, really becomes a malady, or possibly a magentleman."
-
This is a long read, but it is a brilliant personal account from the Scottish poet, Jenny Lindsay, about her experiences having spoken out against threats and attempts at violence from a trans right activist.
https://www.thedarkhorsemagazine.com/anatomy-of-a-hounding-lindsay
-
This is madness
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/questions-on-biological-sex-are-wiped-from-official-data-klskthtfc
-
Excellent from Susan Dalgety
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/trans-gender-debate-world-where-life-women-can-be-worse-simply-virtue-their-sex-biology-matters-susan-dalgety-3101863
-
And a piece arguing against a women and children only baths. Madness.
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/16/bodies-of-water-who-is-welcome-in-womens-spaces?__twitter_impression=true
-
And the women only baths are no more.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-theft-of-the-mciver-ladies-baths?r=9kqks&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
-
And the women only baths are no more.
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-theft-of-the-mciver-ladies-baths?r=9kqks&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
I thought they'd shut for a minute, but they are not no more, they are just accepting trans women.They are no longer women only but cis men exclusive.
-
I thought they'd shut for a minute, but they are not no more, they are just accepting trans women.They are no longer women only but cis men exclusive.
Cis is a nonsense term in this context
-
Cis is a nonsense term in this context
No it isn't. It is shorter than typing "males who identify as men"
ETA: no actually, you are right because (I assume) trans men are also excluded
-
No it isn't. It is shorter than typing "males who identify as men"
ETA: no actually, you are right because (I assume) trans men are also excluded
What does 'identify as' mean here? What is the meaning of man or woman in the context?
-
What does 'identify as' mean here? What is the meaning of man or woman in the context?
This is the problem. It's why you have to be more explicit sometimes writing things like "cis men" to make sure everybody knows exactly what you mean.
"identify" here means how do people see themselves. If I say to you "are you a man or a woman?" and you say "man" then you identify as a man.
-
Quite right
https://athleticsweekly.com/athletics-news/legends-of-womens-cross-country-in-opposition-to-ukas-equality-plan-1039939581/
What's quite right? That dispute, by the way, has nothing to do with trans rights.
-
What's quite right? That dispute, by the way, has nothing to do with trans rights.
Yes, you are right. I will remove
-
This is the problem. It's why you have to be more explicit sometimes writing things like "cis men" to make sure everybody knows exactly what you mean.
"identify" here means how do people see themselves. If I say to you "are you a man or a woman?" and you say "man" then you identify as a man.
But what does "see yourself as a man' mean? I don't see myself as a man. I am a man because it's my sex. I am not cis sinnce that confuses sex with the completely ill defined idea of gender.
-
Interview with Andy Wightman who resigned from the Greens over their position on 'gender'.
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,finding-the-words-interview-with-andy-wightman?fbclid=IwAR1YqTrtVK5OLRQ6RZpyT793WJE7F6AXN5JFvv2mttFhbemqr8JRqUBcDaQ
-
Janice Turner on language use in this context. (Share token so no paywall)
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/ca340930-5cce-11eb-86f4-4fa0aa4e7fd3?shareToken=e9a2d7220691c1995161305a35390f21
-
Ffs!
https://medium.com/an-injustice/yes-its-wrong-to-tell-trans-people-you-don-t-want-to-sleep-with-them-because-of-their-genitals-cf2db2346813
-
And another FFS!
https://www.out.com/celebs/2021/1/20/how-miley-cyruss-preference-remarks-show-underlying-transphobia
-
All women shortlists with added men
https://labour.org.uk/about/how-we-work/nec-statement-women-shortlists-womens-officers-minimum-quotas-women/
-
The Feminist Library for anyone that wants
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-feminist-library-with-a-difference?r=7x99i&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
-
I normally avoid Spiked but this is extraordinary
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/01/29/the-witch-hunting-of-boyz-magazine/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And another FFS!
https://www.out.com/celebs/2021/1/20/how-miley-cyruss-preference-remarks-show-underlying-transphobia
Have you read the comments? Without exception, they are all hostile to the article. If ever a writer misjudged their audience...
By the way, I agree with Miley Cyrus.
-
The trans issue and Scottish politics
https://archive.is/h1MTY
-
And another view on Sturgeon's intervention
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,taking-a-lead?fbclid=IwAR2clkyiHn127FZJVmlrVmlsTcIJ0If2XuUfC_C6gFvdXPm_4jxvYDcEQd8
-
Sex Is Not A Spectrum
https://colinwright.substack.com/p/sex-is-not-a-spectrum?r=7oafk&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
-
Facts are transphobic
https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/litigation/quebec-superior-court-ruling-is-historic-win-for-trans-rights/337449
-
And the ACLU show they don't understand the word fact
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1357062147239538689.html
-
A new level of stupidity has been rached - midwives have been, apparently, instructed not to use the term "breastfeeding" but "chestfeeding" when talking to pregnant or recently delivered women.
-
This is nice (strong ironic tone needed when reading that):
https://tinyurl.com/357k4no3
Astonishing amount of hatred going on.
-
Ffs! Census nonsense about sex question. Time for a bit of civil disobedience.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1359875526261882887.html
-
Transcript of excellent speech from Dr Emma Hilton
https://www.womentalkback.org/post/emma-hilton-sex-denialists-have-captured-existing-journals-we-are-dealing-with-a-new-religion?fbclid=IwAR1EW3Am5bLYwKuBCYXQQLv7Uip1WTQCUR8tCpxeq2VP5IfL7boNiPabuXg
-
Menstruator writing
https://beajaspert.substack.com/p/lets-form-an-alliance
-
Ffs!
https://www.the11thhourblog.com/post/custom-vaginoplasty-for-your-inner-well-being
-
Suzanne Moore
https://suzannemoore.substack.com/p/the-dumbstruck-men-of-the-left?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxNTEwNzg4OCwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzI1MTA2MTAsIl8iOiJtanpGZiIsImlhdCI6MTYxMzI0OTgwOSwiZXhwIjoxNjEzMjUzNDA5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItMjIzNTY2Iiwic3ViIjoicG9zdC1yZWFjdGlvbiJ9.iyMSauR_evUebYMbt_gREJ7Sf-2Mg4GGLqqJjO7tEdE
-
Well worth reading
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1362867929239412739.html
-
As is this
https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/news/we-stand-with-kiri/?fbclid=IwAR2XHK-QUidgOprQg9TlmjMBbcRgbRU4ZsJGSsCA2wnNhytAv-xsapt0dMk
-
The census question
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2021/02/12/ons-guidance-for-the-sex-question-in-the-2021-census-in-england-and-wales/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Transing the dead
https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/forensic-archaeology-and-anthropology/0/steps/67881
-
Good article on World Rugby's decision on trans players
https://theconversation.com/amp/why-the-world-rugby-guidelines-banning-trans-athletes-from-the-womens-game-are-reasonable-152178?utm_medium=amptwitter&utm_source=twitter&__twitter_impression=true
-
Ridiculous decision
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/14129416/domestic-abuse-charity-gender-neutral/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And the experiences of lesbians trying to meet other lesbians on dating apps and getting banned because they only want to date women
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/02/lesbian-women-talk-about-meeting-transbians-on-women-only-dating-sites/
-
Letter from some SNP women to Nicola Sturgeon
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/nicola-sturgeon-urged-by-120-snp-women-to-condemn-threats-made-against-joanna-cherry/ar-BB1dYV0q?ocid=st&fbclid=IwAR0g4nlLoRiU92k33KZ4o7D8h5PqT-ftcdRuQWtWxuofOGpi_60n6Wubguk
-
One of the many reasons why I no longer donate to Amnesty
https://spectator.us/topic/amnesty-international-travesty-trans-rights-ireland/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
'How children can order life-altering transgender drugs from their bedroom'
https://archive.is/EKbP5
-
I agree with Paul Greenall
https://thetab.com/uk/liverpool/2021/02/26/liverpool-john-moores-lecturer-accused-of-posting-transphobic-tweets-61441
-
I agree with Paul Greenall
https://thetab.com/uk/liverpool/2021/02/26/liverpool-john-moores-lecturer-accused-of-posting-transphobic-tweets-61441
I think it's instructive to try to come up with an alternative definition of "woman" that includes trans women but that isn't circular.
Not that it really matters, if we start labelling trans women "woman" it's just a label, it doesn't make the issues go away.
-
I think it's instructive to try to come up with an alternative definition of "woman" that includes trans women but that isn't circular.
Not that it really matters, if we start labelling trans women "woman" it's just a label, it doesn't make the issues go away.
If it still has its dick it ain't a woman!
Owlswing
)O(
-
Satire but only just
https://babylonbee.com/news/womens-history-month-canceled-for-implying-there-is-such-a-thing-as-women
And the non satire version
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/transgender-women-activists-history?__twitter_impression=true
-
I think this is quite funny in a grim way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-56251452
Twitch changed its spelling of "woman" to "womxn" to cater for gender fluidity. But they have been forced to back track because transgender women complained that it was denying their identity. Personally, I think the word "womxn" needs to be consigned to oblivion, but no matter, it was introduced because some women didn't like the idea that it implies "woman" is defined in terms of "man". i.e. it has nothing to do with gender fluid issues.
-
This is 42 years old.
How is it that only now it is relevant, rather than just being a silly riff in a film:
https://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c
-
This is 42 years old.
How is it that only now it is relevant, rather than just being a silly riff in a film:
https://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c
I'm pretty pleased that the woke don't seem to have discovered that film. This scene alone would have the trans activists demanding cancelation. There's also a scene at the beginning where you see John Cleese in black face for a few seconds.
-
Great interview with a fascinating woman
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/03/miriam-ben-shalom-the-first-openly-lesbian-service-member-to-be-reinstated-by-the-us-army-after-being-discharged-in-1976/?fbclid=IwAR1j0EP--pxUkSRbPndjbNvc5nzG5Pl9rcugHAAmu754OrJFW2u8nVb_fr4
-
And to quote a tweet from the vacuous idiotic organisation tgat is the ACLU on International Women's Day
'On International Women's Day, here's your reminder that trans women are women.'
Betraying women to centre men
-
Good piece on the debate on 'conversion therapy'
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/03/jo-bartosch-reports-on-last-nights-debate-on-conversion-therapy-in-the-house-of-commons-and-is-left-angry-and-disappointed/
-
The census question
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2021/02/12/ons-guidance-for-the-sex-question-in-the-2021-census-in-england-and-wales/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
Decision on case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56338666
https://archive.is/r7Otk
-
Simon Fanshawe
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/03/simon-fanshawe-as-i-was-kicked-he-shouted-fucking-qr-i-still-wont-write-the-q-word-in-full/
-
Simon Fanshawe
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/03/simon-fanshawe-as-i-was-kicked-he-shouted-fucking-qr-i-still-wont-write-the-q-word-in-full/
I do like Simon. Met him many years ago.
He expresses many of the thoughts that swirl around undefined and nebulous in my poor old mind.
-
I do like Simon. Met him many years ago.
He expresses many of the thoughts that swirl around undefined and nebulous in my poor old mind.
He's rather lovely
-
Good article
https://uncommongroundmedia.com/dear-intersectional-feminist-why-we-fight-for-the-word-woman/
-
A thread on how the transing of children is based on regressive stereotypes and parent's disquiet at having a child that doesn't behave how they think it should.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1371713528869060610.html
-
Update on the census question. Fair Play for Women win, ONS concede
https://fairplayforwomen.com/fair-play-for-women-wins-high-court-challenge-against-ons-census/
-
Update on the census question. Fair Play for Women win, ONS concede
https://fairplayforwomen.com/fair-play-for-women-wins-high-court-challenge-against-ons-census/
Excellent news. And the fact that a government agency has been told to pay the costs of both parties may ... err ... encourage other government agencies and departments to consider biological reality and not some populist fad.
-
Excellent news. And the fact that a government agency has been told to pay the costs of both parties may ... err ... encourage other government agencies and departments to consider biological reality and not some populist fad.
Great thread on the issue
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1372120815823638530.html
-
Excellent news. And the fact that a government agency has been told to pay the costs of both parties may ... err ... encourage other government agencies and departments to consider biological reality and not some populist fad.
Not that great. What they really need is your actual sex, not your legal sex. Of the three attributes: actual sex, legal sex and gender, legal sex is the one that doesn't matter for population statistical purposes.
-
Ralph Fiennes talking sense:
https://attitude.co.uk/article/ralph-fiennes-defends-jk-rowling-i-cant-understand-the-vitriol-directed-at-her-1/24682/
-
Trouble in the Green Party
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-small-bit-of-sanity-from-green?r=7vxx9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
-
Ralph Fiennes talking sense:
https://attitude.co.uk/article/ralph-fiennes-defends-jk-rowling-i-cant-understand-the-vitriol-directed-at-her-1/24682/
More than can be said for the person who wrote the article:
[JK Rowling] has since mocked trans men who have periods, tweeting last June: "'People who menstruate.' I'm sure there used to be a word for those people. Someone help me out. Wumben? Wimpund? Woomud?"
-
Trouble in the Green Party
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-small-bit-of-sanity-from-green?r=7vxx9&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
I have to ask what the people who opposed the Gender ID motion doing if all they needed was another 170 votes out of 50,000 to overturn it. I think this shows the importance of making sure your vote is counted in even what may seem trivial circumstances.
-
Good article
https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2021/03/22/matthew-dancona-beware-the-emotional-industrial-complex/
-
And an article on the attempted shutdown and shut out of comments in Irish student unions.
https://unherd.com/thepost/student-unions-are-suppressing-dissent/
-
Good thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1374623760217702401.html
-
Ludicrous headline on report of case lost yesterday by forwomen.Scotland on the legal redefinition of women in Scotland
https://archive.ph/QDlZm
-
Good, long article on the madness of sex denialism.
https://virginiasroom.co.uk/f/sex-denialism-a-case-study-in-collective-insanity
-
From CNN, apparently 'there is no consensus criteria for assigning sex at birth.'
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/30/politics/south-dakota-transgender-sports-kristi-noem/index.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Good article
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/april-2021/the-trans-rights-that-trump-all/
-
Trans Women are Men - an interview with Debbie Hayton, who explains her position rather well:
https://youtu.be/q0DT1aBHheI
It's a long watch 1 hr 05 minutes, but very interesting.
-
James Dreyfus
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/04/james-dreyfus-ive-lost-count-of-the-times-ive-been-smeared-lied-about-called-a-nazi-a-transphobe-a-bully-an-orchestrator-of-mass-pile-ons-i-mean-how-does-one-begin-to-tackle-such-basel/
-
James Dreyfus
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/04/james-dreyfus-ive-lost-count-of-the-times-ive-been-smeared-lied-about-called-a-nazi-a-transphobe-a-bully-an-orchestrator-of-mass-pile-ons-i-mean-how-does-one-begin-to-tackle-such-basel/
Very good piece. I have recently managed to get myself thrown out of an LGBT group on FB, for questioning the language used by people in that group. I merely asked if the best way to win an argument was to scream "kill the cunt" (in this case JKR) and was summarily told that I was being defined by my addiction to cock (if only) and asked if I would sleep with a FTM trans regardless of their stage of transition, I said I would not, I was kicked out of the group. No discussion, just censor the critic.
-
Very good piece. I have recently managed to get myself thrown out of an LGBT group on FB, for questioning the language used by people in that group. I merely asked if the best way to win an argument was to scream "kill the cunt" (in this case JKR) and was summarily told that I was being defined by my addiction to cock (if only) and asked if I would sleep with a FTM trans regardless of their stage of transition, I said I would not, I was kicked out of the group. No discussion, just censor the critic.
I would say it was incredible but sadly the homophobia is all too credible.
-
On the Lib Dems
https://nigelscott.co.uk/2021/03/30/the-liberal-democrats-women-and-safe-spaces-its-not-looking-good/
-
Thanks for that. An extremely thoughtful writer.
It is scary; most of us are fortunate that we don't encounter it in reality very often.
-
Airport scanners, amongst many other things, are transphobic
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-monday-124?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=twitter
-
The madness about JK Rowling extends to just making stuff up
https://stanfordreview.org/transphobic-racist-stanford-rowling/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And very powerful, clear article from Keira Bell
https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta
-
And very powerful, clear article from Keira Bell
https://www.persuasion.community/p/keira-bell-my-story?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=cta
That was a difficult read.
If you're unhappy or suffering from depression and you're attracted to the "wrong" sex then the easy to assume reason is that you have gender dysphoria but that's obviously lazy thinking and ignores the possibility that you're just gay and your unhappiness stems from other sources.
-
That was a difficult read.
If you're unhappy or suffering from depression and you're attracted to the "wrong" sex then the easy to assume reason is that you have gender dysphoria but that's obviously lazy thinking and ignores the possibility that you're just gay and your unhappiness stems from other sources.
It's not what I would call 'lazy thinking' especially if you are being encouraged to think that way by those you have turned to. It's why the straight affirmation approach is problematic.
-
I am probably asking for a right royal kicking in asking my question, but even being aware of the consequences I have to ask it.
What professional qualifications do the posters on this topic have to question the decisions of the medical and psychological professionals dealing with trans patients and legal qualifications to judge the consequences of the decisions of both the practitioners and those required to judge the legality of those decisions and the laws governing those decisions and consequences?
Owlswing
)O(
-
I am probably asking for a right royal kicking in asking my question, but even being aware of the consequences I have to ask it.
What professional qualifications do the posters on this topic have to question the decisions of the medical and psychological professionals dealing with trans patients and legal qualifications to judge the consequences of the decisions of both the practitioners and those required to judge the legality of those decisions and the laws governing those decisions and consequences?
Owlswing
)O(
Well I haven't got any. I do however have a basic understanding of the English Language and you can't go renaming things just because it suits your particular fancy, which is what a lot of the arguments around trans issues are about.
There, are though, increasing examples of people who transitioned at a young age who now clearly regret it. This suggests an eagerness on the part of professionals to progress people to transition at an earlier age than they perhaps ought to.
Add into that a narrative that has been built up by some in the trans community that people are being denied some kind of birth right and you have some parents believing that their children, because the boys put on dresses, or the girls are "tomboys" are trans in some way. Frankly most of them won't be, they'll be going through a phase or they may be gay.
The ultimate danger of course is self ID, where one can simply declare oneself a member of the opposite sex. It is fanciful, dangerous nonsense and pushes parents and professionals to a decision that I doubt they would have made even 10 years ago.
-
Why would you get a kicking Owl? What you ask is reasonable.
However I do agree with Trent. I also read there is an exceptionally high suicide rate amongst young people post trans. It is becoming quite cool for schoolchildren to self ID as the opposite sex which cannot be healthy. In efforts to be tolerant, society has moved the boundaries too far.
-
I am probably asking for a right royal kicking in asking my question, but even being aware of the consequences I have to ask it.
What professional qualifications do the posters on this topic have to question the decisions of the medical and psychological professionals dealing with trans patients and legal qualifications to judge the consequences of the decisions of both the practitioners and those required to judge the legality of those decisions and the laws governing those decisions and consequences?
Owlswing
)O(
Fortunately none of us are making medical diagnoses about trans issues. This is a discussion forum. You are free to call out people whose think ng you believe to be wrong.
-
Well, I haven't got any. I do however have a basic understanding of the English Language and you can't go renaming things just because it suits your particular fancy, which is what a lot of the arguments around trans issues are about.
There, are though, increasing examples of people who transitioned at a young age who now clearly regrets it. This suggests an eagerness on the part of professionals to progress people to transition at an earlier age than they perhaps ought to.
Add into that a narrative that has been built up by some in the trans community that people are being denied some kind of birthright and you have some parents believing that their children, because the boys put on dresses, or the girls are "tomboys" are trans in some way. Frankly, most of them won't be, they'll be going through a phase or they may be gay.
The ultimate danger of course is self ID, where one can simply declare oneself a member of the opposite sex. It is fanciful, dangerous nonsense and pushes parents and professionals to a decision that I doubt they would have made even 10 years ago.
I agree with the italicised words, but cannot see why a qualified professional would allow themselves to be forced, sorry, pushed into accepting such 'nonsense', "dangerous" is, in a way, in my pig-ignorant view, a major understatement.
I have a friend, of many years, who decided to transition f-to-m, a decision that took her six or seven years to finally take and action. It then took her a further five years to get the medics and the psycho people to agree with her his decision - nowadays it sometimes seems that, even with children, five weeks is considered a long time!
If I have offended any here in my comment regarding lack of knowledge, detailed and specific knowledge, not general knowledge, of the subject I offer serious apologies!
Owlswing
)O(
-
I agree with the italicised words, but cannot see why a qualified professional would allow themselves to be forced, sorry, pushed into accepting such 'nonsense', "dangerous" is, in a way, in my pig-ignorant view, a major understatement.
I have a friend, of many years, who decided to transition f-to-m, a decision that took her six or seven years to finally take and action. It then took her a further five years to get the medics and the psycho people to agree with her his decision - nowadays it sometimes seems that, even with children, five weeks is considered a long time!
If I have offended any here in my comment regarding lack of knowledge, detailed and specific knowledge, not general knowledge, of the subject I offer serious apologies!
Owlswing
)O(
Some qualified professionals are doing the pushing.
-
I agree with the italicised words, but cannot see why a qualified professional would allow themselves to be forced, sorry, pushed into accepting such 'nonsense', "dangerous" is, in a way, in my pig-ignorant view, a major understatement.
I have a friend, of many years, who decided to transition f-to-m, a decision that took her six or seven years to finally take and action. It then took her a further five years to get the medics and the psycho people to agree with her his decision - nowadays it sometimes seems that, even with children, five weeks is considered a long time!
If I have offended any here in my comment regarding lack of knowledge, detailed and specific knowledge, not general knowledge, of the subject I offer serious apologies!
Owlswing
)O(
The other big worry here as regards children is the use of puberty blockers. It's far from clear, and indeed there is evidence to the contrary, that these are fully reversible.
-
Owl: ....nowadays it sometimes seems that, even with children, five weeks is considered a long time!
........
That is what so many are objecting to. Children should be protected and not subjected to possibly irreversible treatment when they are not sufficiently mature to understand the implications.
I've only just seen this by Trentvoyager:
I have recently managed to get myself thrown out of an LGBT group on FB, for questioning the language used by people in that group. I merely asked if the best way to win an argument was to scream "kill the cunt" (in this case JKR) and was summarily told that I was being defined by my addiction to cock (if only) and asked if I would sleep with a FTM trans regardless of their stage of transition, I said I would not, I was kicked out of the group. No discussion, just censor the critic.
.......
Dreadful. Frightening. Defo homophobic.
(For the record I wouldn't want to sleep with a female-to-man trans either.)
-
Owl: ....nowadays it sometimes seems that, even with children, five weeks is considered a long time!
........
That is what so many are objecting to. Children should be protected and not subjected to possibly irreversible treatment when they are not sufficiently mature to understand the implications.
This was my worry, but as usual, it seems, I didn't say what I meant!
It seems that some of those involved seem to forget any kind of consultation and examination period to be necessary, "This child wants to change let's help them now and to Hell with the consequences good or bad, just get the little beast out of my office!"
Not very professional!
Owlswing
)O(
-
I agree that much consultation and counselling is necessary Owl.
If it does go ahead without that, and I didn't realise it had gone that far in this country, I can only assume that the professionals involved have become carried away with an ideal.
This has happened in the past in different scenarios, doctors experimenting on patients. We should have learned from history.
It's a pity so many trust doctors implicitly and don't question anything.
There are also parents who support their children going through treatment to transition at a very early age. It has become quite a 'cool' option.
-
I agree that much consultation and counseling is necessary Owl.
If it does go ahead without that, and I didn't realise it had gone that far in this country, I can only assume that the professionals involved have become carried away with an ideal.
This has happened in the past in different scenarios, doctors experimenting on patients. We should have learned from history.
It's a pity that so many trust doctors implicitly and don't question anything.
There are also parents who support their children going through treatment to transition at a very early age. It has become quite a 'cool' option.
It is with regret that I have to say that in this particular portion of this discussion parents seem to be either the cause of the problem (What my child wants my child gets!) or ignored by the "experts" (You are not an expert so you do not know what you are talking about!).
Owlswing
)O(
-
Good interview with Johann Lamont - starts about 8 minutes in.
https://www.holyrood.com/podcasts.htm
-
On why recording the sex of offenders is important
https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/opinion/2136685/lucy-hunter-blackburn-gender-in-crime-reporting/
-
The madness of the Greens
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,fears-raised-over-green-manifesto-call-for-sex-and-gender-to-removed-from-birth-certificate
-
On the issues of affirmation, a thread from Malcolm Clark
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1383215358132187138.html
-
The 'female' rapists of Scotland
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/aba95fce-9ef0-11eb-a908-ec96e110073e?shareToken=828b6f29f363f02863b00aa4b523a1c0&fbclid=IwAR0UDSwhAaxdTsn0dQDp03aI9aIZiSuN2Q4xiwMGPbdL0O_zVwRrgeMW6lg
-
Free Robert Hoogland
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/father-jailed-for-refusing-to-affirm-daughter-as-male/?__FB_PRIVATE_TRACKING__=%7B%22loggedout_browser_id%22%3A%22589405719fb4fbb061229bd7b0bc0b82d344bd82%22%7D
-
Free Robert Hoogland
https://thevelvetchronicle.com/father-jailed-for-refusing-to-affirm-daughter-as-male/?__FB_PRIVATE_TRACKING__=%7B%22loggedout_browser_id%22%3A%22589405719fb4fbb061229bd7b0bc0b82d344bd82%22%7D
That is utterly insane. I pick out one quote:
In 2019, Judge Francesca Marzari convicted Hoogland of “family violence” for using female pronouns when speaking about his daughter, and signed an order authorizing the police to arrest him if he was caught using language in a way that acknowledged his child as biologically female.
You can be sent to prison for asserting a true fact about your child.
-
Richard Dawkins put up a couple of tweets questioning the idea of people changing sex just because they are a different sex. He couched it with lots of support for transpeople but that wasn't enoughh for the bunch of cultists running the American Humanists.
https://americanhumanist.org/news/american-humanist-association-board-statement-withdrawing-honor-from-richard-dawkins/
-
And the American Atheists weigh in on Dawkins, touting the woo.
https://www.atheists.org/2021/04/american-atheists-richard-dawkins-trans-people/
-
Whereas this gets it.
https://www.gspellchecker.com/2021/04/american-atheists-american-humanists-and-the-secular-coalition-join-the-woke-church/
-
Good piece
https://womenvotingwithourfeet.wordpress.com/2021/04/21/why-womens-sex-based-rights-matter/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
On Dawkins:
https://youtu.be/w6vb__TEDY4
-
Good article by Susan Dalgety
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/unlike-nicola-sturgeon-women-like-me-did-not-choose-their-pronouns-and-we-are-not-akin-to-racists-for-saying-so-susan-dalgety-3211810
-
The new witches
https://womenvotingwithourfeet.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/back-to-future/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
On single sex hospital wards
https://womenvotingwithourfeet.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/single-sex-services-essential-legal/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And on women's sport
https://womenvotingwithourfeet.wordpress.com/2021/04/26/women-girls-deserve-own-sports/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Maya Forstater's appeal
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/maya-forstater-transgender-twitter-jk-rowling-b1838151.html
And collection of live tweets from the appeal
https://threadreaderapp.com/user/SexMattersOrg
Big thing had been last minute intervention by the EHRC on Forstater's side.
#IStandWithMaya
-
According to the other side in the Maya Forstater appeal, belief in biological sex is akin to Holocaust denial.
-
According to the other side in the Maya Forstater appeal, belief in biological sex is akin to Holocaust denial.
These people are not sane. Or even nearly.
-
Judgement reserved for 2 months in the Forstater appeal
-
Blistering, sad
https://womenvotingwithourfeet.wordpress.com/2021/04/27/vulnerable-daughter-right-same-sex-care/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Yes it is.
-
Jo Bartosch on the Maya Forstater appeal
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/04/29/why-maya-forstater-must-win/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
And gender nonsense from New Zealand census
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/sex-and-statistics
-
Very telling that the last comment in the article includes gender not sex
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/style/university-staff-given-list-of-banned-microinsults-they-cannot-say-to-trans-people/ar-BB1gfgI6?ocid=st
-
Article on David Bell, the Tavistock whistleblower
https://t.co/i33P6TAwmS?amp=1
-
Surprised you missed this one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56960011
Caitlyn Jenner opposes trans women in women's sport.
-
Good news from Sweden
https://segm.org/Sweden_ends_use_of_Dutch_protocol
-
Hmm....
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-9544807/Father-trans-boy-4-says-people-insist-calling-son-girl.html
-
And another hmmmm....
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/05/trans-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-set-to-make-history-at-tokyo-olympics
-
On women in literature becoming gender in literature
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/f12003a8-adb6-11eb-bda6-057976012425?shareToken=b94ba9e907e3c980dad7d9ddbf6e6fcf&fbclid=IwAR1yib-VTcm4zMIKs4WcErfg07CqQ9pRnzftQCUSghLpicJOTlG2KvUOErA
-
Surprised you missed this one
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-56960011
Caitlyn Jenner opposes trans women in women's sport.
Caitlyn Jenner now the wrong type of trans for many TRAs
-
This is frightening.
https://www.plebity.org/conversations/gender-ideology-is-wreaking-carnage-in-our-medical-schools-an-eye-witness-report/
-
Ffs!
https://www.reuters.com/lifestyle/sports/females-told-be-quiet-transgender-issue-ex-weightlifter-2021-05-07/
-
And yet more FFS!
https://youtu.be/eaXobQFxb84
-
Joan Smith on Labour's women problem
https://unherd.com/2021/05/women-dont-feel-safe-with-labour/
-
Non binary is a load of drivel.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9574901/LNER-slammed-apologising-staff-said-good-afternoon-ladies-gentlemen-boys-girls.html
-
Non-binary is a load of drivel.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9574901/LNER-slammed-apologising-staff-said-good-afternoon-ladies-gentlemen-boys-girls.html
And what about all the multi-millions who DO identify themselves as Ladies and Gentlemen, Boys and Girls!? Who must outnumber the Thems and the Theys by who knows how many billions?
Do these people have neither penis and testicles nor clitoris and ovaries? Or brains for that matter!
Owlswing
)O(
-
There are two kinds of people: those that understand binary and those that ...
-
And today's FFS!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9581035/Law-student-29-said-women-vaginas-faces-disciplinary-action-university.html
-
And another FFS!
https://www.newsweek.com/neuroscience-professor-removed-apa-discussion-after-saying-there-are-only-two-genders-1591697
-
And another FFS!
https://www.newsweek.com/neuroscience-professor-removed-apa-discussion-after-saying-there-are-only-two-genders-1591697
The whole 'Trans' issue has become a political and social nightmare thanks to the extremists of all persuasions of both sexual identity and political stance.
In a way this may well solve the "trans problem" as the more 'out-of-their-tree' the protagonists get the less likely the real "Trans" people are to go public and thus attract the ire of those who do not agree with whatever stance the "Trans" person holds.
OK, you can throw your rocks and dung-bombs now!
Owlswing
)O(
-
And today's FFS!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9581035/Law-student-29-said-women-vaginas-faces-disciplinary-action-university.html
Lisa Keogh is interviewed on Woman's Hour today (18 May). Available on BBC Sounds.
-
Lisa Keogh is interviewed on Woman's Hour today (18 May). Available on BBC Sounds.
ta
Elsewhere, Stonewall really is a dangerous parody
https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/05/18/why-its-time-for-universities-to-break-ties-with-stonewall/?fbclid=IwAR1H2P7yEKOY51jRzhhNta6PqUx_3TQpm570WVAE36wpbCZTKenbQT4ZqvA
-
Some good news
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-week-in-the-war-on-women-good-news?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMzIwNDM3MSwicG9zdF9pZCI6MzY0NzQ2NjMsIl8iOiIxWmhOeSIsImlhdCI6MTYyMTQxMjA3OSwiZXhwIjoxNjIxNDE1Njc5LCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNjczMDkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.08VJ2-6gFruyk8Iphr6S1i4HzPGWR0f4euUAeufnnrQ
-
Not my favourite source but Jo Bartosch writes for a number and is right.
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/05/21/trans-ideology-is-warping-our-justice-system/
-
Powerful stuff from Hassan Mamdani
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/its-not-just-about-the-right-person
-
Powerful stuff from Hassan Mamdani
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/its-not-just-about-the-right-person
I find it interesting that nobody seems to want to argue the point that I, as a straight male, should be open to dating trans women.
-
I find it interesting that nobody seems to want to argue the point that I, as a straight male, should be open to dating trans women.
According to radical trans ideology you should. So get to it.
-
Interesting piece about Stonewall:
https://unherd.com/2021/05/how-stonewall-sacrificed-gay-rights/?
-
Don't know whether this has been posted already but it entertained me (I know it doesn't take much):
https://youtu.be/YvM1ev2JNTg
-
Simon Fanshawe on Stonewall
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9638119/amp/Stonewalled-aggressive-new-leaders-gay-rights-group-helped-launch.html?__twitter_impression=true
-
Good article
https://www.mindingthecampus.org/2021/05/31/why-the-trans-issue-is-much-bigger-than-bathrooms-sports-and-fragile-feelings/
-
Allison Bailey, the barrister and co-founder of LGB Alliance, has apparently had her hearing date pushed back in her case against Stonewall and her Chambers due to delays on the part of Stonewall and her chambers in handing over all the information required by her under disclosure. Stonewall tried to have her case thrown out and failed so that's a positive.
Allison is suing for discrimination based on her claim that they tried to silence her opposition to Stonewall's view that trans women should be legally recognised as women.
https://allisonbailey.co.uk/
Bailey claims that after she helped launch LGB Alliance, Stonewall threatened to withdraw Garden Court Chambers’ membership of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme, unless her employer took action against her. She states that as a result of this pressure, she suffered numerous detriments, including lost work opportunities.
The Equalities Act 2010 seems to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. But Schedule 3 Para 28 of Equalities Act 2010 allows discrimination against people who are proposing to or have undergone gender re-assignment i.e. including those with a Gender Recognition Certificate, if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim e.g. in relation to matters such as provision of single-sex services.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/schedule/3/paragraph/28
If a person has obtained a Gender Recognition Certificate and a new birth certificate stating their new legal sex, they would be legally recognised as having a sex that is contrary to their biology. Presumably when it comes to medical treatments that differ based on biological sex the trans person would make sure their doctors knew their actual biological sex regardless of what their post GRC birth certificate said.
-
Mandy Rhodes being a bit good
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,taking-pride
-
And good stuff from The Economist
https://www.economist.com/international/2021/06/05/a-backlash-against-gender-ideology-is-starting-in-universities
-
Brilliant piece from Susan Dalgety
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotland-may-need-a-new-suffragette-movement-as-feminists-who-argue-biology-is-real-risk-prison-susan-dalgety-3261397
-
Mandy Rhodes being a bit good
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,taking-pride
Wow, how untrustworthy do you have to be to lose a trust poll to a Tory cabinet minister by two to one?
Here's the tweet
https://twitter.com/DawnButlerBrent/status/1399708211838607362
-
Good article from the Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/06/stonewall-risks-all-it-has-fought-for-in-accusing-those-who-disagree-with-it-of-hate-speech
-
And good article from Alex Massie even if he gets Marion Millar's name wrong
https://archive.is/SKUVc
-
And more on the brave woman that is Marion Millar
https://lilymaynard.com/the-curious-case-of-marion-millar/
-
How many trans activists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. They are still using gaslighting.
-
Libby Purves on Stonewall - note it has a share token so you should get past the paywall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6032a216-c705-11eb-b6f5-fed739e7c1ca?shareToken=8634b1be9ac193316e5322b060355c9d
-
Libby Purves on Stonewall - note it has a share token so you should get past the paywall
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6032a216-c705-11eb-b6f5-fed739e7c1ca?shareToken=8634b1be9ac193316e5322b060355c9d
Very good. I think banning the word "mother" is likely to do much damage to the trans-activist cause because it's such obvious lunacy.
-
Did anyone hear the discussion on the Radio 4 Today programme, just before 8.00am?
Someone named Benjamin Cohen, who categorised himself as gay, disabled and Jewish (and therefore uniquely qualified to pontificate on discrimination) was there to support the Stonewall position. His contribution can be summarised as "Do not confuse me with rational argument, my mind is locked shut."
-
All too common
https://legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/06/08/disagreeing-with-a-woman-threats-of-rape-and-violence/
-
Devastating
https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/06/09/ann-henderson-reflections-on-the-university-of-edinburgh/
-
Some good news
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19359567.abertay-university-student-lisa-keogh-cleared-investigated-saying-women-vaginas/?ref=twtrec
-
Good petition
https://petitions.parliament.scot/petitions/PE1876
-
'Summarising the book’s central premise, the Oxfam document says white feminists need to ask themselves whether they are causing harm when they fight sexual violence.
It then links to Prof Phipps’s Twitter account and a thread which summarises the main themes of the book, including: “White feminist tears deploy white woundedness, and the sympathy it generates, to hide the harms we perpetuate through white supremacy.”'
Just ffs!
https://archive.ph/itpqA#selection-1205.0-1205.145
-
'Summarising the book’s central premise, the Oxfam document says white feminists need to ask themselves whether they are causing harm when they fight sexual violence.
It then links to Prof Phipps’s Twitter account and a thread which summarises the main themes of the book, including: “White feminist tears deploy white woundedness, and the sympathy it generates, to hide the harms we perpetuate through white supremacy.”'
Just ffs!
https://archive.ph/itpqA#selection-1205.0-1205.145
Just what the heck is going on with these people. I don't know anybody in the real world I inhabit that comes close to (as in "not in this fucking universe") expressing ideas like this.
Were they high when they compiled it?
Have they been infiltrated by the extreme right to actually destabilise gains made by feminists and gay people over the years?
It is totally impossible to follow the complete nonsense stream of illogicality and hatred that is being propogated by supposedly intelligent, caring organisations.
-
'Summarising the book’s central premise, the Oxfam document says white feminists need to ask themselves whether they are causing harm when they fight sexual violence.
It then links to Prof Phipps’s Twitter account and a thread which summarises the main themes of the book, including: “White feminist tears deploy white woundedness, and the sympathy it generates, to hide the harms we perpetuate through white supremacy.”'
Just ffs!
https://archive.ph/itpqA#selection-1205.0-1205.145
the charity was warned on Wednesday night that the document, compiled by its LGBT network and seen by The Telegraph, could breach equality laws as it suggests reporting rape is "contemptible".
I'm sorry, I'm going to have to read this document. I find some of the things that the article says it says are just too much of a stretch to believe. Who would actually write that reporting rape is contemptible. It's bonkers.
-
Great news on the Maya Forstater case
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-57426579
-
And Maya's statement
https://youtu.be/jOIKlg71LJc
-
Good to see the Lib Dems getting sued on this.
https://archive.is/1ZcA0
-
Good article on keeping women's sport though I should point out it was written before Fraser-Pryce running 10.63 for the 100m recently - not that that affects the argument
https://fondofbeetles.wordpress.com/2018/10/01/harder-better-faster-stronger-why-we-must-protect-female-sports/
-
Idiocy
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-head-says-free-speech-does-not-override-transgender-safety-20210615-p58171.html
-
Idiocy
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/university-head-says-free-speech-does-not-override-transgender-safety-20210615-p58171.html
On its face you'd say it's completely reasonable. We are not free to use speech to incite harm. However, I suspect that the definition of "harm" is what gets us in trouble.
-
On its face you'd say it's completely reasonable. We are not free to use speech to incite harm. However, I suspect that the definition of "harm" is what gets us in trouble.
And that it's not about inciting harm, rather the words and arguments themselves are harmful.
-
Men can be in a menopause group because they accessorise
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/cruelty-hate-trans-debate-moderate-voices-heard-b940913.html
-
Men can be in a menopause group because they accessorise
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/cruelty-hate-trans-debate-moderate-voices-heard-b940913.html
No, because they are world class at accessorising. Talk about stereotyping.
-
Quite incredible that this needs to be written
https://sex-matters.org/posts/the-workplace/the-royal-academy-and-belief-discrimination/
-
Reply to Hazarika's fatuous article
https://thecritic.co.uk/cowardice-calls-to-cowardice/
-
It's Pride month apparently.
This article is about Marsha P Johnson who was one of those involved in the Stonewall Riots.
https://reason.com/2020/06/30/marsha-p-johnson-didnt-start-stonewall-pride-might-not-have-been-trans/
It has been claimed by the Trans lobby that Marsha was Trans. As this article makes clear we may never know but Marsha did at various times identify as gay and as a transvestite. Not quite the same thing.
That the BBC now insists on repeating the less than clear claims that Johnson was transsexual as fact I find disturbing and annoying:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zmchkmn?xtor=CS8-1000-
-
And more on how the trans ideology is homophobic
https://sex-matters.org/posts/a-view-from/beyond-the-rainbow-a-view-from-inside-the-civil-service/
-
And Janice Turner on Jess De Wahls
https://archive.is/Jjjld
-
Brutal from Kevin McKenna
https://archive.is/X9p5e
-
If you want to read something really weird from a completely self obsessed person?
Read this:
https://www.health.com/mind-body/lgbtq-health/menstruating-as-non-binary-person?
I say person, because I have no clue, even after having read about it quite a bit, what non-binary means.
My advice to her: You want to know whether you are a man or a woman?
Don't gaze at your navel, look a bit further down for clues.
And remember:
For me, self-love during my period means using unequivocal language. I call my period by its name. I call out blood when I see it.
I wonder what name that is Brenda? Bert?
Sarcasm alert * Really with all this going on for so many women I'm amazed they manage to get to work.
-
Laurel Hubbard picked for the Olympics
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57549653
And a previous reaction
https://www.samoaobserver.ws/category/samoa/45741
-
Laurel Hubbard picked for the Olympics
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-57549653
And a previous reaction
https://www.samoaobserver.ws/category/samoa/45741
I think, overall, this is a good thing. I'm sorry for the women who Laurel Hubbard beats and has beaten (there's a woman in New Zealand who presumably has lost her chance to compete in the Olympics, at the very least, as well as Feagaiga Stowers). But I think the only way to demonstrate that this idea of allowing trans women to compete with women in physical sports is to show it actually happening and the consequences. While it's still just an abstract possibility, nothing will change.
Hopefully, once this piece of injustice to women has been exposed, it will at least allow other areas to be questioned without serious consequences for the questioners.
-
Interview with Jess De Wahls
https://www.spiked-online.com/2021/06/21/i-wont-let-these-arseholes-make-my-life-miserable/amp/
-
Matthew D'Ancona on Jess De Wahls
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/royal-academy-protect-free-speech-transgender-row-b941940.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1624360923-1
-
And good from Tanya Aldred in the Guardian on Laurel Hubbard
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2021/jun/22/by-conflating-gender-and-sex-we-undermine-sporting-competition
-
And petition about the IOC's transgender policy
http://chng.it/HXJFDCC2TV
-
And Ross Tucker on Hubbard and more
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9b297206-d2bc-11eb-b50d-ece47261907f?shareToken=9b034bb7bdd55c9a6cfecf715fb83462
-
The Royal Academy have apologised to Jess De Wahls
-
Moral maze is discussing trans inclusion in women's sport. They've invited 4 guests to speak: Dafydd Mills Daniel, Joanna Harper, Debbie Hayton & Adam Wagner. That's 4 people born male; 2 transwomen and 2 men. Not a single female person on the panel.
-
Moral maze is discussing trans inclusion in women's sport. They've invited 4 guests to speak: Dafydd Mills Daniel, Joanna Harper, Debbie Hayton & Adam Wagner. That's 4 people born male; 2 transwomen and 2 men. Not a single female person on the panel.
That's plain daft. Although I'm sure Debbie will be very good.
-
A 'misgendering crisis' JfC!
https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/concerns-were-heading-for-misgendering-crisis-as-61-of-brits-never-ask-about-pronouns/
-
A 'misgendering crisis' JfC!
https://www.unilad.co.uk/featured/concerns-were-heading-for-misgendering-crisis-as-61-of-brits-never-ask-about-pronouns/
More gibberish.
I'm quite happy to refer to people as the sex they present themselves to me as.
So if you're a boke in a skirt I'm quite happy to refer to you as her/she.
I'll be damned if I'm going to start creating a crowd out of one person.
-
More gibberish.
I'm quite happy to refer to people as the sex they present themselves to me as.
So if you're a boke in a skirt I'm quite happy to refer to you as her/she.
I'll be damned if I'm going to start creating a crowd out of one person.
The problem with that is we are back at regressive stereotypes. Clothes do not maketh the man or woman.
And also
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
-
Tried the test. Took much longer on the second half as the first, obviously.
I will try the converting of pronouns back to their original state, although I think my mind does that anyway on the few occasions when I interact with transsexuals. I will also try it with articles I come across.
A thought provoking article. Thanks.
-
Chilling madness
https://t.co/dTZwqbPoFc?amp=1
-
So I went on a little search to see if a uterus transplant is even a thing.
It is:
https://www.livescience.com/60873-men-pregnant-uterus-transplant.html
But, highly experimental and only done on women so far and even that is extremely complicated. For male bodies even more so as there is no room at the Inn (so to speak). No space for a uterus to fit into.
Certainly madness. It's a toss up between chilling and totally fucking deluded.
-
More gibberish.
I'm quite happy to refer to people as the sex they present themselves to me as.
So if you're a boke in a skirt I'm quite happy to refer to you as her/she.
I'll be damned if I'm going to start creating a crowd out of one person.
I have no problem with gender fluid people inventing new pronouns to replace it/it/its, but I think they all need to agree on what they are. I'm buggered if I'm going to start memorising 400 different pronouns, many of which are unpronounceable, just to satisfy some snowflake's ego.
-
So I went on a little search to see if a uterus transplant is even a thing.
It is:
https://www.livescience.com/60873-men-pregnant-uterus-transplant.html
But, highly experimental and only done on women so far and even that is extremely complicated. For male bodies even more so as there is no room at the Inn (so to speak). No space for a uterus to fit into.
Certainly madness. It's a toss up between chilling and totally fucking deluded.
What I find interesting is that the author brings up the fact that a trans woman received a uterus transplant in 1930's Germany and claims it shows it is possible, when the trans woman in question died from the operation. I say 30's because the author claimed it was before "the rise of the Nazis" but misdated it to the 40's. Of course, an alternative explanation is that it really was in the 40's and t was one of those horrific Nazi experiments we hear about.
Or it's all fiction.
-
Lesbian erasure
https://metro.co.uk/2021/06/23/coca-cola-banned-the-word-lesbian-from-customisable-pride-bottles-14817248/
-
Good blog
https://tinyletter.com/Glosswitch/letters/the-ok-karen-33-you-should-feel-bad
-
Flat earth passports offerred
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9742485/U-S-promises-add-gender-neutral-option-passports.html
-
Do you have to share your pronouns at work? How barking is the question. For the record mine are perpendicular and royal
https://womansplaceuk.org/2021/06/27/share-pronouns-at-work/
-
An upstanding King or a straight up queen?
-
Good article from James Kirkup
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-court-judgement-that-confirms-women-pay-for-trans-rights
-
And on the latest decision which allows men in women's prisons
https://sex-matters.org/posts/prisons/prison_jr/
-
University of Essex apologises for apologising for following illegal advice. Ffs!
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/jul/04/essex-university-makes-further-apology-in-trans-rights-row
-
Desperately sad. Anorexia du jour but called beautiful.
https://archive.is/4NzRz
-
Harsh but fair on the Wi Spa story and aftermath
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-wrong-side-of-history?token=eyJ1c2VyX2lkIjoxMzgzOTgwNywicG9zdF9pZCI6MzgzNTMyNDMsIl8iOiJxNE1nVCIsImlhdCI6MTYyNTc2NTU3MywiZXhwIjoxNjI1NzY5MTczLCJpc3MiOiJwdWItNjczMDkiLCJzdWIiOiJwb3N0LXJlYWN0aW9uIn0.tfKcUCCFRag1cGENTmCqJDpJWSZlVGIOg_m3Avdazts
-
Great piece from Suzanne Moore
https://archive.is/LJemO
-
And Milli Hill in her own words
https://www.millihill.co.uk/2021/07/10/i-will-not-be-silenced/
-
Another good article on the Wi Spa incident
https://nypost.com/2021/07/06/furor-over-trans-in-la-spa-proves-progressives-arent-really-feminists-after-all/
-
Lesbians not allowed to hold single sex event
https://archive.is/VGCb8
-
No Lib Dem vote for me
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1415039665393082371.html
-
No Lib Dem vote for me
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1415039665393082371.html
So who are you going to vote for? The Greens jumped this particular shark a long time ago, and Labour are sure to go the same way.
-
So who are you going to vote for? The Greens jumped this particular shark a long time ago, and Labour are sure to go the same way.
In my most recent vote, I spoiled my ballot paper. I wrote a small essay on why but it will have no effect but voting to support anti science and the removal of women's sex based rights and spaces is a step to far for me. So on Tuesday I will be doing some more protesting, and I will.continue to do that. There is obviously the possibiloty that I will get a candidate who agrees but given the death and rape threats women politicians receive on this it's not a likely bet.
-
Not even close to unusual
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9802029/JK-Rowling-calls-troll-tweeted-death-threat-her.html
-
The problems of having an exclusively same sex attracted support group at an American college.
https://www.lgbausa.org/2021/07/a-rainbow-by-any-other-name-in-defense-of-the-homosexual/
-
'Gay Magazines: Can't we have anything for ourselves anymore?'
https://sheridansinclair.substack.com/p/gay-magazines-cant-we-have-anything
-
'Why I changed my mind about trans self-identification'
https://archive.is/OuceJ
-
One of these is not like the other
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/1418587456551723010?s=19
-
Alex Massie on the silence on the rape and death threats to JK Rowling
https://archive.ph/2021.07.24-230942/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/alex-massie-death-threats-dont-sit-on-the-right-side-of-history-932582lw3
-
Meanwhile Scottish civil servants being urged to put 'their pronouns' into email
https://archive.is/0Mbq4
-
And American medical lecturers are being told off for using the terms man and woman
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/med-schools-are-now-denying-biological
-
The IOC praising Laurel Hubbard and saying everyone knows that 'trans women are women' . Misogynist drivel.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/29/ioc-praises-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-ahead-of-transgender-athletes-olympic-debut
-
The IOC praising Laurel Hubbard and saying everyone knows that 'trans women are women' . Misogynist drivel.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/jul/29/ioc-praises-weightlifter-laurel-hubbard-ahead-of-transgender-athletes-olympic-debut
I asgree - trans women should not compete as women. Inclusivity is all very well, but they have an unfair physical advantage.
I remember a similar controversy in the 60s, when an intersex athlete - xxy chromosomes, I think - who had the primary and secondary sexual organs of a woman, but male musculature, was banned from competing as a woman. Tough on her, but any other decision would've been unfair on other female athletes.
-
I asgree - trans women should not compete as women. Inclusivity is all very well, but they have an unfair physical advantage.
I remember a similar controversy in the 60s, when an intersex athlete - xxy chromosomes, I think - who had the primary and secondary sexual organs of a woman, but male musculature, was banned from competing as a woman. Tough on her, but any other decision would've been unfair on other female athletes.
People with DSDs (Differences in Sex Development) are a completely unrelated question to trans.
-
People with DSDs (Differences in Sex Development) are a completely unrelated question to trans.
Different, but hardly "completely unrelated". Google informs me that she was Ewa Klobukowska. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewa_K%C5%82obukowska)
-
Different, but hardly "completely unrelated". Google informs me that she was Ewa Klobukowska. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewa_K%C5%82obukowska)
In what way do you think they are related?
-
Oh, ffs - I was agreeing with you, and you still manage to pick an argument!
-
Good from The Economist on Laurel Hubbard
https://archive.is/SS6rg
-
Oh, ffs - I was agreeing with you, and you still manage to pick an argument!
It's called a discussion. People can agree on one point but disagree on others. There's a strand of transactivism which seeks to use peoples with DSDs as pawns to muddy the waters on their position.
-
Bollocks.
-
People with DSDs (Differences in Sex Development) are a completely unrelated question to trans.
It's not the same question but it is related. It's about how the body develops and whether it has the advantage of male development.
-
It's not the same question but it is related. It's about how the body develops and whether it has the advantage of male development.
Ok, I agree that some questions about what constitutes advantage come from the same place, and if that's what SteveH meant but didn't explain then this is what discussion looks like. However, If we take this approach as to what is a related set of questions, then it is more related to drugs cheating, since it's about modification.
-
It's not the same question but it is related. It's about how the body develops and whether it has the advantage of male development.
It certainly is related.
You'll no doubt remember Caster Semenya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya
As an intersex woman with naturally hight testosterone levels she was required to take medication to suppress testosterone levels in order to be allowed to compete, with a requirement to demonstrate testosterone levels below a particular threshold. This seems highly analogous to the situation for trans women athletes.
-
It certainly is related.
You'll no doubt remember Caster Semenya:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caster_Semenya
As an intersex woman with naturally hight testosterone levels she was required to take medication to suppress testosterone levels in order to be allowed to compete, with a requirement to demonstrate testosterone levels below a particular threshold. This seems highly analogous to the situation for trans women athletes.
Was Semenya modifying her body? As already stated, the trans approach seems more analogous to drug cheats. Do you support Hubbard's participation?
-
Was Semenya modifying her body?
In order to compete she was required to take medication that would reduce her natural testosterone levels which would therefore be body modifying. So I guess the answer is yes.
As already stated, the trans approach seems more analogous to drug cheats.
Actually in the cases of both Semenya and trans women athletes it seems to be the exact opposite of a drugs cheat. A drugs cheat takes a substance to enhance their performance above a level that would occur naturally. For Semenya and trans women athletes they are taking a substance to reduce their performance to a lower level than that which would occur naturally.
Do you support Hubbard's participation?
I think it is a minefield and I'm glad I'm not making the decisions. But I do think that the issue of trans women (note just trans women) being able to compete in athletics tournaments for women is distinct from the more general issues of trans rights, specifically because it is about athletic performance.
-
In order to compete she was required to take medication that would reduce her natural testosterone levels which would therefore be body modifying. So I guess the answer is yes.
Actually in the cases of both Semenya and trans women athletes it seems to be the exact opposite of a drugs cheat. A drugs cheat takes a substance to enhance their performance above a level that would occur naturally. For Semenya and trans women athletes they are taking a substance to reduce their performance to a lower level than that which would occur naturally.
I think it is a minefield and I'm glad I'm not making the decisions. But I do think that the issue of trans women (note just trans women) being able to compete in athletics tournaments for women is distinct from the more general issues of trans rights, specifically because it is about athletic performance.
I note your evasion on Hubbard. So simple question what is your definition of woman?
-
I note your evasion on Hubbard.
I'm not being evasive - I just think it is an incredible difficult issue in athletics. Finding something complicated isn't being evasive.
So simple question what is your definition of woman?
Presumably an adult human female person.
-
I note your evasion on Hubbard. So simple question what is your definition of woman?
I've answered your points. Can you please address mine regarding the completely opposite situation for performance enhancing drug cheats and people such as Semenya and trans women athletes who are actually taking performance reducing substances.
-
I'm not being evasive - I just think it is an incredible difficult issue in athletics. Finding something complicated isn't being evasive.
Presumably an adult human female person.
So not Hubbard, so he shouldn't be in the women's competition, so not 'incredibly difficult'.
Btw what does 'person' add in your definition?
-
I've answered your points. Can you please address mine regarding the completely opposite situation for performance enhancing drug cheats and people such as Semenya and trans women athletes who are actually taking performance reducing substances.
Semenya has not altered her body by drugs, And has chosen not to. Hubbard and drug cheats have. Do you accept that testorone is not the only issue?
-
So not Hubbard, so he shouldn't be in the women's competition, so not 'incredibly difficult'.
Depends on the approach to defining female doesn't it. In the sense of sex rather than gender male/female is determined anatomically, chromosomally to hormonally (or in combination). Athletics have decided that the most appropriate way to determine female for their purposes is hormonally, and I guess this makes sense as this is the key element that defines differences in performance between men and women. Hence they allow intersex and transgender people to compete as women provided they have testosterone levels within the normal range of women.
-
Depends on the approach to defining female doesn't it. In the sense of sex rather than gender male/female is determined anatomically, chromosomally to hormonally (or in combination). Athletics have decided that the most appropriate way to determine female for their purposes is hormonally, and I guess this makes sense as this is the key element that defines differences in performance between men and women. Hence they allow intersex and transgender people to compete as women provided they have testosterone levels within the normal range of women.
Unscientific evasive drivel.
-
Was Semenya modifying her body? As already stated, the trans approach seems more analogous to drug cheats. Do you support Hubbard's participation?
Caster Semenya is male. She has testes and no ovaries. The difference between her and trans women is that she didn't know she is male until she was tested. However, the same developmental advantages accrue for her as for trans women.
This is a hard case because her situation s not of her own making. Nevertheless, whatever the solution you propose to "who should be allowed to compete in women's sports" there are going to be hard cases like this.
-
Depends on the approach to defining female doesn't it. In the sense of sex rather than gender male/female is determined anatomically, chromosomally to hormonally (or in combination). Athletics have decided that the most appropriate way to determine female for their purposes is hormonally, and I guess this makes sense as this is the key element that defines differences in performance between men and women. Hence they allow intersex and transgender people to compete as women provided they have testosterone levels within the normal range of women.
The trouble is that studies have shown that the advantages that males who take hormones persist for at least three years after they start taking the hormones and that, if you went through puberty as a male, some advantages are never negated.
By the way: females are the sex that produce the large gametes. In humans that basically means that females are the ones who have ovaries rather than testes - or would have, but for medical conditions or medical intervention.
-
Caster Semenya is male. She has testes and no ovaries. The difference between her and trans women is that she didn't know she is male until she was tested. However, the same developmental advantages accrue for her as for trans women.
This is a hard case because her situation s not of her own making. Nevertheless, whatever the solution you propose to "who should be allowed to compete in women's sports" there are going to be hard cases like this.
What's hard about trans identifying men saying they are women? What's the connection with Semenya?
-
... trans identifying men ...
What on earth is a trans identifying man NS? I know what a trans man is and I know what a trans woman is, but a trans identifying man :o
-
What on earth is a trans identifying man NS? I know what a trans man is and I know what a trans woman is, but a trans identifying man :o
A man who identifies as a woman. They are men, and the use of the term 'trans woman' has been used to smuggle in the meaningless mantra that 'trans women are women'. In no sense are they women.
-
A man who identifies as a woman. They are men, and the use of the term 'trans woman' has been used to smuggle in the meaningless mantra that 'trans women are women'. In no sense are they women.
I'm sorry NS but you cannot create your own terminology because you don't like the accepted terminology. A person born a man who identifies as a woman is a trans-gender person, specifically a trans-woman, not a trans identifying man.
-
I'm sorry NS but you cannot create your own terminology because you don't like the accepted terminology. A person born a man who identifies as a woman is a trans-gender person, specifically a trans-woman, not a trans identifying man.
I am not the only person who uses it. Your lack of knowledge of a term is no argument against it, and languages changes. Once there was no such term as' 'transwoman'. I refuse to use a term which is inaccurate and has been used as a Trojan horse to attack women's swx based rights and spaces.
-
I'm sorry NS but you cannot create your own terminology because you don't like the accepted terminology
Why not? It's exactly what the aggressive trans lobby have done. Sauce. Goose. Gander.
They are redefining the English language to suit their agenda.
So pregnant women are now "pregnant people", "chestfeeding" instead of breastfeeding. The nonsense around personal pronouns. It is never ending.
How long before the above becomes accepted terminology because we are too frightened to say no to a bunch of self obsessed narcissists?
-
Why not? It's exactly what the aggressive trans lobby have done. Sauce. Goose. Gander.
They are redefining the English language to suit their agenda.
So pregnant women are now "pregnant people", "chestfeeding" instead of breastfeeding. The nonsense around personal pronouns. It is never ending.
How long before the above becomes accepted terminology because we are too frightened to say no to a bunch of self obsessed narcissists?
And the homophobic attempts to redefine homosexual, gay, and lesbian
-
What's hard about trans identifying men saying they are women? What's the connection with Semenya?
Trans women are male
Caster Semenya is male.
As males, they have physical advantages over their female competitors.
Are you really saying you can't see the connection, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
-
Trans women are male
Caster Semenya is male.
As males, they have physical advantages over their female competitors.
Are you really saying you can't see the connection, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
No, I'm saying that trans identifying men are not people with DSDs. The decision about what sex someone with a DSD is not what applies to trans identifying men.
-
Are you really saying you can't see the connection, or are you just being deliberately obtuse?
And in both cases they need to take androgen-blocking substances to reduce testosterone levels to ensure those levels are below the threshold required by the athletics authorities to allow them to compete. Realistically those androgen-blocking substances are performance reducing substances as they will diminish performance compared to the situation that would have occurred had they not been taking them. That seems to me to be completely the reverse of someone taking performance enhancing substances.
Whether it is fair to allow these individuals to compete is another matter, given that I completely accept Jeremy P's point that high testosterone levels earlier in life can have long lasting effects on performance, even when levels are reduced subsequently. But this affects not just intersex and trans women but also woman with hyperandrogenism.
As Jeremy pointed out and I agree, these are the hard cases that the athletics federations need to wrestle with - it is complicated and any decision will be open to criticism from those who feel it unfair.
-
And in both cases they need to take androgen-blocking substances to reduce testosterone levels to ensure those levels are below the threshold required by the athletics authorities to allow them to compete. Realistically those androgen-blocking substances are performance reducing substances as they will diminish performance compared to the situation that would have occurred had they not been taking them. That seems to me to be completely the reverse of someone taking performance enhancing substances.
Whether it is fair to allow these individuals to compete is another matter, given that I completely accept Jeremy P's point that high testosterone levels earlier in life can have long lasting effects on performance, even when levels are reduced subsequently. But this affects not just intersex and trans women but also woman with hyperandrogenism.
As Jeremy pointed out and I agree, these are the hard cases that the athletics federations need to wrestle with - it is complicated and any decision will be open to criticism from those who feel it unfair.
Does jeremyp agree that trans identifying men are 'hard cases'?
-
Does jeremyp agree that trans identifying men are 'hard cases'?
Firstly you will have to ask Jeremy that one.
Secondly I don't recognise, nor accept the term trans identifying men so I cannot comment. However I do think that considering whether or not, and under what circumstances trans-women may compete in athletics is a very challenging issue.
-
Firstly you will have to ask Jeremy that one.
Secondly I don't recognise, nor accept the term trans identifying men so I cannot comment. However I do think that considering whether or not, and under what circumstances trans-women may compete in athletics is a very challenging issue.
I am happy for jeremyp to reply, and indeed would like him to do so. I am just not sure that he agrees with you that trans identifying men are 'hard cases'.
Why? What's difficult about not having men in women's sport? I've already covered the term trans identifying men. You know what I mean.
-
I am happy for jeremyp to reply, and indeed would like him to do so. I am just not sure that he agrees with you that trans identifying men are 'hard cases'.
Fine - he may well disagree with me, that's fine.
Why? What's difficult about not having men in women's sport? I've already covered the term trans identifying men. You know what I mean.
Yes - they are called trans women.
And yes there is a challenge - first on the basic principle that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their trans status. But there is also a spanner in the works of your argument. If tranwomen are men (as you argue) and therefore should not be allowed to compete in women's athletics, then transmen, by your argument, are women and therefore should be allowed to compete in women's sports. You cannot have it both ways, but I think allowing transmen to compete in women's competitions seems inherently unfair.
-
Fine - he may well disagree with me, that's fine.
Yes - they are called trans women.
And yes there is a challenge - first on the basic principle that people should not be discriminated against on the basis of their trans status. But there is also a spanner in the works of your argument. If tranwomen are men (as you argue) and therefore should not be allowed to compete in women's athletics, then transmen, by your argument, are women and therefore should be allowed to compete in women's sports. You cannot have it both ways, but I think allowing transmen to compete in women's competitions seems inherently unfair.
Indeed I think trans identifying women should compete in women's sports. But they cannot be taking medication that would be regarded as doping.
Sex is a protected characteristic, and there is exemption in the 2010 Act even for those with a gender recognition certificate that they cab be excluded from women's spaces. Gender is regressive patriarchal woo.
-
Indeed I think trans identifying women should compete in women's sports. But they cannot be taking medication that would be regarded as doping.
I don't think it would necessarily be regarded as doping though would it. There are many examples where individuals are allowed to take prescription medication for a medical condition that were they not to have that medical condition would be considered doping - asthma medication being a good example. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition and therefore if someone was taking a substance for that reason it would not necessarily be considered to be doping, albeit it may be unfair. As I say it is complicated.
Sex is a protected characteristic, and there is exemption in the 2010 Act even for those with a gender recognition certificate that they cab be excluded from women's spaces.
True, but the whole notion of women's only sports is an exception from the basic equalities legislation for which the default is always jobs, services etc etc should be open to all regardless of sex. So the very notion that men are not permitted to compete in certain sports is an opt out from the equalities provisions.
Gender is regressive patriarchal woo.
Gender is not regressive patriarchal woo - it is a very well recognised concept that is distinct from, but related to, biological sex. And when we are discussing trans-gender matters, the clue is in the name. It is about gender.
-
There is, of course, a trans identifying woman who is playing in the women's football team for Canada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_(soccer)
-
I don't think it would necessarily be regarded as doping though would it. There are many examples where individuals are allowed to take prescription medication for a medical condition that were they not to have that medical condition would be considered doping - asthma medication being a good example. Gender dysphoria is a recognised medical condition and therefore if someone was taking a substance for that reason it would not necessarily be considered to be doping, albeit it may be unfair. As I say it is complicated.
True, but the whole notion of women's only sports is an exception from the basic equalities legislation for which the default is always jobs, services etc etc should be open to all regardless of sex. So the very notion that men are not permitted to compete in certain sports is an opt out from the equalities provisions.
Gender is not regressive patriarchal woo - it is a very well recognised concept that is distinct from, but related to, biological sex. And when we are discussing trans-gender matters, the clue is in the name. It is about gender.
So what is the definition of the gender 'woman' as opposed to sex? What does that have to do with to do with a sex based split?
-
There is, of course, a trans identifying woman who is playing in the women's football team for Canada
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quinn_(soccer)
Quinn isn't a transman as they identify as non binary, not identifying as either male or female as a gender identity. So I'm not sure why they are relevant in the discussion of transmen being women and therefore able to compete in women's sport as they aren't a transman.
But as I've said before it is complicated.
-
I am not the only person who uses it. Your lack of knowledge of a term is no argument against it, and languages changes. Once there was no such term as' 'transwoman'. I refuse to use a term which is inaccurate and has been used as a Trojan horse to attack women's swx based rights and spaces.
This subject never really comes up in any of my daily conversations, but if it does I shall use your term.
-
So what is the definition of the gender 'woman' as opposed to sex? What does that have to do with to do with a sex based split?
Sex is a binary biological condition and is either male or female. The word sex, apparently, comes from the same root as, for example, seccateurs, and possibly refers to an ancient legend that when the gods made the first human they took a single being and split it into two halves.
Gender is a continuum with "masculine" and "feminine" as its extreme points. To use gender as alternative to sex is linguistic ignorance.
-
Sex is a binary biological condition and is either male or female. The word sex, apparently, comes from the same root as, for example, seccateurs, and possibly refers to an ancient legend that when the gods made the first human they took a single being and split it into two halves.
Gender is a continuum with "masculine" and "feminine" as its extreme points. To use gender as alternative to sex is linguistic ignorance.
Take it up with Prof D who thinks men particpating in women's sport is a 'hard case' because 'gender'.
-
Janice Turner on the cheat that is Hubbard
https://archive.is/fiwQ1
-
Janice Turner on the cheat that is Hubbard
I'm sorry NS - that comment cannot go unchallenged as it is potentially libellous. The Mods might want to take a view too.
To be a cheat in sports you need to be breaking one or more of the rules that govern that sport with the view of gaining an advantage. As far as I am aware Hubbard has broken no rule, she has complied with all the rules set out by the IOC governing bodies for participation in the events she is competing in. If you know differently NS then please tell us which of the rules she has broken. And if she has complied with all the rules how can she be a cheat.
What you mean is that you don't agree with the rules that govern participation and want them changed. That is a legitimate opinion, although others will disagree. However that is a different matter to her being a cheat as that would imply that she is breaking the rules that currently govern the sport. To imply that she is a cheat when she isn't breaking any rules seems to me to be libellous, specifically a comment that is derogatory and not true.
So if you want to persist in suggesting she is a cheat please can you indicate which rule or rules that govern participation in these events that she has broken. As mentioned previously the Mods might want to take a view too.
-
Does jeremyp agree that trans identifying men are 'hard cases'?
Trans women are only hard cases because nobody seems to want to face up to the fact that allowing them to compete as women in many sports disadvantages the actual women. We have to tell trans women "we're sorry but there is a limit. Other people have rights too"
-
Trans women are only hard cases because nobody seems to want to face up to the fact that allowing them to compete as women in many sports disadvantages the actual women. We have to tell trans women "we're sorry but there is a limit. Other people have rights too"
But you therefore accept that if the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then determining the criteria for allowing them to compete is challenging.
Saying they should not be allowed to compete is not the same as considering that it is challenging to determine the criteria for eligibility if they are allowed to compete.
Given that the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then they are 'hard cases'.
-
But you therefore accept that if the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then determining the criteria for allowing them to compete is challenging.
Yes that is true, but they don't have to allow trans women to compete as women "as a matter of principle". For some sports, your sex is deemed not to matter at all e.g. a lot of the equestrian sports, but for others, you probably need to ban males from competing in women's categories for safety reasons if nothing else.
Given that the IOC as a matter of principle will allow trans women to compete as women in the Olympics then they are 'hard cases'.
"Challenging" is not the same as a hard case. Laurel Hubbard is not a hard case: she's met the criteria for a trans woman to compete in the women's weightlifting. It's totally unfair to the female competitors (and the weightlifter who is not a competitor because Hubbard took her qualifying place) but she's not breaking the rules. The fact that plenty of people disagree with the IOC's "matter of principle" does not maker this a hard case.
It's actually an easy case. The main reason that sports are segregated is because females are, on average, physically disadvantaged compared to males. If you start allowing males to compete in women's sport, you are saying that that reason is no longer valid which means there's no need to segregate the sports at all. If you think that females deserve a share of Olympic glory, you don't allow trans women to compete as women (in the general case).
-
Yes that is true, but they don't have to allow trans women to compete as women "as a matter of principle".
That's true of course, but the IOC's current view is that trans women are considered to be women and therefore are allowed to compete in women's competitions, provided that certain criteria are met.
The challenge for the IOC is that having decided on that basic principle (I fully understand that other basic principles are available) that they then have to set those criteria. The criteria have changed several times since (I think) 2004 when the IOC first allowed trans athletes to compete and the IOC seem to be clear that further changes to the criteria will happen soon. And a core element of the criteria (testosterone levels) apply not just to trans women but also women with DSD and hyperandrogenism. And if you set criteria for testosterone it does seem reasonable that it must apply to all competitors, not just trans women.
Interestingly Hubbard's trans status doesn't seem to have been an advantage in the actual competition as she went out without recording a successful lift and she finished last.
-
Interestingly Hubbard's trans status doesn't seem to have been an advantage in the actual competition as she went out without recording a successful lift and she finished last.
She had a bad day. Her total in the New Zealand qualifying competition would have given her a silver at Tokyo.
-
She had a bad day. Her total in the New Zealand qualifying competition would have given her a silver at Tokyo.
He's an old mediocre male with injury problems and this covers why it is still cheating
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1422167316364730376.html
And that's leaving aside the woman whose place he took.
-
He's an old mediocre male with injury problems and this covers why it is still cheating
No it doesn't - his analogies are rubbish. He uses two examples (doping and having a motor in a bike) which are clearly against the rule, hence cheating.
But what rules did Hubbard break NS - if she complied with all the rules of the governing body for the sport how can she be cheating? Even the articles that you linked to (that agree with you on the general principle of whether or not she should be allowed to compete) don't imply she has broken any rules.
-
I'm sorry NS - that comment cannot go unchallenged as it is potentially libellous. The Mods might want to take a view too.
To be a cheat in sports you need to be breaking one or more of the rules that govern that sport with the view of gaining an advantage. As far as I am aware Hubbard has broken no rule, she has complied with all the rules set out by the IOC governing bodies for participation in the events she is competing in. If you know differently NS then please tell us which of the rules she has broken. And if she has complied with all the rules how can she be a cheat.
What you mean is that you don't agree with the rules that govern participation and want them changed. That is a legitimate opinion, although others will disagree. However that is a different matter to her being a cheat as that would imply that she is breaking the rules that currently govern the sport. To imply that she is a cheat when she isn't breaking any rules seems to me to be libellous, specifically a comment that is derogatory and not true.
So if you want to persist in suggesting she is a cheat please can you indicate which rule or rules that govern participation in these events that she has broken. As mentioned previously the Mods might want to take a view too.
Given the format of the board, it would be regarded as slander in UK - if it was. I understand your occasional need to pontificate on subjects you know little about so am not surprised by this rookie error.
I regard Hubbard as a cheat against the spirit of women's sports, and think he knows that he is. That's an opinion that I am allowed to express because it is exactly that, an opinion. And cheat is not a technically factual term here but then this just illustrates your basic ignorance.
But anyway on a fairly shite day, your wee tantrum cheered me up.
-
No it doesn't - his analogies are rubbish. He uses two examples (doping and having a motor in a bike) which are clearly against the rule, hence cheating.
But what rules did Hubbard break NS - if she complied with all the rules of the governing body for the sport how can she be cheating? Even the articles that you linked to (that agree with you on the general principle of whether or not she should be allowed to compete) don't imply she has broken any rules.
You missed his point. Failure to succeed is not a justification of the rules. Which is the point you made and is dealt witg by his analogies.
-
Given the fornat of the board, it would be regarded as slander in UK. I understand your occasional need to pontificate on subjects you know little about so am not surprised by this rookie error.
Slander is spoken, libel is written. It would be libel. Rookie error is all yours I'm afraid.
https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slander-libel
See section on social media.
-
You missed his point. Failure to succeed is not a justification of the rules. Which is the point you made and is dealt witg by his analogies.
His point was that you may still be cheating even if you don't win, using analogies which involve someone breaking the rules of the sport they are competing in.
And I agree that you can still be cheating if you don't win. However I don't see how you can be cheating if you comply with all the rules governing the sport you are competing in. You might think the rules are unfair, but if you abide by those rules you aren't cheating.
-
Slander is spoken, libel is written. It would be libel. Rookie error is all yours I'm afraid.
https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/distinction-in-defamation-slander-libel
See section on social media.
See both feet in like a rookie, this is effectively a bulletin board which has been designated as effective spiken conversation bu UK case law.
I love you illustrating Dunning Kruger.
-
His point was that you may still be cheating even if you don't win, using analogies which involve someone breaking the rules of the sport they are competing in.
And I agree that you can still be cheating if you don't win. However I don't see how you can be cheating if you comply with all the rules governing the sport you are competing in. You might think the rules are unfair, but if you abide by those rules you aren't cheating.
No, his point was that not winning doesn't mean you aren't using an unfair advantage. It was me adding the cheating bit, as already covered.
-
As I've noted before I'm not much interested in sport myself, nor the Olympics, but the inclusion of biological males in female events is of interest for non-sporting reasons.
I was struck by some of the details in a Guardian article today that, it seems to me, highlights the weakness in the approach being taken by the IOC in terms of ensuring fairness to to biological females competing against biological males in events involving physical strength and speed etc, where the disadvantages for biological females also extends to selection criteria based on performance if the effects of puberty always give biological males an intrinsic (and exploitable) advantage.
It is widely accepted there is a 10%‑50% performance advantage that exists between male and female after puberty, and without a women’s sport category there would be a tiny number of women in international sport. Dina Asher-Smith, Britain’s fastest female runner, has run 10.83sec for 100m. That is an incredible feat. But it is still slower than the English boys under‑15 record of 10.8sec.
After that, however, it gets more contentious. The IOC has tried to navigate the tightrope between fairness and safety on one side and inclusion on the other, without ever appearing entirely convincing. On Thursday it praised Hubbard’s “courage and tenacity”, with the IOC’s medical and science director, Dr Richard Budgett, saying “everyone agrees that trans women are women”.
Yet the very next day, Budgett told the Guardian the IOC’s 2015 guidelines, which provided the justification for Hubbard to compete in Tokyo, were no longer backed by science. That is because a growing number of studies have reported that the 10%-50% performance advantage that exists between males and females after puberty does not appear to be significantly reduced suppressing testosterone.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/02/laurel-hubbards-olympic-dream-dies-under-worlds-gaze
-
As I've noted before I'm not much interested in sport myself, nor the Olympics, but the inclusion of biological males in female events is of interest for non-sporting reasons.
I was struck by some of the details in a Guardian article today that, it seems to me, highlights the weakness in the approach being taken by the IOC in terms of ensuring fairness to to biological females competing against biological males in events involving physical strength and speed etc, where the disadvantages for biological females also extends to selection criteria based on performance if the effects of puberty always give biological males an intrinsic (and exploitable) advantage.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/aug/02/laurel-hubbards-olympic-dream-dies-under-worlds-gaze
Trouble is, if the IOC tries to reverse the decision to let trans women compete, there will be a hell of an outcry from the LGBTQ+ lobby. Nevertheless, they should do so.
-
there will be a hell of an outcry from the LGBTQ+ lobby.
Only some of that. Quite a lot of the LGB components do not agree with some of the more outrageous demands made by the TQ+ components.
-
Trans identifying male sex offenders can be placed on women's hospital wards
https://archive.is/cWKxb
-
I heard Sebastian Coe being interviewed on BBC Radio 4 about the participation of Laurel Hubbard in the womens weightlifting events in the Tokyo Olympic Games.
If I remember correctly, Lord Coe said that it was right to respect personal wishes and culture, but that biology could not be ignored.
-
See both feet in like a rookie, this is effectively a bulletin board which has been designated as effective spiken conversation bu UK case law.
Nope NS - that is way out of date. The law has moved on considerably since that particular judgement, not least through primary legislation but also more recent case law.
Authors of comments on what the earlier (now superseded) case might have considered a "bulletin board" can and have been sued successfully for libel, not slander, as the odious (an opinion of mine) Katie Hopkins knows to her cost.
-
No, his point was that not winning doesn't mean you aren't using an unfair advantage. It was me adding the cheating bit, as already covered.
Hubbard didn’t cheat. She complied with the Olympic rules. The problem is that the rules are unfair. If the rules for the 1500 metres said “people called Jeremyp on message boards are allowed to use a bicycle, I could win the gold medal within the rules but it would be totally unfair to everybody else.
My post above, which you didn’t seem to like much, was pointing out that, the fact that Hubbard lost in this case, isn’t an argument. She won her qualifying competition with a total lift that would have got her a silver medal here despite the fact that she is in her forties and would have got nowhere in men’s competitions. And the female athlete who came fourth was denied a trip to the Olympics because of that.
Nevertheless, Hubbard wasn’t cheating. The rules are wrong.
-
Hubbard didn’t cheat. She complied with the Olympic rules. The problem is that the rules are unfair. If the rules for the 1500 metres said “people called Jeremyp on message boards are allowed to use a bicycle, I could win the gold medal within the rules but it would be totally unfair to everybody else.
My post above, which you didn’t seem to like much, was pointing out that, the fact that Hubbard lost in this case, isn’t an argument. She won her qualifying competition with a total lift that would have got her a silver medal here despite the fact that she is in her forties and would have got nowhere in men’s competitions. And the female athlete who came fourth was denied a trip to the Olympics because of that.
Nevertheless, Hubbard wasn’t cheating. The rules are wrong.
Exactemundo. Leave him/her alone. s/he followed the rules scrupulously.
-
Hubbard didn’t cheat. She complied with the Olympic rules. The problem is that the rules are unfair. If the rules for the 1500 metres said “people called Jeremyp on message boards are allowed to use a bicycle, I could win the gold medal within the rules but it would be totally unfair to everybody else.
My post above, which you didn’t seem to like much, was pointing out that, the fact that Hubbard lost in this case, isn’t an argument. She won her qualifying competition with a total lift that would have got her a silver medal here despite the fact that she is in her forties and would have got nowhere in men’s competitions. And the female athlete who came fourth was denied a trip to the Olympics because of that.
Nevertheless, Hubbard wasn’t cheating. The rules are wrong.
Quite right - Hubbard didn't cheat - she complied with the rules. And despite NS's implication that we don't have a definition of cheating in relation to sport (not a factual term) I think it is pretty well clear that cheating in sport is defined as deliberately breaking the rules of that sport with the intention of gaining an advantage. Hubbard didn't cheat.
Now I am really quite disturbed that so much of the ire in these discussions is aimed at Hubbard as an individual. If you think that the rules are wrong (a legitimate view) then you should aim that criticism at the IOC and other sporting bodies, not at individual's who are legitimately competing within the rules as they stand. That so much hate has been aimed at Hubbard as an individual, including accusations of cheating I think speaks volumes about the mindset of those making those accusations.
One last point - it is totally unacceptable and deeply disrespectful to refer to Hubbard as anything other than she/her. When someone deliberately and gratuitously refers to her as he, again I think that tells you an awful lot about that person's mindset, in a similar manner to people who deliberately and gratuitously use terms about gay or black people that are considered disrespectful and offensive by gay people or black people etc. Why on earth would you do it.
Steve - note I'm not aiming this at you as my take on your most recent post is that you are perhaps unsure what term to use - if you don't wish to be offensive to trans women, please use she and her about Hubbard - she is a person not some kind of political football, let's not forget.
-
That so much hate has been aimed at Hubbard as an individual, including accusations of cheating I think speaks volumes about the mindset of those making those accusations.
Still substantially less hatred than that received by JK Rowling just for stating facts.
The problem is this debate has become poisoned, and if you look at it dispassionately the poison has by and large come from a very small, but very vocal subset of the Trans lobby. That there is push back from women and others on this issue is hardly surprising when you realise the stupidity of some of the trans lobby's arguments.
I'll try not to bore you with too many details but I got involved in a discussion elsewhere and was asked (hypothetically speaking) if as a gay man I would sleep with a trans man (that is FTM) if they were pre-operative. I said no I wouldn't. I was then bombarded with all sorts of messages some of which were vile. The least of them in terms of vileness was that I was "transphobic" because I wouldn't sleep with a trans man. A claim I denied, except in the deluded trans world I don't even have the right to deny it because I "haven't walked their path", or some such other hippie-ish hogwash.
What the militant part of the trans lobby are doing is trying to blur the lines on sex and shut down debate. You haven't got a penis - so what, you can be a man if you say you are. You have a cock, hey guess what if you say you are a woman, hey presto, you're a woman. It is, putting it bluntly, bollocks (in this context a bit more than bollocks!)
There are good reasons for maintaining a male/female descriptor relating to their original state for a trans person, even after they have transitioned, not least of which are the medical ones.
The issue of what you call them to their face is a different one and I would have no problem referring to them as they present themselves to me. I appreciate others do and have valid reasons for wishing to use their original pronouns, I'm just not capable of being that direct.
-
Still substantially less hatred than that received by JK Rowling just for stating facts.
I condemn the hatred that she has received too and I don't think it really is a matter of 'the hatred that this person has received is greater than the hatred that person has received'. In reality Rowling has been attacked for stating opinions, not just facts - but even if you think everything she has said is undeniable fact then that seems little different to being attacked for simply competing in a sporting competition within the rules of that competition. I think we should condemn both.
-
There are good reasons for maintaining a male/female descriptor relating to their original state for a trans person, even after they have transitioned, not least of which are the medical ones.
There are certainly good reasons for knowing that a transwoman is trans in terms of the provision of appropriate medical care etc - but that seems to me to be a private clinical matter.
The issue of what you call them to their face is a different one and I would have no problem referring to them as they present themselves to me. I appreciate others do and have valid reasons for wishing to use their original pronouns, I'm just not capable of being that direct.
Well I am glad that you wouldn't call a transwomen 'he' to her face. However I am rather disturbed that you indicate this to be because you aren't capable of being that direct. There are terms that many gay people find deeply offensive and disrespectful - would you, as a gay person be OK with a situation where someone used a term you found offensive and disrespect, just not directly to your face. Would you be confortable if the reason why someone wouldn't use those terms directly to your face was because they were not capable of being that direct.
Let's be a bit respectful here - if you wouldn't dream of calling a black person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not), if your wouldn't dream of calling a gay person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not) then why on earth would you think it OK to call a trans person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not).
-
I would really like to see an example of where she stated opinions because as far as I can see from her Twitter feed she stated facts for example:
If sex isn’t real, there’s no same-sex attraction. If sex isn’t real, the lived reality of women globally is erased. I know and love trans people, but erasing the concept of sex removes the ability of many to meaningfully discuss their lives. It isn’t hate to speak the truth.
As I pointed out it is a poisoned debate, but the blame lies firmly with parts of the Trans lobby who seem determined to make enemies out of allies.
Let's be a bit respectful here - if you wouldn't dream of calling a black person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not), if your wouldn't dream of calling a gay person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not) then why on earth would you think it OK to call a trans person by a term that they would find disrespectful and offensive (whether to their face or not).
It's difficult but I don't see it as being directly analagous. I am gay, my partner is black - immutable. Trans people are doing the opposite of that, they are changing into approximations of the opposite sex and I'm not sure co-opting the pronouns of the opposite sex is appropriate. I don't know, maybe they can have some terms of their own.
-
I am gay, ... - immutable.
There are of course plenty of people who think that being gay is just a choice, rather than immutable - I disagree with that view completely. However I think that trans people consider that being trans is ever bit as real and immutable as being gay.
... they are changing into approximations of the opposite sex ...
Which is exactly the same argument as has been used over the years by homophobic people, sadly.
-
I don't know, maybe they can have some terms of their own.
Some trans people do - specifically non binary trans people who reject both he/him and she/her. But isn't that their choice, not ours to determine how they should be referred to, just as how you refer to your sexuality is your choice, not mine.
-
However I think that trans people consider that being trans is ever bit as real and immutable as being gay.
Except it is becoming clearer and clearer that some people who have undergone transition now regret it and have realised to late that actually they are gay, and indeed some detransition.
But isn't that their choice, not ours to determine how they should be referred to, just as how you refer to your sexuality is your choice, not mine.
Not if that choice is in direct conflict with a descriptor used by others. Gay people didn't choose to call themselves heterosexual, we haven't co-opted another category (we co-opted the word gay, but that is a different matter). Trans people are choosing to be called women or men. There is a difference.
-
Except it is becoming clearer and clearer that some people who have undergone transition now regret it and have realised to late that actually they are gay, and indeed some detransition.
That is drifting into the territory of the gay conversion therapy justifiers. And the 'people aren't really gay, just look at Tom Robinson' brigade.
I've no doubt that there are some people in this category. There will be others who lived their life without recognising they were trans and now regret not accepting they were trans earlier (just as commonly occurred with gay people in the past). No doubt there are people who thought they were gay at a point in their lives who came to recognise they weren't gay but actually straight or bisexual. Just as there are people who thought they were heterosexual but ultimately came to recognise they were gay.
And people who thought they were gay but came to recognise they were actually trans.
And in many cases that lack of clarity and recognition may lead to regret. But none of this means that trans people don't exist, just as none of this means that homosexual people don't exist. The way forward surely is to help people to understand who they are, in terms of their sexuality and in terms of their gender identity and also to recognise that in a culture where the overwhelming majority of people aren't homosexual and aren't trans and with cultural norms that continue to expect that people will align with the majority position it can be challenging for individual in particular who are homosexual or trans to come to recognise this and be able to live their lives accordingly.
-
Not if that choice is in direct conflict with a descriptor used by others. Gay people didn't choose to call themselves heterosexual, we haven't co-opted another category (we co-opted the word gay, but that is a different matter).
Well you have rather shot yourself in the foot there as gay people most definitely did co-opt a term that used to mean something rather different.
Trans people are choosing to be called women or men. There is a difference.
But they are doing so because they consider that men/women he/she etc are terms associated with gender just as much as biological sex and therefore they wouldn't consider that they are co-opting anything, merely using the appropriate gender term for their own gender identity.
-
Not if that choice is in direct conflict with a descriptor used by others. Gay people didn't choose to call themselves heterosexual, we haven't co-opted another category (we co-opted the word gay, but that is a different matter). Trans people are choosing to be called women or men. There is a difference.
But there is also a strong heritage of some gay men 'co-opting' the terms 'girl', 'she', her etc to describe other gay men.
https://www.them.us/story/call-me-by-my-pronouns
And again this is about challenging cultural gender norms.
The issue here is that many of the terms we use refer just as much to gender as they do to biological sex, indeed rather more so as they are often culturally derived. Effectively what you are doing is dictating that gendered terms can only refer to biological sex, but that seems to be just as much 'co-opting' as the approaches that you criticise.
-
I'm sorry NS - that comment cannot go unchallenged as it is potentially libellous. The Mods might want to take a view too.
To be a cheat in sports you need to be breaking one or more of the rules that govern that sport with the view of gaining an advantage. As far as I am aware Hubbard has broken no rule, she has complied with all the rules set out by the IOC governing bodies for participation in the events she is competing in. If you know differently NS then please tell us which of the rules she has broken. And if she has complied with all the rules how can she be a cheat.
What you mean is that you don't agree with the rules that govern participation and want them changed. That is a legitimate opinion, although others will disagree. However that is a different matter to her being a cheat as that would imply that she is breaking the rules that currently govern the sport. To imply that she is a cheat when she isn't breaking any rules seems to me to be libellous, specifically a comment that is derogatory and not true.
So if you want to persist in suggesting she is a cheat please can you indicate which rule or rules that govern participation in these events that she has broken. As mentioned previously the Mods might want to take a view too.
The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc
Having an unfair advantage can also be considered cheating in competitive sport, as the athlete is supposed to be rewarded for their individual skill and training that contributed to their performance rather than being rewarded for having an unfair advantage over biological women due to being male.
If top female weightlifters in a weight category cannot lift heavier weights than mediocre male weightlifters in that category due to the male having testosterone advantages during puberty and due to female physical limitations that cannot be overcome by skill or training, then a mediocre male weightlifter such as Hubbard entering a female weightlifting competition is using an unfair advantage to deprive a female weightlifter from winning. I think from a legal perspective it could be considered fair comment to call a male weightlifter, with all the inherent advantages of having gone through male puberty, a cheat for entering a female weightlifting competition.
That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport. It's a bit like the exemptions granted religions that allow them to be homophobic - if we define homophobia as unfair discrimination against gay people.
For whatever reason society has currently determined that religions are exempt from the rules that prohibit homophobia by allowing religions to discriminate in certain services they offer to gay people; and society has also currently determined that the IOC is exempt from the rules that are supposed to prevent cheating by allowing the IOC to discriminate against biological women in sport.
-
But there is also a strong heritage of some gay men 'co-opting' the terms 'girl', 'she', her etc to describe other gay men.
Yes, obviously. But not as any kind of definition in real life. It was/is done either in jest or viciously.
As to co-opting the word gay as opposed to adopting man or woman, please tell me you can see the considerable (as in fucking massive) difference between a word to describe a homosexual that wasn't used as a basic building block of our understanding of the way the human species works, and two words that are - man & woman.
-
The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc
Having an unfair advantage can also be considered cheating in competitive sport, as the athlete is supposed to be rewarded for their individual skill and training that contributed to their performance rather than being rewarded for having an unfair advantage over biological women due to being male.
If top female weightlifters in a weight category cannot lift heavier weights than mediocre male weightlifters in that category due to the male having testosterone advantages during puberty and due to female physical limitations that cannot be overcome by skill or training, then a mediocre male weightlifter such as Hubbard entering a female weightlifting competition is using an unfair advantage to deprive a female weightlifter from winning. I think from a legal perspective it could be considered fair comment to call a male weightlifter, with all the inherent advantages of having gone through male puberty, a cheat for entering a female weightlifting competition.
That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport. It's a bit like the exemptions granted religions that allow them to be homophobic - if we define homophobia as unfair discrimination against gay people.
For whatever reason society has currently determined that religions are exempt from the rules that prohibit homophobia by allowing religions to discriminate in certain services they offer to gay people; and society has also currently determined that the IOC is exempt from the rules that are supposed to prevent cheating by allowing the IOC to discriminate against biological women in sport.
Spot on.
-
The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc
Sure I accept that 'cheating' may go beyond the precision of the rules that govern the sport to cover broader culture and ethos, but I really don't see how this helps you.
So to start with your examples - actually diving and shirt pulling are against the laws of football and players are often penalised for those offences, including receiving a yellow card. So those examples aren't really supporting your argument.
But on the broader issue of culture and ethos well it is the governing bodies of the sports themselves, can claim to define that culture and ethos. And in the case of the IOC they have very clearly indicated (actually for the past 16 years) that trans women are women, and therefore how can a transwoman competing in a women's sport be considered to be breaking the culture and ethos of a sport which has indicated that they are women. So the argument runs as follows:
1. IOC defines that women's sporting events are for women (a point of principle and I don't think there is any disagreement).
2. The IOC has ruled on a point of principle that transwomen are women and therefore able to compete in women's sports provided they meet specific criteria for eligibility. (I understand that you and others disagree with this, but this is their current principle which is established in their culture and ethos)
3. The IOC sets specific criteria that apply to all potentially eligible competitors (i.e. women - see 2 above) to determine whether they are eligible, largely around testosterone levels.
To have cheated Hubbard would have to have broken some rule or point of principle as set out above - she didn't, she didn't cheat.
What you are effectively saying is that is should be you, or others with a similar view, that should set the ethos of a sport rather than the governing body of that sport. I don't think that is reasonable, although you are quite within your rights to lobby and campaign for the governing body to change any one of 1-3 above. But you should take this up with the governing body rather than label a person, who has complied with all the rule and the broader culture/ethos set out by the governing body, a cheat.
-
That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport.
But that is nonsense - the IOC are responsible for the rules - you might not like them (I get that) - but someone complying with all the rules set by the governing body of their sport (including the broader culture/ethos points) simply cannot be cheating.
I think you should aim your ire at the IOC if you consider their rules to be wrong - not demonise an individual who has complied with all the rule set by the governing body of her sport.
-
The word "cheat" in relation to competitive sport does not just mean breaking rules. People can be considered to be cheating if they break norms or customs or if they do things that one side may consider cheating but another side may not e.g. diving in football to gain a penalty, pulling on people's shirts to stop them reaching the ball etc
Having an unfair advantage can also be considered cheating in competitive sport, as the athlete is supposed to be rewarded for their individual skill and training that contributed to their performance rather than being rewarded for having an unfair advantage over biological women due to being male.
If top female weightlifters in a weight category cannot lift heavier weights than mediocre male weightlifters in that category due to the male having testosterone advantages during puberty and due to female physical limitations that cannot be overcome by skill or training, then a mediocre male weightlifter such as Hubbard entering a female weightlifting competition is using an unfair advantage to deprive a female weightlifter from winning. I think from a legal perspective it could be considered fair comment to call a male weightlifter, with all the inherent advantages of having gone through male puberty, a cheat for entering a female weightlifting competition.
That the IOC permits cheating in order to be inclusive to trans identifying men does not change the fact that trans identifying men are using an unfair advantage to deprive women of a place in sport. It's a bit like the exemptions granted religions that allow them to be homophobic - if we define homophobia as unfair discrimination against gay people.
For whatever reason society has currently determined that religions are exempt from the rules that prohibit homophobia by allowing religions to discriminate in certain services they offer to gay people; and society has also currently determined that the IOC is exempt from the rules that are supposed to prevent cheating by allowing the IOC to discriminate against biological women in sport.
Completely agree. In addition in terms of the idea of pronouns, I have cited the article below a couple of times. Given the drive to get rid of women's sex based rights and spaces, with the idea of male sex offenders being placed in women's wards and prisons, and the deep homophobia of the people being told they are 'transphobic' if they say they are same sex attracted. But Prof D appears to think that's all fine.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
-
But that is nonsense - the IOC are responsible for the rules - you might not like them (I get that) - but someone complying with all the rules set by the governing body of their sport (including the broader culture/ethos points) simply cannot be cheating.
I think you should aim your ire at the IOC if you consider their rules to be wrong - not demonise an individual who has complied with all the rule set by the governing body of her sport.
Ever heard of the spirit of sport? Hubbard, a rich white male, has taken medals and places from women of colour. But you support that
-
Ever heard of the spirit of sport? Hubbard, a rich white male, has taken medals and places from women of colour. But you support that
Yes I have heard of the spirit of the sport - which is of course the ethos set by the governing body of the sport.
The spirit of the sport, as far as the IOC is concerned, is that trans women are woman and can compete in women's sports provided they meet certain criteria - which she did.
I am struggling to see why her race nor her financial background is relevant - since when do we ban people from competing in a sport because they are white or rich. That would hardly be in the 'spirit of the sport' would it.
You don't like the IOC's position - take it up with the IOC - don't demonise someone who has complied with both the spirit of the sport (as set out by the IOC) and the specific rules for participation.
-
Yes I have heard of the spirit of the sport - which is of course the ethos set by the governing body of the sport.
The spirit of the sport, as far as the IOC is concerned, is that trans women are woman and can compete in women's sports provided they meet certain criteria - which she did.
I am struggling to see why her race nor her financial background is relevant - since when do we ban people from competing in a sport because they are white or rich. That would hardly be in the 'spirit of the sport' would it.
You don't like the IOC's position - take it up with the IOC - don't demonise someone who has complied with both the spirit of the sport (as set out by the IOC) and the specific rules for participation.
No, the governing body of a sport does not set the ethos, it sets the rules. I think Hubbard knows he is cheating against a sense of fairness.
By the way do you think trans identifying men are women?
-
No, the governing body of a sport does not set the ethos, it sets the rules.
Of course they do - they set both the ethos and the rules.
I think Hubbard knows he is cheating against a sense of fairness.
You will have to ask her - but I doubt that either her nor the IOC considers her to have cheated in any way as she has met both the ethos set by the IOC and the specific rules in terms of competing in the competition.
By the way do you think trans identifying men are women?
As I've said before I don't recognise the term which seems to be one that would never be used by a transwoman herself and seems to be restricted to use by those who oppose trans right as a pejorative and derogatory term. It is your equivalent of Vlad's militant atheist.
-
Of course they do - they set both the ethos and the rules.
You will have to ask her - but I doubt that either her nor the IOC considers her to have cheated in any way as she has met both the ethos set by the IOC and the specific rules in terms of competing in the competition.
As I've said before I don't recognise the term which seems to be one that would never be used by a transwoman herself and seems to be restricted to use by those who oppose trans right as a pejorative and derogatory term. It is your equivalent of Vlad's militant atheist.
ok to avoid your cowardly evasion do you think that those to whom you refer to as 'trans woman' are women? And if you do can you say what your definition of woman is?
-
If the principle in sports that involve physical attributes (speed, strength etc) is that trans women: biological males who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone suppression to try and inhibit their intrinsic physiological advantages over biological females, can compete in events primarily for biological females, is sound - then can trans men: biological females who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone supplements to boost their physiology, compete against biological males?
I suspect this attempt at inclusion only works in one direction since, and bearing in mind I know little of sport, I find it had to imagine trans men competing in events primarily for biological males, such as rugby or swimming - so I conclude the principle that saw Hubbard compete is unsound and, perversely, discriminates against biological females.
-
If the principle in sports that involve physical attributes (speed, strength etc) is that trans women: biological males who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone suppression to try and inhibit their intrinsic physiological advantages over biological females, can compete in events primarily for biological females, is sound - then can trans men: biological females who have gone through puberty, with later testosterone supplements to boost their physiology, compete against biological males?
I suspect this attempt at inclusion only works in one direction since, and bearing in mind I know little of sport, I find it had to imagine trans men competing in events primarily for biological males, such as rugby or swimming - so I conclude the principle that saw Hubbard compete is unsound and, perversely, discriminates against biological females.
I think most 'male' sports are open. So anyone good enough to participate can.
We do have Quinn playing for Canada in the soccer as mentioned, who identifies as trans, but may be 'non binary' whatever the fuck that means, but will play in women's sports, and won't take testerone till after the hames because that would be doping.
-
Sure I accept that 'cheating' may go beyond the precision of the rules that govern the sport to cover broader culture and ethos, but I really don't see how this helps you.
So to start with your examples - actually diving and shirt pulling are against the laws of football and players are often penalised for those offences, including receiving a yellow card. So those examples aren't really supporting your argument.
My examples are supporting my argument about what different people consider cheating and whether it can therefore be considered fair comment to accuse someone of cheating even when officials disagree with the accusation of cheating. During the recent European Football Championships there were many comments published or aired about whether some of the footballers were diving and were therefore cheating, including the penalty awarded for Raheem Sterling's dive. https://talksport.com/football/908762/england-raheem-sterling-dive-penalty-cheat-euro-2020-final/
But on the broader issue of culture and ethos well it is the governing bodies of the sports themselves, can claim to define that culture and ethos.
The governing body can claim to define culture and ethos and other people are free to claim that the governing bodies are enabling cheating. Which is what is happening here. The IOC ruling is permitting Hubbard's cheating.
And in the case of the IOC they have very clearly indicated (actually for the past 16 years) that trans women are women, and therefore how can a transwoman competing in a women's sport be considered to be breaking the culture and ethos of a sport which has indicated that they are women.
Quite easily - it just needs people to disagree with the governing body and state that the governing body is supporting misogyny and cheating e.g. when the IOC ignores the biological advantages of male puberty and prioritises identity politics over biological fact in order to disadvantage women. According to the science it's not gender that gives people physical advantages in sport, it is biological sex.
So the argument runs as follows:
1. IOC defines that women's sporting events are for women (a point of principle and I don't think there is any disagreement).
2. The IOC has ruled on a point of principle that transwomen are women and therefore able to compete in women's sports provided they meet specific criteria for eligibility. (I understand that you and others disagree with this, but this is their current principle which is established in their culture and ethos)
3. The IOC sets specific criteria that apply to all potentially eligible competitors (i.e. women - see 2 above) to determine whether they are eligible, largely around testosterone levels.
To have cheated Hubbard would have to have broken some rule or point of principle as set out above - she didn't, she didn't cheat.
The argument runs as follows:
- The IOC supports cheating by prioritising identity politics over unfair biological advantages that men have over women in sport.
- Hubbard is a man who made use of that unfair biological advantage to claim a spot in a woman's competition.
- Therefore saying Hubbard is cheating, with the approval of the IOC, is fair comment.
What you are effectively saying is that is should be you, or others with a similar view, that should set the ethos of a sport rather than the governing body of that sport. I don't think that is reasonable, although you are quite within your rights to lobby and campaign for the governing body to change any one of 1-3 above. But you should take this up with the governing body rather than label a person, who has complied with all the rule and the broader culture/ethos set out by the governing body, a cheat.
What I am saying is that my view that Hubbard is cheating, with the approval of the IOC, is fair comment, given it is undeniable biological fact that Hubbard went through male puberty, and therefore has an unfair advantage over biological women, and given that gender is not the determinant of unfair biological advantages in sport.
That you and others feel sorry for Hubbard does not allow her to let herself off the hook in terms of taking advantage of the IOC permitted cheating. In the days of segregation white people were permitted to make use of the advantages they had because of their perceived race, and while many white people had no scruples about making use of their privileges, many white people chose not to do that because they considered racial discrimination wrong or unjustified. Many trans people have chosen to take a similar stand and chosen not to make use of their male biological advantage. Unfortunately, Hubbard does not have such scruples.
-
As I've said before I don't recognise the term which seems to be one that would never be used by a transwoman herself and seems to be restricted to use by those who oppose trans right as a pejorative and derogatory term. It is your equivalent of Vlad's militant atheist.
Personally, I only oppose trans rights if they cheat or unfairly disadvantage biological women, and I oppose it on the grounds that this would be misogyny. I presume you as a biological man will allow that I, as a biological woman, have a right to hold a view on what constitutes misogyny, given that misogyny is used to enforce male sex-based advantages?
-
Personally, I only oppose trans rights if they cheat or unfairly disadvantage biological women, and I oppose it on the grounds that this would be misogyny. I presume you as a biological man will allow that I, as a biological woman, have a right to hold a view on what constitutes misogyny, given that misogyny is used to enforce male sex-based advantages?
There are only women and men. The 'biological' creates the idea that the regressive patriarchal woo of gender is real. I wonder if Prof D thinks if i's ok to say to Rachel Dolezal that she was not black.
-
There are only women and men. The 'biological' creates the idea that the regressive patriarchal woo of gendef is real. I wonder if Prof D thinks if i's ok to say to Rachel Dolezal that she was not black.
Sure - but humans come up with a lot of abstract artificial concepts, which are humoured and treated as if real on the basis that it means something to the people who espouse them. When these abstract, artificial concepts trample on other people's rights we usually have a discussion and try to limit the damage or unfair advantages people take of their minority or majority status.
E.g. in the process of this discussion I don't mind referring to Hubbard based on her artificial gender preferences, in the same way that many people extend me the courtesy of referring to me as a Muslim based on my religious preferences. If i start promoting that Muslims have a right to impose a sharia court's rulings on you, then you might oppose that claim but presumably you would still humour me and refer to me as a Muslim. Similarly I don't mind humouring Hubbard, when it does not trample on women's hard fought for rights to not be disadvantaged simply because of their biology.
So I recognise that gender is an artificial construct based on cherry-picking of cultural perceptions, which will differ from individual to individual and therefore no one can define the gender terms man or woman - possibly even less so than being able to define a Muslim or maybe the same. There are no doubt some people who do not consider me a Muslim while being unable to define 'Muslim' and so I support your right to consider people only according to their biological sex. While it's nice that people humour my religious identity, I don't consider it pejorative if someone refers to me as a Muslim identifying woman. Language evolves to encompass nuances.
Is it considered a hate crime if someone deliberately mis-identifies me as a Christian or Sikh despite me saying I am Muslim?
Anyway, I support the right of anyone to refer to religion as patriarchal woo....or just woo...and I take the same approach to people who view gender as patriarchal woo or an artificial construct.
-
There are only women and men.
If by that you mean that there is a binary concept, such that ever person is either a man or a women, then even in the purest biological context context that isn't true as there are all sorts of examples of intersex condition which involve individuals exhibiting biological characteristics of both men and women.
As Jeremy P pointed out previously the most 'correct' biological definition of male vs female is about production of gamete of particular size - yet even here there are examples of individuals who produce both male and female gametes and others who produce neither.
So even in the context of pure biological sex, man vs woman isn't a pure binary concept.
Of course in terms of trans-gender people we are talking about gender rather than biological sex (the key is in the name) and in that context there is a much wider spectrum of individuals who in gender terms (biological, psychological and cultural) identify to a greater or lesser sense with characteristics that we typically ascribe as masculine or feminine.
-
Moderator:
Please note that a number of posts from the 'Olympics' thread (Sports, Hobbies and Interests Board) that were focused more on the 'trans' issues surrounding participation in certain sporting events, have been merged into this thread
-
If by that you mean that there is a binary concept, such that ever person is either a man or a women, then even in the purest biological context context that isn't true as there are all sorts of examples of intersex condition which involve individuals exhibiting biological characteristics of both men and women.
As Jeremy P pointed out previously the most 'correct' biological definition of male vs female is about production of gamete of particular size - yet even here there are examples of individuals who produce both male and female gametes and others who produce neither.
So even in the context of pure biological sex, man vs woman isn't a pure binary concept.
Of course in terms of trans-gender people we are talking about gender rather than biological sex (the key is in the name) and in that context there is a much wider spectrum of individuals who in gender terms (biological, psychological and cultural) identify to a greater or lesser sense with characteristics that we typically ascribe as masculine or feminine.
And to reiterate the question earlier do you think that those you refer to as 'trans women' are women? If so, what is your definition of woman?
-
If by that you mean that there is a binary concept, such that ever person is either a man or a women, then even in the purest biological context context that isn't true as there are all sorts of examples of intersex condition which involve individuals exhibiting biological characteristics of both men and women.
As Jeremy P pointed out previously the most 'correct' biological definition of male vs female is about production of gamete of particular size - yet even here there are examples of individuals who produce both male and female gametes and others who produce neither.
So even in the context of pure biological sex, man vs woman isn't a pure binary concept.
Of course in terms of trans-gender people we are talking about gender rather than biological sex (the key is in the name) and in that context there is a much wider spectrum of individuals who in gender terms (biological, psychological and cultural) identify to a greater or lesser sense with characteristics that we typically ascribe as masculine or feminine.
Oh, and 'intersex' is a wildly inaccurate and for those who have DSDs quite an offensive term.
-
If by that you mean that there is a binary concept, such that ever person is either a man or a women, then even in the purest biological context context that isn't true as there are all sorts of examples of intersex condition which involve individuals exhibiting biological characteristics of both men and women.
As Jeremy P pointed out previously the most 'correct' biological definition of male vs female is about production of gamete of particular size - yet even here there are examples of individuals who produce both male and female gametes and others who produce neither.
So even in the context of pure biological sex, man vs woman isn't a pure binary concept.
Of course in terms of trans-gender people we are talking about gender rather than biological sex (the key is in the name) and in that context there is a much wider spectrum of individuals who in gender terms (biological, psychological and cultural) identify to a greater or lesser sense with characteristics that we typically ascribe as masculine or feminine.
Your last para is the one that seems to have no answers and generates only confusion, which is why competitive sports should not be segregated based on gender, unless you can explain how gender plays a role in unfairly disadvantaging people in competitive sport.
What are the characteristics that we typically ascribe as masculine?
What are characteristics that we typically ascribe as feminine?
Who decides which category - masculine or feminine - that a particular characteristic falls into in any given year? The IOC?
Does it not make more sense for the IOC to just stick to looking at the stats supported by science as to what confers unfair advantages in sport, rather than worrying themselves about subjective abstract concepts, which people can't agree on because there is no supporting objective evidence? So Hubbard regarding herself as a woman is irrelevant for the purposes of competitive sport as there is no objective evidence for the gender category "woman".
-
Perhaps, like the para-olympics there could be a trans-olympics.
-
Yes I have heard of the spirit of the sport - which is of course the ethos set by the governing body of the sport.
The spirit of the sport, as far as the IOC is concerned, is that trans women are woman and can compete in women's sports provided they meet certain criteria - which she did.
I am struggling to see why her race nor her financial background is relevant - since when do we ban people from competing in a sport because they are white or rich. That would hardly be in the 'spirit of the sport' would it.
You don't like the IOC's position - take it up with the IOC - don't demonise someone who has complied with both the spirit of the sport (as set out by the IOC) and the specific rules for participation.
I'm interested to know PD: do you think it's fair to allow male bodied athletes to compete in sports competitions previously reserved for female bodied athletes, especially in cases where male physiology confers a big advantage?
-
Perhaps, like the para-olympics there could be a trans-olympics.
It wouldn't work. Trans women (at least the activists) want people to treat them exactly as if they are women. Having a separate category for them in sport would be admitting that what they want is impossible.
-
The Real Crisis at Rape Crisis Scotland.
https://forwomen.scot/10/08/2021/the-real-crisis-at-rape-crisis-scotland/
-
And more on the homophobia in trans ideology
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/08/kay-knight-the-shaming-of-homosexuals-for-having-sex/
-
'Tackling Labour Party misogyny 101'
Excellent article
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/tackling-labour-party-misogyny-101?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=facebook
-
The BBC's erasure of homosexuality
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/08/jo-bartosch-with-a-sleight-of-language-the-bbc-have-erased-same-sex-attraction-making-the-desire-for-someone-of-the-same-sex-literally-unspeakable-once-more/
-
Scottish Govt is a disgrace
https://twitter.com/DalgetySusan/status/1425853006210342916?s=19
-
And BBC witb dangerous gender woo about children
https://www.facebook.com/cbeebies/posts/4060111030690835
-
More coverage of the Scottish Govt's dangerous idiocy
.https://archive.is/Fusim
-
Susan Dalgety on the Scottish Govt breast binding 'advice'
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/trans-gender-debate-scottish-governments-breast-binding-guidance-may-damage-lives-of-young-girls-going-through-puberty-susan-dalgety-3345635
-
Ffs!
https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Mosque-bombing-convict-wants-transgender-identity-16408086.php
-
Simon Callow talking sense:
https://archive.is/nYVfA
-
It's Raining Them.
https://attitude.co.uk/article/its-raining-men-becomes-its-raining-them-in-celebratory-new-cover-version/25649/?
That I am upset that this disco song has been debased even more than having Geri Haliwell cover it, is beside the point.
Really, we have to put up with this crap - It's raining them ?
The only thing that could make this worse is Michael Gove dancing to it. Wait................. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
-
Very fond of this record and used it as the producer of a version of The Tempest as the theme.
-
It's Raining Them.
https://attitude.co.uk/article/its-raining-men-becomes-its-raining-them-in-celebratory-new-cover-version/25649/?
That I am upset that this disco song has been debased even more than having Geri Haliwell cover it, is beside the point.
Really, we have to put up with this crap - It's raining them ?
The only thing that could make this worse is Michael Gove dancing to it. Wait................. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
It doesn't mean the original song has gone away.
My biggest problem with this is that, as a small boy, I saw a certain film on TV which left quite an impression and thus "it's raining them (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047573/")" makes me think of a rain of giant ants.
-
Standing protesting for 3 and a half hours is harder than it used to be.
#IStandWithMarionMillar
#WomenWontWheesht
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19547978.scots-feminist-hate-crime-case-continued-consider-human-rights-issues/
-
The wrong type of gay for Pride
https://archive.is/DFLbO
-
Why Y, The Last Man isn't
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/fx-y-the-last-man-trans-nonbinary-characters-1234997576/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
-
Scottish census to allow self ID on sex question - I think this will be taken to the courts
https://archive.vn/o9SER
-
Standing protesting for 3 and a half hours is harder than it used to be.
#IStandWithMarionMillar
#WomenWontWheesht
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19547978.scots-feminist-hate-crime-case-continued-consider-human-rights-issues/
NS, I appreciate you may not know this, or because of the case being on-going you cannot comment, but in some reports she is accused of both homophobic & transphobic tweets. I've looked at her Twitter feed and can see no evidence of either (they may have been removed?) Do you know what the nature of these supposed tweets are?
-
NS, I appreciate you may not know this, or because of the case being on-going you cannot comment, but in some reports she is accused of both homophobic & transphobic tweets. I've looked at her Twitter feed and can see no evidence of either (they may have been removed?) Do you know what the nature of these supposed tweets are?
I know what the original tweet was. Things have changed though and there were new charges added yesterday which I wouldn't want to comment on - though they are just as spurious. I'll send you details of the original tweet elsewhere, as it involves a photo.
-
Interview with Graham Linehan on his involvement in the fight to keep women's sex based rights and spaces. It chimes with my experience down to the drinking on Great Western Road and being a big lump of a man.
https://archive.is/mQXVk
-
Hilary Mantel interview (although this could easily sit on the Brexit thread):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/sep/04/hilary-mantel-i-am-ashamed-to-live-in-nation-that-elected-this-government?
-
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/sep/04/gender-identity-clinic-whistleblower-wins-damages?
Good news, I think.
-
Very good & not before time. Thank goodness for a voice of reason! Doesn't it make you shudder to think of a ten year given puberty blockers.
-
Not a great fan of voter ID but drivel like this could persuade me
https://mermaidsuk.org.uk/news/voter-id-transgender-concerns/
-
Powerful article on the idiocy of Judith Butler vs the real world of women's oppression
https://thefeministani.wordpress.com/2021/09/09/judith-butler-and-afghan-women/
-
Ed Davey on the Today programme stating that he supports getting rid of women's sex based spaces, making the Lib Dems yet another misogynist party
-
More of the deep homophobia in the main strand of the TRA ideology
https://emjaymurphee.medium.com/why-gay-men-wont-date-trans-men-a6daf1bbd51a
-
Excellent from Mandy Rhodes
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,editors-column-time-to-speak-up
-
I do not follow political threads, but hope it's okay just to ask this question here. Listening to Stephen Nolan last night, I heard him ask a Lib Dem person what is wrong with a T-shirt on which was printed: female, human, and two other words which I forget. This was because a female member of the Lib Dems had been banned from doing anything for the party for ten years because of the T-shirt. The interviewee was completely unable to respond to Stephen Nolan's question about what was wrong with the words on the T-shirt.
I would be interested to hear views on this, so will follow here for a while.
Thank you.
-
Hi Susan,
I think this is an article about the woman who has been banned for stating facts:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9679039/Mother-sues-Lib-Dems-banned-standing-MP-labelled-transphobic.html
Her actual phrase on the T-shirt was: 'Woman: Adult, Human, Female'. Fact.
She also stated that "trans women are not women'. Also an indisputable fact.
-
Hi Susan,
I think this is an article about the woman who has been banned for stating facts:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9679039/Mother-sues-Lib-Dems-banned-standing-MP-labelled-transphobic.html
Her actual phrase on the T-shirt was: 'Woman: Adult, Human, Female'. Fact.
She also stated that "trans women are not women'. Also an indisputable fact.
thank you for your reply and the link. I'll read the article later - I'm afraid going to Tesco has to come first!
-
thank you for your reply and the link. I'll read the article later - I'm afraid going to Tesco has to come first!
Always get your priorities in order!
-
Always get your priorities in order!
I have now read most of the article. I would happily wear a shirt with the four words on it and I think, in view of Ms Keog's point of view, I'd add the words 'with vagina' after 'woman'!
-
And more on Ed Davey wanting to get rid of women's sex based spaces.
https://democracycoma.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/ed-daveys-inability-to-even-say-the-word-woman/
-
And more on Ed Davey wanting to get rid of women's sex based spaces.
https://democracycoma.wordpress.com/2021/09/19/ed-daveys-inability-to-even-say-the-word-woman/
So he claims the real problem is the toxification of the debate. Perhaps he ought to try to understand that throwing people out who express a view not congruent with his own is exactly what toxifying the debate means.
-
So he claims the real problem is the toxification of the debate. Perhaps he ought to try to understand that throwing people out who express a view not congruent with his own is exactly what toxifying the debate means.
And that it is somehow caused by Boris Johnson therefore being incorrect and patronising about women who have been arguing for their rights for much longer, and should not be portrayed as dupes of Johnson.
Meanwhile, of course, Rosie Duffield is too worried to go to the Labour Party Conference and Keir Starmer is another leader too gutless to stand up for women's rights.
-
Good from Iain Macwhirter
https://archive.is/hdqhp
-
Good from Iain Macwhirter
https://archive.is/hdqhp
Excellent article. Which prompts a question, why, given that the statement is clearly true ("A woman is an adult human female") doesn't Keir Starmer just say it, cut through the confusion being generated and do himself some good in the process by appearing to be rational and sensible. Admittedly something that seems to be in short supply on this subject, at least with politicians.
-
Excellent article. Which prompts a question, why, given that the statement is clearly true ("A woman is an adult human female") doesn't Keir Starmer just say it, cut through the confusion being generated and do himself some good in the process by appearing to be rational and sensible. Admittedly something that seems to be in short supply on this subject, at least with politicians.
Well, well, well, some sense
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html
-
Well, well, well, some sense
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-trans-women-labour-b1924832.html
Though Labour source explaining this means that trans identifying men are in some sense of the sex women.
-
Ffs!
https://archive.is/kCa7Q
-
Andrew Marr: Is it transphobic to say "Only women have a cervix?"
Keir Starmer: It is something that shouldn't be said. It is not right.
-
Would that be a cervical smear?
-
Bramble ;D.
Keir Starmer seems to be out of his depth, oh woe.
-
Bramble ;D.
Keir Starmer seems to be out of his depth, oh woe.
Not out of his depth. Something more cynical than that. He's trying to have his cake and eat it. Or falling between two stools. Choose your idiom.
-
Pronouns in sex offender's prison
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gender-identity-badges-handed-out-at-sex-offender-prison-hmp-isle-of-wight-c95gz93jr
-
Meanwhile David Lammy thinks that women who want not to have male rapists in women's prisons are 'dinosaurs hoarding rights'
He can fuck off
https://labourlist.org/2021/09/anti-trans-members-are-dinosaurs-who-want-to-hoard-rights-says-lammy/?amp&__twitter_impression=true
-
Excellent reply to David Lammy
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442742465522438145.html
-
The state of the Labour Party!
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442783035389325313.html
-
Not out of his depth. Something more cynical than that. He's trying to have his cake and eat it. Or falling between two stools. Choose your idiom.
Nah, I think he just bungled the question. If he had more time or was more relaxed he could probably have explained his stance.
-
Nah, I think he just bungled the question. If he had more time or was more relaxed he could probably have explained his stance.
Maybe. I just feel like I'm giving the current Labour leadership a lot of "benefit of the doubt" at present.
-
Nah, I think he just bungled the question. If he had more time or was more relaxed he could probably have explained his stance.
Given Ed Davey on Marr, the previous week, and that Rosie Duffield didn't feel safe to attend the conference, then it was an obvious question. He threw Duffield and women's sex based spaces under the bus just like so many Labour MPs
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442783035389325313.html
-
Classic non apology apology from the ACLU for butchering Ruth Bader Ginsberg's words with added drivel
https://timcast.com/news/executive-director-of-aclu-apologizes-for-removing-references-to-women-from-ruth-bader-ginsburg-quote/
-
Given Ed Davey on Marr, the previous week, and that Rosie Duffield didn't feel safe to attend the conference, then it was an obvious question. He threw Duffield and women's sex based spaces under the bus just like so many Labour MPs
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1442783035389325313.html
Yes, I've seen that. But the problem with a lot of this is that it is a battle of quip vs quip (or tweets or short quotes). The issues are mostly straightforward but as the language is complex and nuanced, so any discussion must explore them in carefully in depth.
-
Yes, I've seen that. But the problem with a lot of this is that it is a battle of quip vs quip (or tweets or short quotes). The issues are mostly straightforward but as the language is complex and nuanced, so any discussion must explore them in carefully in depth.
No, sorry that's vacuous. Dismissing the statements that a rapist should be in a women's prison because he identifies as a woman, or that there should be no women's spaces as 'quips' is actually a quip, and an unfunny simplistic one at that.
-
No, sorry that's vacuous. Dismissing the statements that a rapist should be in a women's prison because gd identifies as a woman, or that there should be no women's soaces as 'quips' is actually a quip, and an unfunny simplistic one at that.
Not sure what "gd" is but that is what I mean - those "statements" are worthless as they don't have appropriate discussion/agreement behind them - they are put out to provoke. Countering them without a discussion with those making them, just results in more of the same or further abuse.
-
Not sure what "gd" is but that is what I mean - those "statements" are worthless as they don't have appropriate discussion/agreement behind them - they are put out to provoke. Countering them without a discussion with those making them, just results in more of the same or further abuse.
It was 'he' rather than gd. I'm sorry that you think that quoting someone is bad. It seems bizarre tome that you are suggesting that no one should be quoted if the person quoting them hasn't had a 'discussion' with the person. Starmer is a professional politician and QC answering a question that he knew was going to be asked. If he says that saying that 'only woman have a cervix 'is something that that shouldn't be said. It is not right, what are people supposed to do? Ignore it? It's his choice of statement. He's perfectly capable of making clear what he means in an interview.
-
oh no .. I didn't mean that quoting anyone is "bad" with or without a preceding discussion. I was complaining that there is no discussion - just a battle of quotes and slogans boiling down to abuse.
On Starmer's response specifically - he bungled the question completely: As you say he should have known it would be put, particularly wrt. Duffield. He should have made the effort to answer it properly - that the statement is not transphobic but that the feelings of people who identify as men but have a cervix ought to be considered when using it - depending on the context. Then he could have gone on to discuss further if pressed by Marr - who usually gives up if he actually gets a relevant answer.
Of-course the "not transphobic" bit would have been quoted out of context and led to a torrent of abusive tweets - but so what?
-
oh no .. I didn't mean that quoting anyone is "bad" with or without a preceding discussion. I was complaining that there is no discussion - just a battle of quotes and slogans boiling down to abuse.
On Starmer's response specifically - he bungled the question completely: As you say he should have known it would be put, particularly wrt. Duffield. He should have made the effort to answer it properly - that the statement is not transphobic but that the feelings of people who identify as men but have a cervix ought to be considered when using it - depending on the context. Then he could have gone on to discuss further if pressed by Marr - who usually gives up if he actually gets a relevant answer.
Of-course the "not transphobic" bit would have been quoted out of context and led to a torrent of abusive tweets - but so what?
The greatest upset at the 'only women have a cervix' is from men who identify as women because it doesn't follow the mantra of 'Transwomen are women'.
Though Stonewall have only just realised that their campaign to allow people to change their sex marker record on the NHS causes real problems
-
The greatest upset at the 'only women have a cervix' is from men who identify as women because it doesn't follow the mantra of 'Transwomen are women'.
Though Stonewall have only just realised that their campaign to allow people to change their sex marker record on the NHS causes real problems
"only women have a cervix" says nothing about women or transwomen who do not have a cervix. If transwomen take offence at it they are taking offence at imagined slights. If they believe "transwomen are women" in a biological sense that is clearly incorrect - as you say it is a mantra and can't be generally accepted without full explanation, discussion and agreement on what that means - something that can't happen on twitter.
Also, worth distinguishing between transwomen and trans-activists - as they are not the same groups. I suspect that trans-activists, for various reasons, manufacture outrage at statements that most transwomen/men would not object to.
-
"only women have a cervix" says nothing about women or transwomen who do not have a cervix. If transwomen take offence at it they are taking offence at imagined slights. If they believe "transwomen are women" in a biological sense that is clearly incorrect - as you say it is a mantra and can't be generally accepted without full explanation, discussion and agreement on what that means - something that can't happen on twitter.
Also, worth distinguishing between transwomen and trans-activists - as they are not the same groups. I suspect that trans-activists, for various reasons, manufacture outrage at statements that most transwomen/men would not object to.
Agree, though I don't use the term transwomen as it both seems a hostage to fortune, and meaningless. As to the biological fact, the idea that there is anything other tthan the biology seems nonsensical to me. Note, that doesn't mean I believe in 'biological essentialism', a misused phrase by TRAs.
-
Excellent from Susan Dalgety
https://susandalgety.substack.com/p/my-open-letter-to-keir-starmer-on?justPublished=true
-
The greatest upset at the 'only women have a cervix' is from men who identify as women because it doesn't follow the mantra of 'Transwomen are women'.
Though Stonewall have only just realised that their campaign to allow people to change their sex marker record on the NHS causes real problems
Any chance of providing a link to the Tweet? I often enjoy perusing the replies to such tweets and it also provides provenance.
-
Any chance of providing a link to the Tweet? I often enjoy perusing the replies to such tweets and it also provides provenance.
Will do, when I get the chance
-
Any chance of providing a link to the Tweet? I often enjoy perusing the replies to such tweets and it also provides provenance.
https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1442536623749545999?s=19
-
https://twitter.com/stonewalluk/status/1442536623749545999?s=19
Thanks for that. It didn't disappoint. The highlight was this autocorrect failure
It's not an IT fault, it's set up correctly. MEN don't have crevices and if you ever try to carry out a cervical smear test on a man, please invite me along just for a giggle.
-
Just wow!
And link
https://twitter.com/JustDavidDavid/status/1443199025004568581?s=19
-
Just wow!
And link
https://twitter.com/JustDavidDavid/status/1443199025004568581?s=19
Presumably the recommended treatment in such cases does not involve amputations?
-
Presumably the recommended treatment in such cases does not involve amputations?
Logically the affirmation approach of the dominant strand of TRAs would. As it would on agreeing with anorexics that they are 'too fat'.
-
Interesting article from today's Guardian about the issues surrounding competitive sports and new guidelines.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/29/new-guidelines-for-transgender-participation-unveiled-by-uk-sports-councils
The difference in performance, even at the lower range of 10-12%, is not small in terms of competitive outcomes,” they add. “It would result in Adam Peaty being beaten by half the pool length in a short-course 100m breaststroke competition, Dina Asher-Smith by more than 20m in the 200m track sprint, and Sir Mo Farah being lapped twice in the 10,000m track race.
“As a result of what the review found, the guidance concludes that the inclusion of transgender people into female sport cannot be balanced regarding transgender inclusion, fairness and safety in gender-affected sport where there is meaningful competition.”
-
Interesting article from today's Guardian about the issues surrounding competitive sports and new guidelines.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/sep/29/new-guidelines-for-transgender-participation-unveiled-by-uk-sports-councils
Why is there any reason for trying to get doped athletes with a delusion to compete in the first place?
-
Why is there any question of trying to get doped athletes with a delusion to compete in the first place?
Taking into account what this report confirms: that biological males who go through puberty as males will, even with testosterone suppression etc, always have certain physical advantages over biological females, it does seem utterly bizarre that anyone wouldn't see those advantages as being unfair in competitive sport. The situation, as mentioned in the article, where top-flight international female football teams get comprehensively beaten by teams of 14/15 year old boys is a practical illustration of the folly of concluding that biological males can compete on equal terms with biological females in sporting events where physique is a factor.
'Trans' people can certainly choose how they prefer to live their lives: but they don't get to retrospectively choose their biological sex, and in my view it is foolishness to think otherwise. The notion that 'trans women' are women is a denial of reality unless 'women' is redefined to exclude any reference to biological sex, and as the issues surrounding 'trans' participation in competitive sport shows (as per this report) reality cannot be subverted by wishful thinking.
-
Thank you, Gordon, for expressing my own thoughts almost exactly.
Just as a matter of interest, this "debate" has now been going on for some time - but I cannot recall seeing anywhere any discussion of the scale of the trans "problem". As a percentage of the population, how many people are we talking about? What is the proportion in the population of adult males who undergo some kind of physical conversion into approximations of female bodies and of unaltered males who feel the need to express themselves as feminine? My suspicion is that it is - considering the current quantity of media time devoted to it - very small.
-
Thank you, Gordon, for expressing my own thoughts almost exactly.
Just as a matter of interest, this "debate" has now been going on for some time - but I cannot recall seeing anywhere any discussion of the scale of the trans "problem". As a percentage of the population, how many people are we talking about? What is the proportion in the population of adult males who undergo some kind of physical conversion into approximations of female bodies and of unaltered males who feel the need to express themselves as feminine? My suspicion is that it is - considering the current quantity of media time devoted to it - very small.
Just done a Google survey. Estimates of the proportion of people in the population range from 0.1% to 2%. I found one rigorous study done in Brazil which quoted 0.69% for that country.
That's "identifying as trans" i.e. people who say they are. I can't give you an answer on how many people undergo what forms of medical treatment.
-
Helen Joyce interview
https://www.newstatesman.com/encounter/2021/09/women-are-in-a-bigger-fight-than-the-suffragettes-helen-joyce-on-the-trans-debate
-
Article on the guidance on sport
https://thecritic.co.uk/a-step-change-in-sports-policy/
-
The guidance document referred to in recent posts.
https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Guidance%20for%20Transgender%20Inclusion%20in%20Domestic%20Sport%202021.pdf
-
The guidance document referred to in recent posts.
https://equalityinsport.org/docs/300921/Guidance%20for%20Transgender%20Inclusion%20in%20Domestic%20Sport%202021.pdf
Oops. They've allowed their SSL certificate to expire
-
Looking forward to full interview
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,professor-dame-anne-glover-first-minister-is-wrong-to-ignore-the-science-on-gender-identity
-
Stonewall are a disgrace
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1443542488879411204.html
-
Laurel Hubbard named University of Otago's Sportswoman of the Year!
https://www.rt.com/sport/536420-laurel-hubbard-new-zealand-sportswoman-year/
-
And a letter from a bisexual civil servant on how 'inclusivity' isn't inclusive
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-uks-civil-service-has-fallen?r=7vhu0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&utm_source=
-
Meanwhile Met Officer becomes first 'bi gender' police officer....
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/met-police-officer-becomes-britain-s-first-bigender-pc-a3546881.html
-
A couple of high profile trans doctors (trans both in the sense that they are trans and treat trans patients) question current practice.
https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle
-
And looks like the Scottish census will be out of kilter as regards the meaning of the sex question (though I expect this might have the courts involved)
https://archive.is/axgIA
-
Brilliant blog from one concerned parent, who is also a clinical psychologist, on the treatment of their daughter.
https://pitt.substack.com/p/to-my-daughters-therapist-you-were
-
Madness
-
The gaslighting of women on 'single sex' wards!
https://archive.is/GO8om
-
Badge assessor.
https://twitter.com/LGBTSwitchboard/status/1445751812850520078?t=mSzxKo-2axTb8IRmMZR49w&s=19
-
Badge assessor.
https://twitter.com/LGBTSwitchboard/status/1445751812850520078?t=mSzxKo-2axTb8IRmMZR49w&s=19
What is a badge assessor?
I don't understand why such a post is necessary if I understand the job title correctly. Badges in the NHS used to be fairly straightforward and generic. Mine had a photo of me (looking like a convict, we all looked like convicts) the hospital trust logo, my name, and my job title.
Is anything else needed?
-
What is a badge assessor?
I don't understand why such a post is necessary if I understand the job title correctly. Badges in the NHS used to be fairly straightforward and generic. Mine had a photo of me (looking like a convict, we all looked like convicts) the hospital trust logo, my name, and my job title.
Is anything else needed?
Some details
-
What is a badge assessor?
I don't understand why such a post is necessary if I understand the job title correctly. Badges in the NHS used to be fairly straightforward and generic. Mine had a photo of me (looking like a convict, we all looked like convicts) the hospital trust logo, my name, and my job title.
Is anything else needed?
I think it's more like an award to an NHS Trust. If you meet certain criteria with your policy wrt LBGTQ+ people you can display a rainbow badge on your web site or whatever.
https://www.switchboard.org.uk/were-recruiting-nhs-rainbow-badge-assessor/
Be quick though. Get your application in by the end of the month so you can be ready for the interview three days from today. (They put October instead of November. Not sure I'd want to work for an organisation that can't be bothered to proof read its own job advertisements.)
-
I think it's more like an award to an NHS Trust. If you meet certain criteria with your policy wrt LBGTQ+ people you can display a rainbow badge on your web site or whatever.
https://www.switchboard.org.uk/were-recruiting-nhs-rainbow-badge-assessor/
Be quick though. Get your application in by the end of the month so you can be ready for the interview three days from today. (They put October instead of November. Not sure I'd want to work for an organisation that can't be bothered to proof read its own job advertisements.)
Exactly.
The Rainbow Badge is an award scheme that NHS Trusts can apply for on the basis of their policies and commitments to equality and inclusion for LBGTQ+.
The job in question isn't in the NHS at all, but is for a charitable organisation that is involved in the award of the Badges to NHS Trusts - and their role is largely to support the trusts in developing inclusive policies and practices and also in assessing applications for Badge-holder status, hence 'assessor'.
Frankly there are any number of schemes of this nature based on an organisations committing to improvements, actions etc and then delivering on them, and in return getting a Badge/Award to go on websites, communications etc etc. No one forces an organisation to apply, but many choose to do as they recognise that it helps them to improve their own practices and also develops profile and trust from certain groups in society, providing the 'badge' itself has a level of recognition and I would have though the rainbow branding in terms of LBGTQ+ is very well recognised.
Why is that an issue.
-
On the hounding of Kathleen Stock
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/our-demand-is-simple-fire-kathleen-stock-until-then-youll-see-us-around-anti-terf-students-at-sussex-university-target-professor-of-philosophy-in-campa/
-
On the hounding of Kathleen Stock
https://lesbianandgaynews.com/2021/10/our-demand-is-simple-fire-kathleen-stock-until-then-youll-see-us-around-anti-terf-students-at-sussex-university-target-professor-of-philosophy-in-campa/
Ophelia Benson thinks that campaign has failed
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/anatomy-of-a-failed-cancellation/
-
Ophelia Benson thinks that campaign has failed
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2021/anatomy-of-a-failed-cancellation/
I would agree but it's worth noting that Francesco Ventrella was not the instigator of the campaign. The most significant intervention was from Uni of Sussex Vice Chancellor covered in Jo Bartosch's article. Though amazingly the Women's Officer at the Student Union completely disassociated herself from them and condemned Kathleen Stock. In addition, the effect of this is that many academics are scared to speak up on this.
-
Absolute fucking madness
https://insidetime.org/women-face-punishment-for-using-wrong-pronouns/?fbclid=IwAR2CKbnnYOxZJCcIR6ElvlGXWTSfnclzYiVxcBL3LH7stBZQ96VIWOHkxDs
-
Absolute fucking madness
https://insidetime.org/women-face-punishment-for-using-wrong-pronouns/?fbclid=IwAR2CKbnnYOxZJCcIR6ElvlGXWTSfnclzYiVxcBL3LH7stBZQ96VIWOHkxDs
I don't agree. It seems completely reasonable that deliberately insulting another prisoner attracts a punishment. Nothing has really changed.
-
I don't agree. It seems completely reasonable that deliberately insulting another prisoner attracts a punishment. Nothing has really changed.
Nice to see you believe in enforced speech and that correctly sexing someine as an insult.
-
'Fact shame'
-
Nice to see you believe in enforced speech and that correctly sexing someine as an insult.
Read the article. The idea that you can be punished in prison for deliberately insulting speech is not new.
It's more about maintaining order in a prison than respecting rights, which, by the way are already severely restricted by virtue of the fact that it's a prison.
You can argue, if you like, that somebody with a penis shouldn't be in a women's prison and I would agree with you, but given that they are there, provoking them into violence should not be allowed anymore than provoking any of the women into violence should be allowed.
-
Read the article. The idea that you can be punished in prison for deliberately insulting speech is not new.
It's more about maintaining order in a prison than respecting rights, which, by the way are already severely restricted by virtue of the fact that it's a prison.
You can argue, if you like, that somebody with a penis shouldn't be in a women's prison and I would agree with you, but given that they are there, provoking them into violence should not be allowed anymore than provoking any of the women into violence should be allowed.
Man with delusion gets to enforce speech because he might get violent. Gaslighting women and supporting the idea that might is right.
-
Man with delusion gets to enforce spoeech because he might get violent.
No he doesn't. The prison authorities get to enforce speech because they don't want to have to restore order after the riots.
Gaslighting women and supporting the idea that might is right.
Nothing has changed. It's just a clarification that mis-gendering people is considered insulting behaviour and insulting behaviour is not allowed in prisons. It doesn't mean you will get punished and it doesn't mean, if you are punished you will get time added on. That's what "case by case" means.
This is not "absolute fucking madness". Absolute fucking madness is putting a rapist in a prison with a load of potential victims because he says he is a woman.
-
No he doesn't. The prison authorities get to enforce speech because they don't want to have to restore order after the riots.Nothing has changed. It's just a clarification that mis-gendering people is considered insulting behaviour and insulting behaviour is not allowed in prisons. It doesn't mean you will get punished and it doesn't mean, if you are punished you will get time added on. That's what "case by case" means.
This is not "absolute fucking madness". Absolute fucking madness is putting a rapist in a prison with a load of potential victims because he says he is a woman.
And the prison authorities are enforcing the speech upon the women because they 'absolutely fucking madly' think that correctly sexing someone is an insult and they 'absolutely fucking madly' think that supporting someone's delusion because they would be violent is fine. That it is already absolute fucking madness that he's in a women's prisin doesn't detract from this being a facet of the same absolute fucking madness.
-
Janice Turner on Kathleen Stock
https://archive.is/8hJx9
-
And more on Kathleen Stock
https://archive.is/1LPQj
Quote from student “She has said publicly that she does not believe trans men are men or trans women are women. It should not be acceptable for a professor to say things that might hurt someone”
Facts are transphobic
-
And more on Kathleen Stock
https://archive.is/1LPQj
Quote from student “She has said publicly that she does not believe trans men are men or trans women are women. It should not be acceptable for a professor to say things that might hurt someone”
Facts are transphobic
I think they need to expel some students for intimidating behaviour. Just saying "academic freedom" on the radio isn't going to help.
-
Good article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/11/cancellation-women-bigger-culture-war/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_Ax32VdvZht59
-
Good article
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/11/cancellation-women-bigger-culture-war/?WT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_Ax32VdvZht59
Wouldn't knoe. it's behind a pay wall.
-
Wouldn't knoe. it's behind a pay wall.
Ah, the share token mustn't have come across for some reason.
Try this
https://archive.is/IYn5j/again?url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/11/cancellation-women-bigger-culture-war/%3FWT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_Ax32VdvZht59
-
Thank you, NS.
I must admit that I have been waiting for this bizarre argumentative situation to collapse from its own irrationality - but that shows no signs of happening.
Has anyone heard of any instance where the same arguments are being used to deny the biological reality of being a man?
-
Thank you, NS.
I must admit that I have been waiting for this bizarre argumentative situation to collapse from its own irrationality - but that shows no signs of happening.
Has anyone heard of any instance where the same arguments are being used to deny the biological reality of being a man?
The same arguments have been applied but the outcomes are different. Same sex based spaces for men are not based on the idea of safety as women's are.
-
Has anyone heard of any instance where the same arguments are being used to deny the biological reality of being a man?
No because biological males typically are not discriminated against for their sex.
To me, this whole issue looks like a case of males (a small subset thereof) trying to assert power over females. When looked at in those terms, it's obvious why it's one way traffic. It's the same thing as it's always been.
-
University and College Union, Sussex Branch throws Kathleen Stock under the bus
-
The Union opposes all forms of bullying .... except the version it practises.
-
'Nolan Investigates looks at the influence Stonewall has in public institutions across the UK. We talk to a range of voices with a view on sex, gender and identity.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/brand/p09yjmph
-
Ah, the share token mustn't have come across for some reason.
Try this
https://archive.is/IYn5j/again?url=https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/11/cancellation-women-bigger-culture-war/%3FWT.mc_id=tmgliveapp_androidshare_Ax32VdvZht59
For me, the arguments in this article highlight the futility of the whole concept and practice of 'trans' in the first place.
-
Obviously if you can identify as man/woman, the logic will allow you to identify as black or disabled.
https://archive.is/cmyUI
-
Obviously if you can identify as man/woman, the logic will allow you to identify as black or disabled.
Yes, obviously. Yet strangely, the same people who are fiercely defensive of trans rights will often be highly critical of a white person who wants to identify as black.
As for disabilities, there is a condition where people feel their limbs are not their own and they will ask for surgery to have an arm or a leg amputated. This is directly analogous to gender reassignment surgery and yet doctors seem somewhat reluctant to perform the former.
-
Obviously if you can identify as man/woman, the logic will allow you to identify as black or disabled.
https://archive.is/cmyUI
And another thing. The article has this quote:
UCU supports a social, rather than a medical, model of gender recognition that will help challenge repressive gender stereotypes in the workplace and in society.
This is in tension with trans gender ideology where the goal is to affirm gender stereotypes.
-
Worth a read.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/13/discussion-women-trans-rights-feminists
-
Powerful thread
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1449160246417580033.html
-
And on women speaking for women
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-misogyny-of-trans-activists/?__FB_PRIVATE_TRACKING__=%7B%22loggedout_browser_id%22%3A%221638560033196dfcea7efc70bc584c3fef414fcd%22%7D
-
And on women speaking for women
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-misogyny-of-trans-activists/?__FB_PRIVATE_TRACKING__=%7B%22loggedout_browser_id%22%3A%221638560033196dfcea7efc70bc584c3fef414fcd%22%7D
Quite obviously a winning argument they have on that poster. ::)
It's obviously where the gay rights movement went wrong.
We never used posters proclaiming "Suck my dick, you homophobic bastards".
I see our mistake now!
-
Rich white male privilege
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10104329/College-student-mocked-complaining-cisgender-men-installed-radiators-room.html
-
Freak!
-
Rich white male privilege
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10104329/College-student-mocked-complaining-cisgender-men-installed-radiators-room.html
What? The delicate flower that the article was about was obviously a trans-man. He wouldn't have been allowed to live where he was if that were not the case.
-
Freak!
Rich white male privilege is not at all 'freaky'
-
Rich white male privilege is not at all 'freaky'
The article was not about rich white male privilege.
-
The article was not about rich white male privilege.
Ah yes, just rich white privilege.
-
'Spotting TERFs in the Field'
https://thecritic.co.uk/witch-hunt/
-
Gender in the City
https://sex-matters.org/posts/data-and-statistics/sex-matters-in-the-city/
-
'Biological man scores historic first for women'
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/rachel-levine-man-first-female-admiral-hhs/
-
'Biological man scores historic first for women'
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/rachel-levine-man-first-female-admiral-hhs/
We're going to have a real female admiral.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-57257640
a) she is female
b) she's already in the Royal Navy and has actually served on ships.
-
We're going to have a real female admiral.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-jersey-57257640
a) she is female
b) she's already in the Royal Navy and has actually served on ships.
And the US already had a female but just not trans...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelle_Howard
-
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/ceri-black-to-northern-ireland-police
Have you seen this? Sorry if I missed a link about it.
The Stephen Nolan podcast about Stonewall is very good, I think.
I started finding out about this with the mind-set ‘what’s the problem? Live and let live’ but blimey, have my eyes been opened.
There is a woman on YouTube called tt exulansic who gives informed commentary on the subject of gender ideology and it’s implications. I sort of wish I hadn’t explored this subject, it’s so disturbing, but thank you anyway for raising my awareness with your links. It’s eventually led to me subscribing to Linehan’s substack.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385
This makes interesting reαding. From what Chloe said, I'd say she was raped.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-57853385
This makes interesting reαding. From what Chloe said, I'd say she was raped.
Agree
-
I also agree.
This ties into two new terms I've recently come across "cotton ceiling" and "boxer ceiling".
These are terms used by some in the Trans community to shame Lesbians and Gay men when they do not wish to have sex with a trans person who identifies as the sex they are attracted to.
It's all pretty insidious, nasty stuff.
If you want to read about it Google it, I'm not putting a link up here because some of the comments are vile.
Some of the people in this modern Trans movement are seriously ill and imo dangerous.
-
Ffs!
'A transgender woman with a deep voice, a square jaw, and a penis that you do not want to have sex with is not a man. She is a woman that you don’t find attractive.'
https://openletter.earth/an-open-letter-to-the-bbc-regarding-an-article-published-by-catherine-lowbridge-9223a3ca
-
Ffs!
'A transgender woman with a deep voice, a square jaw, and a penis that you do not want to have sex with is not a man. She is a woman that you don’t find attractive.'
https://openletter.earth/an-open-letter-to-the-bbc-regarding-an-article-published-by-catherine-lowbridge-9223a3ca
Ha. I thought that BBC article might make some waves.
-
Standing protesting for 3 and a half hours is harder than it used to be.
#IStandWithMarionMillar
#WomenWontWheesht
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19547978.scots-feminist-hate-crime-case-continued-consider-human-rights-issues/
Charges dropped. Huzzah
-
University and College Union, Sussex Branch throws Kathleen Stock under the bus
And she's now resigned
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-59084446
-
Ffs!
https://archive.ph/2021.10.29-231328/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/leeds-university-students-demand-staff-state-their-gender-8xbp6sqdd
-
Excellent piece from Susan Dalgety
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/transgender-debate-in-scotland-has-to-be-genuine-debate-using-threat-of-prosecution-to-silence-people-is-contrary-to-free-speech-susan-dalgety-3437234
-
Ffs!
https://inews.co.uk/culture/old-vic-theatre-cancels-terry-gilliam-into-the-woods-monty-python-star-offensive-remarks-1278544
-
Ffs!
https://inews.co.uk/culture/old-vic-theatre-cancels-terry-gilliam-into-the-woods-monty-python-star-offensive-remarks-1278544
I find it galling that there is all this ‘young’ political action and when it comes to the one piece of political action that makes a difference , voting in local and general elections, you can bet that significant sections of the young people’s vote is not there.
-
On JK Rowling
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/jk-rowling-trans-culture-war/
-
And the disgrace that allows men saying they are women and convicted of violent or sexual crimes into women's prisons.
https://archive.vn/Xsfn5
-
Ffs!
https://inews.co.uk/culture/old-vic-theatre-cancels-terry-gilliam-into-the-woods-monty-python-star-offensive-remarks-1278544
They just need to be fired. If you won't do your job, bye. In fact, given that the Old Vic seemed to have been hoping for this production to bring in lots of cash, firing may be the only option.
-
And the disgrace that allows men saying they are women and convicted of violent or sexual crimes into women's prisons.
https://archive.vn/Xsfn5
This is going to end badly. First there's the obvious danger of putting a sex offender in a building populated by people from the group he targets as victims. But there's also the possibility that some of the women in the said prison are also likely to be violent offenders and, if a few of them get together and decide the situation is unacceptable...
-
This is going to end badly. First there's the obvious danger of putting a sex offender in a building populated by people from the group he targets as victims. But there's also the possibility that some of the women in the said prison are also likely to be violent offenders and, if a few of them get together and decide the situation is unacceptable...
Stop blaming women for men's violence against women.
-
They just need to be fired. If you won't do your job, bye. In fact, given that the Old Vic seemed to have been hoping for this production to bring in lots of cash, firing may be the only option.
Not keen on reverse cancellation
-
This is going to be interesting - I wonder what the definition of "tolerated" is going to be given the latest Maya Forstater judgement by the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
In its written judgment, it said: “Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater
-
This is going to be interesting - I wonder what the definition of "tolerated" is going to be given the latest Maya Forstater judgement by the Employment Appeal Tribunal:
In its written judgment, it said: “Just as the legal recognition of civil partnerships does not negate the right of a person to believe that marriage should only apply to heterosexual couples, becoming the acquired gender ‘for all purposes’ within the meaning of GRA does not negate a person’s right to believe, like the claimant, that as a matter of biology a trans person is still their natal sex. Both beliefs may well be profoundly offensive and even distressing to many others, but they are beliefs that are and must be tolerated in a pluralist society.”
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/10/gender-critical-views-protected-belief-appeal-tribunal-rules-maya-forstater
That's a decision from June.
But the idea that someone can change sex is just as rational as this being a flat earth.
-
True. It's from June. I had not previously read the part from the June judgement stating the obvious - that in a society people will be required to tolerate beliefs being expressed that they may find offensive.
Instead of being tolerant, people seem to be increasingly claiming they feel "unsafe" if someone holds a belief that offends them.
Maya Forstater wrote an article in Oct 2021 about the danger of judges being unduly influenced by lobbyists such as Stonewall to go beyond the Equalities Act in the judgements they hand out. https://thecritic.co.uk/who-judges-the-judges/
She says parts of the Equal Treatment Bench Book (ETBB), a guidance document produced by the Judicial College, which is the body that trains judges, seems to have been written by lobbyists from the trans movement.
She claims "The chapter in the ETBB on transgender describes sex as being “assigned at birth”. It tells judges that the language of the Equality Act is out of date. It asserts that acknowledging someone’s sex may breach their human rights. Most seriously, it warns judges that dissent from Stonewall’s teachings is dangerous; it blames “negative responses” to its expansive view of civil rights protections of trans people for a rise in hate crime."
She says it could have been this training that led to the judge in her original 2019 Employment Tribunal erring in law by finding against her on the grounds that her gender-critical belief was “not worthy of respect in a democratic society”, putting it on par with Nazism or fascism; the kinds of views for which you can rightly lose your job. She writes of the difficulty and lack of transparency in finding out how much judges are unduly influenced by training from lobby groups.
Hopefully, more and more government departments will continue to back away from paying Stonewall for training or implementing Stonewall's incorrect interpretation/ misrepresentation of the Equalities Act.
-
Ffs!
https://www.rebelnews.com/dutch_banking_service_terminates_feminist_org_account_after_trans_activist_complaints
-
Stop blaming women for men's violence against women.
In what insane parallel Universe did what I wrote imply I was blaming women for men's violence?
-
Not keen on reverse cancellation
Firing people for refusing to do their jobs isn't cancellation - at least not unjustified cancellation.
-
In what insane parallel Universe did what I wrote imply I was blaming women for men's violence?
Yeah, that was way over the top. But the high danger in women's prisons if they put men who say they are women in them is from those men. Because that's what the numbers show. Worrying about women being violent in that situation serms to miss the point.
-
Interesting article in this week's 'New European' about the trolling of JK Rowling.
-
Interesting article in this week's 'New European' about the trolling of JK Rowling.
See Reply 1354 for link
-
Scary stuff on breast binding.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-is-mermaids-promoting-breast-binding-at-events-for-young-people-
-
Rape by any other name
-
Excellent piece
https://impolitelesbian.substack.com/p/moving-the-goalposts
-
Yeah, that was way over the top. But the high danger in women's prisons if they put men who say they are women in them is from those men. Because that's what the numbers show. Worrying about women being violent in that situation serms to miss the point.
I'm not worrying about it. I am just raising it as a possible outcome at some point in the future. The fact that nobody has even considered it seems to be part of the overall blindness to the consequences of putting rapists in prison with potential victims. The rapists will rape the women there and, if the women perceive that the authorities are not going to protect them, they'll protect themselves and I wouldn't blame them in that scenario.
I don't see why we need to be so mindful of the rights of trans women in prison. The fact that they are in prison means that their rights are already severely curtailed, by design. If you want to be treated as a woman, perhaps you shouldn't rape women.
-
Good from Heather Heying
https://naturalselections.substack.com/p/childrentransitioning
-
Kathleen Stock - How To Be a Heretic
https://archive.vn/CEw8i
-
The BBC is pulling out of Stonewall's diversity scheme.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-59232736
-
Ffs!
-
And Joan Smith on Lush and breastbinders
https://thecritic.co.uk/arrest-the-chest/
-
Ffs!
https://archive.vn/tLO82
-
If you can, listen to today's Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4.
The Chief Executive of Stonewall, Nancy Kelly, is interviewed. I will not tell you what my opinion of the interview is, I will allow you to arrive at your own conclusions.
-
If you can, listen to today's Woman's Hour on BBC Radio 4.
The Chief Executive of Stonewall, Nancy Kelly, is interviewed. I will not tell you what my opinion of the interview is, I will allow you to arrive at your own conclusions.
My wife and I listened to it, HH, and we were both of one mind(a situation which is itself very unusual :)). As regards the CEO's responses, The words equivocation, prevarication, cowardice and bias seemed highly appropriate. Perhaps what we need is an organization which could advise Stonewall on how to conduct itself.
-
Your opinion does appear similar to mine, Enki.
One thing that struck me was the number of times she was given the opportunity to reconsider her most recent utterance but decided to continue her bizarre journey.
-
Utter madness
-
Good piece
https://www.smh.com.au/national/gender-sex-and-power-the-debate-dividing-universities-20211118-p599zz.html
-
The indomitable JK Rowling
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1462758324177444870.html
-
Good piece
https://www.smh.com.au/national/gender-sex-and-power-the-debate-dividing-universities-20211118-p599zz.html
It links a web site dedicated to gathering stories about women's spaces being invaded by males. It makes for interesting, if creepy, reading.
-
'Exposing her penis'
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/teesside-woman-accused-using-sex-22260053
-
Alex Massie on JK Rowling
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/c2d4e536-4fd2-11ec-9043-2aa4c0c21cd8?shareToken=776d1c1fc8913516526571d7f0d0a95c
-
Choose your age as well as your sex
https://www.womenarehuman.com/top-news-source-freedom-to-choose-ones-sex-age-will-end-discrimination-suffering/
-
Dawkins comes off the fence
https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1465324057277173772?t=quvYEwRdPPQLfGAdA4QnbQ&s=19
-
Choose your age as well as your sex
https://www.womenarehuman.com/top-news-source-freedom-to-choose-ones-sex-age-will-end-discrimination-suffering/
So, I can go into a shop, thump the shopkeeper, open the till and run away with the contents ... taking a bar of chochocolate on the way. I tell the police that I am only seven years old and so below the age of criminal liability. Then I can expect Stonewall to stand up for me?
-
So, I can go into a shop, thump the shopkeeper, open the till and run away with the contents ... taking a bar of chochocolate on the way. I tell the police that I am only seven years old and so below the age of criminal liability. Then I can expect Stonewall to stand up for me?
To be fair, this isn't really a Stonewall thing.
-
Heartbreaking blog from parent with a 'trans' child.
https://pitt.substack.com/p/an-unremarkable-story-from-the-age?r=5w8jg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=facebook
-
Heartbreaking blog from parent with a 'trans' child.
https://pitt.substack.com/p/an-unremarkable-story-from-the-age?r=5w8jg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=facebook
It's remarkable how many people seem to have forgotten what it was like going through puberty. If the bar for being transgender is "uncomfortable with your body" then practically everybody was transgender as a teenager and the teachers should have twigged that. I guess that was the point of the story though.
-
The erasure of women's sports continues
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1466044767561830405.html
-
Sad to see Matt Dillahunty losing the plot and completely opposing women's sex based spaces
-
Great from Ceri Black
https://thecritic.co.uk/prisoner-of-conscience/
-
Janice Turner on the cancellation of Rosie Kay
https://archive.vn/mIzcA
-
Painful, powerful thread by Marguerite Stern on the abuse she has received for standing up for women's sex based rights, and the effect it has had on her.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1468975254500433924.html
-
This
-
And more on the removal of women's sport.
https://www.outkick.com/outkick-exclusive-second-female-penn-swimmer-steps-forward/
-
Recording male crime as women's crime is misogynist lunacy
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6d5deff8-5acc-11ec-a18c-c6d6c5855d8c?shareToken=ee29406b1855709cccc12ac441182111
-
'Right side of history' My arse!
-
'Right side of history' My arse!
I saw this elsewhere - it is horrific. I don't want to be part of this so-called human race anymore.
And I know it's not the same as genocide of the Uighurs or any of the other atrocities being perpetrated as I type, but it's all part of the same shitty little human animals behaviour.
In my darker moments, and I have had more than my fair share lately, I think to myself, come on Covid come up with the ideal number of mutations and finish us off and leave the planet to the other animals that deserve it much more than we do.
Pathetic creatures that we are.
-
From the stats it seems consistently over the years 99% of sex offenders in prison are male, and the 2017 figures showed 88% of those sexually offended against were female.
The proportion of transwomen sex offenders seem worryingly high. It shows 58.9% of transwomen prisoners (they only have stats for those without a GRC I think) are sex offenders. The percentage of female sex offenders out of female prisoners is 3.3%.
These stats not really very convincing that transwomen are women.
The percentage of male prisoners who are sex offenders is 16.8%.
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ What have MPs been saying about this? I wrote to my Labour MP to ask.
-
'Right side of history' My arse!
I think that reply has already been deleted. At least I couldn't find it on the thread.
As for the sentiment expressed, I think JK Rowling already knows what it feels like.
-
I think that reply has already been deleted. At least I couldn't find it on the thread.
As for the sentiment expressed, I think JK Rowling already knows what it feels like.
One of the reasons I posted the picture
-
#IStandWithRosieKay
https://unherd.com/2021/12/my-body-will-never-be-erased/
-
#IStandWithRosieKay
https://unherd.com/2021/12/my-body-will-never-be-erased/
Things haven't worked out well
https://rosiekay.co.uk/about-rkdc/
We have concluded that it is necessary to close RKDC
-
Scouts Association apologises to Maya Forstater
https://archive.vn/aQunR
-
Scouts Association apologises to Maya Forstater
https://archive.vn/aQunR
If your name is Gregor, people are going to refer to you as "he" on occasion. It's just a mistake. Also, if you refer to people with whom you disagree as scum, you kind of lose the high ground.
-
A small victory for common sense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-59727118
Being offensive is not, and cannot and should not be an offence. Only when speech turns to malicious communication or targeted harassment against an individual should it be a problem.
-
The consultation on the Conversion Therapy (Prohibition) bill (https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2939 ) has been extended by 8 weeks. It was previously scheduled to have a consultation period of just 6 weeks, half the normal time. The bill equates attempts to alter sexual orientation with psychological therapy for people with ‘gender identity’ issues. I have written to my female Labour MP with my views and received a very disheartening answer.
She refused me permission to share her reply, but this is part of what I wrote to her:
“…To suggest that children who do not conform to gender stereotypes should be supported in having their bodies altered so that they do conform to the stereotype is incredibly regressive and the most extreme form of “conversion therapy” I can imagine.
I do not understand why the bill lumps together LGB and T as if they are the same. Sexual orientation is innate and linked to biological sex, which according to biologists cannot be changed. [People with gender identity issues] should more realistically be compared with people with other forms of body dysphoria. If an individual asks a doctor to amputate a healthy limb because of dysphoria, I would hope that every alternative short of surgery would be explored before any doctor would agree to carry out the procedure. Young people suffering from anorexia don’t have their unrealistic view of themselves and their bodies affirmed by their therapists because that would kill them, quickly. Puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones don’t kill the patient quickly and the physical damage is usually hidden from view, but they do have extremely serious long-term, irreversible impacts on once healthy bodies.
“Trans rights” activists have no consistent definition of what gender is or means. The justification for medicalising and mutilating young people seems to be that humans know what “gender” they are from as young as two years old and it’s a real thing and with the individual for life. Except when they want to allow people (mainly men) to identify as woman one day and man the next, because they are “gender fluid”. Gender identity cannot be both fixed and fluid. You can’t base laws on this kind of irrational, internally contradictory, ideology.”
I asked her a few follow up questions she hasn’t answered but they relate more to self-ID.
I’d encourage people to write to their MPs about this. The transgender lobby have subverted a bill which ought to have been uncontentious. A similar approach was used in RoI to get self-ID into law via the equal marriage act.
If you can bear it, there is a woman on You Tube called Exulansic who talks knowledgeably about the medical details and the consequences for once healthy young people, commenting on Tik Tok videos they post themselves and dissecting I Am Jazz, an American TV show.
This is a link to an interview two previously enthusiastic gender doctors gave recently https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle
-
Hi Christine (good to see you posting again :) )
Thank you for that thoughtful post. I will probably pinch some of it to write to my MP.
If she is refusing you permission to share her thoughts on this then that points to a very disturbing attitude.
Why should an elected representatives views on a matter of public interest be withheld?
-
Perhaps not surprisingly, I've written to my MP, and had what sounds like a similar reply as Christine. It's not my first letter on this to the MP, and in addition I paid for a copy of Helen Joyce's book to sent to my MP.
-
Hi Trent,
She said she had replied to me as a constituent, confidentially. I agree that elected representatives should be happy to have their views on the public record, but I’ve checked (the legal expert that is the internet) and I’m not allowed to share without her permission. I think I can say that I won’t be voting for her at the next election. I don’t know who I will be voting for, mind, I seem to be politically homeless at the moment.
😕 this too will pass… But how many people will be hurt in the meantime?
Re self-ID - imagine giving evidence against your rapist in court, knowing that if the person you are being compelled to call ‘she’ is convicted, they’ll be sent to prison with a captive pool of vulnerable potential victims. It makes me sick to think of it. I have no explanation as to why people I would otherwise be politically aligned with think this is a good idea. Have predatory men not demonstrated that they will use any available route to access their prey?
-
Hi Christine
I was aware that they could withhold correspondence, but I thought that was perhaps for matters of a personal/confidential matters relating to constituents. That she is using it to block her views on a given topic is, to me, worrying.
As to the political homelessness, a feeling I am also getting used to.
Your last comment, exactly. Who the hell are they frightened of upsetting?
-
This is an blog about an ongoing discussion/spat in the 'gender critical' movement about how we use language about those claiming to be trans that sums up a lot of my position.
https://savageminds.substack.com/p/language-and-the-gender-debate?justPublished=true
-
This by Caroline Noakes, a local Conservative MP, seems reasonable:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/23/why-am-i-being-abused-for-trying-to-improve-gender-recognition-process
As does the inquiry report itself, though I haven't read the detail n full:
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/
-
This by Caroline Noakes, a local Conservative MP, seems reasonable:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/23/why-am-i-being-abused-for-trying-to-improve-gender-recognition-process
As does the inquiry report itself, though I haven't read the detail n full:
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/
Hmmm...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1473285332967776266.html
-
Hmmm...
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1473285332967776266.html
or
https://fairplayforwomen.com/women-and-equalities-select-committee-report-on-gender-recognition-reform/
-
This by Caroline Noakes, a local Conservative MP, seems reasonable:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/23/why-am-i-being-abused-for-trying-to-improve-gender-recognition-process
As does the inquiry report itself, though I haven't read the detail n full:
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/658/reform-of-the-gender-recognition-act/publications/
Caroline Nokes appears to think nobody would ever lie about how they self-identify. Have predatory men not demonstrated clearly enough that they will exploit any loophole, any lack of vigilance, any failure of safeguarding, to access their prey? Don’t the (presumably well-meaning) people endorsing this insanity read the news?
Of course, once men can get their crimes recorded as committed by women, there’ll probably be no evidence base to show that men commit most violent crimes. Problem solved. Likewise, if my male bosses can declare they are now women, hey presto! No need to worry about that pesky institutionalised sexism any more.
And of course, if a man can jettison his lifetime of male privilege and become a member of the “most oppressed” by reciting the correct creed and demanding other people address him as ‘she/her’, the reverse must be true. Women in Afghanistan must be pleased to hear that they can self-identify out of their burkas.
I’ve not spoken to anyone in real life who is in favour of self-ID, once they know what it means.
-
Janice Turner on JK Rowling
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e112d00a-64e8-11ec-b279-fa13aec304af?shareToken=2b8a79c70b65a362e5271d7e128d4edb :D
-
Mostly it is a good article except for a fairly obvious bit of political bias:
When people, mainly left-wing men, ask why JK Rowling has “ruined her legacy” by tweeting against the gender ideology which is now orthodoxy in liberal politics, trade unions, academia and so-called human rights bodies, I answer: because she’s a goat.
It isn't a left wing /right wing split, neither in my experience is it a male/female divide.
She kind of undermines her argument anyway by then going on the offensive over that well known left wing man, Caroline Noakes.
I agree with the general thrust of the argument in defence of JKR but their is a little too much political colouring for my liking.
-
Mostly it is a good article except for a fairly obvious bit of political bias:
It isn't a left wing /right wing split, neither in my experience is it a male/female divide.
She kind of undermines her argument anyway by then going on the offensive over that well known left wing man, Caroline Noakes.
I agree with the general thrust of the argument in defence of JKR but their is a little too much political colouring for my liking.
Disagree. Those that I have seen in the main (and Turner says mainly) questioning Rowling in reply to her tweets about throwing away her legacy are left wing, often have BLM in their bios and the biggest group are left wing men with beards. Note Noakes is in no sense a counter argument here since the left wing men comment was specifically about those commenting that Rowling was throwing away her legacy.
It isn't purely a left vs right wing matter but those speaking up against gender woo in the Tories are mainstream and not widely vilified by those in their own parties. In the Greens, SNP, Labour, and Lid Dems, those speaking up against it are outliers and receive oceans of abuse from within their own parties that are then ignored by the leadership of those parties.
-
Disagree. Those that I have seen in the main (and Turner says mainly) questioning Rowling in reply to her tweets about throwing away her legacy are left wing, often have BLM in their bios and the biggest group are left wing men with beards. Note Noakes is in no sense a counter argument here since the left wing men comment was specifically about those commenting that Rowling was throwing away her legacy.
It isn't purely a left vs right wing matter but those speaking up against gender woo in the Tories are mainstream and not widely vilified by those in their own parties. In the Greens, SNP, Labour, and Lid Dems, those speaking up against it are outliers and receive oceans of abuse from within their own parties that are then ignored by the leadership of those parties.
Not at all sure about this. I see it mainly as a generational divide and a divide between some people who regard themselves as progressive (but who have only cloaked their reactionary tendencies with a pretence of being forward thinking) and others who have a firmer grasp on the reality of biology. The people I've seen criticising JKR have been overwhelmingly young and have that smooth faced look that for some reason reminds me of The Stepford Wives or possibly Midwich Cuckoos.
-
Not at all sure about this. I see it mainly as a generational divide and a divide between some people who regard themselves as progressive (but who have only cloaked their reactionary tendencies with a pretence of being forward thinking) and others who have a firmer grasp on the reality of biology. The people I've seen criticising JKR have been overwhelmingly young and have that smooth faced look that for some reason reminds me of The Stepford Wives or possibly Midwich Cuckoos.
Progressive is surely a close synonym for left wing here?
-
Progressive is surely a close synonym for left wing here?
I'm sure there is a whole essay or possibly even a book that could be written about how left wing can be considered to be far removed from progressive. It is a question of definitions which are far too broad I fear. Which brings me back to my point about her comment it was far too broad a brush stroke.
I talk to quite a few old friends who are left wing (much more so than me) some even have beards, not one of them is in agreement with "gender woo" (to borrow an excellent phrase).
That is totally anecdotal I realise, but sometimes those we know are the only true reflection we can get of what is going on (although I'm well aware that can have an opposite effect) but I don't trust the world of Twitter and it's ability to so easily escalate a minority view so as to make it appear that it is an overwhelming trend. I really don't think it is, even amongst bearded left wing men.
-
I'm sure there is a whole essay or possibly even a book that could be written about how left wing can be considered to be far removed from progressive. It is a question of definitions which are far too broad I fear. Which brings me back to my point about her comment it was far too broad a brush stroke.
I talk to quite a few old friends who are left wing (much more so than me) some even have beards, not one of them is in agreement with "gender woo" (to borrow an excellent phrase).
That is totally anecdotal I realise, but sometimes those we know are the only true reflection we can get of what is going on (although I'm well aware that can have an opposite effect) but I don't trust the world of Twitter and it's ability to so easily escalate a minority view so as to make it appear that it is an overwhelming trend. I really don't think it is, even amongst bearded left wing men.
And yet as pointed out already the progressivelwdt wing parties are institutionally committed to getting rid of women's sex based spaces. Look at the vitriol thrown at Rosie Duffield, or Joanna Cherry by their own party supporters, and their leaders remain silent.
I think you are over reading Turner's statement because of it being published in The Times. Turner would describe herself as left wing.
-
Dangerous fetishism
https://4w.pub/norwegian-university-required-students-to-attend-fetish-club-dress-in-lacquer-and-rubber/
-
Re the left/right thing
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-disaster-ahead-for-democrats?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I subscribe to Linehan’s substack and YouTube channel now, I admire his resolution to continue supporting women’s rights and safeguarding in the face of unjustified career-destroying vilification. If his name is taken off the Father Ted musical he’s been working on for years I’ll have something else to boycott.
I’m buying merch and gifts from https://thefamousartistbirdyrose.com/ and I’d also buy from https://www.jessdewahls.com/ if I could afford it. Jess De Wahls has a piece on her website called Over The Rainbow which sets out the main issues relating to women well.
Following the Nolan documentary on Stonewall, I think rational voices are starting to get heard. Kelly-Jay Keene on Talk Radio, followed by Debbie Hayton (male interviewer, unsurprisingly, less antagonistic towards a man saying the same things as a woman), Richard Dawkins speaking up. Gender woo is worse than young-earth creationism. We are instructed to disbelieve the reality we can see with our own eyes, the reality that made the evolution of humans possible. And to further this post-modernist, reality-undermining, dangerous ideology, children are being sterilised and mutilated. Worse than YEC.
By the way, Linehan does a weekly ‘good news’ update among all the horror - it’s worth reading if you need a bit of a faith-in-humanity top up.
-
Dangerous fetishism
https://4w.pub/norwegian-university-required-students-to-attend-fetish-club-dress-in-lacquer-and-rubber/
Not quite sure what the point of that is. Sexology course field trip to fetish club requires students to dress appropriately. Whether or not that is appropriate for a university course is one thing. Has it got anything to do with trans rights is another - and I'm not sure what.
-
Not quite sure what the point of that is. Sexology course field trip to fetish club requires students to dress appropriately. Whether or not that is appropriate for a university course is one thing. Has it got anything to do with trans rights is another - and I'm not sure what.
Did you miss that it was lead by a 'trans-identified woman'?
-
Did you miss that it was lead by a 'trans-identified woman'?
The Third Reich was led by a man with a moustache. What does that tell us about men with moustaches?
-
Re the left/right thing
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-disaster-ahead-for-democrats?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
I subscribe to Linehan’s substack and YouTube channel now, I admire his resolution to continue supporting women’s rights and safeguarding in the face of unjustified career-destroying vilification. If his name is taken off the Father Ted musical he’s been working on for years I’ll have something else to boycott.
I’m buying merch and gifts from https://thefamousartistbirdyrose.com/ and I’d also buy from https://www.jessdewahls.com/ if I could afford it. Jess De Wahls has a piece on her website called Over The Rainbow which sets out the main issues relating to women well.
Following the Nolan documentary on Stonewall, I think rational voices are starting to get heard. Kelly-Jay Keene on Talk Radio, followed by Debbie Hayton (male interviewer, unsurprisingly, less antagonistic towards a man saying the same things as a woman), Richard Dawkins speaking up. Gender woo is worse than young-earth creationism. We are instructed to disbelieve the reality we can see with our own eyes, the reality that made the evolution of humans possible. And to further this post-modernist, reality-undermining, dangerous ideology, children are being sterilised and mutilated. Worse than YEC.
By the way, Linehan does a weekly ‘good news’ update among all the horror - it’s worth reading if you need a bit of a faith-in-humanity top up.
Glad to see the Girls Day School Trust, which runs my daughter's school, have issued a statement regarding their Gender Identity policy to say they will not accept transgender pupils because it would “jeopardise” their status as single-sex institutions.
The guidance states that GDST schools do not accept applications from pupils who are legally male, even if they identify as female.
A female pupil who begins to transition while already at school should be supported to remain at the school for as long as they wish to do so, it adds.
School leaders have said that in the absence of any official guidance from the Department for Education (DfE), they are left with advice from lobby groups as they decide how to react when a pupil identifies as the opposite gender.
Julie McCulloch of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said that as more and more children “come out” as transgender, heads are forced to wade into the fraught debate between biological sex and gender.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) was due to publish guidelines to help schools interpret the 2010 Equality Act and how it applies to trans pupils.
But last year the guidelines - that would have forced girls schools to admit trans pupils - were scrapped by the equalities watchdog, blaming a “lack of definitive case law” on the issue.
The equality watchdog has now urged the Government to “show leadership” and publish its own guidance. “We recently wrote to the Department for Education to ask whether they intend to do so and to offer our advice and support in the process if they decide to do so,” a spokesman told The Telegraph.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/01/01/group-girls-schools-says-will-not-accept-transgender-pupils/
-
Another academic being accused of 'transphobia'
https://archive.vn/IUIBy
-
Incredible that people have to stand up (again) for important facts being recorded in the census - Scottish version this time
https://fairplayforwomen.com/scottish-government-in-court-over-unlawful-definition-of-sex-in-census/
-
The judicial review in the Alex Salmond case did not end well for the Scottish government - they ended up having to pay Salmond £500,000 from taxpayer funds for their botched handling of the complaints against Salmond.
I hope this Judicial Review on their definition of "sex" in the Census goes the same way for them.
-
The judicial review in the Alex Salmond case did not end well for the Scottish government - they ended up having to pay Salmond £500,000 from taxpayer funds for their botched handling of the complaints against Salmond.
I hope this Judicial Review on their definition of "sex" in the Census goes the same way for them.
They paid £500k. They did not pay Salmond £500k.
-
They paid £500k. They did not pay Salmond £500k.
I thought they paid him for him to pay towards his legal expenses? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49331140
-
I thought they paid him for him to pay towards his legal expenses? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49331140
I suppose it's a matter of perspective but I don't see costs awarded as being a pay out to the individual.
-
I suppose it's a matter of perspective but I don't see costs awarded as being a pay out to the individual.
Well it is, effectively. It means they don't have to pay their own legal fees.
-
Great thread from Ross Tucker
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1484469424837074947.html
-
So just so that you are all up to date on the old alphabetty soup that is emanating out of this whole transgendered debate, I bring you this, courtesy of a foray into the Twittersphere:
2SLGBTQQIA+
It stands for: 'Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual, and all other sexual orientations and genders'.
They could just have said "everyone".
-
So just so that you are all up to date on the old alphabetty soup that is emanating out of this whole transgendered debate, I bring you this, courtesy of a foray into the Twittersphere:
2SLGBTQQIA+
It stands for: 'Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual, and all other sexual orientations and genders'.
They could just have said "everyone".
Not sure it's wise publishing your wifi password.
-
Equality and Human Rights Commission criticise Scottish Govt gender recognition reforms
https://archive.vn/2022.01.26-204807/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/01/26/nicola-sturgeons-transgender-reforms-wont-protect-women-says/
-
My MP didn’t answer my questions so I sent them again:
“Can you explain to me what human rights trans-identified people lack in this country please?
Re self-ID - Do you think that some predatory males might falsely claim to identify as women in order to access spaces where women are vulnerable? Do you propose any safeguards to mitigate the risk?
Do you think it is acceptable for a fully intact adult male who has not undertaken any medical or surgical procedures relating to sex reassignment to have applied for and been appointed to a job advertised, legally, as reserved for a woman? Do you think that person should be counted in employment stats as a woman?
Are you currently, pending the outcome of the Cass review, in favour of giving puberty blockers to physically healthy children?
I have continued to research this subject and everything I have read, from both sides of the argument, has only increased my concerns. This is a fundamentally irrational ideology that denies easily verifiable reality and undermines safeguarding for children and women.
I have discussed my concerns with family, friends and neighbours and so far everyone turns out to be ‘gender critical’ once they know what self-id means and what is happening to confused children. It’s clear why gender ideologues don’t want open debate. I’ll be sharing my questions on the same forum I shared my initial email to you.”
Meanwhile, in Gwent
https://www.gwent.police.uk/news/gwent/news/news/2022/january/statement-following-a-53-year-old-woman-from-newport-being-arrested-on-suspicion-of-criminal-damage-and-displaying-threatening-or-abusive-writing-likely-to-cause-harassment-alarm-or-distress/?__cf_chl_captcha_tk__=pVIdxSHufxxOtpulCVZSpmZ9PNPh0.fBl8BqiAlHdBI-1643151133-0-gaNycGzNCL0
-
So just so that you are all up to date on the old alphabetty soup that is emanating out of this whole transgendered debate, I bring you this, courtesy of a foray into the Twittersphere:
2SLGBTQQIA+
It stands for: 'Two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual, and all other sexual orientations and genders'.
They could just have said "everyone".
Hi Trent, I think the elevation of 2S to the beginning is to promote the idea that people who oppose this lunacy are racist, or at least the equivalent of racist. Characterising trans realists as right-wing is just another attempt to stifle debate.
-
Hi Christine
That sounds about right.
On the small matter of changing people's minds about this, particularly on the Left, if you are a member of the Labour Party you can make your thoughts known on their Policy Forum website. I have put forward my thoughts. It is not the easiest of sites to navigate and there seem to be multiple discussions about most issues, so to cover all bases you have to find all the discussions on any particular policy.
It is encouraging that the majority of people responding to the Trans threads are keenly aware of the nonsense being promoted. Whether it has any effect on the direction of policy I don't know but it's worth a shot if you are a member.
I lapse shortly and am not yet convinced I'll renew but I thought I'd have my say before I go!
The forum is here: https://www.policyforum.labour.org.uk/commissions/trans-rights
-
A very welcome editorial from The Observer on the recent EHRC hoo-hah:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/30/observer-view-ehrc-decision-scotland-gender-recognition-reforms
It strikes me as being very balanced and sensible in its approach. I can only help that this balance and sense will spread to its stablemate.
-
So you never knew you needed them but I bring you, wait for it - NEOPRONOUNS. Yay!
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/01/everything-need-know-neopronouns/
For those not wanting to read the compete text of the bollocks being spouted I give you the list (only partial, there are apparently more) of neopronouns:
ze/zir/zirs
ze/hir/hirs
xe/xem/xyrs
ey/em/eirs
fae/faer/faers
e/em/ems
ve/vir/vis
ne/nem/nir
per/per/pers
These do, of course, show the subjective/objective/possessive forms.
Glad to be of help and am pleased that I've made your Sunday even better than it already is.
I have one of my own: twa/twat/twats
-
So you never knew you needed them but I bring you, wait for it - NEOPRONOUNS. Yay!
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2022/01/everything-need-know-neopronouns/
For those not wanting to read the compete text of the bollocks being spouted I give you the list (only partial, there are apparently more) of neopronouns:
ze/zir/zirs
ze/hir/hirs
xe/xem/xyrs
ey/em/eirs
fae/faer/faers
e/em/ems
ve/vir/vis
ne/nem/nir
per/per/pers
These do, of course, show the subjective/objective/possessive forms.
Glad to be of help and am pleased that I've made your Sunday even better than it already is.
I have one of my own: twa/twat/twats
"If you’ve been following the latest discourse about gender identity and non-conforming identities then you may have heard about “neopronouns.” If you haven’t heard the term, then perhaps you’ve heard unusual sounding pronouns like “ze/zer” or “xe/xem”."
Er, no and no! At least not those of us who live in the real world outside of University campuses and Tik Tok.
-
Hi Trent, I’m not a Labour Party member. I let my membership lapse in around 1983 after a visit to the local Labour club with my Dad. The looks we got when I dared to enter the snooker room after a terrible meeting put the tin lid on my disillusionment. If any of those misogynists are still alive I expect they’re right on board with pronouns.
If ever I’m forced to state “my pronouns” they’ll be something pointed, if I can’t come up with something offensive.
Christine (Hea/Then)
-
Powerful letter from a detransistioner
https://catcattinson.substack.com/p/education-or-indoctrination
-
And article from Joan Smith on Starmer's failure to stand up for Rosie Duffield
https://thecritic.co.uk/starmers-silence/
-
And article from Joan Smith on Starmer's failure to stand up for Rosie Duffield
https://thecritic.co.uk/starmers-silence/
I have written to Starmer on this very issue. No reply yet. Although I understand he's been quite busy.
I'll share it when one of his minions deigns to reply.
-
I have written to Starmer on this very issue. No reply yet. Although I understand he's been quite busy.
I'll share it when one of his minions deigns to reply.
He had the chance at the Labour Party Conference not only did he not take it, he threw her under the bus.
-
He had the chance at the Labour Party Conference not only did he not take it, he threw her under the bus.
I know, but got to keep up the pressure.
-
I know, but got to keep up the pressure.
Good for you.
-
Some progress on keeping cheating males out of women's sports.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-60225075
-
Catgender! University of Bristol being idiotgender
https://archive.vn/2fCzo
-
So important to heed these guidelines:
Staff are told on the website: "Emojiself pronouns are a subcategory of nounself pronouns, which are pronouns that, instead of using letters, utilize emojis.
"These pronouns are not intended to be pronounced out loud and are only intended for online communication. In spoken conversation one may or may not use pronouns that are based on the emoji."
Just take a moment to reflect on the fact that an adult thought it worthwhile committing this to paper.
Please, make it stop.
-
So important to heed these guidelines:
Staff are told on the website: "Emojiself pronouns are a subcategory of nounself pronouns, which are pronouns that, instead of using letters, utilize emojis.
"These pronouns are not intended to be pronounced out loud and are only intended for online communication. In spoken conversation one may or may not use pronouns that are based on the emoji."
Just take a moment to reflect on the fact that an adult thought it worthwhile committing this to paper.
Please, make it stop.
They're trolling us aren't they?
I don't have any problem with a gender fluid set of pronouns to augment he/she and replace "it" for humans, but please: one set only and no fucking "x"s in them.
-
Amnesty International saying
'There is no such thing as a biologically female/male body'
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962
So the EHRC ask for a pause due to concerns over the effects the GRA (Scotland) will have on single-sex services and they now get attacked by Stonewall and Good Law Project.
Hmm.... not feeling impressed by Stonewall when they aren't taking into consideration the effects of the GRA.
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-60331962
So the EHRC ask for a pause due to concerns over the effects the GRA (Scotland) will have on single-sex services and they now get attacked by Stonewall and Good Law Project.
Hmm.... not feeling impressed by Stonewall when they aren't taking into consideration the effects of the GRA.
This confounds the issues ... It is correct that the EHRC should be independent of the government ... and that whether or not they are can be challenged - but not on the basis that that have come to a particular decision or acted in a given question.
-
Man takes woman's role
https://variety.com/2022/film/global/eddie-izzard-doctor-jekyll-1235173606/
-
#PennCheats
https://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/lia-thomas-breaks-pool-record-en-route-to-500-freestyle-title-at-ivy-league-championships/
-
Good article by Hadley Freeman
https://unherd.com/2022/02/why-i-stopped-being-a-good-girl/
-
Excellent from Susan Dalgety
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1496159952007831554.html
-
Hmmm
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2022/02/22/green-candidate-quits-party-after-stock-campaign-questions/
-
Believing facts problematic for applying for NHS job.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3955fe2a-959c-11ec-bcf4-9dde9b8243da?shareToken=2c757cf564cc5cbbb15da29ce53bccf0
-
Jay is delusional
-
Hello again. I’ve had a reply from my MP, Kim Johnson. She sent me a transcript of her speech in the GRA reform debate and linked me to Stonewall and Mermaids, so it’s not worth posting. She said she’d only had two people with my views contact her. This is my reply to her:
“Thank you for taking the time to reply. I would rather you had answered my questions than sent me your public-record speech. Can you answer my questions please?
Re Stonewall - I am familiar with their agenda and propaganda, my workplace is awash with it. Nancy Kelley, Stonewall CEO, has compared lesbians who don’t want to have sex with penises with racists. Sexual orientation, unlike gender identity, is a protected characteristic, but presumably you don’t consider her comments hateful? I do. Of course, if you decide your sex is no more than an idea in your head, it means same-sex orientation is meaningless. Do you think women who don’t want to have sex with penises are bigots?
Re Mermaids - I am also familiar with this organisation and do not agree with their approach. In her TED talk, Susie Green clearly states that she agreed to the transing of their son because her husband was/is homophobic. The shocking admission begins at 3:18.
https://www.ted.com/talks/susie_green_transgender_a_mother_s_story
… (deleted a sentence here because I’m not sure whether I could be arrested for it)…
Are you aware of the change in approach to children being signalled by WPATH?
If you believe women, as in adult human females, have achieved complete equality with men in our society, then I can understand your position on self-ID. Do you think that? If not, why do you think males such as Robin Moira White, who has benefitted from a lifetime of white male privilege before announcing he’s a woman in his mid-forties, should supplant a woman who has had to work through a lifetime of institutional sexism, in nominations for an award for women?
I don’t think most people are aware of the implications of self-ID but even if I hold a minority view, that doesn’t make it wrong. The era of “no debate” is ending. As more people understand what’s at stake I’m confident rationality will reassert itself. I also predict an increase in legal action by people who were severely damaged as children by adults who should have been protecting them.
Finally, I linked you on Twitter to the speeches made at the recent protest outside the MoJ. You may have missed it, so here it is again. Women speaking on behalf of incarcerated women - people who truly are marginalised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=socMzU8LBA8
Regards,
Christine (ex-Labour and ex-Green voter)”
-
Hello again. I’ve had a reply from my MP, Kim Johnson. She sent me a transcript of her speech in the GRA reform debate and linked me to Stonewall and Mermaids, so it’s not worth posting. She said she’d only had two people with my views contact her. This is my reply to her:
“Thank you for taking the time to reply. I would rather you had answered my questions than sent me your public-record speech. Can you answer my questions please?
Re Stonewall - I am familiar with their agenda and propaganda, my workplace is awash with it. Nancy Kelley, Stonewall CEO, has compared lesbians who don’t want to have sex with penises with racists. Sexual orientation, unlike gender identity, is a protected characteristic, but presumably you don’t consider her comments hateful? I do. Of course, if you decide your sex is no more than an idea in your head, it means same-sex orientation is meaningless. Do you think women who don’t want to have sex with penises are bigots?
Re Mermaids - I am also familiar with this organisation and do not agree with their approach. In her TED talk, Susie Green clearly states that she agreed to the transing of their son because her husband was/is homophobic. The shocking admission begins at 3:18.
https://www.ted.com/talks/susie_green_transgender_a_mother_s_story
… (deleted a sentence here because I’m not sure whether I could be arrested for it)…
Are you aware of the change in approach to children being signalled by WPATH?
If you believe women, as in adult human females, have achieved complete equality with men in our society, then I can understand your position on self-ID. Do you think that? If not, why do you think males such as Robin Moira White, who has benefitted from a lifetime of white male privilege before announcing he’s a woman in his mid-forties, should supplant a woman who has had to work through a lifetime of institutional sexism, in nominations for an award for women?
I don’t think most people are aware of the implications of self-ID but even if I hold a minority view, that doesn’t make it wrong. The era of “no debate” is ending. As more people understand what’s at stake I’m confident rationality will reassert itself. I also predict an increase in legal action by people who were severely damaged as children by adults who should have been protecting them.
Finally, I linked you on Twitter to the speeches made at the recent protest outside the MoJ. You may have missed it, so here it is again. Women speaking on behalf of incarcerated women - people who truly are marginalised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=socMzU8LBA8
Regards,
Christine (ex-Labour and ex-Green voter)”
Wow. That is such a good letter.
-
Hi JeremyP,
Thank you. I thought my previous emails might have indicated to Kim that I was beyond being gaslit by Stonewall, but obviously not :-\
-
Mother of swimmer who swam against Lia Thomas speaks
https://youtu.be/Cd3Ltk30qv8
-
Christine,
Can I just add my congratulations on that letter to your MP.
I am, now, shamelessly going to rework some of it for a letter of my own. (Hope that's OK!)
-
Hi Trent,
Please, help yourself. I’m happy to contribute any way I can.
Best of luck 🙂
-
This is a devastating article from Susan Dalgety.
https://archive.ph/8JB0l
-
This is a devastating article from Susan Dalgety.
https://archive.ph/8JB0l
It certainly is.
-
Great thread on Scot Gov's reform of the GRA
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1501223986038034439.html
-
On International Women's Day worth putting up these quote from some men who say they are women, note these men are lauded and famous amongst those who deny biology.
-
Rowling's Razor
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/JK-Rowling-trans
-
Congratulations Emma Weyant #PennCheats
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10626265/Uni-Virginia-swimmer-hailed-heroine-coming-second-NCAA-final-trans-rival-Lia-Thomas.html
-
Great article by Elaine Miller
https://thecritic.co.uk/women-wont-wheesht/
-
Dangerous feckin' madness
https://archive.vn/J3BSj
-
.
-
More idiocy on the Scottish census
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/41d86836-a79d-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=c22cb2538f54d7889631b0527a707b3e
-
More idiocy on the Scottish census
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/41d86836-a79d-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=c22cb2538f54d7889631b0527a707b3e
I'd thought it would be of use to record both sex and gender. Sex is important for things like healthcare and it would be useful to have data on gender for research purposes. How many people actually are - or claim to be - transgender etc.
-
Excellent from Joan Smith
https://thecritic.co.uk/labour-is-failing-women/
-
Excellent from Joan Smith
https://thecritic.co.uk/labour-is-failing-women/
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with the following
In the real world, it is astonishing that someone who holds such views was ever considered suitable to represent women’s interests on the front bench
It doesn't astonish me at all.
-
Very disappointing
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10642895/Bidens-Supreme-Court-nominee-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-refuses-define-word-woman.html
-
Very disappointing
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10642895/Bidens-Supreme-Court-nominee-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-refuses-define-word-woman.html
I think it's more important to get her confirmed than to worry about where she stands on trans rights.
The Daily Telegraph has an interesting story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2022/03/22/exclusive-commonwealth-games-2022-allow-trans-women-cyclists/
You might think that is bad news, but we really need more examples of trans women dominance in sports in order to expose the stupidity of it.
-
I think it's more important to get her confirmed than to worry about where she stands on trans rights.
Doesn't stop it being very disappointing. It also shows that there could be real problems with her approach in certain cases.
The Daily Telegraph has an interesting story:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/cycling/2022/03/22/exclusive-commonwealth-games-2022-allow-trans-women-cyclists/
You might think that is bad news, but we really need more examples of trans women dominance in sports in order to expose the stupidity of it.
I think I noted during the farce of Laurel Hubbard at the Olympics that it was odd that gender crititical feminists felt themselves hoping Hubbard did well while TRAs were a bit worried that he would do well.
-
Doesn't stop it being very disappointing. It also shows that there could be real problems with her approach in certain cases.
Everybody has prejudices and judges are supposed to put them aside whilst judging cases. That is presumably why there are nine Supreme Court justices and not just one.
I think I noted during the farce of Laurel Hubbard at the Olympics that it was odd that gender crititical feminists felt themselves hoping Hubbard did well while TRAs were a bit worried that he would do well.
I think Lia Thomas's times started out being dramatically better than her competitors. She still wins now but not necessarily by a large margin. I think she is holding back because the stupidity would otherwise be too blatant to ignore.
-
Everybody has prejudices and judges are supposed to put them aside whilst judging cases. That is presumably why there are nine Supreme Court justices and not just one.
There is also a reading of her comment that would not be disappointing - that the definition that she would accept is the biological one, and this would therefore mean that she disagrees with the 'transwomen are women' mantra.
-
Very disappointing
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10642895/Bidens-Supreme-Court-nominee-Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-refuses-define-word-woman.html
Not really. In a world where the notion of what constitutes 'a woman' is an issue of contention, and particular where any opinion offered is likely to be stripped of nuance and used by one side or another to beat a partisan drum, it shows the sort of considered response that makes a Supreme Court Justice.
She's deferring to the appropriate expertise to come up with definitions, and she'll then (presumably) look at the phrasing of any relevant laws and precedents to see how those two interact. She is being questioned about her ability to interpret the law, and the tradition - particularly in American law - has been for the judiciary to keep as tightly within their bounds as they can, to not be drawn into controversial topics if they can avoid it.
O.
-
Like Outrider, I got the impression that she was being very considered in her approach and extremely careful with her words.
-
This article gives a little more insight into what was going on with the confirmation hearing:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/mar/24/ketanji-brown-jacksons-confirmation-hearing-is-a-disgrace-to-her-qualifications
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZNINhdhN0
Elaine Miller. Knows what she’s talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlNihG6zNM
In conversation with Graham Linehan.
Since his TV appearance and interview in the Mail (unfortunate platform but these are the times we live in) it seems he’s had an influx of subscribers. JKR is still on fire on Twitter. Sport is peaking people all over the place. The Forstater tribunal showed what happens when the ideologues can’t shout ‘bigot’ and run away when asked questions. Stonewall’s complaint re the EHRC dismissed. The preliminary findings of the Cass review.
I’m starting to think there might be an end to this madness in sight.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZNINhdhN0
Elaine Miller. Knows what she’s talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlNihG6zNM
In conversation with Graham Linehan.
...
I am chatting with Elaine about doing a joint gig covering A Night of Poo and Pee for both sexes based on what she does and what I've written up about my experiences of prostate cancer, particularly around the conversations and connections made through radiotherapy.
-
I hope it comes together. I bet she’s a pleasure to work with. Best wishes.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9ZNINhdhN0
Elaine Miller. Knows what she’s talking about.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlNihG6zNM
In conversation with Graham Linehan.
Since his TV appearance and interview in the Mail (unfortunate platform but these are the times we live in) it seems he’s had an influx of subscribers. JKR is still on fire on Twitter. Sport is peaking people all over the place. The Forstater tribunal showed what happens when the ideologues can’t shout ‘bigot’ and run away when asked questions. Stonewall’s complaint re the EHRC dismissed. The preliminary findings of the Cass review.
I’m starting to think there might be an end to this madness in sight.
Certainly as far as sport is concerned. All it will take is a much loved female superstar to be beaten by a relatively unknown trans woman in a well publicised event and the whole thing will start crashing down. I thought that might happen in cycling, but Emily Bridges got banned from competing at the last minute (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/60969663).
-
Certainly as far as sport is concerned. All it will take is a much loved female superstar to be beaten by a relatively unknown trans woman in a well publicised event and the whole thing will start crashing down. /url].
Have you forgotten about Renee Richards?
Here is a list of transgender sports people - including Richards. I'm not contesting your point (with which I generally agree) just suggesting that we may have been fairly close to it.
https://www.thesportster.com/entertainment/top-15-famous-transgender-athletes/
-
That's twice I've agreed with Boris Johnson on a sporting matter
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/61012030
Although, I'd qualify my position by saying there are sports where men and women can compete on equal terms.
-
Interesting article on the effect radical trans idealogy is having on gay people:
https://www.newsweek.com/new-homophobia-opinion-1698969?
-
Has anybody posted this before?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkK7zisjoDk
It's by Magdalen Berns who died at the young age of 36 a couple of years ago.
-
Interesting piece
https://www.broadsheet.ie/2022/04/26/colette-colfer-a-new-religion/
-
Has anybody posted this before?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkK7zisjoDk
It's by Magdalen Berns who died at the young age of 36 a couple of years ago.
I don't think anyone has. I know I haven't. I met Magdalen's partner, a few months after Magdalen's death, and she was receiving abuse at university then for being Magdalen's partner.
Magdalen is continually smeared by one strand of the TRA movement who hate that her straightforward approach has been so effective.
-
Pretty much
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/427b18d2-ca2b-11ec-b4b6-e30a321b8cd3?shareToken=857f106c90c944207ffec8cd20723d0f
-
Two men, Clymer and Levine, take two women's seats at White House Lesbian Visibility Day. The Dems are a mess of homophobia.
-
Simon Fanshawe on Stonewall
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10811203/Trans-activists-wrecked-good-work-Stonewall.html
-
Girl ‘driven out of school for questioning trans ideology’
Trans ideology leading to bullying in school of pupils with gender critical views - apparently without the school owing any duty of care to the victim of the bullying.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/50aac934-d539-11ec-8585-951ab3afb4d2?shareToken=b226ac7219daf1352963663e6112c431
-
Let me introduce a little humour into the thread
https://www.jesusandmo.net/comic/folks/
You're either non binary or you're not.
-
So a man who says he is a woman will become the only woman hereditary peer because the law of primogentiture says he's a man and his older sister cannot inherit. Farce
https://archive.ph/YvctX
-
Lesbians who state they are single sex attracted are like white South Africans supporting apartheid, apparently
https://reduxx.info/bailey-tribunal-lesbian-sexual-boundaries-like-racial-segregation/
-
And the capture of the Civil Service by unscientific regressive woo woo
https://archive.ph/sOhrG
-
The court of Nicola, commander in chief of the New, New Model Army:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/beware-of-insider-scotland-and-sturgeons-new-model-army-susan-dalgety-3727360?
-
The court of Nicola, commander in chief of the New, New Model Army:
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/beware-of-insider-scotland-and-sturgeons-new-model-army-susan-dalgety-3727360?
Susan's written some great columns on this.
-
Common sense prevails in swimming
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/61853450
I wonder if the Lia Thomas affair helped sway them.
-
Common sense prevails in swimming
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/61853450
I wonder if the Lia Thomas affair helped sway them.
I think it certainly helped clarify things.
Apparently though the decision will lead to trans people drowning.
-
I think it certainly helped clarify things.
Apparently though the decision will lead to trans people drowning.
The only reason I bothered to learn to swim was the certainty of one day representing my country in the Olympics. Imagine the violence done to me when they told me I wasn't allowed to participate. Something to do with never having done any competitive swimming or something - just excuses.
-
Dangerous drivel
https://archive.ph/MpZfP
-
Nottingham Council being pricks
https://www.mynottinghamnews.co.uk/statement-on-aspley-library-event-cancellation/
-
Cut together video with comments of protest and counter protest in Bristol
https://youtu.be/AIp0QbZcZPM
-
And Maya Forstater wins
https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/maya-forstater-v-cgd-europe-center-for-global-development-masood-ahmed/
-
Press release from Forstater
https://mforstater.medium.com/press-statement-maya-forstaters-victory-in-employment-tribunal-a-win-for-free-speech-and-99365009baa1
-
More idiocy on the Scottish census
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/41d86836-a79d-11ec-a0e9-23fd932feb90?shareToken=c22cb2538f54d7889631b0527a707b3e
That link leads to an article about BJ possibly facing a new confidence vote, nt anything to do with the census.
-
That link leads to an article about BJ possibly facing a new confidence vote, nt anything to do with the census.
Not for me. It leads to a census article. Apologies but not sure how to fix that for you.
-
Not for me. It leads to a census article. Apologies but not sure how to fix that for you.
Actually, it leads to the front page of the Times for me that just happens to have Boris's situation as the headline. I think it's a redirect for non-subscribers.
-
Actually, it leads to the front page of the Times for me that just happens to have Boris's situation as the headline. I think it's a redirect for non-subscribers.
And yet I am not a subscriber. I'll try and find an archived link but it was over 3 months since I posted it.
-
And yet I am not a subscriber. I'll try and find an archived link but it was over 3 months since I posted it.
ok try this
https://archive.ph/DHwFS
-
That works - thanks. The Scottish census seems to have been a fiasco in all sorts of ways.
-
That works - thanks. The Scottish census seems to have been a fiasco in all sorts of ways.
Glad to have helped
-
Good article about the vase by Bev Jackson:
https://thecritic.co.uk/cnns-optical-delusion/?
-
The end of Quidditch
https://www.mailplus.co.uk/edition/comment/206039/as-her-foolish-critics-even-cancel-quidditch-jk-rowlings-courage-is-a-rare-and-precious-thing
-
So in summary, a fictional game involving broomsticks created by JKR is going to be renamed by some sad people who run about with bits of wood between their legs because they are hurt by her stance on the issue of women's rights.
I bet she's devastated.
Twats.
-
So in summary, a fictional game involving broomsticks created by JKR is going to be renamed by some sad people who run about with bits of wood between their legs because they are hurt by her stance on the issue of women's rights.
I bet she's devastated.
Twats.
Indeed.
-
James Kirkup on the Allison Bailey findings
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-bravery-of-allison-bailey
-
So in summary, a fictional game involving broomsticks created by JKR is going to be renamed by some sad people who run about with bits of wood between their legs because they are hurt by her stance on the issue of women's rights.
I bet she's devastated.
Twats.
It will be the death of the sport. I'm sure the majority of people who play it do so because of its association with Quidditch.
-
Woman standing up for women's spaces is like a rapist
https://www.buzzfeed.com/hannahmarder/real-life-hero-to-villain-stories
-
Mr Menno
https://youtu.be/xDmaPIKrC-A
-
The myth of 'both sides'
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/the-myth-of-both-sides?utm_source=email
-
Published in Science magazine! An infinity of drivel.
https://www.science.org/content/article/how-astrophysics-helped-me-embrace-my-nonbinary-gender-identity-in-all-its-complexity
-
The picture below is from a university's online pre course registration form. It incorrectly states they have a duty to collect gender identity information under the 2010 Equality Act, and is I think in breach of GDPR rules.
-
The picture below is from a university's online pre course registration form. It incorrectly states they have a duty to collect gender identity information under the 2010 Equality Act, and is I think in breach of GDPR rules.
Looks like something for a lawyer to investigate.
Do you know which part of Equality Act deals with monitoring information? The university, likely, has to collect statistics but that does not mean that any student has to provide the information requested. To demand that it is provided may be illegal.
It seems to be a tweet? But by whom? Regarding which university?
-
The picture below is from a university's online pre course registration form. It incorrectly states they have a duty to collect gender identity information under the 2010 Equality Act, and is I think in breach of GDPR rules.
On the ask your age thread, PD asserted that you need not answer any of the questions in the equality questionnaire.
-
Looks like something for a lawyer to investigate.
Do you know which part of Equality Act deals with monitoring information? The university, likely, has to collect statistics but that does not mean that any student has to provide the information requested. To demand that it is provided may be illegal.
It seems to be a tweet? But by whom? Regarding which university?
There is no such thing as gender identity in the Equality Act so information gathering is irrelevant.
Yes, it is a tweet but the person who posted it is a friend who is concerned about revealing details of their child in case there is any fall out.
-
On the ask your age thread, PD asserted that you need not answer any of the questions in the equality questionnaire.
And I think it falls foul of that as well.
-
There is no such thing as gender identity in the Equality Act so information gathering is irrelevant.
...
True enough ... it covers "gender reassignment" and has no concept of "gender identity", but many (eg. The EHRC) regard/take gender identity as a protected characteristic of transsexuals.
-
True enough ... it covers "gender reassignment" and has no concept of "gender identity", but many (eg. The EHRC) regard/take gender identity as a protected characteristic of transsexuals.
The EHRC's latest guidance, that I've seen, doesn't do that. And using the term 'transexuals' here adds a further non legally defined term and not one that ties in specifically to gender identity.
-
The EHRC's latest guidance, that I've seen, doesn't do that. And using the term 'transexuals' here adds a further non legally defined term and not one that ties in specifically to gender identity.
This is what I was (mis)reading:
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/gender-reassignment-discrimination
-
Coruscating by Victoria Smith. Too many on the left are either too stupid, too scared, or too misogynist to deal with the issue. It's a pity that the leader of the Labour Party is one.
https://thecritic.co.uk/publishing-needs-jk-rowling-to-be-a-monster/
-
Laughable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/62900507
-
Laughable
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/62900507
Laughable in what way? If you are not competing to win, why does your gender matter at all?
-
Laughable in what way? If you are not competing to win, why does your gender matter at all?
Because non binary is laughable and it achieves fuck all.
-
Because non binary is laughable and it achieves fuck all.
Well it's achieved winding you up. Why do you care if people identify as non binary or not?
-
Well it's achieved winding you up. Why do you care if people identify as non binary or not?
People can identify how they want. Treating that as somehow objectively meaningful is odd. Why do you want to reify subjective assessments?
-
People can identify how they want.
But why is it laughable?
Treating that as somehow objectively meaningful is odd. Why do you want to reify subjective assessments?
I would say that gender is totally irrelevant. It's an unnecessary question, but given they have put it there, I see no reason not to answer "non binary".
-
But why is it laughable?
I would say that gender is totally irrelevant. It's an unnecessary question, but given they have put it there, I see no reason not to answer "non binary".
It's laughable that something totally irrelevant that has no coherent definition forms a question. It's the equivalent of asking the colour of your aura.
-
It's laughable that something totally irrelevant that has no coherent definition forms a question. It's the equivalent of asking the colour of your aura.
Usually that kind of information is kept on the runner in case it is needed in an emergency eg injury, collapse or missing say ... where a "non-binary" id could actually be harmful.
-
It's laughable that something totally irrelevant that has no coherent definition forms a question. It's the equivalent of asking the colour of your aura.
I don't think gender is quite at the same level of fantasy as aura.
-
I don't think gender is quite at the same level of fantasy as aura.
What are your different 'levels of fantasy'? What levels of fantasy do you think are laughable and which are not?
-
What are your different 'levels of fantasy'? What levels of fantasy do you think are laughable and which are not?
I don't think any are necessarily laughable. I'm just objecting to your use of "laughable" to describe things that are merely wrong (in your opinion).
I'm a strong advocate of not asking for information on forms that you don't need but being redundant is not the same as being laughable.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this point. Are you intending to refuse to let this go and bang on about it for four pages as usual?
-
I don't think any are necessarily laughable. I'm just objecting to your use of "laughable" to describe things that are merely wrong (in your opinion).
I'm a strong advocate of not asking for information on forms that you don't need but being redundant is not the same as being laughable.
Clearly we are not going to agree on this point. Are you intending to refuse to let this go and bang on about it for four pages as usual?
It takes two to tango for 4 pages.
-
It takes two to tango for 4 pages.
I'm not proposing to tango with you. I just want you to understand that my failure to engage with you further on this point does not mean I concede it.
-
'Right side of history'
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1571854465312890882.html
-
Article by Malcolm Clark on the attack on Fred Sargeant at Pride
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/20/trans-activism-is-homophobia-in-drag/
-
Quite incredible
https://twitter.com/kathmurray1/status/1574727713679904768?t=_ChYuVVH9Hnb3uSC98JQkA&s=19
-
Quite incredible
https://twitter.com/kathmurray1/status/1574727713679904768?t=_ChYuVVH9Hnb3uSC98JQkA&s=19
Somebody at Sussex Police doesn't understand Twitter. Probably shouldn't have been put in charge of the Twitter account.
-
Somebody at Sussex Police doesn't understand Twitter. Probably shouldn't have been put in charge of the Twitter account.
And they don't understand the law either.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11254419/Sussex-Police-sparks-fury-defending-transgender-paedophile-gender-comments.html
-
And they don't understand the law either.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11254419/Sussex-Police-sparks-fury-defending-transgender-paedophile-gender-comments.html
This is incredible:
Dixon will serve a minimum term of 12 years at women's prison HMP Bronzefield
Aside from that, I honestly do not understand the reasoning behind the fear of misgendering somebody whose liberty you are about to take away. We are going to lock him away for committing several horrendous crimes. Who cares if "she" is upset about being treated as a male?
-
This is incredible:
Aside from that, I honestly do not understand the reasoning behind the fear of misgendering somebody whose liberty you are about to take away. We are going to lock him away for committing several horrendous crimes. Who cares if "she" is upset about being treated as a male?
I'm reminded of this
https://youtu.be/yI6qvQtrTU8
-
Sussex Police have removed their tweet, and said they are looking into things. Not sure quite their way back but let's see...
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63137873
Paedophile apologist was Mermaids Trustee. This was discovered as a result of Mermaids taking LGB Alliance to court. Oops. His name, for some reason, wasn’t published on their website.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1578409990641139712
Hmm. I wonder what could possibly be the motivation for encouraging, championing even, the stunting of children’s mental and physical development.
-
Hi everyone,
I believe some people are raising their children without any gender based identities. This is known as being 'gender-creative'.
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20220929-the-parents-raising-their-children-without-gender
*************
As Gabriella Martenson prepared for the birth of her first child, she came to a decision. She wouldn’t tell her child if they’d been born a girl or a boy,
“I wanted them to be who they want to be. I don't want to decide that for them,” says Martenson, who was 30 and living in her home city, Stockholm, when she had her first child. “[It’s] just as I don't want to decide what they grow up to do, or who they decide to love or live with.”
......he says “increasing numbers of parents wish to give their child the space psychologically and emotionally to fully express who they are by minimising the conscious and unconscious impact that gender bias can have on a child
Markus Tschannen, a part-time writer, who is embracing a gender-neutral parenting approach from a German-speaking area of Switzerland, says he would like to identify his children with a gender-neutral pronoun such as ‘they’, however this currently doesn’t exist in the German language.
“Being gender-creative parents, we deliberately use names with all three grammatical genders,” he says. “This comes with the advantage that they can experience what feels best for them before deciding on a preferred pronoun,” he explains. “We basically wanted to give them more options than a society that tries to put children in a gender-based mould early on.”
*************
I think that all this messes around with the minds and personalities of the children. Nature and nurture are not two different things. They work together and complement one another. There is no such things as allowing the children to 'choose' the gender that they are comfortable with. If we don't direct the mind and preferences in a specific direction....the gene expression could get messed up.
Any views?
Sriram
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63137873
Paedophile apologist was Mermaids Trustee. This was discovered as a result of Mermaids taking LGB Alliance to court. Oops. His name, for some reason, wasn’t published on their website.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hatpinwoman/status/1578409990641139712
Hmm. I wonder what could possibly be the motivation for encouraging, championing even, the stunting of children’s mental and physical development.
That BBC story leaves me with all kinds of questions.
I've taken a quick look at the front page of B4U-ACT's web site. It doesn't look like it is a paedophile apologist web site. It looks more like a support group to provide therapy for paedophiles to try to stop them from being a danger to children whilst trying to integrate them into society. After all, if you don't do this, what is the alternative? Lock them up forever? That leads me to ask what was in the paper presented by Doctor Breslow. Was it paedophile apologetics or was it something to do with treating them?
I regard some of the treatments offered to children in the name of trans genderism to be pretty abusive too. I think puberty blockers and gender transition surgery should be banned for minors.
-
That BBC story leaves me with all kinds of questions.
I've taken a quick look at the front page of B4U-ACT's web site. It doesn't look like it is a paedophile apologist web site. It looks more like a support group to provide therapy for paedophiles to try to stop them from being a danger to children whilst trying to integrate them into society. After all, if you don't do this, what is the alternative? Lock them up forever? That leads me to ask what was in the paper presented by Doctor Breslow. Was it paedophile apologetics or was it something to do with treating them?
I regard some of the treatments offered to children in the name of trans genderism to be pretty abusive too. I think puberty blockers and gender transition surgery should be banned for minors.
Hi Jeremy,
There is a lot of very disturbing information about Breslow available on-line. The Twitter thread I linked above contains further information. The founders of so-called queer theory are a truly disgusting bunch, including M Foucault and J Money. Destigmatisation of “minor attracted people” (MAP - new and disingenuous euphemism) has been a goal for some time. Remember P.I.E.? I’m not linking to this horror show but there are plenty of on-line resources. Try Reduxx website. Feminists with an agenda, but the stories are properly sourced. Also Graham Linehan’s substack. I’m just grateful that there were people archiving and reporting on this and challenging the new religion (including Nearly Sane) when I was blissfully unaware of the implications for women and children. No more excuses.
The grotesque sham of so-called sex reassignment surgery is being pushed by drug companies and doctors who stand to make a fortune from creating life-long patients. I feel for the few people with genuine body dysphoria but surgery should be a last resort, whether your psychological distress is caused by your left leg or your genitals. I’ve seen things over the last few months that I cannot unfortunately unsee: if you showed the average teenager the actual results of this butchery most of them would run a mile, I’m sure, but that’s not how you gain new cult recruits.
Try this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gj3qA2A_z3w
An informative and upsetting discussion between a regretful (adult) detransitioner and Blaire White, a trans-identifying man. Humans can’t change sex and selling such a destructive lie to children should be a criminal offence.
People I talk to about this in real life look at me like I’m mad. Surely I must be exaggerating. Then they research for themselves and what happens? Instant TERF. Now ‘no debate’ seems to be over, I’m hopeful this insane ideology can eventually be rooted out of our media and public institutions. It’s going to be a long haul.
-
Mandy Rhodes covering the GRA 'reform' in Scotland, and the demo I was on this week.
https://www.holyrood.com/editors-column/view,its-time-we-stopped-allowing-lobby-groups-to-drive-the-debate-on-gender
And here's coverage of the speeches
https://youtu.be/liuWfxfmPDg
-
JK Rowling on the upcoming debate in Holyrood.
https://archive.ph/QQlsq
-
Today is apparently International Pronouns Day. A reminder to all that my pronouns are perpendicular and royal. How the rest of you might refer to me is of no interest to me.
It's also World Menopause Day and the Scottish Govt was offering advice that it can affect people between 45 and 55. I am quite worried that I noticed nothing. Their prostate cancer advice though, something I have a bit of a personal interest in, refers to men. Hmm...
-
Today is apparently International Pronouns Day. A reminder to all that my pronouns are perpendicular and royal. How the rest of you might refer to me is of no interest to me.
It's also World Menopause Day and the Scottish Govt was offering advice that it can affect people between 45 and 55. I am quite worried that I noticed nothing. Their prostate cancer advice though, something I have a bit of a personal interest in, refers to men. Hmm...
That's understandable. There seems to be a massive debate about what the definition of "woman" is, but the definition of "man" excites no controversy.
-
That's understandable. There seems to be a massive debate about what the definition of "woman" is, but the definition of "man" excites no controversy.
If by 'understandable', you mean a dangerous and inconsistent approach, I agree.
-
If by 'understandable', you mean a dangerous and inconsistent approach, I agree.
I mean that this whole redefining "woman" thing is another example of sexism against women and it's not at all surprising when looked at in those terms.
-
Dangerous Australian madness
https://realforwomen.wordpress.com/2021/08/01/the-aba-abandons-women-and-babies-in-australia/
-
Cambridge University going collectively mad
https://archive.ph/hbaoS
-
The SNP having internal issues on this. Good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-63416857
-
Coverage of the Cambridge event with Helen Joyce from Arif Ahmed, the professor who organised it.
https://archive.ph/j0nWN
-
Ffs!
https://www.varsity.co.uk/news/24453
-
'An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science' - from gender and other 'unicorns'.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/an-existential-threat-to-doing-good
I should note that Richard Dwakins posted the above link on Twitter saying 'To the extent that this is true (and I fear most if not all of it is), it is utterly horrifying.'
To which someone whose profile says ' IT Management, amateur guitarist and photographer' replied:
'Change is hard isn't it Richard. Having to negotiate new challenges, new ways to communicate.
My branch of science (computing) has change as a constant. Perhaps if biologists talked to computing professionals they'd get an understanding of how to navigate change.'
-
'An Existential Threat to Doing Good Science' - from gender and other 'unicorns'.
https://www.commonsense.news/p/an-existential-threat-to-doing-good
I should note that Richard Dwakins posted the above link on Twitter saying 'To the extent that this is true (and I fear most if not all of it is), it is utterly horrifying.'
To which someone whose profile says ' IT Management, amateur guitarist and photographer' replied:
'Change is hard isn't it Richard. Having to negotiate new challenges, new ways to communicate.
My branch of science (computing) has change as a constant. Perhaps if biologists talked to computing professionals they'd get an understanding of how to navigate change.'
Speaking as a computing professional, I have to say it is not a science. Nor is change a constant. It's surprising how much "new stuff" is actually rehashed old stuff.
-
Quick guess at the sex that did well in the non binary category at the New York marathon?
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2022/11/gender-identity-has-no-place-in-sport/
-
Quick guess at the sex that did well in the non binary category at the New York marathon?
https://www.letsrun.com/news/2022/11/gender-identity-has-no-place-in-sport/
I don't know but I'd guess bollocks were involved.
In more than one way.
-
David Tennant couldn't regenerate in Jodie Whittaker's clothes because it would have been mockery of men dressing in 'women's clothes' but the men doing that are fine and it isn't a mockery of women, apparently. Russell T Davies rolling out his misogyny.
https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/doctor-who-david-tennant-russell-t-davies-b2222202.html
-
Interview with Rosie Kay
https://obieg.pl/en/311-the-west-doesn-t-know-what-it-is-about-to-lose
-
The Royal Osteoporosis Society celebrating medication to cause osteoporosis.
https://twitter.com/RoyalOsteoSoc/status/1592139558103224320?t=ELXiXJ4coaGoDlJTWqmohA&s=19
-
A couple of threads arising from the committee of the Scottish Parliament on Gender Recognition Act reform. I have to admit to a specific bias here in that the woman who interrupted the commitee is a friend.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1595105976688037888.html?s=04
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1595217048132620290.html
-
The woman who was kicked out for wearing suffragette colours: what was the reason given for doing that? I find it absolutely incredible that it happened.
-
The woman who was kicked out for wearing suffragette colours: what was the reason given for doing that? I find it absolutely incredible that it happened.
They did apoligise and say they had got it wrong. But it was because it was ''politcal'. Here''s the apology
https://youtu.be/ikaaGGgEgug
-
They did apoligise and say they had got it wrong. But it was because it was ''politcal'. Here''s the apology
https://youtu.be/ikaaGGgEgug
I love the way that the MSP responding to the apology had the most massive scarf I've ever seen (excepting on Tom Baker) in the same colours.
It's a crying shame that anybody considers the concept of women being able to vote as being political, in this day and age.
Sorry, that was all off topic.
-
I love the way that the MSP responding to the apology had the most massive scarf I've ever seen (excepting on Tom Baker) in the same colours.
It's a crying shame that anybody considers the concept of women being able to vote as being political, in this day and age.
Sorry, that was all off topic.
You're missing the point, if, as you portray it here, that it's about women's right to vote?
-
You're missing the point, if, as you portray it here, that it's about women's right to vote?
What do you think it's about? Is it your opinion that, because the suffragette movement was a women's movement that the scarf was banned for being anti-trans? Because I don't agree, if so.
-
An interesting article in its own right, but also interesting because it is published in The Observer, perhaps signifying a change in direction on this topic for the Guardian Group?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/27/nicola-sturgeon-will-endanger-women-if-she-opens-single-sex-spaces-almost-everone
-
Madness cubed. The disastrous effects of the dangerous and idiotic policies of the Scottish Govt around women's sex based spaces continues.
https://archive.ph/mWbNa
-
Madness cubed. The disastrous effects of the dangerous and idiotic policies of the Scottish Govt around women's sex based spaces continues.
https://archive.ph/mWbNa
Did anyone else have to read the paragraph which starts "Sturgeon's speech" , more than once?
-
Seb,
A ghost in the machine perhaps.
I may have gotten this wrong but the gist of this is that a discussion on male violence toward women is not going to be able to address the issue of single-sex spaces, the very spaces that offer women sanctuary from the threat or possibility of violence.
Indeed, one could not make this up.
-
Seb,
A ghost in the machine perhaps.
I may have gotten this wrong but the gist of this is that a discussion on male violence toward women is not going to be able to address the issue of single-sex spaces, the very spaces that offer women sanctuary from the threat or possibility of violence.
Indeed, one could not make this up.
and the 'Women's Equality Party' voted at their conference by 138 votes out of 183 attendees that women includes men who say they are women
-
More from the 'right' side of history
https://reduxx.info/jk-rowling-attacked-on-twitter-after-calling-out-account-of-convicted-child-murderer/
-
Madness
-
Happy JK Rowling Day
https://twitter.com/jk_rowling/status/1207646162813100033?t=2ZSK-JSC3LaJgJUnXsisDQ&s=19
-
So much this.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-invalid-women/
-
I was going to wait for the completion of the debate and votees on the Gender Recognition Reform Bill before commenting but the voting down of Michelle Thomson, the SNP MSP's amendment to pause a GRC application for those charged with rape or sexual assualt last night needs covered.
Most of the SNP (it was whipped), some Labour, all of the Greens and Lib Dems voted to defeat the amendment. So if the bill passes, which given Labour are whipping for it to do so will happen, means that a rape victim could be forced to call their rapist by female pronouns in court, and the rapist can then demand to be placed in a women's prison.
The Scottish govt had argued that it didn't have the legislative competence to pass this but since it's not clear that it has the legislative competence to pass much of the bill - the change in age from 18 to 16 for example- that's entirely specious.
I find it somewhat strange that so many words and so much effort have been expended on here in the last few days about a 2000 year old possible assault by an entity thst many involved in that discussion does not exist, while this atrocity of a bill is in the news.
-
Now that you point it out the juxtaposition of the response to the two issues is certainly jarring, NS.
I just can't fathom what the heck is going on in the minds of the politicians involved.
If you are charged with rape/sexual assault against a woman then the vast majority of these cases are crimes that will have been committed by men. They should still be treated as such until the sentence is passed and, if applicable, the jail term served.
-
Just to add the debate halted yesterday because the lights in the chamber are on an automatic timer. There is more today but it is being rushed through and will finish today. It's difficult to see any reason for this given the lack of a legislative programme from the Scottish Govt, and thevobvious contentiousness BUT Kate Forbes, the Finance Minister and 'rising star' is on maternity leave. Given her known religious views, it's likely she would vote against and have to resign/be sacked.
-
Have to say I'm ashamed at what is happening in Holyrood.
I suspect they are pushing this contentious bill through now to avoid any flak occurring to soon before a GE: perhaps they think people have short memories, and they don't!
-
Dr Sandhesh Gulhane, Scottish Conservative shadow health secretary, tweeted: “No Matter what side of the debate you are on the #GRRBill we all agree this is rushed and stage three must be afforded time for proper scrutiny.”
"Some say First Minister wants it done before Kate Forbes returns as she doesn’t want another high profile resignation"
I think it's very worrying that this is the state of democracy in Scotland. Not seeing much point to independence if half the population are having their protection from predatory men taken away. Especially in relation to sexual assaults by predatory men posing as trans women and after reading the article about disabled women and their need for intimate care from someone of the same sex being disregarded by these reforms.
From https://www.thenational.scot/news/23207107.activists-hopeful-scottish-parliament-gender-debate-hits-day-two/
SNP MP Joanna Cherry, who has been a prominent critic of the bill, spoke alongside Scottish Conservative MSP Pam Gosal, Alba MP Neale Hanvey, and former leader of Scottish Labour Johann Lamont.
“I know for a fact that there are people in both the Westminster and the Holyrood groups who have serious reservations about this legislation, but who have felt unable to speak out,” she said.
“I think some people are scared to speak out in this debate because when you do speak out, you’re often wrongly branded as a transphobe or a bigot."
“I’ve also received rape and death threats and, as is a matter of public record, I’ve had no public support from my political party despite those rape and death threats, so I think many parliamentarians are just trying to keep out of this debate because they’re afraid to speak up.”
It must be very hard to speak out in the face of threats of violence and with no public support from her party. She is very brave.
-
And so many on here to indulge in ignoring what's happening.
-
Sadly passed. Scottish Labour all voted for it despite having voted for amendments to prevent sex offenders having or applying for a GRC. 9 SNP rebels. Green and Lib Dems unanimous in their rape enablement.
ETA - My mistake 2 Labour MSPs voted against.
-
The magificent Elaine Miller
https://twitter.com/ForWomenScot/status/1605997661148127232?t=2pb6CPUUNUGgMaGQoS6iKQ&s=19
-
Excellent from Susan Dalgety
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/scotlands-gender-recognition-reform-bill-may-have-passed-but-women-are-still-rallying-to-oppose-it-susan-dalgety-3964382
-
Encouraging: Cabinet Office scrapped a series of “gender inclusion” workshops after civil servants complained they were “scientifically nonsensical”
https://twitter.com/ga11acher/status/1604214119607029768
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/cabinet-office-scraps-gender-inclusion-workshops-after-complaints-from-civil-servants/ar-AA15oKsL
-
Man rapes and murders woman but is referred to here as a 'woman'. Ludicrous, dangerous, and stupid.
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1610519845681991680?t=QMtksgcnLAxDmtzZc-YDDQ&s=19
-
Non binary, the preserve of those who fear they have no personality.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-64164011
-
In the scale of things one person losing their job in a gaming company is nothing but being fired for following 2 accounts on Twitter...
https://nichegamer.com/limited-run-games-fires-cm-over-twitter/
-
How many trans gender people are there in England and Wales?
Well, the census results are in:
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1611295339746660352
asked “Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?” for the first time.
Among those who answered “No”:
▪️ 118,000 (0.24%) didn't write in a response
▪️ 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans man
▪️ 48,000 (0.10%) identified as a trans woman
▪️ 30,000 (0.06%) identified as non-binary
▪️ 18,000 (0.04%) wrote in a different gender identity
-
Great letter
https://archive.ph/2023.01.10-083937/https://www.thenational.scot/politics/23224219.women-will-keep-fighting-despite-barrage-claims-bigots/
-
So what do you do if you don't like a viewpoint. Discuss it? No. Shut it down.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-backlash-anti-trans-talk-1.6708251
-
So what do you do if you don't like a viewpoint. Discuss it? No. Shut it down.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/mcgill-backlash-anti-trans-talk-1.6708251
Thread from Malcolm Clark on this
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1612963357694332931.html
-
And a first hand account
https://elizamondegreen.substack.com/p/this-is-what-no-debate-looks-like
-
Dangerous madness
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1613662887305777152.html
-
Ooh err - leaving aside opinions on the GRRB - this is fascinating.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64288757
-
Some guidance on what's going on
https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/section-35-of-the-scotland-act-and-vetoing-devolved-legislation/
-
And an explanatory article in The Guardian from Martin Kettle:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/17/blocking-scotland-gender-recognition-bill-rishi-sunak
-
The UK Govt's statement on why it is using Section 35
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/statement-of-reasons-related-to-the-use-of-section-35-of-the-scotland-act-1998/html-version
-
Good, the Science Museum putting up stuff like this on trans is about as worthwhile as an exhibit on how great believing in souls is.
https://archive.ph/2023.01.17-190314/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/17/science-museum-trans-display-remove-propaganda-complaints/
-
Nonsensical and unscientific compromise from World Athletics. Testosterone is not the sole issue. Drugged are not women.
https://archive.vn/XIzFr
-
I am happy to accept that Kirsten Oswald and Kaukab Stewart weren't aware of the banner behind them BUT they chose to be at a protest where this was held up and wasn't the only such sign. So I have an SNP MP and MSP at a rally where there are signs calling for my wife to be murdered. That's at very least not due diligence.
This follows various MPs from Labour, SNP, and Lib Dems attending a rally in London this week where those on the platform shared it with Sarah Jane Baker, a man who says he's a woman who spent 30 years in prison for kidnapping and torturing someone, and then attempting to kill a fellow prisoner. Last year they attended a rally with a sign calling for JK Rowling to be killed. Having had this pointed out, there have been lots of claims of ignorance but if you are sharing a platform not knowing that then it shows you as stupid and incompetent.
One of those who shared a platform was Lliyd Russell Moyle MP, fresh from a hate filled speech targetting Miriam Cates MP, which he followed by crossing the floor to sit on benches on the Tory side to stare at Cates. Moyle is an MP who had to resign previously for accusing Rowling of weaponising her domestic abuse.
Earlier today Rowling retweeted a tweet that was hoping that the Standing For Women protest being held on 5th Feb which both my wife and I will be would have a car driven to into it. He followed this with a call for Rowling to be shot.
That's just a short runthrough of a very few of the threats over the last few days.
-
And great article from Janice Turner
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/2a58f174-9902-11ed-91ab-4070465550ba?shareToken=7edb81416ad87cbf0fa9129c5b6b065e
.
-
And good article trom Sonia Sodha
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/21/stoking-a-culture-war-no-nicola-sturgeon-this-is-about-balancing-conflicting-rights
-
She cries alone at night too often
He smokes, and drinks, and don't come home at all
Only women bleed
Only women bleed
Only women bleed
In other news Sturgeon thinks that 16-year-olds can make decisions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64359950
She doesn't know many, does she?
I mean I'm sure they can make decisions, whether you would trust the decisions they make depends very much on the 16 year old you are dealing with.
-
She cries alone at night too often
He smokes, and drinks, and don't come home at all
Only women bleed
Only women bleed
Only women bleed
In other news Sturgeon thinks that 16-year-olds can make decisions:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-64359950
She doesn't know many, does she?
I mean I'm sure they can make decisions, whether you would trust the decisions they make depends very much on the 16 year old you are dealing with.
There are obvious questions to be asked about what age things should be allowed but you can't get a tattoo till 18 but there have been under 18s in the UK who have had double mastectomies because of 'gender' issues.
-
Amelia Strickler, British Women's shot putt champion speaking out against the incoherent guddle of World Athletics' position on women's sport
https://archive.vn/QUXMZ
-
And good article by Sean Ingle
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2023/jan/23/world-athletics-transgender-regulations-see-scientific-rigour-give-way-to-a-fudge
-
Joan Smith on the misogyny of transactivism which so many politicians seem blind to even when they share a platform with those espousing it
https://unherd.com/thepost/politicians-are-mysteriously-blind-to-trans-activists-misogyny/
-
And long post from WoS on the same issue
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-grooming-of-holyrood/
-
Madness
-
Madness
It's not clear to me what that means. Is it saying that people who identify as trans or non binary can post pictures of the bare breasts of any woman. Is it saying that anybody can post pictures of the bare breasts of trans women? Or is it saying that trans non / binary people can post pictures of their own breasts or those of other trans/non binary people? what about the breasts and nipples of trans men?
If it's saying "you can post pictures of trans women's breasts", it's really saying "there's no problem because their breasts aren't real".
Personally, I think the whole thing about female breasts causing the collapse of society is a bit crazy. I say this as somebody who had a Facebook post removed because it had the album cover of Electric Ladyland in it.
-
It's not clear to me what that means. Is it saying that people who identify as trans or non binary can post pictures of the bare breasts of any woman. Is it saying that anybody can post pictures of the bare breasts of trans women? Or is it saying that trans non / binary people can post pictures of their own breasts or those of other trans/non binary people? what about the breasts and nipples of trans men?
If it's saying "you can post pictures of trans women's breasts", it's really saying "there's no problem because their breasts aren't real".
Personally, I think the whole thing about female breasts causing the collapse of society is a bit crazy. I say this as somebody who had a Facebook post removed because it had the album cover of Electric Ladyland in it.
I doubt anyone knows what it means.
-
I doubt anyone knows what it means.
Presumably somebody at Meta knows what it means.
I think I covered all the possible interpretations and all of them are bonkers in one way or another.
-
Presumably somebody at Meta knows what it means.
I think I covered all the possible interpretations and all of them are bonkers in one way or another.
Given that non binary makes no sense, it seems to me impossible to know what it means.
-
Was, is, and will remain a man
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/transgender-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-of-raping-two-women-in-clydebank-while-a-man
-
Was, is, and will remain a man
https://news.stv.tv/west-central/transgender-woman-isla-bryson-guilty-of-raping-two-women-in-clydebank-while-a-man
From the defence:
'If you accept that evidence, that she is transitioning, that she is aiming to continue on that path to becoming female gender, that goes a long way to acquitting her of these charges'
Ffs!
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/glasgow-clydebank-high-court-transgender-b1054979.html
-
And he's being sent to a women's prison.
Disgrace.
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/scottish-news/transgender-double-rapist-sent-womens-29037748
-
Thread on the case with link to the petition to update the Equality Act
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1617907179822153731.html
-
Women athletes speaking out against World Athletics nonsensical policy.
https://archive.vn/r6l8k
-
Given that non binary makes no sense, it seems to me impossible to know what it means.
Why does it make no sense? It's seems fairly obvious that somebody who is non binary rejects being pigeon holed into one of the two (binary, see) genders. What doesn't make sense is categorising them together with trans gender people. Non binary people reject traditional gender. Trans women embrace it.
-
Why does it make no sense? It's seems fairly obvious that somebody who is non binary rejects being pigeon holed into one of the two (binary, see) genders. What doesn't make sense is categorising them together with trans gender people. Non binary people reject traditional gender. Trans women embrace it.
Because gender isn't defined beyond stereotypes and I have no idea what a binary person would be.
-
Ffs!
https://twitter.com/TimesRadio/status/1618280972885057537?t=F1K4vgk5VRlghob8Eqrk7A&s=19
-
Because gender isn't defined beyond stereotypes and I have no idea what a binary person would be.
There are two stereotypical genders. Hence binary. In this context a binary person would be one who identifies as one of the two stereotypical genders.
-
There are two stereotypical genders. Hence binary. In this context a binary person would be one who identifies as one of the two stereotypical genders.
And what of you don't believe in the stereotypes? Gender is the equivalent of a soul. It's fine for the religious but not something to be legislated on as if it were real.
-
Article by Joan Smith on the mess on reporting of the tecently convicted male Clydebank rapist.
https://unherd.com/thepost/why-cant-the-media-get-the-clydebank-rapists-pronouns-right/
-
At least some good news as regards the likely prison that Adam Gordon will be held in - though stiil in Cornton Vale at moment
https://news.sky.com/story/transgender-woman-convicted-of-rape-will-not-be-held-in-all-female-prison-sturgeon-says-12795942
-
“It takes a great deal of bravery to stand up to our enemies, but just as much to stand up to our friends.”
https://archive.vn/b5iKK
-
There are two stereotypical genders. Hence binary. In this context a binary person would be one who identifies as one of the two stereotypical genders.
No one ever asked us before if we identify with a gender so I wouldn't know what to say. If asked I would say that my gender is a biological woman. Gender seems to be like having a nationality or a passport - if you fill some forms and become a dual national you can fly out of the country on one passport, enter the country you are a dual national of on a different passport, when you want local hotel rates rather than pay international rates you produce the passport of the country you are in.
Not sure how these stereotypical genders were decided and which particular stereotype is the defining one that tells you which gender you should choose - might have to identify as different genders at different times of the day E.g. when you need the toilet and one seems to have a shorter queue you can be relevant gender for the less busy toilet, when you're in a sinking boat where traditionally women and children are rescued first you can pick your appropriate gender e.g a biological woman who is feeling chivalrous and is a strong swimmer might have to call herself a man during the rescue.
Kier Starmer seems to be unsure what makes a person a man or a woman - he's not the only one. It's confusing - if you find wearing trousers more comfortable and don't wear make-up and enjoy driving should you identify as a man during those activities and if you like cleaning the kitchen and getting the laundry done do you identify as a woman when ticking those chores off your list regardless of your biological sex?
-
At least some good news as regards the likely prison that Adam Gordon will be held in - though stiil in Cornton Vale at moment
https://news.sky.com/story/transgender-woman-convicted-of-rape-will-not-be-held-in-all-female-prison-sturgeon-says-12795942
Good news.
Also, the government seem to have changed their transgender prisoner policy: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework
As a result of the new policy, transgender women who are in future sentenced to custody and
have male genitalia
OR
who have been convicted of sexual offences
will not serve their sentences in the general women’s estate unless there are exceptional circumstances.
-
Good news.
Also, the government seem to have changed their transgender prisoner policy: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/update-on-changes-to-transgender-prisoner-policy-framework
As a result of the new policy, transgender women who are in future sentenced to custody and
have male genitalia
OR
who have been convicted of sexual offences
will not serve their sentences in the general women’s estate unless there are exceptional circumstances.
That change in policy does not apply to Scotland. And it doesn't go far enough imo.
-
And what of you don't believe in the stereotypes?
What would it mean to believe in gender stereotypes? I mean, they certainly exist.
Gender is the equivalent of a soul. It's fine for the religious but not something to be legislated on as if it were real.
I think that depends on the context. If a man decides he wants to be treated as a woman and to "live as a woman", that's up to him and his right to do so should be protected up to a point - that point being when it brings him in to conflict with women's sex based rights.
-
What would it mean to believe in gender stereotypes? I mean, they certainly exist.
I think that depends on the context. If a man decides he wants to be treated as a woman and to "live as a woman", that's up to him and his right to do so should be protected up to a point - that point being when it brings him in to conflict with women's sex based rights.
Why legislate for it? What does being 'treated like a woman' of 'living like a woman' mean?
-
No one ever asked us before if we identify with a gender so I wouldn't know what to say. If asked I would say that my gender is a biological woman. Gender seems to be like having a nationality or a passport - if you fill some forms and become a dual national you can fly out of the country on one passport, enter the country you are a dual national of on a different passport, when you want local hotel rates rather than pay international rates you produce the passport of the country you are in.
Not sure how these stereotypical genders were decided and which particular stereotype is the defining one that tells you which gender you should choose - might have to identify as different genders at different times of the day E.g. when you need the toilet and one seems to have a shorter queue you can be relevant gender for the less busy toilet, when you're in a sinking boat where traditionally women and children are rescued first you can pick your appropriate gender e.g a biological woman who is feeling chivalrous and is a strong swimmer might have to call herself a man during the rescue.
Kier Starmer seems to be unsure what makes a person a man or a woman - he's not the only one. It's confusing - if you find wearing trousers more comfortable and don't wear make-up and enjoy driving should you identify as a man during those activities and if you like cleaning the kitchen and getting the laundry done do you identify as a woman when ticking those chores off your list regardless of your biological sex?
It's my opinion that gender is one of those things like race that turns out to be incoherent when you examine it closely. There is a biological core to it but we accrete stuff on top that's really just societal attitudes.
The definition of woman used to be adult human female, but a lot of people are saying "it's whoever identifies as a woman". Well, that's circular and what does it mean to identify as a woman? Then there are these rules we have in place about legally changing your gender. You have to live as a woman for a period of time. What does it mean to live as a woman? What do I have to do differently if I want to live as a woman? Do I have to wear dresses and women's shoes? Does it mean I have to stop pretending I understand the offside rule? I'm already rubbish at DIY, so there's a start.
How does a man live as a woman and not buy into the idea that "woman" is just a name for a gender stereotype?
-
Why legislate for it?
Because men that identify as women are often subject to prejudice. It should be illegal to fire an employee for being a trans woman, for example.
What does being 'treated like a woman' of 'living like a woman' mean?
I have absolutely no idea. If I announced my intention to transition and I am told to live as a woman for a year in order to become eligible, what should I do differently? Can anybody tell me that?
-
Because men that identify as women are often subject to prejudice. It should be illegal to fire an employee for being a trans woman, for example.
I have absolutely no idea. If I announced my intention to transition and I am told to live as a woman for a year in order to become eligible, what should I do differently? Can anybody tell me that?
You are reifying the idea that someone is a 'trans women' which you then admit you can't define. Surely it's better to remove the idea of stereotyoes and make it illegal to have a dress code that applies to a single sex?
And again, having legislation that you admit isn't defined is worthless. And it creates the conflict with women's rights.
-
You are reifying the idea that someone is a 'trans women' which you then admit you can't define.
Trans women do exist. Some of them go so far as to have their genitalia extensively remodelled. There's a real condition here - no reifying needed.
Surely it's better to remove the idea of stereotyoes and make it illegal to have a dress code that applies to a single sex?
Sure it is.
And again, having legislation that you admit isn't defined is worthless. And it creates the conflict with women's rights.
It's easy to define legislation that protects trans people's rights. e.g. the right not to get fired for being trans. The problems arise because they want what I would describe as a privilege i.e. the privilege to be exempt from restrictions applied to other males in female only spaces.
-
More on the tragic farce of Adam Gordon
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-64430756
-
Trans women do exist. Some of them go so far as to have their genitalia extensively remodelled. There's a real condition here - no reifying needed.
Sure it is.
It's easy to define legislation that protects trans people's rights. e.g. the right not to get fired for being trans. The problems arise because they want what I would describe as a privilege i.e. the privilege to be exempt from restrictions applied to other males in female only spaces.
Men who say they are women exist. They aren't women unless you reify the stereotypes. Some msy be delusional, some maybe lying for fetishistic reasons, sone may be predators. What is a trans person? What is 'being trans'?
-
Great article by Janice Turner on the disgraceful guddle politicians have made over women's prisons.
https://archive.vn/Ag9GB
-
Great article by Janice Turner on the disgraceful guddle politicians have made over women's prisons.
https://archive.vn/Ag9GB
And illustration of the wider guddle
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-64430756
-
And the guddle continues
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64438457
-
Better late than never but it's very late
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64444530
-
Men who say they are women exist. They aren't women unless you reify the stereotypes. Some msy be delusional, some maybe lying for fetishistic reasons, sone may be predators. What is a trans person? What is 'being trans'?
Are you trying to deny that trans women as a class exists? Note: saying they exist is not the same as saying they are women. These people (excluding those who are less than sincere) really think they were born in the wrong body. The only issue is how far we should go to accommodating their needs and desires.
-
Are you trying to deny that trans women as a class exists? Note: saying they exist is not the same as saying they are women. These people (excluding those who are less than sincere) really think they were born in the wrong body. The only issue is how far we should go to accommodating their needs and desires.
I think people who think they are Napoleon exist. I think they need treated for mental health issues.
-
A response from Murray Blackburn MacKenzie to the statement from the Justice Secretary
https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/01/29/mbm-response-to-the-justice-secretary-statement-on-protecting-prisoners/
-
I think people who think they are Napoleon exist. I think they need treated for mental health issues.
How do you define the difference between a mental health issue and not a mental health issue? Given you have a mental issue, what is the best way to treat it? If somebody tells you they were born into the wrong body, how do you know they are wrong? Have you got any idea what it that feels like? I certainly don't.
-
How do you define the difference between a mental health issue and not a mental health issue? Given you have a mental issue, what is the best way to treat it? If somebody tells you they were born into the wrong body, how do you know they are wrong? Have you got any idea what it that feels like? I certainly don't.
Do you have any idea how someone who says they are Napoleon feels? How do you know they are wrong?
-
Lunacy
https://reduxx.info/american-red-cross-allowing-blood-donors-to-self-declare-sex/
-
'Does Brighton have a woman problem?'
https://www.brightonandhovenews.org/2023/01/30/does-brighton-have-a-woman-problem/
-
Sturgeon can't tell if Adam Graham is a women because she has insufficient information, and yet has voted for a bill that removes any need for information.
https://www.holyrood.com/news/view,nicola-sturgeon-refuses-whether-isla-bryson-man
-
Good sense on student's groups being able to be single sex where appropriate. Sad that Bristol Student's Union fell for Stonewall's misrepresentation of the Equality Act - though they are far from unique in doing so.
https://archive.vn/bryzT
-
And great article by Joan Smith on why 'liberals' got this debate wrong.
https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2023/01/liberals-keep-being-fooled-gender-debate-keir-starmer-nicola-sturgeon
-
Good article by Malcolm Clark
https://thecritic.co.uk/all-rise-for-the-female-penis/
-
The BBC changing gay history to promote the trans agenda. The claim in the following piece is that Marsha P. Johnson (Malcolm Michaels Jr) was a trans activist at the time of Stonewall:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zmchkmn
This is from the above article, note there is no qualification applied to the identification of Marsha as transgender.
Marsha was a transgender activist and also a central figure in the Stonewall riots of 1969, where members of the LGBT community rose up in protest against police raids on the bar of the same name in Christopher Street, New York.
Whereas a quick search of the internet will provide any number of sources that quote Johnson's own words where he always identifies as a man. A drag queen, but still a man.
He described himself as a transvestite and defined it as follows:
"A transvestite is still like a boy, very manly looking, a feminine boy."
Johnson never identified as transgender, although that term wasn't in general use at the time, all his words indicate that he still considered himself a man.
So why does the BBC consider it ok to promote what is a lie?
-
The BBC changing gay history to promote the trans agenda. The claim in the following piece is that Marsha P. Johnson (Malcolm Michaels Jr) was a trans activist at the time of Stonewall:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/articles/zmchkmn
This is from the above article, note there is no qualification applied to the identification of Marsha as transgender.
Whereas a quick search of the internet will provide any number of sources that quote Johnson's own words where he always identifies as a man. A drag queen, but still a man.
He described himself as a transvestite and defined it as follows:
"A transvestite is still like a boy, very manly looking, a feminine boy."
Johnson never identified as transgender, although that term wasn't in general use at the time, all his words indicate that he still considered himself a man.
So why does the BBC consider it ok to promote what is a lie?
And didn't arrive at the riot till it was nearly over.
-
And didn't arrive at the riot till it was nearly over.
Indeed, although he was always completely open about that fact.
-
Article on the event my wife and I attended in support on Sunday
https://grousebeater.wordpress.com/2023/02/08/standing-for-women-rally/
-
When you believe, or possibly pretend to believe, in absurdities you will struggle to make sense.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-64590421
-
The circumstances of the recent Scottish case of the rapist who has subsequently, and seemingly conveniently, adopted a trans identity after being charged confirms that conflating biological sex with 'gender' hasn't survived this encounter with reality.
That the likes of Nicola Sturgeon finds herself dancing around the issue, by referring to him as a 'rapist' rather than acknowledge that this guy is a biological male, is utterly farcical: at some point she, and others who are also evading the obvious, will surely run out of corners to paint themselves into.
-
Long and devastating read from someone who worked in the trans 'health' care process in the US, initially being highly supportive of it.
https://www.thefp.com/p/i-thought-i-was-saving-trans-kids
-
Article on Hannah Barnes's book on the Tavistock gender clinic issues.
https://archive.is/Ax1zR
-
Interview where Angela Rayner is incoherent and illogical as regards the Adam Graham case
https://archive.vn/Q1DGL
-
Interesting choice of quote to headline.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-64729304
-
Joan Smith on a deeply lazy stupid Onion article
https://unherd.com/thepost/the-onions-j-k-rowling-interview-isnt-satire/
-
'Transgender rapist Isla Bryson jailed for eight years for attacks on two women when she was a man' - and he still is a man
https://news.sky.com/story/transgender-rapist-isla-bryson-jailed-for-eight-years-for-attacks-on-two-women-when-she-was-a-man-12821513
-
Amanda Abbington gets accused of being 'transphobic' for commenting on a mother and baby drag show.
https://archive.vn/0DK82
-
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/feb/27/maths-teacher-accused-of-misgendering-pupil-on-religious-grounds
-
A difficult one. I personally don't have a problem with his calling a person by their original gender. However, the briefest of looks at his website Here:
https://www.joshuasutcliffe.com/about
gives me pause to think that maybe I would not want him educating children, as his case is about much more than that.
It would be ok if he stuck to teaching Maths but he does according to reports attempt to spread his version of religion. Which comes closer to hatred than it does religion.
More details here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11623315/Christian-maths-teacher-accused-misgendering-trans-pupil-denies-misconduct.html
Also from his website:
will also preface my remarks with this statement which proposes my position. The homosexual act itself is an abomination and should not be condoned by our society. People who commit such acts should face a fine or even prison. Equally, heterosexual sex outside of marriage is an abomination and should be punished with a fine or imprisonment. Both are punishable in line with rape or paedophilia.
You'll note that not only am I to be treated the same as a rapist or paedophile, but so are many of you if you ever dared to eat that fruit outside of wedlock.
Apart from all that he sounds thoroughly lovely though.
His video clips are fun though, everybody giving absolutely zero fucks about him.
-
A difficult one. I personally don't have a problem with his calling a person by their original gender. However, the briefest of looks at his website Here:
https://www.joshuasutcliffe.com/about
gives me pause to think that maybe I would not want him educating children, as his case is about much more than that.
It would be ok if he stuck to teaching Maths but he does according to reports attempt to spread his version of religion. Which comes closer to hatred than it does religion.
More details here: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11623315/Christian-maths-teacher-accused-misgendering-trans-pupil-denies-misconduct.html
Also from his website:
You'll note that not only am I to be treated the same as a rapist or paedophile, but so are many of you if you ever dared to eat that fruit outside of wedlock.
Apart from all that he sounds thoroughly lovely though.
His video clips are fun though, everybody giving absolutely zero fucks about him.
Individuals are entitled to their personal views.
They are not, however, entitled to bring those personal views into their professional roles where those views contravene their professional obligations. From what I can see this individual has activity and deliberately using his professional role as a teacher to promulgate his own personal view - that isn't right.
In addition, I imagine that the school will have taken a decision on the pronoun that should be used when referring to the student in question. That will be a decision that the school will expect all teachers to comply with. It would appear that Sutcliffe failed to comply with that decision as a deliberate action. That again would be to fail to comply with his professional obligations, but is also simple discourteous and likely to result in distress on the part of the student. And, of course, the interests and well-being of the pupil should take precedence over an individual's personal opinions when they are acting in a professional capacity as a teacher.
-
Moderator.
A separate thread called 'As if we've got maths teachers to spare.' has been merged into this thread since the subject matter (involving the use of pronouns) is appropriate in this thread.
-
Individuals are entitled to their personal views.
They are not, however, entitled to bring those personal views into their professional roles where those views contravene their professional obligations. From what I can see this individual has activity and deliberately using his professional role as a teacher to promulgate his own personal view - that isn't right.
In addition, I imagine that the school will have taken a decision on the pronoun that should be used when referring to the student in question. That will be a decision that the school will expect all teachers to comply with. It would appear that Sutcliffe failed to comply with that decision as a deliberate action. That again would be to fail to comply with his professional obligations, but is also simple discourteous and likely to result in distress on the part of the student. And, of course, the interests and well-being of the pupil should take precedence over an individual's personal opinions when they are acting in a professional capacity as a teacher.
Is it a professional obligation to have to state a political position which pronouns are in our society?
If a teenage Rachel Dolezal said they should be referred to as black, would you say it was discourteous not to do so?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
-
Is it a professional obligation to have to state a political position which pronouns are in our society?
If a teenage Rachel Dolezal said they should be referred to as black, would you say it was discourteous not to do so?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Dolezal
My comment was a rather broader response than just trans issues - you will note that this reply has been moved into this thread. Indeed the teacher is also alleged to have stepped over the line of their professional obligations in other areas too, notably religion in apparently signposting his students to videos where he denigrated islam and also promulgating anti-gay views during a maths class.
The point is that there are things which are expected of you as a professional which sometimes may not align with your own personal opinion. If that is the case it is your professional responsibility to park you personal views at the door.
On your straw man - it is unlikely that a teacher would be in a position where they would need to refer to a particular pupil's ethnicity, nor is it likely that the school would have taken a view, so there isn't an equivalence. That isn't the case for pronouns - you might think it bonkers that an individual might wish to be referred to by a different pronoun, but if that is something that has been agreed by the school in a professional manner then those working within that school have a professional obligation to act in a similar manner.
A better example might be where a school has a policy which allows certain religious dress to be worn in school. If a teacher disagreed with that on the basis of their personal viewpoint that would be up to them (e.g. because they thought it wrong to allow opt-outs to uniform on religious grounds). What they wouldn't be permitted to do would be to discipline that child or act towards them in a manner that caused distress on the basis of something that was school policy (for example telling the child to remove a head scarf). To do so would be acting counter to their professional responsibilities.
-
My comment was a rather broader response than just trans issues - you will note that this reply has been moved into this thread. Indeed the teacher is also alleged to have stepped over the line of their professional obligations in other areas too, notably religion in apparently signposting his students to videos where he denigrated islam and also promulgating anti-gay views during a maths class.
The point is that there are things which are expected of you as a professional which sometimes may not align with your own personal opinion. If that is the case it is your professional responsibility to park you personal views at the door.
On your straw man - it is unlikely that a teacher would be in a position where they would need to refer to a particular pupil's ethnicity, nor is it likely that the school would have taken a view, so there isn't an equivalence. That isn't the case for pronouns - you might think it bonkers that an individual might wish to be referred to by a different pronoun, but if that is something that has been agreed by the school in a professional manner then those working within that school have a professional obligation to act in a similar manner.
A better example might be where a school has a policy which allows certain religious dress to be worn in school. If a teacher disagreed with that on the basis of their personal viewpoint that would be up to them (e.g. because they thought it wrong to allow opt-outs to uniform on religious grounds). What they wouldn't be permitted to do would be to discipline that child or act towards them in a manner that caused distress on the basis of something that was school policy (for example telling the child to remove a head scarf). To do so would be acting counter to their professional responsibilities.
You made specific comments, I questioned whether they worked generalised.
As to a strawman, you mean a hypothetical.
-
My comment was a rather broader response than just trans issues - you will note that this reply has been moved into this thread. Indeed the teacher is also alleged to have stepped over the line of their professional obligations in other areas too, notably religion in apparently signposting his students to videos where he denigrated islam and also promulgating anti-gay views during a maths class.
The point is that there are things which are expected of you as a professional which sometimes may not align with your own personal opinion. If that is the case it is your professional responsibility to park you personal views at the door.
On your straw man - it is unlikely that a teacher would be in a position where they would need to refer to a particular pupil's ethnicity, nor is it likely that the school would have taken a view, so there isn't an equivalence. That isn't the case for pronouns - you might think it bonkers that an individual might wish to be referred to by a different pronoun, but if that is something that has been agreed by the school in a professional manner then those working within that school have a professional obligation to act in a similar manner.
A better example might be where a school has a policy which allows certain religious dress to be worn in school. If a teacher disagreed with that on the basis of their personal viewpoint that would be up to them (e.g. because they thought it wrong to allow opt-outs to uniform on religious grounds). What they wouldn't be permitted to do would be to discipline that child or act towards them in a manner that caused distress on the basis of something that was school policy (for example telling the child to remove a head scarf). To do so would be acting counter to their professional responsibilities.
I've read this a few tines now and haven't seen any answer to the question:
Is it a professional obligation to have to state a political position which pronouns are in our society?
-
As to a strawman, you mean a hypothetical.
Nope I mean a strawman. This from wiki (with my emphasis):
'The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.'
You have argued against an example which differs is several key respects as I pointed out - hence it isn't similar at all, merely superficially similar. Hence yours is a straw man.
-
Nope I mean a strawman. This from wiki (with my emphasis):
'The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.'
You have argued against an example which differs is several key respects as I pointed out - hence it isn't similar at all, merely superficially similar. Hence yours is a straw man.
It's similar in the way that you argued that you shouldn't disregard a statement of self id because it was discourteous. You have made no case that there is a difference.
Why do you think it is necessary to accept the self of a teenager as a sex but not a race? And if you want to exchange 'gender' for sex, define gender.
-
Is it a professional obligation to have to state a political position which pronouns are in our society?
I don't really understand what you are asking, but there are times when there will be a professional obligation which applies to those in a professional position which might not accord with personal views.
So a GP may have a professional obligation to provide a pregnant woman with impartial advice regarding termination of a pregnancy even if they oppose abortion.
A solicitor may have a professional obligation to act in the best interests of a client in a divorce case even if they personally oppose divorce.
A teacher in a pastoral position may have a professional obligation to act in a manner that is respectful and understanding where a pupil was come out as gay even if they personally think homosexuality is sinful.
The point being that the professional obligation are set by that profession with an expectation that everyone, during the time they are practicing that profession, should adhere to those obligations.
What they do, say or think in their free time is up to them, albeit with the proviso that publicly voicing certain private views may undermine your ability to act in a professional capacity or even bring your profession into disrepute.
-
I don't really understand what you are asking, but there are times when there will be a professional obligation which applies to those in a professional position which might not accord with personal views.
So a GP may have a professional obligation to provide a pregnant woman with impartial advice regarding termination of a pregnancy even if they oppose abortion.
A solicitor may have a professional obligation to act in the best interests of a client in a divorce case even if they personally oppose divorce.
A teacher may have a professional obligation to act in a manner that is respectful and understanding in a pastoral position where a pupil was come out as gay even if they personally think homosexuality is sinful.
The point being that the professional obligation are set by that profession with an expectation that everyone, during the time they are practicing that profession, should adhere to those obligations.
What they do, say or think in their free time is up to them, albeit with the proviso that publicly voicing certain private views may undermine your ability to act in a professional capacity or even bring your profession into disrepute.
The question which is both general and specific is one I would expect anyone with a basic grasp of ethics to understand.
The general one is 'Are you saying because a something you deem as 'professional' statement is made, people should follow that, and that any challenge they make is wrong?'
And specifically 'Do you think that given gender is a political issue that a teacher should not be able to express their disagreement?'
-
...given gender is a political issue...
Gender has been turned into a political issue by the extremists on both sides. What it should be is a grown-up discussion about ethics (human rights) informed by science.
Trying to pretend that somebody self-identifying with a different racial background is the same sort of thing and transgender is just silly.
Male and female brains are not identical, and the differences are determined at a later stage of development than the genitals, so unless you happen to think that biology gets everything perfectly right every time, which it quite clearly doesn't because there are cases of very obvious ambiguity (intersex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)), then some cases of less obvious mismatch between brain and genitals, are pretty much inevitable. There is also direct evidence that the brains of transgender people are, in some ways, more in line with their gender identity than their biological sex. For example:
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21334362/)
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/)
Cortical thickness in untreated transsexuals (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22941717/)
Hypothalamic Response to the Chemo-Signal Androstadienone in Gender Dysphoric Children and Adolescents (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037295/)
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/)
Of course, there is pretty much as much stupidity on the other side of the 'debate' as well, such as trying to pretend that biological sex doesn't matter and that we should simply accept unlimited self-identification in every situation.
The absurd, pointless, culture war that this has been turned into, by extreme views on both side, is not only ignorant and stupid, but is causing real harm to real, and often very vulnerable, people. I have spoken to trans people (both MtF and FtM) on other forums and heard some of their experiences and some of the shit they have to put up with, and I can only feel sympathy.
-
Gender has been turned into a political issue by the extremists on both sides. What it should be is a grown-up discussion about ethics (human rights) informed by science.
Trying to pretend that somebody self-identifying with a different racial background is the same sort of thing and transgender is just silly.
Male and female brains are not identical, and the differences are determined at a later stage of development than the genitals, so unless you happen to think that biology gets everything perfectly right every time, which it quite clearly doesn't because there are cases of very obvious ambiguity (intersex (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex)), then some cases of less obvious mismatch between brain and genitals, are pretty much inevitable. There is also direct evidence that the brains of transgender people are, in some ways, more in line with their gender identity than their biological sex. For example:
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21334362/)
A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7477289/)
Cortical thickness in untreated transsexuals (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22941717/)
Hypothalamic Response to the Chemo-Signal Androstadienone in Gender Dysphoric Children and Adolescents (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4037295/)
Male-to-female transsexuals have female neuron numbers in a limbic nucleus (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10843193/)
Of course, there is pretty much as much stupidity on the other side of the 'debate' as well, such as trying to pretend that biological sex doesn't matter and that we should simply accept unlimited self-identification in every situation.
The absurd, pointless, culture war that this has been turned into, by extreme views on both side, is not only ignorant and stupid, but is causing real harm to real, and often very vulnerable, people. I have spoken to trans people (both MtF and FtM) on other forums and heard some of their experiences and some of the shit they have to put up with, and I can only feel sympathy.
I think your analysis of 'both sides' is a lazy argument that assumes it is merely a matter of some ephemeral compromise. You say the it's a pointless culture war which I doubt you mean seriously since that would imply that you think the questions of single sex spaces for women is pointless.
The possible differences in brains based on sex is a little researched area and has little to do with the industry around surgical and medical treatment of people, especially given that there is little or no evaluation based on the science when it comes to treatment.
You say you have talked with trans people on other forums, how many detransitioners have you talked to?
ETA The reference to 'intersex', both a scientifically inaccurate term and one which tmany with Differences in Sexual Development abhor, is I would suggest irrelevant to a lot of the debate since, as mentioned above, the science is not driving the medical and surgical treatment. There are also no studies that I am aware of that cover any lunk bwteen DSDs and the idea of 'trans'.
-
I think your analysis of 'both sides' is a lazy argument that assumes it is merely a matter of some ephemeral compromise. You say the it's a pointless culture war which I doubt you mean seriously since that would imply that you think the questions of single sex spaces for women is pointless.
You completely misunderstand. What I mean is that the issues are too serious for a culture war, i.e. the two extremes, that both think they have absolute truth on their side, just slagging each other off, to ever do them justice or offer proper solutions.
On the one hand, trying to pretend that transsexuals don't exist or, on the other, that biological sex just doesn't matter, isn't going to help anybody or resolve anything.
I'm not for a moment pretending that I have a neat set of answers to all the issues this raises, I'm just making the point that as long as the two groups are just yelling abuse at each other, the whole thing will remain unnecessarily toxic and harmful.
-
...
so unless you happen to think that biology gets everything perfectly right every time
...
Just highlighting this as I don't really understand the idea of biology getting things right or wrong. You seem to imply that there is an idea of 'right' - could you expand?
-
You completely misunderstand. What I mean is that the issues are too serious for a culture war, i.e. the two extremes, that both think they have absolute truth on their side, just slagging each other off, to ever do them justice or offer proper solutions.
On the one hand, trying to pretend that transsexuals don't exist or, on the other, that biological sex just doesn't matter, isn't going to help anybody or resolve anything.
I'm not for a moment pretending that I have a neat set of answers to all the issues this raises, I'm just making the point that as long as the two groups are just yelling abuse at each other, the whole thing will remain unnecessarily toxic and harmful.
And again, I think that's a lazy argument which potrays any comment on what you see as one side or the other as just shouting. And again I doubt you mean that - I should point out that I didn't 'completely misunderstand' your point since I said that I doubted that you meant it that way.
I note you use the term 'transexuals', I would suggest that that's a term very few people who are 'trans' would use to describe themselves.
EtA Indeed one of the issues here is the lack of definition of what 'transgender' or gender means in this context.
-
And again, I think that's a lazy argument which potrays any comment on what you see as one side or the other as just shouting.
Unfortunately much of what I see on the subject is about as much use as just shouting.
And again I doubt you mean that - I should point out that I didn't 'completely misunderstand' your point since I said that I doubted that you meant it that way.
Okay, point taken.
I note you use the term 'transexuals', I would suggest that that's a term very few people who are 'trans' would use to describe themselves.
Transsexual refers to people who want to "permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance" (Transsexual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual)) so in the context, transgender would probably have been more accurate, but getting too worked up about words seems to be part of the problem. That being said, I'd never deliberately use language that I knew would cause people unnecessary distress - which seems to be a deliberate part of the culture war, on both sides.
-
Unfortunately much of what I see on the subject is about as much use as just shouting.
Okay, point taken.
Transsexual refers to people who want to "permanently transition to the sex or gender with which they identify, usually seeking medical assistance" (Transsexual (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transsexual)) so in the context, transgender would probably have been more accurate, but getting too worked up about words seems to be part of the problem. That being said, I'd never deliberately use language that I knew would cause people unnecessary distress - which seems to be a deliberate part of the culture war, on both sides.
Given the importance of language to legislation, I think it's inevitable that it's something that people will get worked up about, and I would suggest rightly so.
As for not deliberately using language that would cause people 'unnecessary' distress, not sure that's achievable here specifically or in the general.
-
On Intetnational Women's Day, a man who says he's a woman is given a platform to explain what a woman is.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/international-womens-day-jordan-gray-trans-b2295599.html
-
Meet the new homophobia...
https://www.vice.com/en/article/neq9zx/whats-wrong-with-the-no-trans-dating-preference-debate
-
Do you have any idea how someone who says they are Napoleon feels? How do you know they are wrong?
It's trivially easy to tell if somebody is Napoleon or not. Not so so easy to verify a claim to be "born in the wrong body".
-
It's trivially easy to tell if somebody is Napoleon or not. Not so so easy to verify a claim to be "born in the wrong body".
On what basis might anyone have evidence to claim to be born on the wrong body? Indeed what does it even mean? If you allow an idea of 'souls' which this effectively is, how could you verify that they weren't Napoleon reincarnated?
-
Gender fluid muffins. No mules were harmed in the making of these.
https://archive.ph/2023.03.13-075255/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/03/12/welsh-sex-education-lessons-tell-children-young-seven-100-genders/
-
Review of Hannah Barnes 'Time to Think'
https://www.the-tls.co.uk/articles/time-to-think-tavistock-clinic-hannah-barnes-book-review-cordelia-fine/?fbclid=IwAR0BPINGd_TlbRRTQmc25EsNIryYPmpBUVQtVpFNDFg97Kj7xOE3QDsZQew
-
The failure of the Tavistock continues to be laid bare
https://archive.is/YpdjY
-
Leo Varadkar gets wrong what happened in Scotland, and has just become aware of Barbie Kardashian who I've known about for well over two years but a small cheer for him
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-says-biological-males-should-not-be-in-womens-prisons-42398546.html
-
On what basis might anyone have evidence to claim to be born on the wrong body?
If they say they were, what evidence do you have to show that they are liars?
Indeed what does it even mean?
I don't know. I have no frame of reference as to what it is like. I can't even tell you what it feels like to be born in the right body. But I do know that some people are prepared to go through - what I would regard as horrific - medical procedures to make their bodies into a facsimile of what they feel is the right body. For the reason, I don't think we can dismiss their experience.
If you allow an idea of 'souls' which this effectively is
I don't agree. Many parts of the human body are sexually dimorphic. Sometimes development can "go wrong" so that some parts bear the traits of the "wrong" sex. I don't see why the brain/mind would be the only organ that is locked to the size of the gametes you produce.
how could you verify that they weren't Napoleon reincarnated?
Reincarnation is not a thing.
-
If they say they were, what evidence do you have to show that they are liars?
Who said anything about lying? If Alan Burns says he has a soul do you think that's evidence that he does?
I don't know. I have no frame of reference as to what it is like. I can't even tell you what it feels like to be born in the right body. But I do know that some people are prepared to go through - what I would regard as horrific - medical procedures to make their bodies into a facsimile of what they feel is the right body. For the reason, I don't think we can dismiss their experience.
People with anorexia starve themselves - by your logic that's evidence that they may be too fat
I don't agree. Many parts of the human body are sexually dimorphic. Sometimes development can "go wrong" so that some parts bear the traits of the "wrong" sex. I don't see why the brain/mind would be the only organ that is locked to the size of the gametes you produce.
So you are arguing that there is such a thing as a man's brain and a woman's brain - what is your scientific evidence for this?
Reincarnation is not a thing.
But you've said that individuals personal experoences that because you don't experience you can't kudge as incorrect. And yet here you precisely do that with reincarnation - your approach is inconsistent.
-
...
So you are arguing that there is such a thing as a man's brain and a woman's brain - what is your scientific evidence for this?
...
There are certainly differences between male and female brains. Don't know about "minds" though.
-
World Athletics bans 'transgender' men from competing in female world ranking events
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/athletics/65051900
-
There are certainly differences between male and female brains. Don't know about "minds" though.
This recent study seems to conclude there are hardly any differences between male and female brains and that brains are like other organs which are similar enough to be transplanted between women and men quite successfully. Though no one has ever done a brain transplant so not sure how successful it would be.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325115316.htm
"Men and women's brains do differ slightly, but the key finding is that these distinctions are due to brain size, not sex or gender,"
"This means that the brain differences between large- and small-headed men are as great as the brain differences between the average man and woman," Dr. Eliot said. "And importantly, none of these size-related differences can account for familiar behavioral differences between men and women, such as empathy or spatial skills."
Publication bias is common in sex-difference research, she added, because the topic garners high interest.
"Sex differences are sexy, but this false impression that there is such a thing as a 'male brain' and a 'female brain' has had wide impact on how we treat boys and girls, men and women," Dr. Eliot said.
-
This recent study seems to conclude there are hardly any differences between male and female brains and that brains are like other organs which are similar enough to be transplanted between women and men quite successfully. Though no one has ever done a brain transplant so not sure how successful it would be.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325115316.htm
"Men and women's brains do differ slightly, but the key finding is that these distinctions are due to brain size, not sex or gender,"
"This means that the brain differences between large- and small-headed men are as great as the brain differences between the average man and woman," Dr. Eliot said. "And importantly, none of these size-related differences can account for familiar behavioral differences between men and women, such as empathy or spatial skills."
Publication bias is common in sex-difference research, she added, because the topic garners high interest.
"Sex differences are sexy, but this false impression that there is such a thing as a 'male brain' and a 'female brain' has had wide impact on how we treat boys and girls, men and women," Dr. Eliot said.
That's a good study. I'd been reading: Two minds The cognitive differences between men and women (https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different)
I guess currently all we can say is that even if there are differences they do not seem to be significant enough to allow us to associate any other assumed differences with them.
What causes anyone into "feeling" that they are a man or in "feeling" that they are a woman? If it is not their body or their brain, then what?
What, if anything, does it mean to "be in the wrong body"?
-
That's a good study. I'd been reading: Two minds The cognitive differences between men and women (https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different)
I guess currently all we can say is that even if there are differences they do not seem to be significant enough to allow us to associate any other assumed differences with them.
What causes anyone into "feeling" that they are a man or in "feeling" that they are a woman? If it is not their body or their brain, then what?
What, if anything, does it mean to "be in the wrong body"?
Why people think what they think or believe what they believe regardless of the lack of evidence for their beliefs or even evidence to the contrary is a complex area to unpick as there are probably many factors that contribute to our perspectives and beliefs about anything.
For example, unlike many other people, I would choose nuclear obliteration over giving in to Putin's threats. I have no idea why my feelings of aversion to placating Putin are more than my aversion to nuclear war. I don't choose my feelings or thoughts. I don't think the reason I think that way is based on my gender. Is there a biological reason for my preference?
That is not to say that I can't overcome my instinctive preference for risking nuclear war now or that I can't decide that I should make a choice based on reasons such as estimates of probable deaths due to future invasions by dictators vs deaths by nuclear war now or some such calculation. I can recognise that my gut emotional response of not giving in to dictators may not be the right response if I was the leader of a country rather than an ordinary citizen. So environment and circumstances have a lot to do with our perspectives.
Your link seemed to identify XX and XY chromosomes and hormones as 2 main factors to the reason for any differences between male and female brains. Trans identifying individuals are biologically male and female and seem to have the cell biology and hormones that correspond with their sex. So it would seem that a neat biological basis for their belief that they should be the opposite gender has not been identified. Your link suggested altering a gene has an effect on the maternal instincts of mice. But still not sure why this would correspond to a particular gender identity in humans. Animals don't have gender identities.
A far as I can see gender is a social construct - a bit like being a punk or a goth. There is no need to identify as a punk or a goth or any other category but some people choose to do so for complex psychological reasons that it makes them feel good to do so.
It is possible to like certain aspects of the punk or goth look and tastes without actually identifying as a punk or a goth. The appeal of certain looks and tastes may have biological basis - the current thinking is our tastes are a mix of nature/ nurture. People have the option of dabbling in the punk or goth look when they feel like it without permanently altering their outward appearance - yet some people choose to embrace the identify more enthusiastically than others and do permanently alter their outward appearance to match what they feel like on the inside. Why some people are more enthusiastic / "obsessive" about these identities, especially as teenagers may be due to their insecurities and search for identity in their teens.
I remember when I was a teen I liked black clothes - probably because i did not feel confident enough in myself to wear bright clothes or the fashions for girls at the time as I thought I looked stupid trying - I thought I couldn't pull it off. A boy I was friends with made a comment that I was into Goth style - and I had never considered myself a Goth but it sounded cool , so I adopted it as an identity for a while, because it made me feel more confident and gave me a reason to not experiment with the bright fashions of the 1980s that I felt made me look stupid. I also used to dress more like a boy - because the clothes were more comfortable and draped well so you felt less self-conscious. As a child I even wanted to be a boy until I reached puberty, because I enjoyed playing football with my brother and his friends and girls games and playing with dolls seemed very boring in comparison. Once I reached puberty I just accepted I was a girl who liked doing some of the stuff boys do and don't like doing some of the stuff girls like to do. I have no desire to nurture and look after someone else in terms of feeding them and worrying about their creature comforts or feelings, but do have a strong protective instinct to people being taken advantage of. I have no interest in buying lots of jewellery or bags but do like being tidy and clean and making my room look nice etc and dislike having to share a space with untidy men and women. So I have no idea why some people have a need to categorise themselves into any particular gender stereotype.
There is a suggestion that autism - which can manifest as obsessive behaviour in relation to categorising things - could be part of what drives trans-identifying people to thinking they are the 'wrong' category in terms of gender because they associate their tastes with the opposite category/ gender.
-
I have no desire to nurture and look after someone else in terms of feeding them and worrying about their creature comforts or feelings, but do have a strong protective instinct to people being taken advantage of. I have no interest in buying lots of jewellery or bags but do like being tidy and clean and making my room look nice etc and dislike having to share a space with untidy men and women. So I have no idea why some people have a need to categorise themselves into any particular gender stereotype.
And this goes to the very core of the argument.
I have wondered for a long time what is it to feel like a man. Is my experience of "feeling like a man" the same as NS's or Outrider's etc. I very much doubt it. We are individuals locked into our own eco-system which lead us to behave/identify in certain ways. Is Martina Natrilova a man because she displays some of the qualities normally associated with men, or is a softly-spoken man with a feminine face interested in cookery a woman. The answer is, of course not.
The argument for transgenderism seems to me (at least) to be a reductive one. It insists men must conform to certain largely external presentations, and woman must present in other strictly defined ways. Whereas in actuality you have a wonderful diversity within both sexes that does not need any further classification.
-
It is half a century since I last engaged in serious study of what is now known as cognitive neuroscience. At that time I recall learning that there were differences between male and female brains which resulted in - in particular - cognitive differences between boys and girls, with boys being better at performing spacial tasks and girls having greater social and linguistic skills. One apparent structural difference was the interconnectivity of the cerebral hemispheres. The corpus callosum (the band of neural fibres connecting the hemispheres) is proportionally larger in females than males. In intellectual development girls could be 18 months/2 years ahead of boys.
And I recall being told once, by an HMI member, that the 11+ exam discriminated against girls. Grammar school places were available in fairly rigid quantities and so the top 15%(say) performers in the 11+ exam were transferred to grammar schools which were frequently single sex establishments. Girls, more academically advanced, had to obtain a higher mark than did boys in order to be certain of a place.
Sex is a biological fact - in the great majority of cases the consequence of XX or XY genotypes. Gender is a social construct - the consequence of interaction between biology and social experiences. I do wonder if there are early life experiences which affect our understanding of our own gender.
-
And this goes to the very core of the argument.
I have wondered for a long time what is it to feel like a man. Is my experience of "feeling like a man" the same as NS's or Outrider's etc. I very much doubt it. We are individuals locked into our own eco-system which lead us to behave/identify in certain ways. Is Martina Natrilova a man because she displays some of the qualities normally associated with men, or is a softly-spoken man with a feminine face interested in cookery a woman. The answer is, of course not.
The argument for transgenderism seems to me (at least) to be a reductive one. It insists men must conform to certain largely external presentations, and woman must present in other strictly defined ways. Whereas in actuality you have a wonderful diversity within both sexes that does not need any further classification.
I agree. But I think people who identify as trans get comfort from labelling themselves.I can understand why because many football supporters or theists or Brits or other groups who categorise themselves also seem to derive a sense of purpose and belonging from their identity label. The difference is there is no conflicting biological category associated with those labels. Whereas someone identifying as a baby when they are a grown man and demanding access to protected spaces for babies would not be accommodated even if they dressed and behaved like a baby.
So I understand if a boy/ man feels happiest wearing pretty clothes and wearing make-up and feeling pretty and like a princess or more “feminine” than the average man, and I understand if a girl / woman feels happiest dressing like a boy and feeling muscular and strong and more “masculine” than the average woman. If they want to be called a different name to match their chosen identity, fine with me. But when their obsession with their label, category or identity extends to demanding access to privileges and rights that put biological women at risk, then it makes sense if the majority in society wants to draw a line and not indulge this self-obsessed preoccupation with their identity, especially if they can’t see any over-riding consideration or benefit in indulging the obsession that would outweigh the harm. Even if the obsessive preoccupation is due to some form of neuro-divergence such as being on the autism spectrum.
I would make the same argument about people who obsess about anything including religion. If your self-obsessed preoccupation with your religious identity is shown to put others at serious risk of being disadvantaged, it makes sense if the majority of society decide to limit the obsessive behaviour unless there is some over-riding benefit to society despite the disadvantaging of another group.
This seems to be the point of contention. Some Trans lobbyists argue that the mental health issues and self-harm trans identifying people experience due to their obsessive need for affirmation and feeling included outweighs all other considerations such as the risk of disadvantaging biological women or causing biological women physical harm. Trans people’s need for affirmation and their mental health issues and any extreme over-reaction to a lack of affirmation may be due to some form of autism. Identifying as trans would then just be another form of neurological divergence that needs to managed.
-
It is half a century since I last engaged in serious study of what is now known as cognitive neuroscience. At that time I recall learning that there were differences between male and female brains which resulted in - in particular - cognitive differences between boys and girls, with boys being better at performing spacial tasks and girls having greater social and linguistic skills. One apparent structural difference was the interconnectivity of the cerebral hemispheres. The corpus callosum (the band of neural fibres connecting the hemispheres) is proportionally larger in females than males. In intellectual development girls could be 18 months/2 years ahead of boys.
And I recall being told once, by an HMI member, that the 11+ exam discriminated against girls. Grammar school places were available in fairly rigid quantities and so the top 15%(say) performers in the 11+ exam were transferred to grammar schools which were frequently single sex establishments. Girls, more academically advanced, had to obtain a higher mark than did boys in order to be certain of a place.
Sex is a biological fact - in the great majority of cases the consequence of XX or XY genotypes. Gender is a social construct - the consequence of interaction between biology and social experiences. I do wonder if there are early life experiences which affect our understanding of our own gender.
I can see that on average there seem to some traits more associated with one sex compared to another. But it’s a mystery as to what biological reason would lead a man who has a poor sense of direction or spatial awareness but the greater social and linguistic skills of the average woman to decide to try to override his biological sex characteristics and get hormone treatments and maybe even have fairly drastic surgery.
I think the recent explosion in people identifying as trans seems to be driven by changes in culture and environment - the internet connects people and allows them to encourage others to embrace certain ideologies and identities and gives people a sense of belonging and purpose that may help them combat feelings of anxiety, depression, insecurity or loneliness. But if they find obstacles to their search for identity and meaning, their neurological divergence may cause even more depression and suicidal tendencies.
-
Janice Turner on the World Athletics decision
https://archive.vn/Le2nY
-
Very disturbing
https://aboldwoman.substack.com/p/trans-activists-make-women-terrified
-
Given he's talking about sex, misgendering is nonsense, and in addition misgendering is nonsense.
https://archive.vn/us7nM
-
Don't like tweets
https://archive.vn/oMttg
-
Interesting stuff - will be interesting to see how Labour play it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65181018
-
Interesting stuff - will be interesting to see how Labour play it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65181018
And Labour welcome the news. This gets even more interesting
https://archive.vn/OqSDR
-
Why bad questions lead to bad data.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-does-the-census-say-there-are-more-trans-people-in-newham-than-brighton/
-
Looking like Yousaf's govt may challenge UK govt's use of section 35 as regards the Gender Recognition Reform Bill. To be fair, no decision on how to proceed here would be without major issues.
https://archive.vn/kEpIi
-
Excellent article from Victoria Smith
https://thecritic.co.uk/running-like-a-girl/
-
Who said anything about lying? If Alan Burns says he has a soul do you think that's evidence that he does? People with anorexia starve themselves - by your logic that's evidence that they may be too fat
If they are not lying then it becomes important to find some way of treating them because, either they are delusional or they are in the wrong body.
What would be the best method of treatment? At the moment, the consensus amongst professionals seems to be it is better to let them transition. If some man wants to pretend to be a woman and it makes them happy and it doesn't harm anybody else, why not let them?
People who are anorexic are in danger of doing themselves serious harm, which I would suggest is a very good reason not to indulge them in their delusion of being too fat.
So you are arguing that there is such a thing as a man's brain and a woman's brain - what is your scientific evidence for this?
Many parts of male and female anatomy are different. It sounds plausible that there are differences between male and female brains. I've heard of some studies that seem to support this but they are a little bit sketchy. For now, I'll remain agnostic on the subject.
But you've said that individuals personal experoences that because you don't experience you can't kudge as incorrect. And yet here you precisely do that with reincarnation - your approach is inconsistent.
I dismiss reincarnation because of the science. I don't dismiss people's experiences, only the alleged supernatural causes of them.
-
Alex Massie on Yousaf and the GRRB
https://archive.vn/51EvB
-
Facts are transphobic
https://www.attitude.co.uk/culture/nohun-transphobic-comments-explained-what-did-nohun-say-431016/
-
Excellent statement
https://womensdeclarationusa.com/black-womens-caucus-statement-against-gender-ideology/
-
The idiocy of non binary in marathon running
https://thecritic.co.uk/Thousands-of-steps-backwards/
-
Pity that the Dems in the US, and so many on the 'left' in the UK are so happy to indulge in men cheating, and in the removal of women's sports and spaces to support a religious idea.
https://archive.vn/4aNcA
-
And SNP minister still can't call double rapist a man
https://archive.vn/pIqqB
-
More on men who say they are women in the marathon
https://archive.vn/gcLPU
-
The ongoing mob censorship at Edinburgh University
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/26/edinburgh-university-cancels-film-screening-after-trans-rights-protest
-
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11930-023-00358-x
"Results of long-term studies of adult transgender populations failed to demonstrate convincing improvements in mental health, and some studies suggest that there are treatment-associated harms."
-
The ongoing mob censorship at Edinburgh University
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/26/edinburgh-university-cancels-film-screening-after-trans-rights-protest
Good statement from the principal
https://www.ed.ac.uk/news/staff/2023/statement-from-the-principal
-
And article by Susan Dalgety on the mob censorship
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/edinburgh-university-refused-to-allow-uks-first-female-students-to-graduate-150-years-later-is-it-content-to-see-women-denied-the-right-to-be-heard-susan-dalgety-4123333
-
More censorship in Edinburgh
https://archive.vn/su3uj
-
And more on male cheating at sport
https://www.smh.com.au/sport/cycling/cycling-s-lia-thomas-moment-transgender-rider-wins-women-s-tour-of-the-gila-next-stop-olympics-20230502-p5d4ty.html
-
And SNP minister still can't call double rapist a man
https://archive.vn/pIqqB
Gotta say that the writer of the article had exactly the same problem.
-
I think I put this from Jenny Lindsay up at the time of her writing it. She reshared it on Twitter today as a show with her, Magi Gibson and Elaine Miller has people trying to shut it down, just as has happened to Joanna Cherry as covered in posts above.
https://www.thedarkhorsemagazine.com/anatomy-of-a-hounding-lindsay
The pusillanimous silence of so many, happy to indulge the religious evidence free idea of gender to shut up women standing up for sex based spaces, is quite frankly baffling to me. It's the intellectual equivalent of creationism with more dangerous consequences.
-
I think I put this from Jenny Lindsay up at the time of her writing it. She reshared it on Twitter today as a show with her, Magi Gibson and Elaine Miller has people trying to shut it down, just as has happened to Joanna Cherry as covered in posts above.
https://www.thedarkhorsemagazine.com/anatomy-of-a-hounding-lindsay
The pusillanimous silence of so many, happy to indulge the religious evidence free idea of gender to shut up women standing up for sex based spaces, is quite frankly baffling to me. It's the intellectual equivalent of creationism with more dangerous consequences.
And here's Angus Robertson refusing to comment despite there being no live legal case currently. Stupid, coward, or a stupid coward?
https://archive.vn/WhGyG
-
Joan Smith on the cancelling of Joanna Cherry's show
https://unherd.com/thepost/joanna-cherry-highlights-the-snps-free-speech-problem/
-
And Michael Foran on the cancellation of the event
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,comedy-club-cancellation-of-joanna-cherry-event-is-almost-certainly-unlawful-discrimination
-
This may take some time
https://news.stv.tv/politics/uk-government-to-contest-scottish-government-legal-bid-to-overturn-gender-recognition-reform-bill
-
The National Union of Journalists refusing to defend its members
https://archive.ph/2023.05.04-185339/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/05/04/free-speech-fears-nuj-reporters-gender-critical-trans/
-
More from Jenny Lindsay
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3676c6a6-ec41-11ed-b57b-ee6b80a630d2?shareToken=a82e83a51c4cf5ae7d0e5767b03c7c4b
-
Interesting piecce in The Guardian about the pincer movement from all areas of the political spectrum affecting our right to protest:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/07/police-are-curbing-free-speech-not-just-at-behest-of-right-crackdown-mall
-
'Transwomen are women' except when they aren't
-
Alex Massie on the cancellation of Joanna Cherry's event
https://archive.vn/h1Qdb
-
Joanna Cherry's legal letter to the Strand about her cancellation, which by their silence many on here seem happy with.
-
Yes, interesting potential legal case for Scotland at least about the right to express an offensive opinion, which should IMO extend to debates about issues that could be deemed by some as Islamophobia /homophobia /anti-Semitism - are there examples of groups being cancelled for expressing such views, where they have not incited violence against a group?
In his opinion, Mr O’Neill said the Stand’s attempt to spare its staff discomfort was not a defence in law for discriminating against Ms Cherry because of her legally protected beliefs.
He said the law did not guarantee ”any right not to be confronted” with challenging opinions.
On the contrary, freedom of expression applied not only to favourable or inoffensive ideas, but also those “that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23508228.joanna-cherry-starts-legal-action-cancelled-fringe-show-stand/
-
Yes, interesting potential legal case for Scotland at least about the right to express an offensive opinion, which should IMO extend to debates about issues that could be deemed by some as Islamophobia /homophobia /anti-Semitism - are there examples of groups being cancelled for expressing such views, where they have not incited violence against a group?
In his opinion, Mr O’Neill said the Stand’s attempt to spare its staff discomfort was not a defence in law for discriminating against Ms Cherry because of her legally protected beliefs.
He said the law did not guarantee ”any right not to be confronted” with challenging opinions.
On the contrary, freedom of expression applied not only to favourable or inoffensive ideas, but also those “that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23508228.joanna-cherry-starts-legal-action-cancelled-fringe-show-stand/
And so many on here stay silent
-
Obviously (to me) Cherry is right and the cancelation of her talk (don't really understand why it is part of a comedy festival) is wrong and illegal. But, pursuing her rights appears to be a legal matter.
I suppose one could protest outside the club or with letters or on social media - but it's not clear if that would achieve much - especially given that there are so many other issues where protests, public discussion and democratic processes seem to be failing.
-
Obviously (to me) Cherry is right and the cancelation of her talk (don't really understand why it is part of a comedy festival) is wrong and illegal. But, pursuing her rights appears to be a legal matter.
I suppose one could protest outside the club or with letters or on social media - but it's not clear if that would achieve much - especially given that there are so many other issues where protests, public discussion and democratic processes seem to be failing.
It's not just on the specific matter of Cherry and The Stand.
But anyway here's Shauny Boy
https://youtu.be/2r5sgzIlRl8
-
So much this!.
https://archive.vn/RlmV1
-
How Stonewall was bought, and betrayed the gay community
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1655890490577895427.html
-
It's not just on the specific matter of Cherry and The Stand.
But anyway here's Shauny Boy
https://youtu.be/2r5sgzIlRl8
There is that.
How Stonewall was bought, and betrayed the gay community
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1655890490577895427.html
That is very interesting, but doesn't seem to fully explain the transactivist rampage that was unleashed - trans/non-binary being less than 0.5% of the UK population and, in my experience, many "trans-women" unlikely to say boo to a goose - there is something deeply misogynistic in action.
-
There is that.
That is very interesting, but doesn't seem to fully explain the transactivist rampage that was unleashed - trans/non-binary being less than 0.5% of the UK population and, in my experience, many "trans-women" unlikely to say boo to a goose - there is something deeply misogynistic in action.
It's not an attempt to explain that issue but rather how Stonewall became anti gay.
The move on the left to legitimise prostitution is part of the related misogyny. To quote Andrea Dworkin:
The difference between left-wing and right-wing when it comes to women is only about where exactly on our necks their boots should be placed. To right-wing men, we are private property. To left-wing men, we are public property.
-
Coverage of Mark Drakeford's misogynism.
https://merchedcymru.wales/2023/05/11/merched-cymru-files-complaint-against-mark-drakeford-for-sexist-response-to-laura-anne-jones/
-
Hmmm...
https://www.thenational.scot/news/23516111.pink-peacock-staff-burn-harry-potter-book-glasgow-street/
-
Students sever ties with Oxford Union amid Kathleen Stock talk - ffs! Nick Griffin, and David Irving were fine though.
https://archive.is/fqOFo
-
Yes, interesting potential legal case for Scotland at least about the right to express an offensive opinion, which should IMO extend to debates about issues that could be deemed by some as Islamophobia /homophobia /anti-Semitism - are there examples of groups being cancelled for expressing such views, where they have not incited violence against a group?
In his opinion, Mr O’Neill said the Stand’s attempt to spare its staff discomfort was not a defence in law for discriminating against Ms Cherry because of her legally protected beliefs.
He said the law did not guarantee ”any right not to be confronted” with challenging opinions.
On the contrary, freedom of expression applied not only to favourable or inoffensive ideas, but also those “that shock, offend or disturb the State or any sector of the population”.
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23508228.joanna-cherry-starts-legal-action-cancelled-fringe-show-stand/
The Stand have folded
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65575748
-
Great article from Jenny Lindsay
https://archive.is/KdknC
-
Another unforeseen problem arising from trans rights - or is the problem with male primogeniture, or both? (Sorry it's the Spectator - I first read it on MSN, but couldn't find their version again, and couldn't find anything in a respectable website such as the Guardian or the New Statesman.)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-a-trans-woman-inherit-a-peerage-over-their-older-sister/
-
Another unforeseen problem arising from trans rights - or is the problem with male primogeniture, or both? (Sorry it's the Spectator - I first read it on MSN, but couldn't find their version again, and couldn't find anything in a respectable website such as the Guardian or the New Statesman.)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/should-a-trans-woman-inherit-a-peerage-over-their-older-sister/
Given the Guardian's treatment of Suzanne Moore, I find your belief that it is a 'respectable website' touchingly naive.
If I recall correctly, this situation was discussed at the time of the Gender Recognition Act and is not an oversight but was a deliberate maintenance of the sexism in the system, while indulging in the fantasy of gender, which is based around regressive patriarchal stereotypes. Note I had already mentioned the case in reply 1773.
-
Ben Appel on the new homophobia
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/14/the-new-homophobia/
-
Ben Appel on the new homophobia
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/14/the-new-homophobia/
Me me me - I gave up after about five paragraphs of self-obsessed stuff that had nothing to do with the purported topic.
-
Me me me - I gave up after about five paragraphs of self-obsessed stuff that had nothing to do with the purported topic.
Ah yes, why would anyone provide context.
-
Ah yes, why would anyone provide context.
Within reason, maybe - but he went on and on and on with the self-indulgent autobiography - and I think I should point out that it amounts to generalising from a single instance.
-
The Stand have folded
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65575748
By which you mean given in, not gone out of business.
-
Humanist Society Scotland touting religious beliefs and switching off replies
https://twitter.com/humanistsociety/status/1658715260386197505
-
Good for those that signed the letter
https://archive.vn/LGjLx
-
And a further sensible intervention
https://archive.is/hLkeG
-
Hannah Arensman speaks about leaving competitive cycling
https://archive.vn/2qgPK
-
Alex Massie on the contradictions from the Scottish Govt
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/6f5c0e4c-f725-11ed-8aec-1014d109ef78?shareToken=470ed8c17d0262eb359223c6055f8bc2
-
Dangerous lunacy
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1660285985580625926
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1660287018570506240
-
Dangerous lunacy
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1660285985580625926
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1660287018570506240
That tweet led me to this story from somebody who was allegedly banned from Twitter because of it.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1659984666198261764.html
I think it tells us everything we need to know about the selfishness of somebody who wants to use a baby to validate their own identity.
-
That tweet led me to this story from somebody who was allegedly banned from Twitter because of it.
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1659984666198261764.html
I think it tells us everything we need to know about the selfishness of somebody who wants to use a baby to validate their own identity.
It also tells us that Brighton NHS are enabling child abuse
-
Dangerous lunacy
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1660285985580625926
https://twitter.com/blablafishcakes/status/1660287018570506240
And it would appear that the document linked to in the second tweet has been taken down.
-
And it would appear that the document linked to in the second tweet has been taken down.
I hope that means that somebody pointed out that letting a child ingest a fluid that comes from the body of somebody who had to be pumped full of drugs to get that fluid is not exactly a safe idea.
-
Ed Davey is quite clearly a prick
https://archive.vn/dHDSI
-
Another man cheating
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12124283/Ive-robbed-Female-runner-51-lost-Parkrun-record-transgender-woman-feels-cheated.html
-
Do you not think it is a little bit ironic?
The idea is to affirm that trans women are women, but every time something like this happens, it makes it more obvious that they are men.
-
Do you not think it is a little bit ironic?
The idea is to affirm that trans women are women, but every time something like this happens, it makes it more obvious that they are men.
I think there is irony but I am more worried by the cheating, and it being accepted by authorities.
-
The idiocy of the Lib Dems
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/05/25/the-lib-dems-no-party-for-real-women/
-
Spectacular stupidity
https://twitter.com/espiers/status/1661458777978073091?t=hEZMir2ulQWnuroxTScnKg&s=19
-
Sensible from British Cycling
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/26/british-cycling-bars-transgender-women-from-competing-female-category
-
Sensible from British Cycling
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2023/may/26/british-cycling-bars-transgender-women-from-competing-female-category
Sex Matters response to this which highlights some remaining issues but is broadly welcoming
https://sex-matters.org/posts/sport/british-cycling-excludes-trans-identified-males-from-competitive-female-cycling/
-
And the reply from Emily Bridges, one of the men affected by the decision.
-
Deep lying from Cycling Weekly
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/british-cycling-blocks-transgender-riders-from-competing-in-womens-races
-
And the reply from Emily Bridges, one of the men affected by the decision.
And Joan Smith in reply
https://unherd.com/thepost/british-cyclings-trans-ruling-isnt-furthering-genocide/
-
The fact that Bridges no longer has any bollocks does not automatically give "her" the right to write bollocks.
-
Deep lying from Cycling Weekly
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/british-cycling-blocks-transgender-riders-from-competing-in-womens-races
Where's the lying?
-
Where's the lying?
Transgender people are not banned from women's races. Women who say they are men or non binary are able to compete if they are not taking drugs.
-
The fact that Bridges no longer has any bollocks does not automatically give "her" the right to write bollocks.
I don't think it's clear that he has been castrated.
-
And the reply from Emily Bridges, one of the men affected by the decision.
Right out of the gate the first sentence is a lie. She can compete in the new open category.
-
Right out of the gate the first sentence is a lie. She can compete in the new open category.
He
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
-
He
https://fairplayforwomen.com/pronouns/
She says her name is Emily and she prefers to be referred to as "she". Whatever else you might think, about her, insisting on saying "he" is somewhat petty.
Edit: Actually no, you can say "he", I don't mind, but insisting that other people say "he" is somewhat petty.
-
She says her name is Emily and she prefers to be referred to as "she". Whatever else you might think, about her, insisting on saying "he" is somewhat petty.
Edit: Actually no, you can say "he", I don't mind, but insisting that other people say "he" is somewhat petty.
I am not insisting. You can lie if you like. I linked to the article covering why I think you lying is problematic
-
I am not insisting. You can lie if you like. I linked to the article covering why I think you lying is problematic
A pronoun is just a way to refer to somebody. Bridges prefers us to refer to her as she. I see no reason not to respect that. And no, I'm not lying. "She" doesn't mean what you think it means.
-
Oh yes and an article that starts "Pronouns are Rohypnol"? Yeah that's not inflammatory language. If you are going to criticise Bridges for comparing the British Cycling ruling to genocide, you probably shouldn't be endorsing in the same kind of language.
-
A pronoun is just a way to refer to somebody. Bridges prefers us to refer to her as she. I see no reason not to respect that. And no, I'm not lying. "She" doesn't mean what you think it means.
What does it mean? Using female pronouns for a man implicitly backs up the fatuous argument thAt men who say they are women are women. You know they aren't, ergo you are lying.
-
Oh yes and an article that starts "Pronouns are Rohypnol"? Yeah that's not inflammatory language. If you are going to criticise Bridges for comparing the British Cycling ruling to genocide, you probably shouldn't be endorsing in the same kind of language.
Is it strong language, yep. And needed. It is, however, metaphorical. Bridges is using the genocide as literal. Note, I hadn't criticised Bridges statenent. Just put it up, and Joan Smith's refutation of it. Ypu, pf cpurse, noted that he was lying.
-
What does it mean? Using female pronouns for a man implicitly backs up the fatuous argument thAt men who say they are women are women.
No it doesn't. It's just a pronoun.
You know they aren't, ergo you are lying.
No, I simply don't accept your interpretation of the word.
And you see what's happened here? You've deflected a discussion on a serious topic to something that is really quite inconsequential.
-
No it doesn't. It's just a pronoun.
No, I simply don't accept your interpretation of the word.
And you see what's happened here? You've deflected a discussion on a serious topic to something that is really quite inconsequential.
No, I think language here is vitally important as it frames the debate.
-
No, I think language here is vitally important as it frames the debate.
And I think accusing others of administering a metaphorical date rape drug doesn't help in any way.
-
And I think accusing others of administering a metaphorical date rape drug doesn't help in any way.
I disagree. I think it makes a valid point about the serious effect of the acceptance of the idea that men who say they are women should be given the validation by people like you lying.
-
I disagree. I think it makes a valid point about the serious effect of the acceptance of the idea that men who say they are women should be given the validation by people like you lying.
So here you are having a fight with somebody over a trivial point with somebody who agrees with you in all of the important aspects of this topic.
Sometimes you are utterly pathetic.
-
So here you are having a fight with somebody over a trivial point with somebody who agrees with you in all of the important aspects of this topic.
Sometimes you are utterly pathetic.
No, I am having an argument about something that I think is vitally important to the topic. I think the misuse of language has lead to male prisoners being placed in women's prisons. I think your acceptance of Bridges pronouns is bad and dangerous thinking.
-
Excellent from Hadley Freeman
https://archive.vn/uyFda
-
So Kathleen Stock due to speak tonight at the Oxford Union as covered in earlier posts, be interesting to see what happens. And I'll assume those in favour of academic free speech will be supporting her right to speak.
-
Meanwhile
-
Hi everyone,
Professor Stock's invitation to Oxford...
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-65714821
***********
A gender-critical academic says she is "determined" to speak at the Oxford Union after some students responded angrily to her invitation to a talk.
There has been a row over whether Prof Kathleen Stock should be allowed to attend the debate. Some say her views on gender identity are transphobic.
And Oxford University's LGBTQ+ Society called for a protest at the venue ahead of the event.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Prof Stock's invitation should stand.
He added: "Agree or disagree with her, Professor Stock is an important figure in this argument. Students should be allowed to hear and debate her views.
"University should be an environment where debate is supported, not stifled.
"We mustn't allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion."
*************
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
Professor Stock's invitation to Oxford...
https://www.bbc.com/news/education-65714821
***********
A gender-critical academic says she is "determined" to speak at the Oxford Union after some students responded angrily to her invitation to a talk.
There has been a row over whether Prof Kathleen Stock should be allowed to attend the debate. Some say her views on gender identity are transphobic.
And Oxford University's LGBTQ+ Society called for a protest at the venue ahead of the event.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said Prof Stock's invitation should stand.
He added: "Agree or disagree with her, Professor Stock is an important figure in this argument. Students should be allowed to hear and debate her views.
"University should be an environment where debate is supported, not stifled.
"We mustn't allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion."
*************
Any views?
Cheers.
Sriram
Moderator
Merged this, Sriram, because you can then see this is a long ongoing subject. And the specifics already raised
-
The great JK Rowling
-
The great JK Rowling
is there any one who disagrees?
-
Moderator
Merged this, Sriram, because you can then see this is a long ongoing subject. And the specifics already raised
Sure. No problem. Thanks NS.
-
A somewhat partisan report of the event with Kathleen Stock which rather unfortunately mixes up David Irving and David Starkey.
https://archive.is/wylFg
-
And the Times view
https://archive.md/igEmJ
-
Kay Green on last night's Gender Wars on Channel 4
https://kaygreen.blog/2023/05/31/i-never-watch-telly-but/
-
Stonkingly good piece from Victoria Smith about the return of gender stereotypes but 'ironic'
https://thecritic.co.uk/here-come-the-new-gender-stereotypes-same-as-the-old-gender-stereotypes/
-
Janice Turner on Kathleen Stock's appearance at the Oxford Union
https://archive.vn/iq5Od
-
And Stock's own piece on it
https://unherd.com/2023/06/the-oxford-kids-are-alright/
-
Well, they can fuck right off. I don't believe in their religion.
Note, I will generally refer to anyone by whatever name they choose, though there are issues with sex offenders using it as a loophole, but I don't 'misgender' people because I don't believe in reifying regressive patriarchal stereotypes.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/oxford-college-toexpel-students-misgender-trans-peers/
-
Well, they can fuck right off. I don't believe in their religion.
Note, I will generally refer to anyone by whatever name they choose, though there are issues with sex offenders using it as a loophole, but I don't 'misgender' people because I don't believe in reifying regressive patriarchal stereotypes.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/oxford-college-toexpel-students-misgender-trans-peers/
Some interesting scenarios here in the comments on the topic of 'misgendering / correct sexing'
https://www.legalfeminist.org.uk/2021/07/05/is-misgendering-always-harassment/
-
Astoundingly does not seem to be a parody
https://twitter.com/AlexSeveran/status/1665387201654411264?t=AsW4Q6ynz063Tk5E6mhCuw&s=19
-
Meanwhile at Oxfam:
https://unherd.com/2023/06/i-quit-oxfam-over-jk-rowling/
-
Meanwhile at Oxfam:
https://unherd.com/2023/06/i-quit-oxfam-over-jk-rowling/
Also Oxfam
-
Who have now posted the below. No apology for their racism.
-
Note that Oxfam's reference to not portraying an individual is about this.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12164005/Fury-Oxfams-Pride-cartoon-depicting-angry-Terf-character-critics-say-resembles-JK-Rowling.html
-
An interesting article in the Spectator (not my usual hunting ground) about Gay Pride or rather Pride as it has been rebranded now.
It articulates many of the things I feel about Pride and links to the ongoing takeover of LGB by T.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-pride-lost-itself/
I won't be attending any pride events this year as I feel it really doesn't reflect how I feel as a gay man. Which is sad.
Still I am old, and nobody loves a fairy over 40 ;)
-
Scottish Labour can fuck off
https://archive.ph/AIxGt
-
An interesting article in the Spectator (not my usual hunting ground) about Gay Pride or rather Pride as it has been rebranded now.
It articulates many of the things I feel about Pride and links to the ongoing takeover of LGB by T.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-pride-lost-itself/
I won't be attending any pride events this year as I feel it really doesn't reflect how I feel as a gay man. Which is sad.
Still I am old, and nobody loves a fairy over 40 ;)
I was thinking about this the other day. You never hear about gay rights anymore. Not only have the TRA's muscled in on the rights of women, but they also seem to have erased all the issues surrounding the LGB part of LGBT.
-
I was thinking about this the other day. You never hear about gay rights anymore. Not only have the TRA's muscled in on the rights of women, but they also seem to have erased all the issues surrounding the LGB part of LGBT.
There is an argument that after the legalising of gay marriage there was not much for an organisation like Stonewall to do which would have meant a reduction in grants. The T which was effectively added in 2014 allowed it access to continuing cash. I'm not sure it was a simple calculation like that but it's definitely been a factor.
-
There is an argument that after the legalising of gay marriage there was not much for an organisation like Stonewall to do which would have meant a reduction in grants. The T which was effectively added in 2014 allowed it access to continuing cash. I'm not sure it was a simple calculation like that but it's definitely been a factor.
I've heard that argument before. Stonewall basically achieved what it set out to do so instead of winding itself up, it refocused on a new tangentially related issue. It does seem persuasive.
-
An interesting article in the Spectator (not my usual hunting ground) about Gay Pride or rather Pride as it has been rebranded now.
It articulates many of the things I feel about Pride and links to the ongoing takeover of LGB by T.
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-pride-lost-itself/
I won't be attending any pride events this year as I feel it really doesn't reflect how I feel as a gay man. Which is sad.
Still I am old, and nobody loves a fairy over 40 ;)
Here's an archived version of article if anyone has problems accessing The Speccie
https://archive.vn/cgmLq
-
I've heard that argument before. Stonewall basically achieved what it set out to do so instead of winding itself up, it refocused on a new tangentially related issue. It does seem persuasive.
I think there was still a reason for Stonewall continuing though at a reduced level. So they could have been lobbying the govt to think about how to respond to the new laws in Uganda. Something which seems much more important to their mission than touting puberty blockers, but you hardly see mentioned.
-
I think there was still a reason for Stonewall continuing though at a reduced level. So they could have bern lobbying the govt to think abput how to respond to the new laws in Uganda. Something which seems much more important to their mission than touting puberty blockers, but you hardly see mentioned.
But as you say: that woulds mean less money.
-
Couple of other articles on Pride, also from fairies over 40, both of whom I know, and one for over 40 years (allegedly)
https://unherd.com/2023/06/pride-is-no-place-for-homosexuals/
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/06/07/the-fall-of-pride-cant-come-soon-enough/
-
More cheating, with extra 'non binary' idiocy
https://www.them.us/story/nikki-hiltz-trans-nonbinary-runner-now-awards-2023
-
More cheating, with extra 'non binary' idiocy
https://www.them.us/story/nikki-hiltz-trans-nonbinary-runner-now-awards-2023
In what way is Nikki Hiltz cheating?
-
In what way is Nikki Hiltz cheating?
Yep, apologies, my annoyance at the idiocy got the better of me. She isn't cheating.
-
Stephen Daisley is far from my cup of tea. But he's right hear, and Scottish Labour are a bunch of pricks
https://archive.vn/9CysW
-
And Joan Smith on Labour's idiocy over Pauline McNeil
https://unherd.com/thepost/labour-msp-silenced-for-the-duration-of-pride-month/
-
Man threatens to kill a woman, is arrested, and it is reported as a women's crime.
https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/23580324.portslade-arrest-online-threats-kill-anti-trans-campaigner/
-
Johns Hopkins and the non men
-
Petition to clarify the definition of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 - currently being debated in Parliament - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-9MsJo6-Uo
There is another petition opposing the position that "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex.
-
Petition to clarify the definition of "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 - currently being debated in Parliament - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-9MsJo6-Uo
There is another petition opposing the position that "sex" in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex.
Worth noting that while it is a debate in Parliament, it's in Westminster Hall, not the HoC.
-
Johns Hopkins and the non men
Instead of changing the definition of Lesbian, why don't they just change the definition of "non-binary".
"Confused" or "deluded" should cover it.
Anyway, when they say "non man" - are they talking about a teapot or possibly a crocodile?
Such sloppy use of the English language is very annoying.
-
Instead of changing the definition of Lesbian, why don't they just change the definition of "non-binary".
"Confused" or "deluded" should cover it.
Anyway, when they say "non man" - are they talking about a teapot or possibly a crocodile?
Such sloppy use of the English language is very annoying.
Or they could just use sex instead of gender.
Lesbian: female who is attracted to females.
Gay man: male who is attracted to males.
This is just an example of the labelling fallacy. Changing the meaning of the word "lesbian" won't make females who are attracted only to females suddenly want to jump into bed with trans women.
-
Or they could just use sex instead of gender.
Lesbian: female who is attracted to females.
Gay man: male who is attracted to males.
This is just an example of the labelling fallacy. Changing the meaning of the word "lesbian" won't make females who are attracted only to females suddenly want to jump into bed with trans women.
But it does allow them to call men who say they are women lesbians, and to say to women who say they are same sex (not gender) attracted that they are bigots.
-
But it does allow them to call men who say they are women lesbians, and to say to women who say they are same sex (not gender) attracted that they are bigots.
Well, they think it allows them to say that and they do seem to have hoodwinked a number of their supporters into believing it. But it hasn't fooled me and I don't suppose it's fooled many lesbians.
I also find it interesting that everybody is defined in terms of their relationship to men. i.e. people who are not men. What's the betting that a man came up with these new definitions?
-
Well, they think it allows them to say that and they do seem to have hoodwinked a number of their supporters into believing it. But it hasn't fooled me and I don't suppose it's fooled many lesbians.
I also find it interesting that everybody is defined in terms of their relationship to men. i.e. people who are not men. What's the betting that a man came up with these new definitions?
Undoubtedly but then so much of this stream of TRA is about men encroaching on women, and using language to make it seem acceptable.
-
Worth noting that while it is a debate in Parliament, it's in Westminster Hall, not the HoC.
Summary of proceedings
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1668208772110483457.html
-
Fuck me but Kirsty Blackman is an idiot
https://twitter.com/simonjedge/status/1668336207712116738?t=FwpCCtMN_NxkuHR_LA_PxQ&s=19 :(
-
An idiot wearing what appears to be fabric leftover from children's pyjamas.
Can't somebody make this stop.
Not the bad taste in clothes, although that would be a start; but this incessant obfuscation of facts that are known, established and proven.
-
Joanna Cherry's reaction - note they are in the same party
-
Good article on the legal failings of the NHS Confederation guidelines
https://thecritic.co.uk/leading-for-some/
-
Johns Hopkins pulled their idiotic definition
https://themessenger.com/news/johns-hopkins-says-it-pulled-lesbian-definition-from-its-lgbtq-glossary-after-backlash
-
The BBC and the misogyny of the trans idea of 'what it feels like for a girl'
https://archive.vn/MdKBs
-
Compensation awarded to Maya Forstater
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66076021
-
Mermaids attempt to challenge LGB Alliance bring a registered charity fails.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65340857
-
Mermaids attempt to challenge LGB Alliance bring a registered charity fails.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-65340857
And good article from Sonia Sodha on the case.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/09/no-law-says-charity-cant-hold-views-you-disagree-with-transgender-mermaids-lgb-alliance
-
Think you've missed a link here?
-
Think you've missed a link here?
Ah! Updated now.
-
https://unherd.com/thepost/calls-for-violence-in-the-trans-debate-only-come-from-one-side/
Good article on the recent call for violence at Trans Pride on Saturday. A call to violence by a man dressed as a woman against women. "Punch her in the face" is the phrase du jour apparently. A man who has a record of violence but now calls himself Sarah Jane Baker.
The Met police intend to take no action but then we wouldn't expect anything less, would we?
How I long for the days of Gay Prides gone by when the most provocative thing uttered was "2-4-6-8, is that policeman really straight?"
-
https://unherd.com/thepost/calls-for-violence-in-the-trans-debate-only-come-from-one-side/
Good article on the recent call for violence at Trans Pride on Saturday. A call to violence by a man dressed as a woman against women. "Punch her in the face" is the phrase du jour apparently. A man who has a record of violence but now calls himself Sarah Jane Baker.
The Met police intend to take no action but then we wouldn't expect anything less, would we?
How I long for the days of Gay Prides gone by when the most provocative thing uttered was "2-4-6-8, is that policeman really straight?"
That's very good. The Labour Party's ignoring of Joan Smith underlines their pathetic vacillations on this.
Would appear the Met have reopened the case. Meanwhile Clive Lewis MP indulges in lazy 'bothsideism'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12282337/Who-Sarah-Jane-Baker-Trans-activist-called-TERFs-punched.html
-
Interview/profile of Malcolm Clark
https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/23641723.gay-pioneer-its-depressing-lot-good-work-trashed/
-
Labour policy on trans rights and gender recognition
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories
-
Labour policy on trans rights and gender recognition
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories
Just to note that Labour MSPs were whipped to vote for the bill in the Scottish Parliament - the article seems to ignore that comoletely.
-
Just to note that Labour MSPs were whipped to vote for the bill in the Scottish Parliament - the article seems to ignore that comoletely.
Yes it does, because this is the Labour policy for the Westminster parliament. i.e. the policy for England and Wales(?).
-
Yes it does, because this is the Labour policy for the Westminster parliament. i.e. the policy for England and Wales(?).
Except it doesn't ignore what happened in the Scottish Parliament just the actions of Labour, and describes it as if the whipping did not take place.
-
Labour policy on trans rights and gender recognition
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/24/labour-will-lead-on-reform-of-transgender-rights-and-we-wont-take-lectures-from-the-divisive-tories
A reply
https://unherd.com/thepost/labours-new-trans-policy-is-too-little-too-late/
-
A more positive, if cautious, response to Labour's announcement:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/labour-gender-recognition-anneliese-dodds
-
Great from Victoria Smith
https://thecritic.co.uk/trust-and-the-terf-wars/
-
Men banned from women's events in British rowing
Good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rowing/66393959
-
Powerful article on 'non binary' detransition
https://www.newsweek.com/nonbinary-surgery-breast-removal-detransitioning-1816309
-
Articulate brave article from Sinead.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12366421/The-trans-lobby-pushed-double-masectomy-bitterly-regret-Thats-Costas-advert-dangerous-writes-SINEAD-WATSON-detransitioned-woman-double-mastectomy.html
-
The tangled mess created by the secrecy clause in the Gender Recognition Act.
https://thecritic.co.uk/secrets-and-lies/
-
Down with this sort of thing!
https://www.comedy.co.uk/fringe/news/7487/venue-cancels-graham-linehan/
-
We have made the decision to cancel this show, as we are an inclusive venue and this [show] does not align with our overall values."
Not that inclusive though.
Oh the irony. Or coppery. Or Silvery. (I know it's been done before but I like it)
-
Good old Dicky Dawkins. (TRIGGER WARNING*: this links to a GB News article, but just for once I agree with it.)
*IRONY WARNING: this is ironic.
Click here. (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/news/richard-dawkins-blasts-paranoid-hypersensitive-trans-activists-as-he-outlines-attempts-to-silence-him/ar-AA1fl2G8?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=1d3e524005e14626a9c02eabb0462c52&ei=5)
-
Not that inclusive though.
Oh the irony. Or coppery. Or Silvery. (I know it's been done before but I like it)
Diversity in everything except thought.
-
Down with this sort of thing!
https://www.comedy.co.uk/fringe/news/7487/venue-cancels-graham-linehan/
I hate to sound like a Faragista, but this is getting bloody ridiculous. It's about time the no-platformers and cancel-warriors were stood up to. I hope Linehan sues the arse off them, and wins.
-
New venue for the show but it's a secret.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66520643
-
And still a secret but the old new venue cancelled
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66534454
-
And still a secret but the old new venue cancelled
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66534454
I'd be interested to know why.
-
Gig went ahead outside Scottish Parliament
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-66534454
-
So this is something I came across on the platform formerly known as Twitter:
"The Church of England won't marry a homosexual couple, as it's "incompatible with scripture". But they WILL marry a homosexual couple if one of them "transitions" to the opposite sex and gets a GRC."
Never has my flabber been so gasted.
-
'To insult a trans woman without being discriminatory, female-specific slurs should be used instead, the tribunal suggested.'
What idiocy!
https://archive.vn/BeM9O
-
And Vogue are gaslighting
https://unherd.com/thepost/emily-bridges-doesnt-belong-on-vogues-female-power-list/
-
'To insult a trans woman without being discriminatory, female-specific slurs should be used instead, the tribunal suggested.'
What idiocy!
https://archive.vn/BeM9O
So by this bizarre logic we shouldn't call a man, or indeed a trans man, a cunt.
Surely the whole point of insulting someone is to insult them as best you can, if that means "misgendering" somebody for that purpose all the better.
-
So by this bizarre logic we shouldn't call a man, or indeed a trans man, a cunt.
Surely the whole point of insulting someone is to insult them as best you can, if that means "misgendering" somebody for that purpose all the better.
And that it's ok to call a woman a cunt, because somehow that isn't discriminatory, or it is but only in the way that the tribunal thinks is ok.
-
https://archive.ph/ULt9i
Alternatively just allow people to have a personality.
-
Martina Navratilova being admirably clear
https://genspect.org/martina-navratilova-five-years-later/
-
Martina Navratilova being admirably clear
https://genspect.org/martina-navratilova-five-years-later/
The trans activist movement really should avoid sports. Nothing reminds people that males are not females quite like watching one beat at the other in a physical activity.
-
I heard Goody Proctor conversing with the Devil at the Malmaison in Manchester
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsmanchester/performer-shocked-at-alleged-transphobic-conversation-heard-in-pride-accreditation-hotel/ar-AA1fZIYx
-
I heard Goody Proctor conversing with the Devil at the Malmaison in Manchester
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newsmanchester/performer-shocked-at-alleged-transphobic-conversation-heard-in-pride-accreditation-hotel/ar-AA1fZIYx
Jeez, it must have been a very slow news day for them to run that one.
-
Woman guilty of wrongthink releases good album
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2023/sep/07/roisin-murphy-hit-parade-review
-
'The word is woman'
Milli Hill on having her work censored
https://millihill.substack.com/p/how-pad-company-always-censored-my
-
And Jean Hatchet on the removal of the word woman
https://thecritic.co.uk/we-cant-lose-the-word-woman/
-
Review of two books about how 'trans kids' can be supported.
https://archive.ph/LszMZ
-
Rival demos in Dublin - pro-trans and pro-women. The latter one, which I support, was attended by Graham "Father Ted" Linehan. I've nothing against biological men living as women, within limits, but those limits stop short of them using women-only spaces and participating in female sport. I have some sympathy with TERFs.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2023/09/16/rival-protests-over-trans-rights-take-place-in-dublin-city/
-
Rival demos in Dublin - pro-trans and pro-women. The latter one, which I support, was attended by Graham "Father Ted" Linehan. I've nothing against biological men living as women, within limits, but those limits stop short of them using women-only spaces and participating in female sport. I have some sympathy with TERFs.
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/social-affairs/2023/09/16/rival-protests-over-trans-rights-take-place-in-dublin-city/
What does 'living as women' mean?
-
What does 'living as women' mean?
Biological men living a female lifestyle.
-
Biological men living a female lifestyle.
What is a 'female lifestyle' that isn't based on stereotypes?
-
What is a 'female lifestyle' that isn't based on stereotypes?
It is one based on stereotypes. what of it? Why are you arguing the toss? I thought you agreed with me about trannies!
-
It is one based on stereotypes. what of it? Why are you arguing the toss? I thought you agreed with me about trannies!
Because it shows that people who believe in trans ideology, and you accept the same basic stereotypes.
And your use of the word 'trannies' rather underlines that.
-
Important case
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/how-standing-up-for-jk-rowling-destroyed-one-authors-career/
-
Good article on 'social transitioning' and schools by Sonia Sodha
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/17/teachers-need-guidance-to-resolve-issues-gender-identity-in-classroom
-
Australian Human Rights Commission doesn't believe in women's rights and is homophobic
https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/crime/sex-changeable-commission-backs-trans-womans-case-c-12020908
-
Excellent as ever from Victoria Smith on 'Self Id and Unprincipled Exceptions'
https://thecritic.co.uk/self-id-and-unprincipled-exceptions/
-
Rachel Rooney writes lovely empowering books for children but because they aren't based on the dualism of gender ideology has been abandoned by the Society of Authors.
https://loobylou.substack.com/p/wrapping-up-rachel-rooney-for-christmas
-
Men who say they are women to be 'banned' from women's NHS wards. Let's hope so.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-66994133
-
'Rowling was not billed as a panellist at the conference because of safety concerns.'
https://archive.ph/iclAX
-
Ah those women, gathering to talk about women's issues. Just the time for some dick to go and shout 'Fuck you' at them. The regressive aspects of the gender religion are so obvious.
https://thecritic.co.uk/a-conference-that-really-was-for-women/
-
Powerful essay from a parent whose daughter went through gender questioning.
https://pitt.substack.com/p/a-family-derailed-and-humbled-by
-
Victoria Smith on gender-critical women being courageous, but why they should not have to be
https://thecritic.co.uk/think-about-the-consequences/
-
One of the things that I find most annoying about the bunch of prick politicians, and those who think they are being 'progressive' but have merely swallowed a new religion that is anti women, is that women standing up for women becomes portrayed as 'anti trans'. The gift that the left has handed to the right here by their lack of thought, and puppyish eagerness to be on trend is a betrayal of women.
https://archive.vn/UBGy9
-
Good editorial from The Observer on the dangers of the simplistic and regressive approach of banning 'conversion therapy'
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/22/observer-view-on-gender-dysphoria-criminalising-therapy-poses-risk-tto-childrens-welfare
-
And more attempts to shut up women speaking for their rights.
https://thecritic.co.uk/burn-the-book/
-
'Japan's top court says trans sterilisation requirement unconstitutional.'
Good. Weird law.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-67213374
-
As so often, excellent from Victoria Smith on the dangerous idiocy of asking women to make men feel comfortable in women's spaces.
https://thecritic.co.uk/trust-your-discomfort/
-
Joan Smith on Eddie Izzard
https://archive.ph/6ml85
-
Helen Joyce on the question of still being heard whike 'cancelled'.
https://thecritic.co.uk/issues/november-2023/playing-nice-hasnt-worked/
-
And support group for those cancelled
https://archive.vn/ljMpT
I find the silence about this, and the lack of overt support on this board from some who might stand up for women or gay rights somewhat concerning.
-
And support group for those cancelled
https://archive.vn/ljMpT
I find the silence about this, and the lack of overt support on this board from some who might stand up for women or gay rights somewhat concerning.
There isn't really anything to discuss though. You post your links without comment and we read them, or not. I think most of the people on the board have broadly similar views to you, so there's really nothing to say.
-
There isn't really anything to discuss though. You post your links without comment and we read them, or not. I think most of the people on the board have broadly similar views to you, so there's really nothing to say.
I know you do but there are others that I don't who just seem happy to stand to the side. I don't know for example, bluehillside's take. The discussions i've had with Outrider and Prof D on this are now years ago, and they were both apowaring to me to be happy with the idea that men could identify as women.
That Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, and Scot Nats have all issues with supporying women's sex based rights, and when I raise their failures on that posters who might vote for them write nothing does not fill me with confidence that they do agree.
-
That Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, and Scot Nats have all issues with supporying women's sex based rights, and when I raise their failures on that posters who might vote for them write nothing does not fill me with confidence that they do agree.
It's difficult. What can you do?
As a member of the Labour Party I did contribute views on this matter via some kind of consultation mechanism on the net (seem to have lost the link for it now) but as with a number of issues, whilst the membership that commented was largely in favour of the women's rights side of the argument, it gets sidelined much higher up in the party. Not a good look for a (supposedly) democratic party. Although I do think the recent shift in tone at the top, is partly as a result of these views having registered.
-
It's difficult. What can you do?
As a member of the Labour Party I did contribute views on this matter via some kind of consultation mechanism on the net (seem to have lost the link for it now) but as with a number of issues, whilst the membership that commented was largely in favour of the women's rights side of the argument, it gets sidelined much higher up in the party. Not a good look for a (supposedly) democratic party. Although I do think the recent shift in tone at the top, is partly as a result of these views having registered.
And as with jeremyp, I know your views and that you have spoken up about it. I agree that there have been better signs in Labour recently, but I would be happier if Starmer openly stood up for Rosie Duffield, and Lammy apologised for calling those standing up for women's sex based spaces 'dinosaurs.
-
The law is, as so often, an ass.
https://forwomen.scot/01/11/2023/court-decision-reclaiming-motion/
-
The law is, as so often, an ass.
https://forwomen.scot/01/11/2023/court-decision-reclaiming-motion/
Good analysis of the impact
https://unherd.com/thepost/scottish-feminists-lose-appeal-on-definition-of-woman/
-
Good analysis of the impact
https://unherd.com/thepost/scottish-feminists-lose-appeal-on-definition-of-woman/
And Susan Dalgety on the mess of idiocy that the law and the Scottish govt have achieved. It's good that she highlights the vacuous stupidity of the Scottish Greens with their misogyny.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/whether-our-msps-have-the-legislative-nous-and-political-skills-to-resolve-this-mess-remains-to-be-seen-susan-dalgety-4396568
-
Milli Hill on the appointment of Steph Richards to CEO of Endometriosis South West, and his, Richards, interactions with her.
https://millihill.substack.com/p/should-a-man-run-a-womens-charity
-
Hannah Barnes on the issues with setting up a replacement of the gender clinic at the Tavistock.
https://archive.vn/YEYgw
-
Good article on the tensions and differences between LGB and TQ+ :
https://nypost.com/2023/11/18/opinion/why-its-time-for-lgb-to-divorce-tq/?fbclid=IwAR2ScelFlEQ7QsblWU3ReqNhwDuq2ynYuZg1eu0Bk4un-0gttbaiAsoCF4s
-
Interview with a women professional pool player refusing to participate against men in women's events.
https://archive.li/xGyB2#selection-3013.4-3017.120
-
Trouble in football
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67482965
Four clubs reportedly withdrew from matches against Rossington Main Ladies after a shot by Francesca Needham [a trans woman] injured an opposition player.
-
Trouble in football
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67482965
Decision in cricket
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/67470009
-
Decision in cricket
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/67470009
hmmm that seemed easy. I wonder why the FA is making such a meal of it.
-
Meanwhile in Ancient Rome...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67484645
Ffs!
-
Meanwhile in Ancient Rome...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-67484645
Ffs!
Ah yes. Elagabalus.
There are three sources on him but only one - Cassius Dio - mentions the trans gender bit. Cassius Dio also says he raped a vestal virgin and forced her to marry him and that he tortured the children of several Roman noblemen. But hey ho.
The following video examines the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI3Ek8bO8uk
-
Ah yes. Elagabalus.
There are three sources on him but only one - Cassius Dio - mentions the trans gender bit. Cassius Dio also says he raped a vestal virgin and forced her to marry him and that he tortured the children of several Roman noblemen. But hey ho.
The following video examines the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI3Ek8bO8uk
He often features in lists as the 'worst Roman emperor of all time' so I had to admit being bemused when I heard him being picked as an example. I have severe doubts about a lot of the more outré stories about Roman emperors, and for similar reasons, popes. They have a strong whiff of propaganda about them.
-
Ah yes. Elagabalus.
There are three sources on him but only one - Cassius Dio - mentions the trans gender bit. Cassius Dio also says he raped a vestal virgin and forced her to marry him and that he tortured the children of several Roman noblemen. But hey ho.
The following video examines the evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI3Ek8bO8uk
Now watched the whole video, really rather jolly. I have to love anyone calling themself Metatron. I was a bit surprised that he didn't cover that a lot of this echoes what was said about Sulla, Julius Caesar, Caligula, Nero, etc etc...
There's an approach that could be taken that those that were trans in ancient Rome were then vilified because of their transness and that the other actions should be ignored. It would be obviously partial and unevidenced but you could portray a pattern for the instances I've mentioned.
I'm also reminded of the scandal of Publius Clodius at the rites of Bona Dea, link below, which I am sure must now have a 'trans' interpretation on the web somewhere.
https://www.historyskills.com/classroom/ancient-history/bona-dea-scandal/
-
Adult Human Female is shown eventually at Edinburgh University
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67504202
Can be watched here
https://youtu.be/94HFMSm-JBo?si=egBe3mA70PZoNqEM
-
Adult Human Female is shown eventually at Edinburgh University
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67504202
Can be watched here
https://youtu.be/94HFMSm-JBo?si=egBe3mA70PZoNqEM
Of course not all attempts to speak manage to happen due to violent attacks
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/where-was-the-police-nowhere-to-be-found-martina-navratilova-reacts-to-protestors-violence-against-american-writer-during-wdi-event-in-portland/ar-AA1kkahm
-
hmmm that seemed easy. I wonder why the FA is making such a meal of it.
The Australians rejecting the ICC ruling.
https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/sport/cricket-australia-will-not-follow-the-international-cricket-councils-new-eligibility-requirements-which-ban-transgender-players-from-the-elite-level/news-story/38032a281f2cfd7fb42229ed0ed1998b
-
"But the obvious question is how we got here: the point where this level of security is needed for the screening of a film in which people discuss views they are perfectly entitled to hold."
Indeed
https://archive.vn/YI34T
-
Excellent piece by Victoria Smith in reaction to an article from Kenny Farquarson about the decision in the case brought by For Women Scotland recently. The Farquarson article is the second link and contains in his comment that:
“womanhood in all its glory” be “capacious enough, generous enough, diverse enough, to accommodate and perhaps even to welcome a small number of people who did not start life’s journey as women”, an indication of such patronising smug prickery that it is 'deserving' of some sort of award.
https://thecritic.co.uk/ive-done-the-work-thanks/
https://archive.vn/xW2Ej
-
An account from an attendee at the showing of Adult Human Female at Edinburgh University
https://forthvalleyfeminists.com/academic-freedom-material-reality-and-the-tolerance-of-legally-held-beliefs-eafaf-successfully-hold-film-screening/
-
Some push back in (or maybe not) the Scottish Greens on their unscientific undemocratic approach to the trabs issue and their misogyny.
https://archive.vn/8eqG6
-
Tampons for 'men'
https://archive.vn/cnHCi
-
'Trans women who hurt females to go to male prisons' or rather some men who have hurt and raped women might get sent to women's prisons if it's 'long enough' ago and they say they will be nice, and other men will get sent to women's prisons no matter how upsetting it might be for the women prisoners, many of who will have had deeply traumatising experiences at the hands of men.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67613441
-
Good points here from Lisa Mackenzie about how working class women are disproportionately affected by the removal of women only spaces due to gender ideology.
https://archive.vn/NoyCH
-
The magnificent Rhona Hotchkiss on the nonsense guddle from the Scottish prison service
https://youtu.be/0xVLKxBUymo?si=sD4JMB3M3uaIf3d0
-
Court says Scottish gender reform block is legal
Not really a surprise
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-67659791
-
I suspect Pete Wishart is going to be attacked for being transphobic.
https://archive.vn/eTAZk
-
The Green Party continue their homophobic, misogynist, anti science approach.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67546751
-
Oh look a cheating man win's the women's croquet world championship.
https://archive.vn/taWrS
-
Richard Dawkins on trans ideology and free speech.
https://youtu.be/LFxpTxxF0zI?si=89a8ZpBNBRcAewar
-
Brighton Labour is not quite as gullible as some thought they were:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/eddie-izzard-loses-in-bid-to-become-labour-mp-in-brighton/ar-AA1lDfCL
-
Scottish Govt to drop challenge on Article 35 on their gender reform bill. Sensible even if late
https://archive.vn/065pR
-
A trans person, talks about it and come out.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/transphobic-bullying-trans-boy-view-of-coming-out-school-uk-government-guidance (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/transphobic-bullying-trans-boy-view-of-coming-out-school-uk-government-guidance)
Transphobic bullying is rife’: a 15-year-old trans boy’s view of coming out at school
... The politicians behind this guidance don’t know what it is to be trans, they’ve never listened to a trans voice so they don’t know what damage it will cause.
Unfortunately, Brianna won't be able to speak up about it either.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/brianna-ghey-found-guilty-murder (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/brianna-ghey-found-guilty-murder)
The boy referred to Brianna as “prey” and “it” in his messages, saying she would be “easier” to kill “and I want to see if it will scream like a man or a girl”.
-
A trans person, talks about it and come out.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/transphobic-bullying-trans-boy-view-of-coming-out-school-uk-government-guidance (https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/dec/20/transphobic-bullying-trans-boy-view-of-coming-out-school-uk-government-guidance)
It's very sad that children are bullied for perceived differences. I don't think the article makes any substantive arguments against the govt guidance though. It does raise the issue of toilets but doesn't show any acknowledgement of why single sex toilets and changing rooms are seen as important.
As for 'needing permission to experiment with what you are called or clothing', that's not what the guidelines do.
Unfortunately, Brianna won't be able to speak up about it either.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/brianna-ghey-found-guilty-murder (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/dec/20/brianna-ghey-found-guilty-murder)
The murder of Brianna Ghey is an utterly tagic case which seems to have nothing to do with them being trans. There may be no lessons that can be learned from it but we should be wondering why two 15 year old kids were so severely disturbed as to see murder as essentially a game.
Using it as some 'argument' against a set of guidelines that weren't in place seems to me utterly disrespectful.
-
Janice Turner 'This was the year women fought back and won' - I think it's a headline that is a bit gilded but interrsting summary of the year. I had missed Bridget Phillipson's giving Labour support to the recent school guidelines on trans.
https://archive.vn/oD8LA
-
Ridiculous misogynist nonsense from the UN
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12923701/NANA-AKUA-Appointing-transgender-activist-Munroe-Bergdorf-represent-British-women-laughable-werent-dangerous-appalling-decision.html
-
The Post Office now wanting to call gay and lesbian people 'queer' even if they object to it
https://archive.vn/tfnZy
-
And how the police enable men to strip search women.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12936281/Most-police-forces-allow-trans-officers-strip-search-women-campaigners-warn-lead-state-sanctioned-sexual-assault.html
-
Rachel Meade ‘Gender Critical’ Social Worker Wins Harassment Claim
Good
https://www.colekhan.co.uk/news/uvzuy6kcrtb5lwg59pxbs44tqbeuj2
-
Rachel Meade ‘Gender Critical’ Social Worker Wins Harassment Claim
Good
https://www.colekhan.co.uk/news/uvzuy6kcrtb5lwg59pxbs44tqbeuj2
An article with a good summary of the case. The ridiculous and dangerous attempts to shut down discussion are ignored by most mainstream parties, and that makes it difficult for me to consider voting for them.
-
The proposed ban on 'conversion therapy' in Scotland looks like being a badly conceived mess that restricts free speech in support of an ideology.
https://archive.vn/tNdGt
-
The proposed ban on 'conversion therapy' in Scotland looks like being a badly conceived mess that restricts free speech in support of an ideology.
https://archive.vn/tNdGt
Debbie Hayton on the dangerous guddle.
https://archive.vn/wVVx5
-
Report from Fairplay for Woman on men who say they are women competing in women's sport
https://fairplayforwomen.com/new-report-how-trans-inclusion-in-sport-is-harming-women-and-girls/
As ever, I'm bemused that so many people seem to have no problem supporting these delusions, and a view that requires some sort of concept of a soul.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/a-politically-toxic-issue-the-legal-battles-over-gender-critical-beliefs
Interesting piece from the Guardian.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/19/a-politically-toxic-issue-the-legal-battles-over-gender-critical-beliefs
Interesting piece from the Guardian.
Interesting indeed. It doesn't cover that Stonewall have given lots of wrong legal advice to companies about what they might want the law to be but isn't.
-
The ongoing internal idiocies of the Greens
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-green-party-insider-speaks
-
It seems unbelievable that there are leaders of mainstream political parties who either won't stand up for single sex spaces, or don't have the guts to do it.
https://thecritic.co.uk/survivors-of-male-violence-need-single-sex-spaces/
-
The ongoing internal idiocies of the Greens
https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/a-green-party-insider-speaks
That ll seemed like a lot of fun. I think the Green Party is about finished.
-
Jo Phoenix wins tribunal case over gender-critical views.
Hurrah. Too many people wanting to shut people up, even for just stating facts.
https://unherd.com/thepost/jo-phoenix-wins-tribunal-case-over-gender-critical-views/
-
The crisis in rape crisis centres in Scotland caused by the obeisance to non-scientific misogynist gender ideology.
https://archive.ph/HrIeD
-
Report of the Jo Phoenix case in The Times.
https://archive.vn/lNmnX
-
Bloke continues campaign to cheat women.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/swimming/68104658
-
'Patients must know whether or not their medic is a biological woman'
Excellent stuff from Baroness Hayter
https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/patients-know-medic-biological-woman
-
Good article on the far too many cases of women being sacked because of their stating facts.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/26/law-clear-cannot-be-sacked-gender-critical-views-women-sex
-
Excellent article from Sonia Sodha on the Jo Phoenix case concentrating on the support within academia for shutting down women who defend women's sex based rights by staing facts.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/jan/28/jo-phoenix-open-university-court-victory-gender-sex-based-womens-rights
-
Rosie Kay on her experience after stating her belief that belief that sex is real, immutable and important.
https://www.standard.co.uk/comment/freedom-of-speech-cancel-culture-the-arts-rosie-kay-choreographer-b1136290.html
-
The Women's Library that thinks that satirising lesbians whk believe in same sex attraction is ok
https://archive.ph/WFC61
-
And domestic violence charity puts men that say they are women above the women they are supposed to serve.
https://archive.vn/Qazt8
-
Good article on detransistioning and how the left in the main has abandoned children, and detransistioners to an ideology as flawed as any religion.
https://archive.vn/2Wpeb
-
Joan Smith on Jonathan Liew's ludicrous, deeply misogynist article as regards Parkrun
https://unherd.com/newsroom/guardian-writer-claims-parkrun-now-battleground-for-trans-people/
-
Seems entirely reasonable for a lesbian space to be women only, and not include men who say they are women
https://archive.vn/WR0DZ
-
John Lewis Partnership punting an antiscientific religion
https://www.jamesesses.com/p/the-trans-takeover-of-john-lewis
-
Madness and child abuse in the name of gender ideology.
https://millihill.substack.com/p/dear-bbc-youve-got-your-facts-wrong
-
So the murder of a Spanish man Jorge Carreno was carried out by Scarlet Blake a "transwoman".
The BBC reported on this morning and only ever identified Blake as a woman.
Disgraveful.
-
So the murder of a Spanish man Jorge Carreno was carried out by Scarlet Blake a "transwoman".
The BBC reported on this morning and only ever identified Blake as a woman.
Disgraveful.
Religious propaganda too eagerly supported by mainstream parties.
-
So the murder of a Spanish man Jorge Carreno was carried out by Scarlet Blake a "transwoman".
The BBC reported on this morning and only ever identified Blake as a woman.
Disgraveful.
And the Metro attacked JK Rowling for speaking factually
https://millihill.substack.com/p/open-your-mouth-and-say-it-hes-a
-
Alex Massie on the Scarlet Blake case
https://archive.vn/4nllY
-
Alex Massie on the Scarlet Blake case
https://archive.vn/4nllY
Excellent.
-
Helen Joyce - Restoring sanity takes time. I would be interested to hear if anyone on here substantially disagrees.
https://thecritic.co.uk/restoring-sanity-takes-time/?fbclid=IwAR1XXWL31SWHz1snGtgftL6rkxMNm0COvV1PcTONx-nXultnaIOuHRywJkc
-
Alex Massie on the Scarlet Blake case
https://archive.vn/4nllY
I don't really understand the kerfuffle. It's just a pronoun. Do people really think that describing Blake as a woman means their crimes reflect badly on all women?
As long as we are sensible about the consequences i.e. that the crime is recorded as having been committed by a male identifying as a woman and that Blake will serve his* sentence in a men's prison (as the Ministry of Justice has already stated), I think we should move on.
* now that Blake is a convicted murderer and cat killer, we can dispense with the courtesy of pretending he is a woman.
-
I don't really understand the kerfuffle. It's just a pronoun. Do people really think that describing Blake as a woman means their crimes reflect badly on all women?
As long as we are sensible about the consequences i.e. that the crime is recorded as having been committed by a male identifying as a woman and that Blake will serve his* sentence in a men's prison (as the Ministry of Justice has already stated), I think we should move on.
* now that Blake is a convicted murderer and cat killer, we can dispense with the courtesy of pretending he is a woman.
I think you'll find it's a noun - woman rather than a pronoun. It is about Blake bring referred to as a woman, the crime being recorded as a woman. And that it was being reported after his conviction by being committed by a woman.
-
I found the report on BBC News misleading when I saw it on Breakfast TV earlier in the week. They referred to Blake as a woman throughout, with no mention of being Trans or a man. The photo of him was at my cursory glance enough to convince me it was a woman. It did register with me at the time that it was odd that a woman had committed this crime, overwhemingly male crime etc., but there are always exceptions.
IT was only later elsewhere on social media that I found out it was a man. It does not sit well with me that the BBC did not refer to the correct sex of the person involved.
As NS has already said the recording of such crime correctly is important and not something that should be left to the whim of an individual who thinks they are female.
-
Whereas stating a fact breaches the BBC's impartiality guidelines
https://pressgazette.co.uk/the-wire/newspaper-corrections-media-mistakes-errors-legal/justin-webb-bbc-today-trans-complaint/
-
Hadley Freeman on the Scarlet Blake case
https://archive.ph/QMA93
-
Victoria Smith on 'The hidden cost of pronoun politeness'
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-hidden-cost-of-pronoun-politeness/
-
Much as I hate agreeing with anything in the Tufton Street Bugle, I think she's got a point.
-
I think you'll find it's a noun - woman rather than a pronoun. It is about Blake bring referred to as a woman, the crime being recorded as a woman.
That would be wrong. It should be recorded as having been committed by a male.
And that it was being reported after his conviction by being committed by a woman.
So what? It doesn't taint all women. Why are you so intent on dying on this hill?
-
That would be wrong. It should be recorded as having been committed by a male.
So what? It doesn't taint all women. Why are you so intent on dying on this hill?
You don't think facts are important in reporting crime?
-
'JK Rowling reported to police by trans activist India Willoughby for misgendering'. Willoughby is a bloke.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/music/jk-rowling-reported-to-police-by-trans-activist-india-willoughby-for-misgendering/ar-BB1juxxE
-
Suzanne Moore
'I won’t sacrifice my safety just so a trans woman feels validated'
https://archive.vn/F28Jl
-
Missed this at the time.
Utterly bizarre
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/ex-whitehall-mandarin-led-premier-league-stasi-that-banned-newcastle-fan/ar-BB1hJ00v
-
A lengthy article by Andrew Doyle about the pressure that the Trans lobby is putting on gay people:
https://unherd.com/2024/03/the-ugly-return-of-homophobia/
Doyle is not one of my favourite commentators but he has a point even if he somewhat overplays the "progressive" card.
-
Woman getting sued for, amongst other things, saying 'only women menstruate'
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-employee-network-defra-seen-duemmer-wrigley/
-
Woman getting sued for, amongst other things, saying 'only women menstruate'
https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/gender-critical-employee-network-defra-seen-duemmer-wrigley/
Link to the crowd funding site
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/seen-chair-sued/
-
Moderator Announcement Thread is locked for review, see Mod thread on Board being reported to Police Scotland under Hate Crime Act.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21405.msg882565#msg882565
-
Moderator Announcement Thread is locked for review, see Mod thread on Board being reported to Police Scotland under Hate Crime Act.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=21405.msg882565#msg882565
As per thread, this now appears to have been a joke. Thread unlocked
-
Jk Rowling's post not being treated as criminal, though not sure if there has been an investigation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68712471
It is worrying though that Dr Nick McKerrell, a senior law lecturer at Glasgow Caledonian University said
"On balance I think she probably won't be prosecuted because the test in the legislation states that you have to be threatening and abusive to someone with your language which essentially means that you have to cause them fear and alarm.
think it's close to the edge but I don't think, as it stands, those communications do that"
-
Julie Burchill going on an enjoyable rant about Daniel Radcliffe in Spiked:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/14/the-entitlement-and-ignorance-of-daniel-radcliffe/
I don't always agree with her, but she is not wrong here.
-
Julie Burchill going on an enjoyable rant about Daniel Radcliffe in Spiked:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2023/04/14/the-entitlement-and-ignorance-of-daniel-radcliffe/
I don't always agree with her, but she is not wrong here.
I never really rated her, but that was an impressive piece of writing.
-
I never really rated her, but that was an impressive piece of writing.
I agree. I remember when she used to write for one of the music papers (NME?) and I detested her then. Either she's mellowed or I have.
-
The Problem With Saying ‘Sex Assigned at Birth’
Short version: because it's antiscientific bollocks used to appease those with a religious belief in a form of soul.
https://archive.ph/P05Ci
-
Suzanne Moore - "Trans children have been lied to by adults – the Cass report may now see the legal dam break"
The damage that will have been done to people by not maintaining critical empirical methods around trans ideology is made all the more tragic because it was motivated by attempts to be nice. Just there are certain times when that is a deeply flawed approach.
https://archive.is/GHfGo
-
Netball has a policy on trans women playing in women's internationals. tl;dr they can't
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/netball/68767815
-
Netball has a policy on trans women playing in women's internationals. tl;dr they can't
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/netball/68767815
Should be at all levels where there are sex categories.
-
Guardian article on the over-medicalisation of adolescents with "gender distress".
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/thousands-of-children-unsure-of-gender-identity-let-down-by-nhs-report-finds
-
Guardian article on the over-medicalisation of adolescents with "gender distress".
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/10/thousands-of-children-unsure-of-gender-identity-let-down-by-nhs-report-finds
Think it's worth highlighting that it's about the release of the Cass review of the treatment of children in the UK, and the the mistakes made by carrying out unevidenced medicalisation.
-
Also worth bearing in mind who this has mainly affected:
"The only figures relating to sexual orientation provided by GIDS show that 89% of girls and 81% of boys described themselves as same-sex attracted. The Tavistock were ‘transing away the gay’. Shame on those who cheered it on." LGB Alliance
-
Also worth bearing in mind who this has mainly affected:
"The only figures relating to sexual orientation provided by GIDS show that 89% of girls and 81% of boys described themselves as same-sex attracted. The Tavistock were ‘transing away the gay’. Shame on those who cheered it on." LGB Alliance
I think, sadly, that those who cheered it on, did so out of the best of intentions but with little thought.
-
As Joan Smith points out, there are a number of reverse ferrets about.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/stonewall-memory-holes-opposition-to-cass-report/
-
Think it's worth highlighting that it's about the release of the Cass review of the treatment of children in the UK, and the the mistakes made by carrying out unevidenced medicalisation.
You can read the actual report here:
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
-
You can read the actual report here:
https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/
Thanks, I read it last night. One of the most worrying thing was the reluctance, and refusal of clinics to provide evidence.
-
Thanks, I read it last night. One of the most worrying thing was the reluctance, and refusal of clinics to provide evidence.
The point on the refusal of clinics to provide evidence is picked up. It seems completely antithetical to any scientific stance to do this.
I see Wes Streeting is ignoring the vilification of women who are standing up for sex based spaces, having been part of the problem.
-
'Ban on children’s puberty blockers to be enforced in private sector in England' - good.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/11/ban-on-childrens-puberty-blockers-to-be-enforced-in-private-sector-in-england
-
"Doctor exploits NHS loophole to prescribe hormones for children"
No doubt this will be seen by some to be stunning and brave, no doubt it will feel like that to individual, and that is the root of the tragedy.
https://archive.fo/9d8kJ
-
Good report of what seems like a serious debate on the change of law in Sweden. As so often though, it's not clear what consideration is given to the effect of laws on the legal fiction of 'gender' has upon the legal positions based on sex.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/17/sweden-passes-law-lowering-age-to-legally-change-gender-from-18-to-16
-
Puberty blockers paused in Scotland after the Cass Report. Pity that they were used without sufficient evidence in the first place. Will be interesting to see of thos has an effect on the SNP - Green coalition in Holyrood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68844119
-
.
-
Great angry blog
https://roserickford.substack.com/p/both-sides
-
It occurred to me some time ago, and I've since read confirmation of it, that many gay adolescents may have convinced themselves and others that they are trans, because being trans is quite fashionable these days while being gay is a bit old hat. Thus there is a potential cause of conflict between the trans and gay lobbies.
-
It occurred to me some time ago, and I've since read confirmation of it, that many gay adolescents may have convinced themselves and others that they are trans, because being trans is quite fashionable these days while being gay is a bit old hat. Thus there is a potential cause of conflict between the trans and gay lobbies.
And been convinced by some in the medical profession who have carried out a version of conversion therapy on teenagers.
-
Puberty blockers paused in Scotland after the Cass Report. Pity that they were used without sufficient evidence in the first place. Will be interesting to see of thos has an effect on the SNP - Green coalition in Holyrood.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-68844119
And it does
https://news.stv.tv/politics/furious-lgbt-scottish-greens-say-party-could-leave-government-over-nhs-puberty-blockers-pause
-
Hilary Cass on reaction to her report
https://archive.fo/SRB1u
-
Hilary Cass on reaction to her report
https://archive.fo/SRB1u
Link is broken
-
Link is broken
Works for me and trying to set it up in archive again just returns same link
https://archive.fo/SRB1u
This is link to The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hilary-cass-i-cant-travel-on-public-transport-any-more-35pt0mvnh
And to archive site, so you can see if pasting it into it direct works for you.
https://archive.fo/
-
Works for me and trying to set it up in archive again just returns same link
https://archive.fo/SRB1u
This is link to The Times
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/hilary-cass-i-cant-travel-on-public-transport-any-more-35pt0mvnh
And to archive site, so you can see if pasting it into it direct works for you.
https://archive.fo/
The link works in Chrome, but not in Safari or Firefox. Both of the latter two give a security error and refuse to serve the page.
-
As the comment makes clear - follow the science for the Scottish Greens till it conflicts with their gender religion
https://archive.fo/BgBmM
-
"Census data on number of trans people in Britain is ‘deeply flawed’"
Not really surprising
https://archive.fo/aqaS6
-
It occurred to me some time ago, and I've since read confirmation of it, that many gay adolescents may have convinced themselves and others that they are trans, because being trans is quite fashionable these days while being gay is a bit old hat. Thus there is a potential cause of conflict between the trans and gay lobbies.
There are definitely conflicts between some gay people and some trans people.
In some cases it is not the gay adolescents who have convinced themselves, it is others, in the USA, quite often the parents, pushing it on their children. Colloquially known as "transing the gay away". That Iran has pursued this path for years seems to have bypassed the Trans lobby in the West:
https://www.us-iran.org/resources/2021/7/15/homosexuality-gender-assignment-in-iran (Scroll to the last paragraph for the relevant passage)
Some parents would rather have gender-conforming children rather than have gay children. That is the irony here, they push children into stereotypical "male/female"roles thinking they are being in some way radical, rather than have a camp son or a butch daughter even if they have to have surgery and pills to maintain that state.
-
"Addressing misogyny must include addressing trans activism" - great article by Victoria Smith
https://thecritic.co.uk/addressing-misogyny-must-include-addressing-trans-activism/
-
Joan Smith on Keir Starmer's inability to apologise to Rosie Duffield, and underlines why I think he is not a leader.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/keir-starmer-owes-rosie-duffield-an-apology/
-
Sturgeon's hypocrisy
https://archive.fo/RaBJp
-
Girls banned for refusing to compete with boy who says he's a girl. And so many on the 'left' have cheered, and cheer this.
https://www.msn.com/en-GB/news/us/this-is-shameful-outrage-as-west-virginia-school-girls-who-protested-trans-athletes-participation-are-banned-from-future-competitions/ar-AA1nY0OV
-
Victoria Smith on the pornification of breastfeeding where those who are supposed to look after the interests of women and babies now tout child abuse by drugged men.
https://thecritic.co.uk/misappropriating-motherhood/
-
Fascinating, sad, interview with Hilary Cass.
https://archive.fo/LGDUB
-
Fairly mild article on the anti women, anti gay, pro experimentation on children Scottish Greens.
https://archive.fo/RfqLa
-
Interesting interview with Dr Hilary Cass from the New York Post
https://archive.fo/fVFXl
-
'Schools told not to teach about gender identity' - the headline is not backed up by the article.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-69017920
-
The Strange Case of 'Terfs', Fascists, Author Cancellations, Book Blacklisting and Literature Alliance Scotland.
Publicly funded body attempting to censor women who stand up for women's spaces.
https://magigibson.substack.com/p/the-strange-case-of-terfs-fascists
-
The Strange Case of 'Terfs', Fascists, Author Cancellations, Book Blacklisting and Literature Alliance Scotland.
Publicly funded body attempting to censor women who stand up for women's spaces.
https://magigibson.substack.com/p/the-strange-case-of-terfs-fascists
Apparently the document was loaded in error.
https://archive.fo/VcDgu
-
Extracts from
:
The Women Who Wouldn’t Wheesht: Voices from the Front-Line of Scotland’s Battle for Women’s Rights
https://archive.vn/hjJ1f
-
Helen Joyce on the reverse ferreting since the Cass Report
https://thecritic.co.uk/sorry-is-the-hardest-word/
-
Gender and Josef K by Jean Hatchet
The attempts to shut up women speaking up on women's rights are deeply dusturbing at a general level but this covers how it can be frightening on the personal level.
https://thecritic.co.uk/gender-and-josef-k/
-
Except the person accused is not a woman.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro
-
Jenny Lindsay just put up her article from 2020 to complement the publication The Women Who Wouldn't Wheest. Powerful then, and now. Just so sad how so many on the left have remained silent or joined in on the attack on women's rights because of an anti scientific ideology.
https://jennylindsaywriter.substack.com/p/anatomy-of-a-hounding
-
Except the person accused is not a woman.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp00de3r3qro
Which is true, but not relevant to the story.
-
Which is true, but not relevant to the story.
So you are happy with inaccurate reporting
-
'Tories pledge to tackle 'confusion' over legal definition of sex' - hurrah, a Tory policy I agree with. Be interested if any of the other main parties say anything clear about this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kkvkkejgno
-
'Tories pledge to tackle 'confusion' over legal definition of sex' - hurrah, a Tory policy I agree with. Be interested if any of the other main parties say anything clear about this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0kkvkkejgno
Absolute car wreck interview from Badenoch on Today this morning. This is apparently about clarifying the law, but she was completely unable and unwilling to clarify how the legal definition of 'biological sex' would be determined, given that trans people are allowed, legally, to change their birth certificates. So she was pressed several times on whether an original 'at birth' birth certificate would be required legally or whether trans people would be allowed to use their new, legal birth certificate.
She also effectively said that it was up to organisations to determine for themselves whether or not to restrict services by biological sex (not that she was clear what the law will define this to be).
Finally, and I think most terrifyingly, she appeared to suggest that a transwoman who had had gender reassignment surgery so now had no penis and has a vagina, would be sent to a men's prison, regardless of their crimes. And to protect them from other inmates (who will likely include a far higher proportion of rapists than are present in a women's prison) would be effectively put in isolation. I mean, WTF, so a transwoman 20 years on from surgery who is in jail due to fraud would be sent to a male prison, and effectively be subject to greater sanction by placed in isolation because of her trans status. Despite posing no risk whatsoever to the other inmates in a woman's prison.
Surely in the matter of prisons this needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis - based on assessment of the risk posed by that person to other inmates balanced against the risk posed to that person from other inmates.
-
She also effectively said that it was up to organisations to determine for themselves whether or not to restrict services by biological sex (not that she was clear what the law will define this to be).
I actually think this is a reasonable position, if organisations can be relied upon to make rational rather than ideological decisions.
Surely in the matter of prisons this needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis - based on assessment of the risk posed by that person to other inmates balanced against the risk posed to that person from other inmates.
That's always seemed obvious to me.
-
I actually think this is a reasonable position, if organisations can be relied upon to make rational rather than ideological decisions.
Yup I agree too - but this is already the case so I'm struggling to see why any 'clarification' or change in the law is needed - except smoke and mirrors raw meat to the Tory base (and NS!).
That's always seemed obvious to me.
Likewise to me. But that wasn't what I took Badenoch to be implying. She certainly seemed to be saying that transwomen must go to male prisons, and if they are at risk from the male prisoners in that prison due to their trans status then they should be isolated.
But she also said that trans men shouldn't go to women's prisons!! So if you are trans it's off to a men's prison for you regardless of your biological sex. So it is all about biological sex ... except where it isn't!!
-
Absolute car wreck interview from Badenoch on Today this morning. This is apparently about clarifying the law, but she was completely unable and unwilling to clarify how the legal definition of 'biological sex' would be determined, given that trans people are allowed, legally, to change their birth certificates. So she was pressed several times on whether an original 'at birth' birth certificate would be required legally or whether trans people would be allowed to use their new, legal birth certificate.
She also effectively said that it was up to organisations to determine for themselves whether or not to restrict services by biological sex (not that she was clear what the law will define this to be).
Finally, and I think most terrifyingly, she appeared to suggest that a transwoman who had had gender reassignment surgery so now had no penis and has a vagina, would be sent to a men's prison, regardless of their crimes. And to protect them from other inmates (who will likely include a far higher proportion of rapists than are present in a women's prison) would be effectively put in isolation. I mean, WTF, so a transwoman 20 years on from surgery who is in jail due to fraud would be sent to a male prison, and effectively be subject to greater sanction by placed in isolation because of her trans status. Despite posing no risk whatsoever to the other inmates in a woman's prison.
Surely in the matter of prisons this needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis - based on assessment of the risk posed by that person to other inmates balanced against the risk posed to that person from other inmates.
Surely sex matters? If you want to traumatise women by having biological men as prisoners with them then your misogyny is showing. As to not being a risk, how do you ensure no risk. There are men who haven't had major surgery and hormone treatment who might not present a risk but are excluded as a matter of coarse. Why would you include men who obviously have severe mental issues in with women? And as to offending
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
I think women in prison deserve something more researchedcabout dangers than a random bloke on the Internet declaring men who seek major surgery and hormone treatments are safe.
-
I actually think this is a reasonable position, if organisations can be relied upon to make rational rather than ideological decisions.That's always seemed obvious to me.
And yet if the Haldane decision is anything to go by the current system doesn't do that. Also note there are many cases where organisations stating they are single sex are challenged for doing so because of the ambiguity in the law
-
Yup I agree too - but this is already the case so I'm struggling to see why any 'clarification' or change in the law is needed - except smoke and mirrors raw meat to the Tory base (and NS!).
Likewise to me. But that wasn't what I took Badenoch to be implying. She certainly seemed to be saying that transwomen must go to male prisons, and if they are at risk from the male prisoners in that prison due to their trans status then they should be isolated.
But she also said that trans men shouldn't go to women's prisons!! So if you are trans it's off to a men's prison for you regardless of your biological sex. So it is all about biological sex ... except where it isn't!!
So is the EHRC's chair Baroness Kishwer Falkner just being distracted by the smoke and mirrors, how about John Healey when he talks about Labour needing to produce more guidance. Is JK Rowling just taken in by this. How about Rhona Hotchkiss as covered in this article?
https://archive.vn/hjJ1f
-
And while we're on the subject of organisations making rational decisions. Tell that to the women sexually assaulted by Karen White
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/karen-white-transgender-prisoner-jailed-life-sexual-assault-rape-a8579146.html
-
If you want to traumatise women by having biological men as prisoners with them then your misogyny is showing.
Oh there you go, branding anyone who does not agree with your frankly extreme views (just as extreme as some of the hard core trans activists) as misogynist.
I think that there needs to be an assessment on a case by case basis on the risk posed by the individual person to other inmates and an assessment of the risk posed to that person by other inmates.
Of course that is likely to suggest that a rapist with a penis who identifies as a woman will pose a risk to women inmates and should not be in a women's prison.
But similarly a long time post op trans woman with a vagina and no penis and no history of violence towards anyone does not pose a risk to women inmates. However it would be pretty clear that being held in a men's prison with men who have a history of raping women would pose a huge risk to that trans woman - indeed I image she would be completely traumatised by being held in a men's prison. Trans-women can be traumatised too NS, but you don't really seem to care about that do you?
So simply question to you NS - should a 45 year-old transwoman who had full gender reassignment surgery at the age of 25 who is in prison for fraud and has no history of any violence (either to men or women) be held in a men's prison or a women's prison.
-
Oh there you go, branding anyone who does not agree with your frankly extreme views (just as extreme as some of the hard core trans activists) as misogynist.
I think that there needs to be an assessment on a case by case basis on the risk posed by the individual person to other inmates and an assessment of the risk posed to that person by other inmates.
Of course that is likely to suggest that a rapist with a penis who identifies as a woman will pose a risk to women inmates and should not be in a women's prison.
But similarly a long time post op trans woman with a vagina and no penis and no history of violence towards anyone does not pose a risk to women inmates. However it would be pretty clear that being held in a men's prison with men who have a history of raping women would pose a huge risk to that trans woman - indeed I image she would be completely traumatised by being held in a men's prison. Trans-women can be traumatised too NS, but you don't really seem to care about that do you?
So simply question to you NS - should a 45 year-old transwoman who had full gender reassignment surgery at the age of 25 who is in prison for fraud and has no history of any violence (either to men or women) be held in a men's prison or a women's prison.
As opposed to your lazy ad hom? I can't help thinking you are a misogynist since all of the above ignore what the women in the prison feel because you want to care about the bloke with the surgery above them. You are exactly the type of person on the left who contributed to the sexual assault of women by Karen White.
-
You are exactly the type of person on the left who contributed to the sexual assault of women by Karen White.
Do you even bother to read my posts NS, before you knee-jerk. Err which bit of this:
'Of course that is likely to suggest that a rapist with a penis who identifies as a woman will pose a risk to women inmates and should not be in a women's prison.'
is unclear to you NS?
-
As opposed to your lazy ad hom? I can't help thinking you are a misogynist since all of the above ignore what the women in the prison feel because you want to care about the bloke with the surgery above them. You are exactly the type of person on the left who contributed to the sexual assault of women by Karen White.
No can you kindly answer my question please. Should the hypothetical person I mentioned be sent to a men's prison (where she will be at serious risk of harm from other inmates) or a women's prison (where she poses no risk to the inmates). To be clear these are her attributes - a 45 year-old transwoman who had full gender reassignment surgery at the age of 25 who is in prison for fraud and has no history of any violence (either to men or women).
-
Do you even bother to read my posts NS, before you knee-jerk. Err which bit of this:
'Of course that is likely to suggest that a rapist with a penis who identifies as a woman will pose a risk to women inmates and should not be in a women's prison.'
is unclear to you NS?
And yet they were placed there due to the 'organisational sense' you championed. Your vapid thinking is complicit in their sexual assault.
-
No can you kindly answer my question please. Should the hypothetical person I mentioned be sent to a men's prison (where she will be at serious risk of harm from other inmates) or a women's prison (where she poses no risk to the inmates). To be clear these are her attributes - a 45 year-old transwoman who had full gender reassignment surgery at the age of 25 who is in prison for fraud and has no history of any violence (either to men or women).
I'll go with Rhona Hotchkiss's approach here that it needs a separate prison and not a women's one as some safeguard for men with mental health problems. So question right back at you, why should the women in a women's prison be the protection for a man?
-
... for men with mental health problems ...
FFS NS - what a disgraceful comment. That goes well beyond your usual ranting extremism on this matter into deeply unpleasant territory.
-
FFS NS - what a disgraceful comment. That goes well beyond your usual ranting extremism on this matter into deeply unpleasant territory.
Why? There are people who want to have limbs removed because it is how they see themselves. Is that not a mental health problem. What is the difference? And why do you want women in prison to indulge it?
-
I think anyone who has major surgery and takes huge hormone therapy to try and deal with their being born in the sex that they were is a sad case of mental illness. I want them to have all the support they could need. None of that support is in agreeing that such an idea that they they are born in the wrong body is true, and none of that idea includes jeopardising or traumatising women to deal with an anti scientific delusion.
And before anyone mentions 'intersex', people with differences on sexual development, first realise that that is irrelevant to the idea of 'gender' as a soul
-
May I suggest you continue the trans discussion on the trans thread?
-
Oh there you go, branding anyone who does not agree with your frankly extreme views (just as extreme as some of the hard core trans activists) as misogynist.
I think that there needs to be an assessment on a case by case basis on the risk posed by the individual person to other inmates and an assessment of the risk posed to that person by other inmates.
Of course that is likely to suggest that a rapist with a penis who identifies as a woman will pose a risk to women inmates and should not be in a women's prison.
But similarly a long time post op trans woman with a vagina and no penis and no history of violence towards anyone does not pose a risk to women inmates. However it would be pretty clear that being held in a men's prison with men who have a history of raping women would pose a huge risk to that trans woman - indeed I image she would be completely traumatised by being held in a men's prison. Trans-women can be traumatised too NS, but you don't really seem to care about that do you?
So simply question to you NS - should a 45 year-old transwoman who had full gender reassignment surgery at the age of 25 who is in prison for fraud and has no history of any violence (either to men or women) be held in a men's prison or a women's prison.
I'll answer this. He should be in a men's prison. Humans can't change sex. A castrated man is not a woman. Perhaps all the relatively small, weak and pretty men who would be at risk in a men's prison should be incarcerated with women too?
Gender identity ideology is every bit as irrational as Young Earth Creationism. However strongly a man believes he is a woman, he isn't. Feeliings don't change facts. I've never voted Tory in my life, but this time I will vote for any candidate regardless of rosette colour who doesn't lie to my face about blatantly obvious reality. If there isn't one I'll spoil my ballot. Anyone parroting the nonsense that some men are women is either inexcusably ignorant, dishonest, or has bad intent, in my opinion. After the WPATH files and Cass, there's no excuse.
The GRA should be repealed. There's no need for it now that we have equal marriage.
-
I'll answer this. He should be in a men's prison. Humans can't change sex. A castrated man is not a woman. Perhaps all the relatively small, weak and pretty men who would be at risk in a men's prison should be incarcerated with women too?
Gender identity ideology is every bit as irrational as Young Earth Creationism. However strongly a man believes he is a woman, he isn't. Feeliings don't change facts. I've never voted Tory in my life, but this time I will vote for any candidate regardless of rosette colour who doesn't lie to my face about blatantly obvious reality. If there isn't one I'll spoil my ballot. Anyone parroting the nonsense that some men are women is either inexcusably ignorant, dishonest, or has bad intent, in my opinion. After the WPATH files and Cass, there's no excuse.
The GRA should be repealed. There's no need for it now that we have equal marriage.
Prof D just thinks you're being distracted by the Tories. He's happy to put women at risk for an anti scientific ideology, and thinks that anyone concerned about it is either right wing or stupid.
BTW agree,, though I'll never vote Tory, and good to see you posting.
-
And while we're on the subject of organisations making rational decisions. Tell that to the women sexually assaulted by Karen White
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/karen-white-transgender-prisoner-jailed-life-sexual-assault-rape-a8579146.html
I think you need to reflect on what "case by case" means.
-
And while I welcome the Tories move to clarify the legislation, I also agree that this is a problem that they could have dealt with, and not only didn't but had voices stopping it, as covered in this article from Kathleen Stock.
https://archive.vn/BGxgR
-
I think you need to reflect on what "case by case" means.
Prof D had been justifying the case by case approach on the idea that the organisation would make rational decisions. This showed the problems with that
I think you need to reflect that what you are defending led to women being sexually assaulted.
-
I'll answer this. He should be in a men's prison. Humans can't change sex. A castrated man is not a woman. Perhaps all the relatively small, weak and pretty men who would be at risk in a men's prison should be incarcerated with women too?
Gender identity ideology is every bit as irrational as Young Earth Creationism. However strongly a man believes he is a woman, he isn't. Feeliings don't change facts. I've never voted Tory in my life, but this time I will vote for any candidate regardless of rosette colour who doesn't lie to my face about blatantly obvious reality. If there isn't one I'll spoil my ballot. Anyone parroting the nonsense that some men are women is either inexcusably ignorant, dishonest, or has bad intent, in my opinion. After the WPATH files and Cass, there's no excuse.
The GRA should be repealed. There's no need for it now that we have equal marriage.
Good to see you posting again Christine - and I agree with you.
-
I think you need to reflect on what "case by case" means.
There is no case where a man is a woman.
Once you've accepted the dogma that men can be women, you have no basis on which to exclude any man who says he is a woman from women's single-sex facilities.
"You can come in, but only if you cut off your testicles and invert your penis" isn't a solution for any problem.
That the so-called "left" have bought into this self-serving, individualistic, narcissistic, reality denying nonsense, that benefits mainly pharmaceutical corporations and unethical surgeons, is disappointing. You can't identify into oppression. Material reality matters.
"Gender affirming care" should be called what it is: stereotype enforcing harm.
-
Anyone parroting the nonsense that some men are women is either inexcusably ignorant, dishonest, or has bad intent, in my opinion.
Not necessarily. Some have been led by opinion formers to "be kind", they aren't necessarily any of the abovementioned things.
To call them that only makes it all the more difficult to explain and persuade them of the error of their ways.
-
Hello everybody :D
Sorry to come back all guns blazing like that. But this issue is very important to me, for several good reasons, and being a woman isn't even top of the list.
-
Hello everybody :D
Sorry to come back all guns blazing like that. But this issue is very important to me, for several good reasons, and being a woman isn't even top of the list.
Welcome back. It is very good to see you posting again.
-
Hello everybody :D
Sorry to come back all guns blazing like that. But this issue is very important to me, for several good reasons, and being a woman isn't even top of the list.
As already covered, I agree with you. But then, we, and it would appear some others here, just have extreme views according to Prof D.
-
Not necessarily. Some have been led by opinion formers to "be kind", they aren't necessarily any of the abovementioned things.
To call them that only makes it all the more difficult to explain and persuade them of the error of their ways.
They are at least ill-informed.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but the evidence is now available for all to see, despite the BBC etc making best efforts to ignore it. It's not "kind" to affirm a delusion or to tell children they can change sex. The results are horrific. Truth matters.
-
They are at least ill-informed.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but the evidence is now available for all to see, despite the BBC etc making best efforts to ignore it. It's not "kind" to affirm a delusion or to tell children they can change sex. The results are horrific. Truth matters.
I think this makes me much harsher on those such as Starmer who peddled the idea that some men can be women, and that it was somehow bad to talk about it, while Rosie Duffield was receiving death threats.
-
They are at least ill-informed.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you, but the evidence is now available for all to see, despite the BBC etc making best efforts to ignore it. It's not "kind" to affirm a delusion or to tell children they can change sex. The results are horrific. Truth matters.
Ill-informed covers it. I agree with you on the rest of it, but if we are to change people's minds we have to engage in ways that aren't so confrontational that they are just forced into defending their position.
A lot of people don't think too deeply, if at all, about the issue, which I fear is the real problem and they will tend to follow the aforementioned "be kind" brigade, in other words the bilge that is pumped out as "guidance/lifestyle" by the likes of the BBC. They are dealing with cost of living, job insecurity, crap schools, malfunctioning NHS, etc. some of them don't have the bandwidth to be bothered with it.
-
As already covered, I agree with you. But then, we, and it would appear some others here, just have extreme views according to Prof D.
I'm well past being concerned about being labelled right-wing. I've been harassed and discriminated against at work (confirmed by an official investigation conducted by my civil service ex-employer), pursued through the streets of Manchester by a baying mob while the police did nothing, and surrounded by masked thugs with loud hailers calling me a nazi - again, while the police did nothing. My ex-colleagues were given a training course at work that informed them that me referring to myself as an adult female human was the equivalent to using a racial slur against someone else. Told that stating that sex is a material reality, and in some circumstances important, makes me a bigot.
I'm not interested in labels any more. I don't believe what I'm told by previously trusted sources.
I'd recommend everyone reads The Denton's Document, about how to promote and impose an unpopular, indefensible political agenda. Authoritarians are on the left as well as the right.
-
I'm well past being concerned about being labelled right-wing. I've been harassed and discriminated against at work (confirmed by an official investigation conducted by my civil service ex-employer), pursued through the streets of Manchester by a baying mob while the police did nothing, and surrounded by masked thugs with loud hailers calling me a nazi - again, while the police did nothing. My ex-colleagues were given a training course at work that informed them that me referring to myself as an adult female human was the equivalent to using a racial slur against someone else. Told that stating that sex is a material reality, and in some circumstances important, makes me a bigot.
I'm not interested in labels any more. I don't believe what I'm told by previously trusted sources.
I'd recommend everyone reads The Denton's Document, about how to promote and impose an unpopular, indefensible political agenda. Authoritarians are on the left as well as the right.
If people want to read, and read about the document, link here:
https://gendercriticalwoman.blog/2020/07/23/that-dentons-document/
-
Ill-informed covers it. I agree with you on the rest of it, but if we are to change people's minds we have to engage in ways that aren't so confrontational that they are just forced into defending their position.
A lot of people don't think too deeply, if at all, about the issue, which I fear is the real problem and they will tend to follow the aforementioned "be kind" brigade, in other words the bilge that is pumped out as "guidance/lifestyle" by the likes of the BBC. They are dealing with cost of living, job insecurity, crap schools, malfunctioning NHS, etc. some of them don't have the bandwidth to be bothered with it.
I think more and more people are seeing the reality now, though. 'No debate' (as recommended in The Denton's Document) is over. People might not care much about women in prison, but parents are demanding to see what their children are being taught in school and when they find out, they are horrified, and publicise it. Boys and men competing in women's sports has brought home the reality of male physical advantage. The whole thing is insane, and I'm not using hyperbole.
The costs are huge. Not just the public money being wasted and the time and resources it takes up. Ruined lives. No way back from irreversible harm perpetrated on children and vulnerable adults by people they ought to have been able to trust.
Two YT recommendations: The Lost Boys, a film directed by Jennifer Lahl; and Transbarnen, a Swedish documentary from about 4 or 5 years ago.
Thanks for welcoming me back, I appreciate it. I don't mean to be confrontational :-\ It's hard to remember sometimes that there was a time when I didn't know all this stuff. When my memory wasn't polluted with knowledge of the butchery done to innocent children, mostly for money. Actually, perhaps don't watch the videos. Even though they are by no means graphic, the words are disturbing enough.
-
I'm well past being concerned about being labelled right-wing. I've been harassed and discriminated against at work (confirmed by an official investigation conducted by my civil service ex-employer), pursued through the streets of Manchester by a baying mob while the police did nothing, and surrounded by masked thugs with loud hailers calling me a nazi - again, while the police did nothing. My ex-colleagues were given a training course at work that informed them that me referring to myself as an adult female human was the equivalent to using a racial slur against someone else. Told that stating that sex is a material reality, and in some circumstances important, makes me a bigot.
I'm not interested in labels any more. I don't believe what I'm told by previously trusted sources.
I'd recommend everyone reads The Denton's Document, about how to promote and impose an unpopular, indefensible political agenda. Authoritarians are on the left as well as the right.
Presume you will have seen this crowdfunder, Christine, from someone effectively suspended by her employer, and bullied, and harassed, and threatened for speaking at a Let Women Speak event. And still through this time, Starmer equivocation on what a woman is, and didn't speak out about the threats to Rosie Duffield. But, of course, it is us with the extreme views.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/belfast-film-festival-discrimination/
-
Nonsense
And yet the breakthrough of UKIP happened because of Farage, and the breakthrough of UKIP was what brought about the referendum.
-
I was in position of struggling to find somewhere to carry my vote at the start of the election campaign because some parties were too keen to give up women's sex based spaces, and some were too Tory but I'm finding that they are making a real effort to give me more reasons not to vote.
Whether or not you vote is of course completely up to you. However I find it bizarre that you are prepared not to vote on the basis of various parties position on trans rights. Surely there are far, far more significant and important issues at play in this election.
I know you are obsessed with this issue (I've never really understood why), but the reality is that there are a tiny number at both extremes (pro and anti trans) who seem to be obsessed while the vast, vast majority simply doesn't see it as an important issue - as the unprompted 'issues' polling shows where even at the height of the GRA debate in Scotland barely 1% considered it to be an important issue, and it has so little resonance in the UK that it has never even registered on the longstanding monthly IPSOS issues index as an issue that people consider to be important.
-
Whether or not you vote is of course completely up to you. However I find it bizarre that you are prepared not to vote on the basis of various parties position on trans rights. Surely there are far, far more significant and important issues at play in this election.
I know you are obsessed with this issue (I've never really understood why), but the reality is that there are a tiny number at both extremes (pro and anti trans) who seem to be obsessed while the vast, vast majority simply doesn't see it as an important issue - as the unprompted 'issues' polling shows where even at the height of the GRA debate in Scotland barely 1% considered it to be an important issue, and it has so little resonance in the UK that it has never even registered on the longstanding monthly IPSOS issues index as an issue that people consider to be important.
I note your pejorative language again. Is Christine 'obsessed'? I don't think.enabling rape, and trauma to women is a thing to be ignored. I don't think touting anti science is trivial. I don't think that death threats to women for defending single sex spaces is trivial. Though you seem to.
I note you just edited out the rest of my post which wasn't about that.
-
I note your pejorative language again. Is Christine ',obseesed'? I don't think.enabling rape, and trauma to.womem is a thing to be ignored. I don't think touting anti science is trivial. I don't think that death threats to women for defending single sex spaces is trivial. Though you seem to.
I note you just edited out the rest of my post which wasn't about that.
Yawn - we all know your views NS as you rant endlessly about them and I do consider your views to be extreme - just the other day you described trans people as being mentally ill. You are just as extreme as those who consider that if you are a man and wake up one morning and consider yourself to be a woman then you are a woman.
But my point was largely about the notion that most people do not consider this to be an issue - and by the way this will include the 500 or so women polled in a typical 1000 person issues index.
Just to give you context - at the very height of the GRA debate in Scotland just 2 women out of 508 people polled (and just three people overall) consider gender reform to be the most important issue and less than 1% considered it an important issue (those polled can effectively name as many issues as they feel important). And in the UK given that the threshold seems to be 2 people responding to be on the list of issues then maybe one, perhaps zero people out of 1000 seems to consider it important. Oh and by the way the polls don't demonstrate whether those who did think it an important issue are pro or anti trans rights.
You might be obsessed NS, but most people simply aren't. And I would suggest that most people consider a middle path to be best, considering both extremes to be equally shrill and unhelpful. I think most people want to see trans people and cis-women (wait for the explosion from NS when I use this term) treated with respect and dignity but also to ensure that all people, including trans people, are safe.
-
Yawn - we all know your views NS as you rant endlessly about them and I do consider your views to be extreme - just the other day you described trans people as being mentally ill. You are just as extreme as those who consider that if you are a man and wake up one morning and consider yourself to be a woman then you are a woman.
But my point was largely about the notion that most people do not consider this to be an issue - and by the way this will include the 500 or so women polled in a typical 1000 person issues index.
Just to give you context - at the very height of the GRA debate in Scotland just 2 women out of 508 people polled (and just three people overall) consider gender reform to be the most important issue and less than 1% considered it an important issue (those polled can effectively name as many issues as they feel important). And in the UK given that the threshold seems to be 2 people responding to be on the list of issues then maybe one, perhaps zero people out of 1000 seems to consider it important. Oh and by the way the polls don't demonstrate whether those who did think it an important issue are pro or anti trans rights.
You might be obsessed NS, but most people simply aren't. And I would suggest that most people consider a middle path to be best, considering both extremes to be equally shrill and unhelpful. I think most people want to see trans people a and cis-women (wait for the explosion from NS when I use this term) treated with respect and dignity but also to ensure that all people, including trans people, are safe.
And where have I said that I want anyone treated with respect and dignity? Thinking that someone is mentally ill doesn't mean that I wouldn't and it's rather revealing that you think that it is.
I'm not sure why you are using a ad populum argument about whether something is actually important.
-
I'm not sure why you are using a ad populum argument about whether something is actually important.
Ad populum arguments are where you claim something is right or true based on majority opinion. That isn't what I am doing at all. Sure there are a small number of people who consider this issue to be important - but whether or not someone considers something important is clearly subjective. Now it is rather easy to argue that if an issue negatively impacts a very small minority in society that only a small minority will consider it important as most people aren't impacted. That's why we have embedded minority rights within society. So there are very, very few trans people and therefore only a tiny number of people can have the 'lived experience' of a trans person.
But you seem to argue that women's rights are being massively eroded. But women aren't a tiny minority in the population. In fact they are a majority. So if women and their rights are being massively impacted by trans rights how come when women are asked in issues polling (unprompted) what important issues are facing them and the country virtually none of them mention the impact of trans rights. So in this context it is significant that, when asked, the people purported being negatively affected don't see this as an issue.
-
And where have I said that I want anyone treated with respect and dignity? Thinking that someone is mentally ill doesn't mean that I wouldn't and it's rather revealing that you think that it is.
Once again you are failing to read my posts - I said that considering trans people to be mentally ill was an illustration of the extremism of your views. I might also argue that is pretty disrespectful to describe trans people as mentally ill (people used to make the same kinds of arguments about gay people), but that wasn't what I said in my post.
-
Ad populum arguments are where you claim something is right or true based on majority opinion. That isn't what I am doing at all. Sure there are a small number of people who consider this issue to be important - but whether or not someone considers something important is clearly subjective. Now it is rather easy to argue that if an issue negatively impacts a very small minority in society that only a small minority will consider it important as most people aren't impacted. That's why we have embedded minority rights within society. So there are very, very few trans people and therefore only a tiny number of people can have the 'lived experience' of a trans person.
But you seem to argue that women's rights are being massively eroded. But women aren't a tiny minority in the population. In fact they are a majority. So if women and their rights are being massively impacted by trans rights how come when women are asked in issues polling (unprompted) what important issues are facing them and the country virtually none of them mention the impact of trans rights. So in this context it is significant that, when asked, the people purported being negatively affected don't see this as an issue.
And the women sexually assaulted by Karen White are just unimportant to you because you are using an ad populum to say what should be cared about.
-
NS,
That it's disastrous I might agree but it doesn't mean that others agree, and doesn't mean that Farage isn't one of the most effective and successful, in their own terms, politicians in the UK in the last 50 years.
I agree that he was successful in the sense that he had a big effect on the outcome he wanted to achieve, but monuments are meant to commemorate people – ie, to show respect for or celebrate their achievements. I suppose there might be enough people still who think that Brexit was a good idea to endorse that idea, but it’d be a tough argument to make given what we all now know.
By the way, did you really describe trans people as mentally ill?
-
Yawn - we all know your views NS as you rant endlessly about them and I do consider your views to be extreme - just the other day you described trans people as being mentally ill. You are just as extreme as those who consider that if you are a man and wake up one morning and consider yourself to be a woman then you are a woman.
But my point was largely about the notion that most people do not consider this to be an issue - and by the way this will include the 500 or so women polled in a typical 1000 person issues index.
Just to give you context - at the very height of the GRA debate in Scotland just 2 women out of 508 people polled (and just three people overall) consider gender reform to be the most important issue and less than 1% considered it an important issue (those polled can effectively name as many issues as they feel important). And in the UK given that the threshold seems to be 2 people responding to be on the list of issues then maybe one, perhaps zero people out of 1000 seems to consider it important. Oh and by the way the polls don't demonstrate whether those who did think it an important issue are pro or anti trans rights.
You might be obsessed NS, but most people simply aren't. And I would suggest that most people consider a middle path to be best, considering both extremes to be equally shrill and unhelpful. I think most people want to see trans people and cis-women (wait for the explosion from NS when I use this term) treated with respect and dignity but also to ensure that all people, including trans people, are safe.
I find it really disturbing PD that you think being described as "mentally ill" is an insult. It's people like you that make it hard for people with mental illness to get help because they fear the judgemental attitude that you have just displayed.
I think the attempts by institutions and employers to police our thoughts, our speech and curtail freedom of expression is a really big issue. People were being threatened with loss of livelihood and/ or criminal records or non-crime hate incidents for disagreeing with unproven beliefs about gender. More importantly children were being physically mutilated or having their fertility destroyed by gender clinics based on shockingly limited evidence - it really, really matters that the model of care at the Tavistock clinic was leaving young people “at considerable risk” of poor mental health and distress based on nothing more than lobbying by Stonewall, ideology and dogma. Physical mutilation of children that causes ongoing physical and mental health problems into adulthood (even if it is happening to a small minority of children) really, really matters. The explosion in young girls especially wanting these procedures really, really matters.
We have Equalities legislation passed by Parliament that protects women in single-sex spaces in sport and prisons and hospitals because biology matters, getting raped, sexually assaulted or getting injured in sport by a man really, really matters because women are physically at a disadvantage to men. Having your dignity violated really, really matters to women. Yet trans activists including Stonewall were trying to circumvent Parliament and democracy and get State institutions and employers to go along with their dogma by misrepresenting the law and by trying to set mobs on people who disagreed with their beliefs and dogma.
That you think people who are fighting to change these physical outcomes for girls are "obsessed" is nothing more than misogyny on your part.
Sure trans women can really, really believe they are women if they want, but it is not ok for the State to try to force us to say we believe what they believe.
You sound like Vlad claiming atheists are obsessed because they are trying to roll-back the State's privileging of religious beliefs.
I don't think you would think it was a non-issue if you could be convicted of a hate crime or even a non-crime hate incident or you lost your job for saying you think Allah is a figment of a Muslim's imagination. I think you would get pretty "extreme" about a political party trying to force you to say you agree that Jews are God's chosen people or that Jesus really did die for your sins.
-
NS,
I agree that he was successful in the sense that he had a big effect on the outcome he wanted to achieve, but monuments are meant to commemorate people – ie, to show respect for or celebrate their achievements. I suppose there might be enough people still who think that Brexit was a good idea to endorse that idea, but it’d be a tough argument to make given what we all now know.
By the way, did you really describe trans people as mentally ill?
I said that if someone goes through full surgery and takes massive amounts of hormones to mimic the other sex then I regard that person as mentally ill and in need of full support in being treated, and that in the case of a man who does it, I do not regard them as suitable for being in a women's prison.
-
Out of interest - if someone believes they are white when their skin is brown and uses bleach to lighten their skin and scrubs their skin daily to the point of scarring it to try to remove the brown pigment - would we think that indicated some kind of mental illness?
-
NS,
I said that if someone goes through full surgery and takes massive amounts of hormones to mimic the other sex then I regard that person as mentally ill and in need of full support in being treated, and that in the case of a man who does it, I do not regard them as suitable for being in a women's prison.
Labelling someone “mentally ill” is a big statement (and one you’ve rightly cautioned people here against doing in the past by the way). Diagnosing mental illness is a clinical determination that, with respect, I suspect you as a lay person in this field are no more qualified to make than I am.
How did you bridge the gap from “behaving in a way I find unfathomable and alien” to a clinical diagnosis of mental illness?
-
VG,
Out of interest - if someone believes they are white when their skin is brown and uses bleach to lighten their skin and scrubs their skin daily to the point of scarring it to try to remove the brown pigment - would we think that indicated some kind of mental illness?
We might well think it, but neither of us would be qualified to diagnose it.
-
NS,
Labelling someone “mentally ill” is a big statement (and one you’ve rightly cautioned people here against doing in the past by the way). Diagnosing mental illness is a clinical determination that, with respect, I suspect you as a lay person in this field are no more qualified to make than I am.
How did you bridge the gap from “behaving in a way I find unfathomable and alien” to a clinical diagnosis of mental illness?
I didn't give a clinical diagnosis of mental.illness. I expressed my opinion that it is mental illness if someone were to do that.
Do you think that a man who has gone through extreme surgery and is taking massive amounts of hormones is a suitable person to be put in a women's prison as a women?
-
NS,
I didn't give a clinical diagnosis of mental.illness. I expressed my opinion that it is mental illness if someone were to do that.
But your opinion about that would be entirely unqualified (literally so in clinical terms) so what value would it have?
Do you think that a man who has gone through extreme surgery and is taking massive amounts of hormones is a suitable person to be put in a women's prison as a women?
No, but nor would I jump to an unqualified opinion about metal illness. Consider Gabriella’s scenario for example, but in reverse:
“Out of interest - if someone believes they are black when their skin is white and uses harmful dyes to darken their skin and applies them to their skin daily to the point of scarring it to try to remove the white pigment - would we think that indicated some kind of mental illness?”
A lay person may well think so. Someone more qualified though would want to know a lot more first – for example about context. What if for example that person was an albino living in the the African Great Lakes region where:
“…people with albinism have been persecuted, killed and dismembered, and graves of albinos dug up and desecrated. At the same time, people with albinism have also been ostracised and even killed for exactly the opposite reason, because they are presumed to be cursed and bring bad luck. The persecutions of people with albinism take place mostly in Sub-Saharan African communities, especially among East Africans.[3]: 8”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_people_with_albinism#:~:text=Tanzania%20is%20thought%20to%20have,properties%20of%20albinos'%20body%20parts.
Armed with that knowledge, I suspect I’d find their behaviour intensely sane instead.
-
NS,
But your opinion about that would be entirely unqualified (literally so in clinical terms) so what value would it have?
No, but nor would I jump to an unqualified opinion about metal illness. Consider Gabriella’s scenario for example, but in reverse:
“Out of interest - if someone believes they are black when their skin is white and uses harmful dyes to darken their skin and applies them to their skin daily to the point of scarring it to try to remove the white pigment - would we think that indicated some kind of mental illness?”
A lay person may well think so. Someone more qualified though would want to know a lot more first – for example about context. What if for example that person was an albino living in the the African Great Lakes region where:
“…people with albinism have been persecuted, killed and dismembered, and graves of albinos dug up and desecrated. At the same time, people with albinism have also been ostracised and even killed for exactly the opposite reason, because they are presumed to be cursed and bring bad luck. The persecutions of people with albinism take place mostly in Sub-Saharan African communities, especially among East Africans.[3]: 8”?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_people_with_albinism#:~:text=Tanzania%20is%20thought%20to%20have,properties%20of%20albinos'%20body%20parts.
Armed with that knowledge, I suspect I’d find their behaviour intensely sane instead.
Again, I'm not making a clinical diagnosis. I don't think male criminals should be put in women's prisons at all but ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women fmdi not to me have any more right to be kept in women's prisons and I regard that behaviour as a layperson to be behaviour thar is not indicative of sanity in a day to day use of the term. Further for thinking thar and expressing it, my view is according to Prof D extreme. Would you agree with him?
-
NS,
Again, I'm not making a clinical diagnosis.
What I asked you though was what value you think your unqualified opinion about mental illness has. And if the answer is “none”, why bother expressing it?
You’re also still making a big jump here from “I find X’s behaviour unfathomable” to “in my opinion person is therefore mentally ill”.
I don't think male criminals should be put in women's prisons at all but ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women fmdi not to me have any more right to be kept in women's prisons and I regard that behaviour as a layperson to be behaviour thar is not indicative of sanity in a day to day use of the term. Further for thinking thar and expressing it, my view is according to Prof D extreme. Would you agree with him?
“Extreme” is an unqualified term. Also “not indicative of sanity” is a considerable dilution of “X is mentally ill”. Personally I’d find that person’s behaviour impossible to understand, but I wouldn’t feel qualified to pronounce on his/her sanity.
As to the scenario, no I wouldn’t think the trans person’s right to be in a female prison outweighs the rights of the other prisoners not to be put at unreasonable risk. On a case-by-case basis though I’d want a professional evaluation of whether or not the person actually was likely to be any more a risk than any other prisoner.
-
NS,
What I asked you though was what value you think your unqualified opinion about mental illness has. And if the answer is “none”, why bother expressing it?
You’re also still making a big jump here from “I find X’s behaviour unfathomable” to “in my opinion person is therefore mentally ill”.
“Extreme” is an unqualified term. Also “not indicative of sanity” is a considerable dilution of “X is mentally ill”. Personally I’d find that person’s behaviour impossible to understand, but I wouldn’t feel qualified to pronounce on his/her sanity.
As to the scenario, no I wouldn’t think the trans person’s right to be in a female prison outweighs the rights of the other prisoners not to be put at unreasonable risk. On a case-by-case basis though I’d want a professional evaluation of whether or not the person actually was likely to be any more a risk than any other prisoner.
And what would you say to the women sexually assaulted by Karen White when he was deemed safe? Or to women in prison traumatised by the very idea of a man being imprisoned with them? That they shouldn't mind because someone you deem an expert said it was OK?
-
NS,
What I asked you though was what value you think your unqualified opinion about mental illness has. And if the answer is “none”, why bother expressing it?
You’re also still making a big jump here from “I find X’s behaviour unfathomable” to “in my opinion person is therefore mentally ill”.
“Extreme” is an unqualified term. Also “not indicative of sanity” is a considerable dilution of “X is mentally ill”. Personally I’d find that person’s behaviour impossible to understand, but I wouldn’t feel qualified to pronounce on his/her sanity.
As to the scenario, no I wouldn’t think the trans person’s right to be in a female prison outweighs the rights of the other prisoners not to be put at unreasonable risk. On a case-by-case basis though I’d want a professional evaluation of whether or not the person actually was likely to be any more a risk than any other prisoner.
And do you want a professional evaluation on a case by case basis of whether a biological man in a woman's prison was actually likely to be any more risk than any other prisoner? If not, why not? Do you think all men are rapists? If you don't think all men are rapists what is the rational for not letting men, even those who don't identify as women, be housed in women's prisons?
-
No, but nor would I jump to an unqualified opinion about metal illness. Consider Gabriella’s scenario for example, but in reverse:
“Out of interest - if someone believes they are black when their skin is white and uses harmful dyes to darken their skin and applies them to their skin daily to the point of scarring it to try to remove the white pigment - would we think that indicated some kind of mental illness?”
Just on that point - what do you think about the law restricting access to sunbeds for tanning to over 18s due to their link to cancer? https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/get-involved/our-campaigning-successes/sunbeds
Do you think it is ok that the NHS, the Tavistock clinic in particular and lobby groups were allowed to be more cavalier about children's safety when allowing them access to hormones such as puberty blockers than society is about allowing children access to sunbeds?
Especially given the sudden huge percentage jump in teenage girls identifying as trans boys and wanting puberty blockers? And what a coincidence - it was happening in a time when teenage boys have easy access and are showing worrying levels of addiction to explicit pornography that dehumanises girls to nothing more than sexting images and mindless orifices and receptacles for the boys' sexual gratification - do you think the 2 could be linked somehow?
-
NS,
And what would you say to the women sexually assaulted by Karen White when he was deemed safe?
I would say that the risk evaluation had failed, just as it would have failed if a non-trans woman had attacked another female prisoner. You seem to be carving out transitioned women as a special risk category here, whereas I’d have thought all incoming prisoners should be assessed for their potential risk to the inmates. A violent non-trans woman is as capable of knifing someone as White was as capable of her/his assault – why wouldn’t you just risk assess all incoming prisoners, albeit fully aware that the process isn’t perfect no matter what their status?
Or to women in prison traumatised by the very idea of a man being imprisoned with them?
I would want to address whether their concern was just a prejudice, or instead grounded in evidence that transitioned women are statistically more of a threat than any other type of prisoner.
That they shouldn't mind because someone you deem an expert said it was OK?
No more than if, say, an expert had said that a non-trans woman with a history of knife crime was ok.
Some people are more dangerous that other people – trans and non-trans alike. I don’t see why you think trans women should be treated as a different category of risk for this purpose. Is there any evidence for that?
None of this by the way has anything to do with your unqualified opinions about labelling people as mentally ill.
-
VG,
And do you want a professional evaluation on a case by case basis of whether a biological man in a woman's prison was actually likely to be any more risk than any other prisoner? If not, why not? Do you think all men are rapists? If you don't think all men are rapists what is the rational for not letting men, even those who don't identify as women, be housed in women's prisons?
What on earth are you talking about? We were talking about transitioned women here, and in any case I'd want all incoming prisoners to be risk assessed for the potential harm they could do to the inmates. Unless I had an evidential basis to think trans women as a category posed higher risks than any other women, why would I treat them any differently from non-trans women?
-
NS,
I would say that the risk evaluation had failed, just as it would have failed if a non-trans woman had attacked another female prisoner. You seem to be carving out transitioned women as a special risk category here, whereas I’d have thought all incoming prisoners should be assessed for their potential risk to the inmates. A violent non-trans woman is as capable of knifing someone as White was as capable of her/his assault – why wouldn’t you just risk assess all incoming prisoners, albeit fully aware that the process isn’t perfect no matter what their status?
I would want to address whether their concern was just a prejudice, or instead grounded in evidence that transitioned women are statistically more of a threat than any other type of prisoner.
No more than if, say, an expert had said that a non-trans woman with a history of knife crime was ok.
Some people are more dangerous that other people – trans and non-trans alike. I don’t see why you think trans women should be treated as a different category of risk for this purpose. Is there any evidence for that?
None of this by the way has anything to do with your unqualified opinions about labelling people as mentally ill.
Yes I am separating men who say they are women out from women in a women's prisons.
And in terms of safeguarding the indications are that men who say they are women maintain male rates of offending.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
If you want to put men who say they are women into women's prisons and change the basis of safeguarding, then it would be your duty of proof.
As to trying to see of women in prisons are prejudiced then I think are just telling the women to shut up.
Perhaps like Mridhal Wadhwa, you just want rape victims to reframe their trauma for men who say they are women
https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/
-
VG,
Just on that point - what do you think about the law restricting access to sunbeds for tanning to over 18s due to their link to cancer? https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/get-involved/our-campaigning-successes/sunbeds
I don’t think anything about it as I haven’t given it any thought, and in any case it has nothing to do with expressing unqualified opinions about people’s mental wellness or illness status.
Do you think it is ok that the NHS, the Tavistock clinic in particular and lobby groups were allowed to be more cavalier about children's safety when allowing them access to hormones such as puberty blockers than society is about allowing children access to sunbeds?
I wouldn’t have thought being cavalier about anyone’s safety was a good idea, but see above.
Especially given the sudden huge percentage jump in teenage girls identifying as trans boys and wanting puberty blockers? And what a coincidence - it was happening in a time when teenage boys have easy access and are showing worrying levels of addiction to explicit pornography that dehumanises girls to nothing more than sexting images and mindless orifices and receptacles for the boys' sexual gratification - do you think the 2 could be linked somehow?
Again, see above. If you want to argue that as a group trans women pose higher risks to non-trans women than other non-trans women do then tell what evidence there is for that.
And if you want to bandy around labels like “mentally ill” then tell me how you’d justify that conclusion without any of the skills or training necessary for your opinion be other than worthless.
-
VG,
What on earth are you talking about? We were talking about transitioned women here,
It's perfectly clear what I am talking about - I am talking about your lack of a rational evidential basis for treating trans women differently from men. Are you having trouble understanding the requirement for evidence to support your belief that biological men should be housed in prisons with biological women?
What is your definition of transitioned? If they have gone through puberty as a boy and are therefore on average physically bigger and stronger than the average woman, on what basis are you going to decide whether they are transitioned?
and in any case I'd want all incoming prisoners to be risk assessed for the potential harm they could do to the inmates.
Are you saying you want men risk-assessed on a case by case basis for the harm they could do women before housing them with women in a prison. If not, why not? Unless I had an evidential basis to think trans women as a category posed higher risks than any other women, why would I treat them any differently from non-trans women?
What evidential basis are you using to treat trans women differently from men in terms of the risk they pose to biological women?
-
VG,
I don’t think anything about it as I haven’t given it any thought, and in any case it has nothing to do with expressing unqualified opinions about people’s mental wellness or illness status.
I wouldn’t have thought being cavalier about anyone’s safety was a good idea, but see above.
Again, see above. If you want to argue that as a group trans women pose higher risks to non-trans women than other non-trans women do then tell what evidence there is for that.
And if you want to bandy around labels like “mentally ill” then tell me how you’d justify that conclusion without any of the skills or training necessary for your opinion be other than worthless.
You seriously can't be admitting to being that ignorant that you don't know the stats for sexual offending amongst men pretending to be blokes a.k.a. trans women are far higher than real women.
As I told my MP, the reason I find myself unable to vote Labour is that I am concerned about Labour’s position in relation to the evidence given to Parliament https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ about the following crime statistics:
MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
-
NS,
Yes I am separating men who say they are women out from women in a women's prisons.
Trans women aren’t just men who say they are women. You do know that right? Just a few replies ago you referred to “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”, not to men who just rock up and claim to be women.
And in terms of safeguarding the indications are that men who say they are women maintain male rates of offending.
https://fairplayforwomen.com/transgender-male-criminality-sex-offences/
And what is the evidence base for people born male who have actually transitioned doing that – ie, the “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”?
If you want to put men who say they are women into women's prisons and change the basis of safeguarding, then it would be your duty of proof.
I don’t, and nor have I suggested that I do.
As to trying to see of women in prisons are prejudiced then I think are just telling the women to shut up.
No. You referred to “…women in prison traumatised by the very idea of a man being imprisoned with them?”. If there was no evidence basis for thinking a fully transitioned woman (ie, not a man) was any more dangerous than any other woman, then I’d address their fear as I would any other prejudice – as I would re a prisoner traumatised by the idea of sharing a cell with a black person for example.
Perhaps like Mridhal Wadhwa, you just want rape victims to reframe their trauma for men who say they are women
https://thecritic.co.uk/reframe-your-trauma/
That’s unfair. If a fully transitioned woman has undergone “extreme surgery” (your phrase) then presumably she no longer has a penis. Is there any evidence that this group overall is any more likely to rape someone with an implement than “born” women?
If there isn’t, then what are you talking about?
-
NS,
Trans women aren’t just men who say they are women. You do know that right? ...
No, I don't know that. There are men who say they are women who have taken none, some, extreme efforts to say they are women but they are men saying they are women.
-
VG,
It's perfectly clear what I am talking about - I am talking about your lack of a rational evidential basis for treating trans women differently from men. Are you having trouble understanding the requirement for evidence to support your belief that biological men should be housed in prisons with biological women?
What is your definition of transitioned? If they have gone through puberty as a boy and are therefore on average physically bigger and stronger than the average woman, on what basis are you going to decide whether they are transitioned?
I was referring the to the category NS described as “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”. What category are you talking about?
Are you saying you want men risk-assessed on a case by case basis for the harm they could do women before housing them with women in a prison. If not, why not?
Because to the best of my knowledge men don’t go to women’s prisons.
You seem to be confused about this.
What evidential basis are you using to treat trans women differently from men in terms of the risk they pose to biological women?
See above. The question of what risks male prisoners would pose to female inmates doesn’t arise.
-
VG,
You seriously can't be admitting to being that ignorant that you don't know the stats for sexual offending amongst men pretending to be blokes a.k.a. trans women are far higher than real women.
As I told my MP, the reason I find myself unable to vote Labour is that I am concerned about Labour’s position in relation to the evidence given to Parliament https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/ about the following crime statistics:
MOJ stats show 76 of the 129 male-born prisoners identifying as transgender (not counting any with GRCs) have at least 1 conviction of sexual offence. This includes 36 convictions for rape and 10 for attempted rape. These are clearly male type crimes (rape is defined as penetration with a penis).
Comparisons of official MOJ statistics from March / April 2019 (most recent official count of transgender prisoners):
76 sex offenders out of 129 transwomen = 58.9%
125 sex offenders out of 3812 women in prison = 3.3%
13234 sex offenders out of 78781 men in prison = 16.8%
Er, you’re still missing the point. Is there any evidence or not that the trans women “who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” that NS was describing pose any more risk to female prisoners than anyone else?
Yes or no?
If you want to change the subject to “men pretending to be women” that’s fine, but it’s a different conversation to the one NS and I were having (albeit that he’s now shifted ground about that).
-
VG,
Er, you’re still missing the point. Is there any evidence or not that the trans women “who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” that NS was describing pose any more risk to female prisoners than anyone else?
Yes or no?
If you want to change the subject to “men pretending to be women” that’s fine, but it’s a different conversation to the one NS and I were having (albeit that he’s now shifted ground about that).
Again to change safeguarding which is the reason for having women's prisons, then it's your burden of proof, and as you have already admitted you have no evidence.
-
NS,
No, I don't know that. There are men who say they are women who have taken none, some, extreme efforts to say they are women but they are men saying they are women.
But to drag you back to the category you were actually referring to of "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” is there any evidence to your knowledge that this group poses a greater risk to female prisoners than "born" females?
If there is no such evidence, why do you want them treated differently from other female prisoners?
-
NS,
But to drag you back to the category you were actually referring to of "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” is there any evidence to your knowledge that this group poses a greater risk to female prisoners than "born" females?
If there is no such evidence, why do you want them treated differently from other female prisoners?
Because they are males, and the reason for the safeguarding is male behaviour, and you have no evidence that it changes as you have admitted.
-
NS,
Again to change safeguarding which is the reason for having women's prisons, then it's your burden of proof, and as you have already admitted you have no evidence.
No - the law recognises fully transitioned women as women, with all the attendant rights that entails. If nonetheless you want to carve out one sub-set of this category as especially high risk then the burden of proof to justify that claim is yours, not mine.
-
NS,
Because they are males, and the reason for the safeguarding is male behaviour, and you have no evidence that it changes as you have admitted.
What makes you think "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” are males when the law says otherwise, and I haven't "admitted" anything because the burden of proof for treating some women differently from other women is still yours?
-
NS,
No - the law recognises fully transitioned women as women, with all the attendant rights that entails. If nonetheless you want to carve out one sub-set of this category as especially high risk then the burden of proof to justify that claim is yours, not mine.
This started on here on the subject of the law not being clear, and that there being the possibility of sex segregated areas so that's incorrect in legal terms as it doesn't recognise the lack of clarity. You say men who get extreme surgery and take huge amounts of hormones are safe - prove it.
-
NS,
What makes you think "ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women” are males when the law says otherwise, and I haven't "admitted" anything because the burden of proof for treating some women differently from other women is still yours?
So when Robert Winston says that you can't change sex
https://youtu.be/pFHVV_GcykI?si=Gy7KIT20apY9u3wr
You are saying the law proves him wrong?
-
NS,
This started on here on the subject of the law not being clear, and that there being the possibility of sex segregated areas so that's incorrect in legal terms as it doesn't recognise the lack of clarity. You say men who get extreme surgery and take huge amounts of hormones are safe - prove it.
The Equality Act 2010 seems pretty clear to me:
"7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
Notwithstanding this legal protection against discrimination you seem to think that such people should be discriminated against in respect of prisons, but I don't know why.
-
NS,
So when Robert Winston says that you can't change sex
https://youtu.be/pFHVV_GcykI?si=Gy7KIT20apY9u3wr
You are saying the law proves him wrong?
First, no - I'm saying that the law says what the rules are regarding (in this case) discrimination. If nonetheless you want to argue for discrimination, then I suggest you need an evidence base to justify your position.
Second, notwithstanding the good Professor's position does he also suggest that transitioned women pose a greater threat to female prisoners than women born female? If not, what point do you think you're making?
-
NS,
The Equality Act 2010 seems pretty clear to me:
"7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
(2) A reference to a transsexual person is a reference to a person who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of gender reassignment—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a transsexual person;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to transsexual persons."
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/7
Notwithstanding this legal protection against discrimination you seem to think that such people should be discriminated against in respect of prisons, but I don't know why.
The Equality Act has exceptions that allow for single sex spaces, and the confusion is whether that means that people who have a GRC are defined in all sense as of the sex women, or not. Hence the Tories suggesting it needs redrafted, and Labour saying it needs more guidance issued to ensure that sex can mean sex and not gender.
Oh and just for info a GRC can be issued with no surgery or hormones.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/sex-discrimination
-
NS,
First, no - I'm saying that the law says what the rules are regarding (in this case) discrimination. If nonetheless you want to argue for discrimination, then I suggest you need an evidence base to justify your position.
Second, notwithstanding the good Professor's position does he also suggest that transitioned women pose a greater threat to female prisoners than women born female? If not, what point do you think you're making?
That the law can't change science. So no matter the surgery or hormones, they are still blokes saying they are women.
Women's prisons were set up because of the safeguarding threat of men. You have no evidence to show that a specific group of men aren't but yet you want the women to be put at risk on the evidence free basis.
-
NS,
The Equality Act 2010 seems pretty clear to me:
"7 Gender reassignment
(1)A person has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if the person is proposing to undergo, is undergoing or has undergone a process (or part of a process) for the purpose of reassigning the person's sex by changing physiological or other attributes of sex.
On what rational evidential basis is a man who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment a woman? Because he says he is a woman? You're just going to take his word for it are you?
If someone's say so is enough for you then I assume over on the Searching for God thread you'll just be taking Alan's word for it that he has had several encounters with God through prayer. If not, why not?
-
On what rational evidential basis is a man who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment a woman?
On the basis that 'woman' has two meanings, and whilst one of those is immutable and determined at birth - the one you're relying on - the other is malleable and an artefact of the individual's interaction with society.
Because he says he is a woman? You're just going to take his word for it are you?
No, because she says she's a woman; and, yes, I'm going to take her word for it. And until and unless there's a strong, specific reason that biological sex is important - and here are circumstances where that's the case - what sex someone is should be irrelevant.
If someone's say so is enough for you then I assume over on the Searching for God thread you'll just be taking Alan's word for it that he has had several encounters with God through prayer. If not, why not?
Because, whilst women have been shown to exist, so has femininity. Femininity, though, varies by culture, and is therefore not an inherent trait, but a social one, and therefore isn't intrinsically tied to biological sex. Gods, meanwhile, have not been shown to exist.
O.
-
VG,
I was referring the to the category NS described as “ones who have gone through extreme surgery and take massive hormones to mimic women”. What category are you talking about?
The category of men with gender dysphoria - you'll find that category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders because it's a condition that requires treatment.
https://www.psychiatry.org/File%20Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM-5-Gender-Dysphoria.pdf
Because to the best of my knowledge men don’t go to women’s prisons.
Almost there BHS - and why don't men go into women's prisons? Try really hard to think it through and look at the evidence rather than repeating what you really, really want to believe in, while providing absolutely no evidence to support your beliefs.
See above. The question of what risks male prisoners would pose to female inmates doesn’t arise.
What evidence are you basing your belief on that men who have physically gone through puberty but have fully transitioned do not still retain the aggression of men who have not transitioned. If you are going to put women at risk presumably you are basing your opinion on something more than wishful thinking and a misogynistic disregard for women's safety.
-
On the basis that 'woman' has two meanings, and whilst one of those is immutable and determined at birth - the one you're relying on - the other is malleable and an artefact of the individual's interaction with society.
No, because she says she's a woman; and, yes, I'm going to take her word for it. And until and unless there's a strong, specific reason that biological sex is important - and here are circumstances where that's the case - what sex someone is should be irrelevant.
Because, whilst women have been shown to exist, so has femininity. Femininity, though, varies by culture, and is therefore not an inherent trait, but a social one, and therefore isn't intrinsically tied to biological sex. Gods, meanwhile, have not been shown to exist.
O.
women reduced to stereotypes . How misogynist.
-
On the basis that 'woman' has two meanings, and whilst one of those is immutable and determined at birth - the one you're relying on - the other is malleable and an artefact of the individual's interaction with society.
Nope - there is just one meaning of woman. It's up to the majority of women to decide if that meaning changes. Men pretending to be women i.e. trans women and other men in general including you - don't get a say. Trans women are trans women i,e. men pretending to be women.
No, because she says she's a woman; and, yes, I'm going to take her word for it. And until and unless there's a strong, specific reason that biological sex is important - and here are circumstances where that's the case - what sex someone is should be irrelevant.
Nope, you as a man do not get to decide for women whether biological sex is important. What you get to do is go back to your world of male privilege and stay there without making a fool of yourself expressing your view on the importance of biological sex for a woman.
Because, whilst women have been shown to exist, so has femininity. Femininity, though, varies by culture, and is therefore not an inherent trait, but a social one, and therefore isn't intrinsically tied to biological sex. Gods, meanwhile, have not been shown to exist.
O.
Femininity is an idea like Gods. Are you saying femininity exists biologically? How are you using the word "exists" here?
When we're discussing women's safety and fairness in sport we're not discussing femininity, we're discussing biology. If you prioritise the feelings of men pretending to be women over female safety and fairness, that's just you expressing your male privilege - which is why your opinion is irrelevant.
-
women reduced to stereotypes . How misogynist.
Which stereotype would that have been? Femininity, which is expressly stated as varying with time and place? Or... what?
O.
-
Which stereotype would that have been? Femininity, which is expressly stated as varying with time and place? Or... what?
O.
Your point seems to be arguing that trans women are feminine men but you can't define "feminine". On what basis are you arguing that "feminine" exists if you can't define "feminine"?
-
Which stereotype would that have been? Femininity, which is expressly stated as varying with time and place? Or... what?
O.
You are using it as a marker for some classification for 'women' and it's all stereotypes.
What are the circumstances where a man says he's a woman, and biological sex is not important? You seem to have accepted it is important as regards prisons, what about women's refuges, rape crisis centres, sports, medical treatment when requested from a woman by a woman, single sex wards dating apps for lesbians, women's toilets, social media apps purely for women, support groups for pregnancy and menstruation? Are any of those not areas where sex isn't important?
When a man says he's is a woman, and you accept that, as true, don't you think that in terms of single sex spaces for women, you are accepting something that confuses that?
What is the difference between a man who says he's a woman, and one who lies that he is a women? How can you tell?
When Rachel Dolezal said she was black, do you think she was? If not, why not?
-
Nope - there is just one meaning of woman.
That's one of the reasons this discussion is going nowhere in so many instances - woman has a meaning in biological terms, and it has a meaning in gender terms, and whilst those two have a high-degree of crossover they aren't always identical.
It's up to the majority of women to decide if that meaning changes.
It's up to society as a whole - women, obviously, have a say in that, but it's not women's language.
Men pretending to be women i.e. trans women and other men in general including you - don't get a say.
You can try telling me what I'm allowed to mean when I use the term 'woman', but you're not going to get very far. You'll have more luck trying to convince me why you've a rationale behind your determination, and then you can convince everyone else, too, but so long as you sit there trying to be the language-police via internet you're not going to have much luck.
Trans women are trans women i,e. men pretending to be women.
In some contexts, although I'm more inclined to say 'fulfilling the role' than 'pretending'. In other contexts they're just women.
Nope, you as a man do not get to decide for women whether biological sex is important.
I'm not deciding. I'm part of a society which is collectively grappling with this new idea. You, as a person, don't get to tell me or anyone else what we can or can't have an opinion on. You can explain why you think your opinion is better informed, or more intimately affected, sure.
What you get to do is go back to your world of male privilege and stay there without making a fool of yourself expressing your view on the importance of biological sex for a woman.
I didn't say anything on the importance of biological sex for a woman. I said something on the importance of distinguishing gender from biological sex within society, and coming to a collective understanding on how - perhaps even if, eventually - we're going to differentiate between those. I accept that notion that there are times when biological sex is relevant and important, I accept that there are times when it's the overriding consideration. However, I also accept that there are times when it's irrelevant.
Femininity is an idea like Gods. Are you saying femininity exists biologically? How are you using the word "exists" here?
I'm saying it exists culturally. Like gods. In the long run I think we'll eventually get over the gender distinction entirely, and we'll just be people, but we're not there yet; just like I think we'll get over the 'gods' idea eventually. But we're not there yet, and we need to deal with the situation we have now.
When we're discussing women's safety and fairness in sport we're not discussing femininity, we're discussing biology.
Yep. And I'm fully behind making biological sex-based qualification the norm for almost every sport imaginable. I fully agree sport is about biology.
If you prioritise the feelings of men pretending to be women over female safety and fairness, that's just you expressing your male privilege - which is why your opinion is irrelevant.
And if I were prioritising those feelings you'd have a point, but I'm not. But equally I'm not blanket dismissing them as irrelevant, either. Perhaps, rather than presuming what I think, you should read what I've written?
Your point seems to be arguing that trans women are feminine men but you can't define "feminine".
No, I'm not arguing that trans-women are necessarily feminine, any more than I'm arguing that women by definition do fit to a particular understanding of feminine. I'm saying that the concept exists, that there is an understanding of a cultural 'role' that is seen to be the primary reserve of women, but that is independent of the biology.
On what basis are you arguing that "feminine" exists if you can't define "feminine"?
On the basis that we're having the discussion. A single 'feminine' notion isn't there, but a collective understanding that we operate in a culture that identifies the concept of 'feminine', rightly or wrongly, is.
O.
-
Yes I am interested in how Outrider defines feminine.
I played football as a kid, joined the OTC (part of the Territorial Army) at university, my hobby after I had my second child was kick-boxing. I enjoy driving and have been told I am a good driver. I like driving manual cars. I drive in Sri Lanka, the USA, Europe, Africa - would be happy to drive in every continent.
Outrider - do you have a definition of feminine? Does that definition include these activities - am I feminine because I enjoy doing all these things? Do you consider these to be feminine attributes?
-
How about instead of reifying the concept of gender, we take it that it's in general a set of regressive ideas? I don't see it as a new idea that society is grappling with but rather an old shite idea repackaged in a way that has adversely affected women's sex based spaces.
-
You are using it as a marker for some classification for 'women' and it's all stereotypes.
We're all using it as a marker, we all have a cultural background that colours that understanding, and whether we accept it or reject it it's still there.
What are the circumstances where a man says he's a woman, and biological sex is not important?
How to talk to and about them. What toilet they use.
You seem to have accepted it is important as regards prisons, what about women's refuges, rape crisis centres, sports, medical treatment when requested from a woman by a woman, single sex wards dating apps for lesbians, women's toilets, social media apps purely for women, support groups for pregnancy and menstruation? Are any of those not areas where sex isn't important?
I don't 'seem to have accepted' that it's important in prisons, I've been of that mindset from the start.
I'd say in the main, yes - I might be inclined to be a bit more nuanced around the social media apps, I might be inclined to suggest that having control around medical treatment options is something that should be controllable by everyone, I'm certainly of the opinion that communal wards for anyone is an antiquated throwback that should be jettisoned as soon as we can.
When a man says he's is a woman, and you accept that, as true, don't you think that in terms of single sex spaces for women, you are accepting something that confuses that?
When a woman who happens to have an inconvenient physiology is excluded from where she belongs, don't you see that as problematic? That's their viewpoint, and I might not understand it, but I don't have the right or the background to tell them that they're wrong. I'd like to live in a world where the stereotypes didn't exist, and people felt free to live as they want - we're not there, yet, but maybe this is a step in that direction.
What is the difference between a man who says he's a woman, and one who lies that he is a women? How can you tell?
Why are we limiting people with genuine troubles in their life based on the deceit of a few?
When Rachel Dolezal said she was black, do you think she was? If not, why not?
I understood what was underneath what she was saying, I think she was clumsy in getting it across - again, though, the problem came from not being able to adequately distinguish between the biology (i.e. ethnicity, sex) and the cultural associations of that (i.e. black culture, gender).
O.
-
Yes I am interested in how Outrider defines feminine.
I try not to, although I suspect I don't always succeed. I'm more interested on a day-to-day at trying to reinterpret the cultural expectations around masculinity, but the same principles generally apply. The point isn't that I have a definition, the point isn't that there is any single or right definition, even for one age-group, or region, or cultural subgroup. The point is that it's a fluid concept, but it's still a concept that's out there that we're interacting with all the time.
I played football as a kid, joined the OTC (part of the Territorial Army) at university, my hobby after I had my second child was kick-boxing. I enjoy driving and have been told I am a good driver. I like driving manual cars. I drive in Sri Lanka, the USA, Europe, Africa - would be happy to drive in every continent.
And regardless of what I feel, would you agree that in early 21st century Britain they're still not seen as traditionally feminine? We might feel that was patronising and restrictive, certainly Mrs O. and I aren't bringing our daughter up to feel restricted by those sorts of considerations, but that sentiment is still out there. For context, Mrs O. and I met at our local Ju Jitsu club, she's a Maths graduate and started her working career in IT - none of those are traditionally 'feminine', which didn't bother either of us. And yet we're still trying to balance buying clothes for our kids, because at 5 our daughter has all this cultural weight pushing on her telling her that she should be more worried about appearance than her brother should, that girls should be associated with princesses and unicorns whilst her brother should be about dinosaurs and spaceships. I don't like that gender bias, but you can't live in a world where that's so pernicious and still think that the concept of 'feminine' doesn't exist - shouldn't, you could argue, and I'd be inclined to agree, but not doesn't.
Outrider - do you have a definition of feminine?
A definition? No. Examples, yes. Do I think they should be important? No. Are they? Yes.
Does that definition include these activities - am I feminine because I enjoy doing all these things? Do you consider these to be feminine attributes?
I think I've addressed that already, but for clarity. I consider those to be not particularly feminine, but that's because I don't get to define what is or isn't, I just identify what I see (imperfectly, perhaps) as being the cultural background. I'm not bothered by what is or isn't feminine, but other people are. I work in schools, and the differences in teen behaviour aren't primarily biological, they're cultural: girls aren't consistently rolling their skirts up because of biology, or we'd see the same behaviour from the girls wearing the head-scarves, but we don't. Boys aren't walking around with their shirts untucked to annoy the teachers, they're doing it because the cultural expectation on them is to appear slightly unkempt, ruffled, in a way that the girls aren't.
So the boys that want to be well-dressed, that want to preen - are they feminine? They're certainly viewed that way by some, they face criticism for that from some. There's a cultural pressure on them to conform to gender expectations based on a 'role' that's defined by culture, but to which they're assigned because of their biological sex (or, at least, from someone's assumption of their biological sex).
O.
-
We're all using it as a marker, we all have a cultural background that colours that understanding, and whether we accept it or reject it it's still there.
How to talk to and about them. What toilet they use.
I don't 'seem to have accepted' that it's important in prisons, I've been of that mindset from the start.
I'd say in the main, yes - I might be inclined to be a bit more nuanced around the social media apps, I might be inclined to suggest that having control around medical treatment options is something that should be controllable by everyone, I'm certainly of the opinion that communal wards for anyone is an antiquated throwback that should be jettisoned as soon as we can.
When a woman who happens to have an inconvenient physiology is excluded from where she belongs, don't you see that as problematic? That's their viewpoint, and I might not understand it, but I don't have the right or the background to tell them that they're wrong. I'd like to live in a world where the stereotypes didn't exist, and people felt free to live as they want - we're not there, yet, but maybe this is a step in that direction.
Why are we limiting people with genuine troubles in their life based on the deceit of a few?
I understood what was underneath what she was saying, I think she was clumsy in getting it across - again, though, the problem came from not being able to adequately distinguish between the biology (i.e. ethnicity, sex) and the cultural associations of that (i.e. black culture, gender).
O.
So if a women who has been traumatised by rape does not want men in a toilet outside, here fears are worthless to you, and she should just accept mwn who say they are women in there?
What is an 'inconvenient physiology'? And if a group is sex based then yes, men should be excluded from it, no matter how inconvenient they find their physiology.
As to why should men who genuinely think they are a women, as opposed to thise lying about it then yes, I do think they should be excluded because it's the women who I'm concerned about. I'm not going to rape anyone but safeguarding dictates that I should be excluded from spaces that would make it easier for me to do so.
-
That's one of the reasons this discussion is going nowhere in so many instances - woman has a meaning in biological terms, and it has a meaning in gender terms, and whilst those two have a high-degree of crossover they aren't always identical.
No, the word "women" doesn't have a meaning in gender terms no matter how much you and a minority group of self-interested men really, really want to believe it does.
It's up to society as a whole - women, obviously, have a say in that, but it's not women's language.
And women overwhelmingly are saying trans women are not women - it's a small minority of men pretending to be women and some useful idiots like you enabling them that is trying to change the meaning of the word.
You can try telling me what I'm allowed to mean when I use the term 'woman', but you're not going to get very far. You'll have more luck trying to convince me why you've a rationale behind your determination, and then you can convince everyone else, too, but so long as you sit there trying to be the language-police via internet you're not going to have much luck.
Actually you and your minority of self-interested men friends would have more luck in changing the meaning of the word "women" if you had a rationale for your meaning of the word. Go ahead, give it your best shot - because all I'm hearing so far from you is that you really, really, really believe "woman" should have a different meaning from its current biological meaning, because you really, really believe "feminine" exists but you can't define "feminine".
In some contexts, although I'm more inclined to say 'fulfilling the role' than 'pretending'. In other contexts they're just women.
I'm not deciding. I'm part of a society which is collectively grappling with this new idea. You, as a person, don't get to tell me or anyone else what we can or can't have an opinion on. You can explain why you think your opinion is better informed, or more intimately affected, sure.
You can have an opinion on what you like - it doesn't mean your opinion would be considered relevant to anyone but yourself - to get a say on the matter you first need to present your credentials. Over to you - on what basis are you arguing that you know the importance of biology to a woman, given you have no experience of the importance of biology to a woman?
I didn't say anything on the importance of biological sex for a woman. I said something on the importance of distinguishing gender from biological sex within society, and coming to a collective understanding on how - perhaps even if, eventually - we're going to differentiate between those. I accept that notion that there are times when biological sex is relevant and important, I accept that there are times when it's the overriding consideration. However, I also accept that there are times when it's irrelevant.
Ok - so you are arguing that there are times it is irrelevant - like when, please provide some actual examples so I can understand what you mean.
I'm saying it exists culturally. Like gods. In the long run I think we'll eventually get over the gender distinction entirely, and we'll just be people, but we're not there yet; just like I think we'll get over the 'gods' idea eventually. But we're not there yet, and we need to deal with the situation we have now.
Ok so are you saying you would be ok with having your employer fire you or being visited by the police because you disagree with someone's cultural ideas and beliefs e.g. if you say in public that gods are figments of people's imagination? Or you say you don't believe gods really exist so you don't think we should be teaching children in school that gods do exist?
Yep. And I'm fully behind making biological sex-based qualification the norm for almost every sport imaginable. I fully agree sport is about biology.
Noted.
And if I were prioritising those feelings you'd have a point, but I'm not. But equally I'm not blanket dismissing them as irrelevant, either. Perhaps, rather than presuming what I think, you should read what I've written?
Ok noted.
No, I'm not arguing that trans-women are necessarily feminine, any more than I'm arguing that women by definition do fit to a particular understanding of feminine. I'm saying that the concept exists, that there is an understanding of a cultural 'role' that is seen to be the primary reserve of women, but that is independent of the biology.
On the basis that we're having the discussion. A single 'feminine' notion isn't there, but a collective understanding that we operate in a culture that identifies the concept of 'feminine', rightly or wrongly, is.
O.
The concept of gods exists independent of biology. The concept of lots of things exist independent of biology - such as the supernatural, honour, duty, integrity, patriotism, dying for a cause, transcendence etc etc. Are you arguing that would should change the meaning of words for physical things that do exist, to incorporate these concepts. A sword exists, would your argument work to change the meaning of the word "sword" to also mean having a sense of honour and duty because rightly or wrongly we operate in a culture that identifies "honour and duty" with violence?
-
...
I'm saying it exists culturally. Like gods. In the long run I think we'll eventually get over the gender distinction entirely, and we'll just be people, but we're not there yet; just like I think we'll get over the 'gods' idea eventually. But we're not there yet, and we need to deal with the situation we have now.
...
O.
You don't think people should believe in god and should move beyond that. You say the same about gender.
And yet for people who say they believe in god, you argue that they are wring, but for men who declare they are the gender women, you affirm that they are correct. Why the completely different and logically inconsistent approach?
-
I try not to, although I suspect I don't always succeed. I'm more interested on a day-to-day at trying to reinterpret the cultural expectations around masculinity, but the same principles generally apply. The point isn't that I have a definition, the point isn't that there is any single or right definition, even for one age-group, or region, or cultural subgroup. The point is that it's a fluid concept, but it's still a concept that's out there that we're interacting with all the time.
The point is that biology isn't a fluid concept to women and the biological basis of being a woman throws up all kinds of serious issues for women that society has not made sufficient progress in addressing. There is still an issue of women overwhelmingly facing physical violence and physical intimidation and rape threats from men to coerce them into silence and obedience because of women's biology - such as their weaker, smaller physical attributes ; of women having to take career breaks that men do not have to take because the majority of child care falls to women because of biology e.g pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding, which means women are not sufficiently present at work to earn similar rewards to men. So trying to change the biological term "woman" so you add fluid meanings to it that no one seems to be able to define is trivialising those serious issues.
And regardless of what I feel, would you agree that in early 21st century Britain they're still not seen as traditionally feminine? We might feel that was patronising and restrictive, certainly Mrs O. and I aren't bringing our daughter up to feel restricted by those sorts of considerations, but that sentiment is still out there. For context, Mrs O. and I met at our local Ju Jitsu club, she's a Maths graduate and started her working career in IT - none of those are traditionally 'feminine', which didn't bother either of us. And yet we're still trying to balance buying clothes for our kids, because at 5 our daughter has all this cultural weight pushing on her telling her that she should be more worried about appearance than her brother should, that girls should be associated with princesses and unicorns whilst her brother should be about dinosaurs and spaceships. I don't like that gender bias, but you can't live in a world where that's so pernicious and still think that the concept of 'feminine' doesn't exist - shouldn't, you could argue, and I'd be inclined to agree, but not doesn't.
If you are trying to argue it shouldn't exist why are you trying to pander to it by reinforcing those stereotypes by arguing that men who exhibit those stereotypes are women?
A definition? No. Examples, yes. Do I think they should be important? No. Are they? Yes.
I think I've addressed that already, but for clarity. I consider those to be not particularly feminine, but that's because I don't get to define what is or isn't, I just identify what I see (imperfectly, perhaps) as being the cultural background. I'm not bothered by what is or isn't feminine, but other people are. I work in schools, and the differences in teen behaviour aren't primarily biological, they're cultural: girls aren't consistently rolling their skirts up because of biology, or we'd see the same behaviour from the girls wearing the head-scarves, but we don't. Boys aren't walking around with their shirts untucked to annoy the teachers, they're doing it because the cultural expectation on them is to appear slightly unkempt, ruffled, in a way that the girls aren't.
So the boys that want to be well-dressed, that want to preen - are they feminine? They're certainly viewed that way by some, they face criticism for that from some. There's a cultural pressure on them to conform to gender expectations based on a 'role' that's defined by culture, but to which they're assigned because of their biological sex (or, at least, from someone's assumption of their biological sex).
O.
Ok you work in a school. The cultural expectation of the academic performance of many black boys in school is not great. The cultural expectation of the academic performance of many white boys in school is not great. Boys face criticism for being a nerd. Do we pander to that cultural expectation or try to change it?
-
You can pass a law to say wolves are legally sheep. It doesn't make it true.
If I'd been asked to sign off my work emails with 'Christ is King' or some such, and my boss was sending me emails signed off with 'Christ is King' and told me I was a bigot for thinking that personal politics should be kept out of work and that being openly atheist was a daily insult akin to using racial slurs to my Christian colleagues, presumably O, BHS and PD would be on my side?
The willingness of supposedly left wing people to disregard not just women's voices and concerns, but material reality, in order to support a irrational ideology that benefits men at the expense of women and children (based in Queer Theory which suggests there's no such thing as objective reality) has certainly opened my eyes.
I've not got much option but to be "obsessed" at the moment, chaps. I'm unemployed. Judicial mediation of my ET claim is in less than 3 weeks. I'm not crowd funding, I'm paying solicitors out of my savings, because I don't want to divert scarce resources from other women worse off than me. My union PCS (37 years of subs) didn't support me despite the internal investigation that confirmed discrimination and harassment and support from the local rep. If I could afford it I'd sue them too.
-
You can pass a law to say wolves are legally sheep. It doesn't make it true.
If I'd been asked to sign off my work emails with 'Christ is King' or some such, and my boss was sending me emails signed off with 'Christ is King' and told me I was a bigot for thinking that personal politics should be kept out of work and that being openly atheist was a daily insult akin to using racial slurs to my Christian colleagues, presumably O, BHS and PD would be on my side?
The willingness of supposedly left wing people to disregard not just women's voices and concerns, but material reality, in order to support a irrational ideology that benefits men at the expense of women and children (based in Queer Theory which suggests there's no such thing as objective reality) has certainly opened my eyes.
I've not got much option but to be "obsessed" at the moment, chaps. I'm unemployed. Judicial mediation of my ET claim is in less than 3 weeks. I'm not crowd funding, I'm paying solicitors out of my savings, because I don't want to divert scarce resources from other women worse off than me. My union PCS (37 years of subs) didn't support me despite the internal investigation that confirmed discrimination and harassment and support from the local rep. If I could afford it I'd sue them too.
Wow Christine - I am so sorry. Wish you all the best and if there is anything I can do to help you have my support. Well done for standing up at huge personal cost to the bigoted views of some men who think women's voices and opinions on this are trivial - you're like a Suffragette!
I assume you can't say much about your case until after the Judicial mediation but please keep me posted, whether it's by PM or on the thread.
I don't work for someone else, otherwise I would probably be out of a job too like you. My friend, who is a solicitor working for a large City company, says it is a hill she is prepared to die on, especially as she has a girl and 2 boys being taught to pander to this cultural pressure. She hasn't been fired yet but we send each other updates on the issue and she has taken part in protests and activism for it.
-
Wow Christine - I am so sorry. Wish you all the best and if there is anything I can do to help you have my support. Well done for standing up at huge personal cost to the bigoted views of some men who think women's voices and opinions on this are trivial - you're like a Suffragette!
I assume you can't say much about your case until after the Judicial mediation but please keep me posted, whether it's by PM or on the thread.
I don't work for someone else, otherwise I would probably be out of a job too like you. My friend, who is a solicitor working for a large City company, says it is a hill she is prepared to die on, especially as she has a girl and 2 boys being taught to pander to this cultural pressure. She hasn't been fired yet but we send each other updates on the issue and she has taken part in protests and activism for it.
Thank you so much for your good wishes. I have support from a lot of women that I met as a direct result of taking a stand on this and I couldn't be more grateful. My ex-employer would have liked me to believe that I was a lone bigot taking issue with their political posturing and misrepresentations of the law. I know I'm not a bigot, and now I know I'm not alone.
-
So if a women who has been traumatised by rape does not want men in a toilet outside, her fears are worthless to you, and she should just accept men who say they are women in there?
No. But in the context of people being in a public space, what is the significant element, their biological sex, or their gender? If they appear as a woman, act as a woman, think of themselves as a woman, in that situation in what way are they not a woman?
What is an 'inconvenient physiology'?
In this context, feeling like one gender, but being of the biological sex that's typically associated with the other.
And if a group is sex based then yes, men should be excluded from it, no matter how inconvenient they find their physiology.
Yep. But what about women who used to be men?
As to why should men who genuinely think they are a women, as opposed to thise lying about it then yes, I do think they should be excluded because it's the women who I'm concerned about.
And I'm not trying to pick a side, I'm trying to find a situation that's as fair and equitable for as many people as possible.
I'm not going to rape anyone but safeguarding dictates that I should be excluded from spaces that would make it easier for me to do so.
The overwhelming majority of men, women, trans-men and trans-women are not going to rape anyone, either. The thin end of the wedge argument isn't a good place to start a discourse
There's a slew of evidence out there to suggest that trans-women are at an even higher risk of rape and sexual assault than cisgender women, how do we accommodate that reality?
O.
-
Christine - you're definitely not alone. It's worrying how this gender ideology and dogma held by a minority (many trans people don't even agree with it) wormed its way into the workplace and schools and tried to takeover.
I really don't understand this let's pander to cultural pressure argument that apparently works for unevidenced beliefs about "gender" but doesn't similarly apply to beliefs about gods.
There are other beliefs that there is cultural pressure to pander to. Not the same thing as gender I know, but I have the cultural expectations and pressure in my community that fair skin is more attractive than dark skin. I have no idea how the quantity of melanin in your skin determines beauty or attractiveness. My own parents brought me up with this nonsense - I thought they were mad for not just holding these beliefs but trying to pressure me to live by them, and I took every opportunity to tell them. It isn't just them - it's everywhere in Asian society. I spend my holidays out in the sun enjoying myself and I flaunt my tan to my community and tell them they're all mad for thinking fair is more beautiful.
Just the other day my daughter asked my dad (he's 82) if he thought my mum was pretty when he saw her to discuss getting married - his response was "well her colour...she wasn't fair, not like your mother" (meaning me). My daughters are both darker than me - so I just regularly tell them their grandparents are morons on this issue and seeking the approval of morons would be equally moronic.
-
The point is that biology isn't a fluid concept to women and the biological basis of being a woman throws up all kinds of serious issues for women that society has not made sufficient progress in addressing.
Biology isn't a fluid concept in this, but we're not just talking about biology, whether you're a woman or not. Yes, the biological basis of both sexes throws up all sorts of issues that we're really poor, collectively, at dealing with. From male teenage hormonal anger and aggression through to cultural taboos on even talking about menstruation and menopause. Not talking about something else as well isn't some sort of balancing out, though.
There is still an issue of women overwhelmingly facing physical violence and physical intimidation and rape threats from men to coerce them into silence and obedience because of women's biology - such as their weaker, smaller physical attributes ; of women having to take career breaks that men do not have to take because the majority of child care falls to women because of biology e.g pregnancy, giving birth, breastfeeding, which means women are not sufficiently present at work to earn similar rewards to men.
And how does trying to pretend that transgender people don't have concerns address any of that? They do need addressing, both in ways I'm aware of and almost certainly in a plethora of ways I'm not even aware, but treating transgender people as potential rapists 'just in case' doesn't help any of that.
So trying to change the biological term "woman" so you add fluid meanings to it that no one seems to be able to define is trivialising those serious issues.
Nobody is trying to redefine the biology. Nobody. Not me. Not anyone I know. Not anyone I've read about. Nobody. We're accepting the reality that society has expectations of people BECAUSE of their biology, that aren't actually dependent upon that biology, and that cultural phenomenon is, broadly, 'gender'. And as it's not inerrantly fixed to biology, people are free to transgress those expectations. Increasingly, with medical procedures, even elements - and only elements - of the physicality can be altered.
If you are trying to argue it shouldn't exist why are you trying to pander to it by reinforcing those stereotypes by arguing that men who exhibit those stereotypes are women?
I'm not arguing that they are all women. I'm arguing that as the stereotypes aren't intrinsically fixed to biology, and as we use the word 'woman' interchangeably (and at times at crossed purposes) between referencing sex and gender, that there's an area where we're still collectively trying to update. Sometimes I feel like a different word for the gender aspect of men and women would be useful, but at the same time I suspect it would quickly become weaponised; on the one hand it would be used to differentiate 'gender women' from 'real women' in situations where it's not relevant, and on the other extreme it would become a slur.
Ok you work in a school. The cultural expectation of the academic performance of many black boys in school is not great. The cultural expectation of the academic performance of many white boys in school is not great. Boys face criticism for being a nerd. Do we pander to that cultural expectation or try to change it?
Both, to an extent. If you rail against the current cultural expectations you persuade fringe members, perhaps, but you typically are ignored as irrelevant. To change the culture you need to work with it, within it. The teachers that make changes in schools aren't the authoritarians who make rules and edicts from afar, they're the ones who show the kids that they understand, and then show them a better way from as far inside their framework as they can get. You can't reach all of them, and the more extreme subcultures - you called out black boys and white boys, I'd specifically suggest devout Muslim children and working-class white boys - are the hardest to be seen as relevant within.
I don't know what the equivalent is with the groups of women who have reservations about trans-women. On a purely academic level I think I understand at least some of the sentiment - I can't really appreciate it, which you can consider 'male privilege' in a way, though in this context I don't think that helps. Maybe it's arrogance to be outside of that and think that it gives an element of dispassionate balance, certainly Mrs O. takes a line closer to yours than mine on this.
I'd love for it not to be an issue. I'd love for society to be so devoid of these expectations that nobody really associated particular traits or activities with one sex or the other, and gender wasn't a thing. I'd love for my little girl, who's currently 5, not to need to be prepared for this world. That's not the world I've got - we've got.
O.
-
"Feeling like one gender"
How in the name of flying spaghetti does a person feel like a "gender"? I have no idea how other women feel, never mind what the nebulous essence of womanhood is that gender ideologues think makes men women.
The word woman is taken. It describes an adult female human, like mare describes an adult female horse. We have to be able to describe ourselves - accurately, exclusively - to defend our rights.
Some of us are 6'2" and never wear dresses or make-up. Some of us like sci-fi, drinking, smoking and swearing. Some of us never wanted or gave birth to children. We're still women. Gender ideologues are the ones limiting people's freedom to be themselves by suggesting the stereotypes you most closely align with might mean you need dangerous drugs and surgery to change your physical appearance. The main beneficiaries of that are pharmaceutical corporations and unethical surgeons.
A child in the US started on this path is likely to generate about $1.3m over their lifetime for drug companies and doctors. Imagine the damage to the environment of all that unnecessary medicalisation of personality and taste. Progressive? It'd be hilarious if it wasn't for all the ruined bodies and lives.
Read the WPATH files. Read the Cass review. Watch The Lost Boys.
-
Biology isn't a fluid concept in this, but we're not just talking about biology, whether you're a woman or not. Yes, the biological basis of both sexes throws up all sorts of issues that we're really poor, collectively, at dealing with. From male teenage hormonal anger and aggression through to cultural taboos on even talking about menstruation and menopause. Not talking about something else as well isn't some sort of balancing out, though.
Who is "not talking" about the something else? We're all happy to talk about men who identify with feminine stereotypes. "Talking" about it is not an accurate description of what is happening though - what is happening is we're being told that we have to believe their mental disorders and label a man a woman on pain of losing our jobs or our livelihoods or being visited by the police, not to mention having men pretending to be women threatening to rape us with their lady dicks or assault us if we disagree with them. We also face losing out on scholarships and medals and opportunities in sport and work as men pretending to be women use their biological advantages to take our spots and try to silence dissent using the aggression that comes with the biology of being a man. Does that seem like talking to you? Or does that seem like unevidenced dogma that you should be standing up against rather than pandering to?
And how does trying to pretend that transgender people don't have concerns address any of that?
Who is trying to pretend trans people don't have concerns. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder that requires treatment and as with any mental health issues their distress does need addressing, but how did you decide that perpetuating the stereotypes of femininity to the detriment of real women is a price you are willing to pay to soothe the unevidenced beliefs of men pretending to be women?
They do need addressing, both in ways I'm aware of and almost certainly in a plethora of ways I'm not even aware, but treating transgender people as potential rapists 'just in case' doesn't help any of that.
What does that even mean - treating them as potential rapists? Why don't you tell me your take on why society segregate men from women by law and prioritise single-sex sports and certain other facilities, while also allowing mixed sports and facilities in other areas? Is there some evidential basis for that or did society just pluck that division out of thin air?
Nobody is trying to redefine the biology. Nobody. Not me. Not anyone I know. Not anyone I've read about. Nobody. We're accepting the reality that society has expectations of people BECAUSE of their biology, that aren't actually dependent upon that biology, and that cultural phenomenon is, broadly, 'gender'. And as it's not inerrantly fixed to biology, people are free to transgress those expectations. Increasingly, with medical procedures, even elements - and only elements - of the physicality can be altered.
Does that mean you can also accept the reality that society has expectations of people because of the cultural phenomenon of religion and gods that aren't really dependent on actual science or biology? You know - things like where religion says it's a sin to be gay? People are free to transgress those expectations but if people in a society really, really believe it's a sin to be gay, we should as a society pander to those cultural expectations right, because that is the reality of the society they live in?
I'm not arguing that they are all women. I'm arguing that as the stereotypes aren't intrinsically fixed to biology, and as we use the word 'woman' interchangeably (and at times at crossed purposes) between referencing sex and gender, that there's an area where we're still collectively trying to update. Sometimes I feel like a different word for the gender aspect of men and women would be useful, but at the same time I suspect it would quickly become weaponised; on the one hand it would be used to differentiate 'gender women' from 'real women' in situations where it's not relevant, and on the other extreme it would become a slur.
So what you're arguing is that for example a person's sexuality - a sexual preference based on biology - could be weaponised so while it could be handy to have a different word for same sex attraction, maybe it's better not to in case some extremists use it as a slur?
Both, to an extent. If you rail against the current cultural expectations you persuade fringe members, perhaps, but you typically are ignored as irrelevant. To change the culture you need to work with it, within it. The teachers that make changes in schools aren't the authoritarians who make rules and edicts from afar, they're the ones who show the kids that they understand, and then show them a better way from as far inside their framework as they can get.
Ah ok so to change the culture of gender stereotypes, including the trans women who are buying into those stereotypes, you want to show them a better way i.e. not pandering to gender stereotypes? So you will try to persuade them within their framework to not try to reinforce cultural gender stereotypes by wearing dresses, wigs, having breast implants etc?
Or did you mean no authoritarian rules to try to change the minds of gender-critical women such as cancelling their livelihood, labelling them bigots, firing them, have the police visit them - you think society should show them it understands and try to show them a better way from as far inside their framework as they can get - is that what you're arguing?
You can't reach all of them, and the more extreme subcultures - you called out black boys and white boys, I'd specifically suggest devout Muslim children and working-class white boys - are the hardest to be seen as relevant within.
And what is the stereotype you are working with for "devout" Muslims?
I don't know what the equivalent is with the groups of women who have reservations about trans-women. On a purely academic level I think I understand at least some of the sentiment - I can't really appreciate it, which you can consider 'male privilege' in a way, though in this context I don't think that helps. Maybe it's arrogance to be outside of that and think that it gives an element of dispassionate balance, certainly Mrs O. takes a line closer to yours than mine on this.
Yes I'd say being outside the feeling of constantly being on your guard in case a predatory man tries to take advantage of your smaller stature and strength everywhere you go - each time you get into your car, when you make plans to travel, when you are alone in a confined space with a man - that would certainly erode some of the arrogance. You don't have an element of "dispassionate balance" - it's called not giving a toss because it's not part of your experience from childhood.
I'd love for it not to be an issue. I'd love for society to be so devoid of these expectations that nobody really associated particular traits or activities with one sex or the other, and gender wasn't a thing. I'd love for my little girl, who's currently 5, not to need to be prepared for this world. That's not the world I've got - we've got.
O.
Well it's certainly not going to happen while you're pandering to it instead of arguing against it. Hence the problem with a lot of the political parties in the election who are also pandering to it.
-
Who is "not talking" about the something else?
Everyone.
We're all happy to talk about men who identify with feminine stereotypes.
If we'd been doing that for a while, we might not be in this situation.
"Talking" about it is not an accurate description of what is happening though - what is happening is we're being told that we have to believe their mental disorders and label a man a woman on pain of losing our jobs or our livelihoods or being visited by the police, not to mention having men pretending to be women threatening to rape us with their lady dicks or assault us if we disagree with them.
We are talking about it. Collectively we're talking about it. Some people are being militant about it, some people are trying - and succeeding - in using the law to get their way. People on both sides feel aggrieved, sometimes rightly so, sometimes not. I can't speak to the prevalence of the fear of rape and assault, though I can sympathise; I can empathise with being automatically considered a predator because I was born with a penis, and while I can understand why that's the case, it doesn't take away the disappointment when I get strange looks taking my kids to the park. And it does happen, not a lot. It's not on the same level as what I understand women go through, but it's part and parcel of the same underlying problem.
We also face losing out on scholarships and medals and opportunities in sport and work as men pretending to be women use their biological advantages to take our spots and try to silence dissent using the aggression that comes with the biology of being a man.
On the sporting front, as I've said, I agree with you, which doesn't stop it happening, and presumably doesn't stop the sense of resentment building, in this case for a justified reason. On the idea of (non-sporting related) scholarships and places, I'm a little less convinced. If someone is living as a woman, regardless of the sex they were born with, they face the same discrimination in the workplace.
Does that seem like talking to you?
Yes. We talk to convince, we talk to express, we talk to effect change. We're all talking, we're all communicating - some well, some less so - and so we're all influencing the ongoing conversation that's establish the social norms.
Or does that seem like unevidenced dogma that you should be standing up against rather than pandering to?
It seems as much unevidenced dogma to me as the idea that gender doesn't exist, there is only biological sex and people.
Who is trying to pretend trans people don't have concerns. Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder that requires treatment and as with any mental health issues their distress does need addressing, but how did you decide that perpetuating the stereotypes of femininity to the detriment of real women is a price you are willing to pay to soothe the unevidenced beliefs of men pretending to be women?
Where am I perpetuating the stereotypes of femininity? I acknowledge that they are part of our cultural background, should I deny that fact? Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and the best available evidence we have for how to treat that varies on the individual circumstances, but it includes transitioning to various extents - if we can't find a way to accommodate that, if we continue to alienate and exclude and 'other' people in these situations, that's effectively treating them as though their concerns don't matter, or at least don't matter enough.
What does that even mean - treating them as potential rapists?
From the 'outside', making appeals to worry about 'lady dicks' and 'threats of rape' in discussions about trans-men is akin to the longstanding equivocation between gay men and paedophiles. Yes, if you get enough trans-women into consideration some of them will have a history of sexual violence. To make laws, rules and judgements on that small minority is treating them all as potential rapists.
Why don't you tell me your take on why society segregate men from women by law and prioritise single-sex sports and certain other facilities, while also allowing mixed sports and facilities in other areas? Is there some evidential basis for that or did society just pluck that division out of thin air?
Bits of both, I suspect. Women's sports, in the main, are maintained as a result of the realities of biology that they can't directly compete physically, but in at least some instances they emerged in the first instance because men wouldn't play against women as it was not socially acceptable, not because women weren't competitive. The idea of women being not just non-competitive but physically incapable or at risk from competing then followed, as men tried to preserve their space as the 'physical' sex/gender. My take on why, now, a mixture of reasons, some rational (women's biological lack of physical weight, power and size on average), and some cultural (male cheerleaders, female racing drivers).
Does that mean you can also accept the reality that society has expectations of people because of the cultural phenomenon of religion and gods that aren't really dependent on actual science or biology?
Of course, that's sort of the point. We're a lot further along the argument against religion, though, than we are against the notion of gender. In part because gods aren't real, but biological sex is.
You know - things like where religion says it's a sin to be gay? People are free to transgress those expectations but if people in a society really, really believe it's a sin to be gay, we should as a society pander to those cultural expectations right, because that is the reality of the society they live in?
When society was ready to turn the corner on criminalising homosexuality in the West, it did. Across broad swathes of the rest of the world that's not the case yet, in some places it's regressing. That debate started in earnest in the mainstream in the late 1950s, and we still haven't 'solved' it. And it happened in small steps, as society updated and reevaluated, and sexuality went from being 'right and wrong' to 'normal and variant' and is approaching a place where individual preferences from asexuality through to pansexuality are seen as just that; individual preferences. I don't know how long it's going to take to get to the place regarding gender, but we're only at the start of the social transition - if you'll excuse the phrasing.
So what you're arguing is that for example a person's sexuality - a sexual preference based on biology - could be weaponised so while it could be handy to have a different word for same sex attraction, maybe it's better not to in case some extremists use it as a slur?
We already do. Gay has been a pejorative for so long that it's used by some to reclaim their identity, for others as a general epithet without necessary an explicit reference to sexuality at all, and large sections of the lesbian community don't identify with it at all any more.
Ah ok so to change the culture of gender stereotypes, including the trans women who are buying into those stereotypes, you want to show them a better way i.e. not pandering to gender stereotypes? So you will try to persuade them within their framework to not try to reinforce cultural gender stereotypes by wearing dresses, wigs, having breast implants etc?
On an individual level, as a person, I would probably be inclined to try to dissuade them, yes. I don't see why having a penis stops you doing any of the things you want to do, any more than having breasts and a vagina stops you. However, if they, in conversation with someone with a lot more expertise in the field than me decides that the best way for them to feel good about themselves and their life is to transition I don't have the data or the expertise to speak against that. If someone's already transitioned, and they're happier for it, and it's working for them, I'm not going to tell them it was all in their head, I'm going to wish them well and hope they continue to feel good about their life.
Or did you mean no authoritarian rules to try to change the minds of gender-critical women such as cancelling their livelihood, labelling them bigots, firing them, have the police visit them - you think society should show them it understands and try to show them a better way from as far inside their framework as they can get - is that what you're arguing?
I think weaponising the legal system on people for having an opinion on an area like this, where we're collectively still trying to decide what we think is right, is not only unhelpful, but unjust.
And what is the stereotype you are working with for "devout" Muslims?
It varies - I work in schools, but I'm not an educator, I don't interact with the students a great deal, but there are female Muslim students who significantly underperform with male teachers, for instance, for as I understand it a variety of reasons from fear of being seen by their peers to be too interested to being too concerned of the social restrictions around them to speak up when they don't understand. Equally there are a male Muslim students who play up to female teachers, again in part because of a sense of peer-pressure at allowing women to direct them in some way. This is less prevalent in the schools with a lower proportion of Muslim students. The 'devout' phrasing isn't mine, I should not, it's the shorthand reference that's used in the Trust I work for; I don't doubt their are equally devout Muslims who don't have this sense, if there's a better phrasing you can think of I'm happy to use it.
Yes I'd say being outside the feeling of constantly being on your guard in case a predatory man tries to take advantage of your smaller stature and strength everywhere you go - each time you get into your car, when you make plans to travel, when you are alone in a confined space with a man - that would certainly erode some of the arrogance. You don't have an element of "dispassionate balance" - it's called not giving a toss because it's not part of your experience from childhood.
If I didn't give a toss I wouldn't be trying to have the discussion, I'd just dismiss your concerns and tell you 'not to worry your pretty little head about'.
Well it's certainly not going to happen while you're pandering to it instead of arguing against it.
Accepting a reality isn't pandering, any more than fighting against the current status quo is tilting at windmills.
Hence the problem with a lot of the political parties in the election who are also pandering to it.
Politicians aren't the wind of change, they're driven before the wind. If they're moving that way it's because their voters - culture, society - is moving that way.
O.
-
Outrider,
I have a lot of respect for your manner of debating. I think, when you know more about the reality of what is going on, you might reconsider your position on this.
I would urge you to read Time To Think by Hannah Barnes, or Trans by Helen Joyce. Or just listen to Helen Joyce being interviewed on the subject, by anyone, at any time. Watch Jennifer Lahl's film The Lost Boys.
Human beings can't change sex. If adults want to modify their bodies, and there is no other treatment for their mental distress, ok, but a man who has had surgery is still a man.
Lying to children that they can choose whether to grow up to be a man or a woman, and ought to have the right to take dangerous drugs to interfere with one of the most crucial phases of their physical and mental development, is wrong.
Opposition to gender ideology is nothing like the homophobia of the past. Many lesbians and gay men are sex realists. If sex isn't real, as someone once said, there is no same sex attraction. Ex-Stonewall CEO Nancy Kelley compared lesbians who don't want to sleep with men to racists. Stonewall want men who call themselves women to "overcome the cotton ceiling". If anything is old-school homophobia it's lesbians being told they just haven't tried the right penis yet.
I don't think you know what's going on. When examples and evidence are provided, the unaware assume we're exaggerating, or flat-out lying to justify our 'phobia', because it does sound incredible.
I'm someone who tried hard and sincerely to use they/them pronouns for a young woman, even in her absence, four years ago. Before I knew what I was endorsing by going along with it. (Or trying to go along with it. There's a cognitive burden in constantly trying to monitor your speech. Especially when your brain wants to tell the truth by default.)
-
NS,
The Equality Act has exceptions that allow for single sex spaces, and the confusion is whether that means that people who have a GRC are defined in all sense as of the sex women, or not. Hence the Tories suggesting it needs redrafted, and Labour saying it needs more guidance issued to ensure that sex can mean sex and not gender.
Oh and just for info a GRC can be issued with no surgery or hormones.
https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/equality/equality-act-2010/your-rights-under-equality-act-2010/sex-discrimination
Yes I know, but I still see no evidence base for transitioned women posing a greater risk to female prisoners than do “born” women. If there is such evidence then of course it should be taken into account; if not though, why should the concerns of inmates about transitioned women be treated differently from concerns about, say, concerns about black women or for that matter about lesbian women?
That the law can't change science. So no matter the surgery or hormones, they are still blokes saying they are women.
Women's prisons were set up because of the safeguarding threat of men. You have no evidence to show that a specific group of men aren't but yet you want the women to be put at risk on the evidence free basis.
Science in this case would be applying a technical designation. What relevance do you think this has to whether or not transitioned women thus designated are differentially higher risk to inmates than are any other women?
Female prisons were set up in part to protect the inmates from men, but you can’t rely on something that made sense long before sex change was possible to justify discriminating against transitioned women for all functional purposes, notwithstanding that they may technically still be designated as men.
All of this discussion feels like a red herring to me. Either transitioned women are higher risk to inmates than born women, or they’re not. And if they’re not, why are you so vexed about this?
-
VG,
On what rational evidential basis is a man who is proposing to undergo gender reassignment a woman? Because he says he is a woman? You're just going to take his word for it are you?
If someone's say so is enough for you then I assume over on the Searching for God thread you'll just be taking Alan's word for it that he has had several encounters with God through prayer. If not, why not?
Nice selective quoting there. Why have you edited out transitioned women who have undergone surgery or partially undergone surgery? Does this mean that you’re now ok with these categories going to women’s prisons?
As for the group you selected (men who intend to have reassignment surgery but haven’t started it yet) then yes – if I was to steel man my own argument this is the group I’d look askance at because, in theory at least, they’re the ones who could fake it. I’m not close enough to this world to know in practice how this sub-set of a protected class would be handled, but I’d be happy to be educated about it. Could someone self-certify just with a “yes, I plan to have the surgery” or would additional checks be needed?
Incidentally, if (heaven forfend) you were an inmate in a women’s prison and the governor came to you and said “we have two arrivals today, one of whom you have to share your cell with. One is a fully transitioned, post surgery woman with no history of sexual interest in other women, the other is a born woman with a history of predatory sexual behaviour toward other women” which would you pick, and why?
Would you not for example want both to be fully risk assessed, and then to pick the one with the lower risk profile?
-
Hi Christine,
You can pass a law to say wolves are legally sheep. It doesn't make it true.
Yes, but that’s not what’s happening here. It’s not just about passing a law to say men are women – it’s about men who undergo radical reassignment surgery and take high doses of hormones to become women for most or all day-to-day functional purposes no matter the technical designation they may retain.
If I'd been asked to sign off my work emails with 'Christ is King' or some such, and my boss was sending me emails signed off with 'Christ is King' and told me I was a bigot for thinking that personal politics should be kept out of work and that being openly atheist was a daily insult akin to using racial slurs to my Christian colleagues, presumably O, BHS and PD would be on my side?
Well I would, but again that’s not an analogous example. Signing e-mails concerns choices and decisions; gender reassignment on the other have is about physical and chemical changes such that the material reality is changed. I couldn’t for example transition on Monday, and then choose to be non-transitioned on Tuesday because my boss told me to be non-transitioned.
The willingness of supposedly left wing people to disregard not just women's voices and concerns, but material reality, in order to support a irrational ideology that benefits men at the expense of women and children (based in Queer Theory which suggests there's no such thing as objective reality) has certainly opened my eyes.
By “disregarded” do you mean ignored, or addressed and found to be unfounded? Again, if my concern as a female prisoner about having a transitioned woman as a fellow prisoner was found to have no more evidential justification than my concerns about black prisoners or lesbian prisoners, should my concerns be acted on in respect of just one of those groups nonetheless, all of them or none of them? And if you think just the former, why?
I've not got much option but to be "obsessed" at the moment, chaps. I'm unemployed. Judicial mediation of my ET claim is in less than 3 weeks. I'm not crowd funding, I'm paying solicitors out of my savings, because I don't want to divert scarce resources from other women worse off than me. My union PCS (37 years of subs) didn't support me despite the internal investigation that confirmed discrimination and harassment and support from the local rep. If I could afford it I'd sue them too.
I’m very sorry to hear that Christine – it sounds awful. In a former life I was a partner in a large accountancy firm where I was involved in several ETs (on both sides), and I remember how stressful they can be. It’s cold comfort to tell you that it will pass, and that time brings perspective but for what it's worth that’s consistently been my experience from the people involved. My best wishes to you.
-
I have a lot of respect for your manner of debating.
Thank you. I get drawn into the cheap pointscoring, sometimes, like everyone, but I like to think I try.
I think, when you know more about the reality of what is going on, you might reconsider your position on this.
I think I know the reality. What I don't think I know - and probably can't - is the perspective of people who've grown up in all of this as women. That's one of the topics of conversation that's come up between Mrs O. and I on this topic, that idea that being a woman in society isn't intrinsically tied to biology, but some of that cultural reality is at least a byproduct of it. A trans-woman not going to be any better equipped to join in a conversation about periods, for instance, than I am. So it's not like I think it's an absolute, but that's a part of the problem, it's a mass not just of grey areas, but of various shades of grey (that would have been a VERY different book!).
I would urge you to read Time To Think by Hannah Barnes, or Trans by Helen Joyce. Or just listen to Helen Joyce being interviewed on the subject, by anyone, at any time. Watch Jennifer Lahl's film The Lost Boys.
I'll add them to my list, but it's already a disturbingly long list.
Human beings can't change sex.
I agree, but you don't seem to see gender as separate from that to any degree - if you even accept the notion of gender at all?
If adults want to modify their bodies, and there is no other treatment for their mental distress, ok, but a man who has had surgery is still a man.
But being a man in society - or being a woman in society - isn't just about covering up the right parts of your biology. There are roles and expectations and cultural norms, and not everyone feels that they fit into those expectations. My instinct is that physical transitioning is the least bad option; perhaps my view is a little coloured by my children, who are autistic to varying degrees. One of them is profoundly autistic, and there is something palpably 'wrong' with her, she can't function as an independent adult. The eldest can, easily, and does - he went off to university, got himself a degree, maintains a few semi-close friendships, volunteers twice a week at a local charity shop. But he can't hold down a job, can't get past the interview stages most of the time - he's fine, in himself, but he's in a society and a culture that can't seem to find a place to fit him in, and so he's pushed out to the fringes. My suspicion is that at least a significant portion of trans people are in a similar situation - their biological sex and their self-image don't conform, and the only way they can make those contradictions fit is to undergo something drastic. I'd like for our world to be able to fit them all in, maybe one day it will, but I'm not going to be able to make that happen, and certainly not tomorrow, so for now I try to make the least bad progress from where I find we are.
Lying to children that they can choose whether to grow up to be a man or a woman, and ought to have the right to take dangerous drugs to interfere with one of the most crucial phases of their physical and mental development, is wrong.
I sort of agree - lying to them, certainly, pretending that the biological sex element is irrelevant or can be changed rather than merely simulated is wrong, although I don't know to what extent that's actually happening. Telling children that they shouldn't feel constrained by the social expectations of their biological sex - that they shouldn't be beholden to gender, ultimately - feels right, though, and in our current climate the upshot of that in extreme cases seems to be trans people.
Opposition to gender ideology is nothing like the homophobia of the past.
It's not identical, but there are parallels in some ways, I think.
Many lesbians and gay men are sex realists.
From where I'm looking most people are - as I said earlier, I'm not sure I know of anyone who's saying that biological sex isn't real in any way, there are just differences of opinion on what proportion of the overall discussion that constitutes. Some people see biological sex as the end of the discussion, and others see it as the start.
If sex isn't real, as someone once said, there is no same sex attraction. Ex-Stonewall CEO Nancy Kelley compared lesbians who don't want to sleep with men to racists.
And, perhaps, there's a parallel I do see, inasmuch as I think both of those ideas are wrong - who you are attracted to is an individual consideration, and not being able to see past someone's birth sex isn't something I'd judge someone for. But, equally, I don't think it's right to judge someone for who they're attracted to in terms of race, either - we can't change the cultural influences that we grew up with. You can be civil to anyone, you can accept that any individual is a capable, competent, decent human being worthy of respect, but what you find attractive is what you find attractive, it's not a conscious choice, you aren't 'deciding' to not be attracted to someone who was born as a man, or who was born East Asian.
Stonewall want men who call themselves women to "overcome the cotton ceiling".
If that's an equivalent to the glass ceiling for women, I'm not implicitly opposed to it - if it's about everyone being sex and gender blind in their sexual preferences then it's nonsense.
If anything is old-school homophobia it's lesbians being told they just haven't tried the right penis yet.
Not that it's my place to have an opinion on that, I suspect, but I'm guessing there's a fair old dose of misogyny in there, too: I can't image a woman telling a lesbian that? Is that something that happens?
I don't think you know what's going on. When examples and evidence are provided, the unaware assume we're exaggerating, or flat-out lying to justify our 'phobia', because it does sound incredible.
I don't think I don't know what's going on, i think I don't - can't - have the direct experience of it, and therefore that perspective. I haven't had to fight for as much, haven't had to inherit that fight from people who've given a lot for it, and so it has a different sense for me.
I'm someone who tried hard and sincerely to use they/them pronouns for a young woman, even in her absence, four years ago. Before I knew what I was endorsing by going along with it. (Or trying to go along with it. There's a cognitive burden in constantly trying to monitor your speech. Especially when your brain wants to tell the truth by default.)
To the best of my knowledge, I've not been in that situation - I don't know that I know anyone who's transitioned to any extent. If I do, I've not noticed, but I like to think I'd be minded to call them by what they want to be called, but I'd hope they'd understand that if it's confusing there's going to be times when mistakes are made.
O.
-
VG,
Nice selective quoting there. Why have you edited out transitioned women who have undergone surgery or partially undergone surgery? Does this mean that you’re now ok with these categories going to women’s prisons?
You quoted the law as though you agreed with it or it supported your position so I queried why you agreed with this part of the legislation. If you don't agree with parts of the legislation, then you won't have a problem with other people opposing legislation or drawing the line at a different place from you in terms of the parts of the legislation they oppose.
As for the group you selected (men who intend to have reassignment surgery but haven’t started it yet) then yes – if I was to steel man my own argument this is the group I’d look askance at because, in theory at least, they’re the ones who could fake it. I’m not close enough to this world to know in practice how this sub-set of a protected class would be handled, but I’d be happy to be educated about it. Could someone self-certify just with a “yes, I plan to have the surgery” or would additional checks be needed?
Incidentally, if (heaven forfend) you were an inmate in a women’s prison and the governor came to you and said “we have two arrivals today, one of whom you have to share your cell with. One is a fully transitioned, post surgery woman with no history of sexual interest in other women, the other is a born woman with a history of predatory sexual behaviour toward other women” which would you pick, and why?
Would you not for example want both to be fully risk assessed, and then to pick the one with the lower risk profile?
You have not answered my question yet. You want to change safeguarding rules for women in a prison from segregation based on sex - what evidence are you using to assert that transitioned men who believe they are women are not a bigger risk to women prisoners than real women? You must be basing your opinion on some kind of evidence - why don't you provide it here so we can all look into it?
-
As much as I think that nuance and flexibility has a role in some discussions I think that when it comes to bald facts they are of limited value. Biological sex is such a bald fact, and no matter what I may feel subjectively about myself I cannot switch from XX to XY chromosomes, and therefore I can never be factually considered to be a 'woman' no matter what I thought or how I presented myself.
To consider that a 'trans-woman' is the same thing as a 'woman' is to conflate 'gender' with 'biological sex', and to me that seems like a humongous non sequitur: it simply does not follow. Therefore if there are situations that are specific and exclusive to 'women', be it certain sports or changing/toilet/healthcare facilities, I don't think that 'trans-women' meet the inclusion criteria.
The women (as in adult females) in my family agree with me.
-
Everyone.
If we'd been doing that for a while, we might not be in this situation.
I disagree - lots of people were taking about it. The conversation only became toxic when some extremists started using the law and cancel culture to try to end people's careers and when the police got involved in policing what people were allowed to say.
We are talking about it. Collectively we're talking about it. Some people are being militant about it, some people are trying - and succeeding - in using the law to get their way. People on both sides feel aggrieved, sometimes rightly so, sometimes not. I can't speak to the prevalence of the fear of rape and assault, though I can sympathise; I can empathise with being automatically considered a predator because I was born with a penis, and while I can understand why that's the case, it doesn't take away the disappointment when I get strange looks taking my kids to the park. And it does happen, not a lot. It's not on the same level as what I understand women go through, but it's part and parcel of the same underlying problem.
I am not sure what it feels like from your perspective, but it's not just rape that worries women. At any given time if a man chooses to subject us to violence we are at a physical disadvantage. In disagreements we may have to choose between our freedom to speak/ act as we think and the likelihood of a broken nose if a man feels we provoked him and has not learnt to control his aggression and has strength and weight behind his blows due to his biology when he went through puberty. I have been punched in the face by a short man and a taller woman - there was no comparison in terms of pain. Other men who got punched in the face by the same short man shrugged it off like nothing happened.
On top of that some people in society gaslight us by telling us that what our senses are telling us is to be discounted because some men feel entitled to put their needs above ours; some people tell us that being competitive against men or assertive is seen as ball-busting but if a man behaves that way he is admired and praised for it.
As for the rape part I am grateful to men walking behind or towards me who cross the road if I am walking alone at night. For me a normal evening out involves tensing up as I hear a man's footsteps behind me, I get my keys ready as a weapon, and then feel the adrenaline dissipate and some relief when the man walks past me and keeps walking. I walk down the middle of roads at night, or if I can't I warily pass parked vans as I walk past them especially where there is poor street lighting. I watch my drink when I am out or ask others to if I have to go away from my drink - to make sure no one slips anything into it. When I took my daughters for music lessons or swimming lessons etc I could not leave them alone with a male teacher because of the number of children who are groomed by male predators. This is normal for many women because some men consider us prey and we don't know who the predators are as they don't helpfully wear a sign alerting us of their intentions - they hide in plain sight.
On the sporting front, as I've said, I agree with you, which doesn't stop it happening, and presumably doesn't stop the sense of resentment building, in this case for a justified reason. On the idea of (non-sporting related) scholarships and places, I'm a little less convinced. If someone is living as a woman, regardless of the sex they were born with, they face the same discrimination in the workplace.
Not sure how - unless they can get pregnant and carry a baby. If they don't need to go through labour and don't need to be at home to breastfeed etc how are they facing the same discriminations. And if they have been going through life as a boy and then living and working as a man for years and decided the previous year they were going to start living as a woman how have they gone through the years of discrimination other women have?
It seems as much unevidenced dogma to me as the idea that gender doesn't exist, there is only biological sex and people.
I thought we already agreed that gender exists like gods exist - as ideas, beliefs and concepts. So no one should be threatened with sanctions if they don't subscribe to unevidenced gender beliefs or god beliefs. Yet there have been many instances of sanctions for being gender-critical - employers and social institutions have had to be taken to court for privileging the unevidenced gender ideology dogma.
Where am I perpetuating the stereotypes of femininity? I acknowledge that they are part of our cultural background, should I deny that fact? Gender dysphoria is a mental disorder, and the best available evidence we have for how to treat that varies on the individual circumstances, but it includes transitioning to various extents - if we can't find a way to accommodate that, if we continue to alienate and exclude and 'other' people in these situations, that's effectively treating them as though their concerns don't matter, or at least don't matter enough.
Of course the concerns of people with mental disorders matter as a mental disorder is not within their control - unlike a lifestyle choice. That they matter and need to be helped to cope with should not equate to an easy fix answer of affirmation, surgery or puberty blockers and transition. There should be counselling and other treatments that should be tried to help them cope with suicidal ideation or depression or feeling emotional discomfort, sadness, anxiety. Children especially often have multiple complex issues and pressures that their brains are not developed enough to deal with yet and they also don't have the different perspective and coping skills that only life experience can give them. Many of the young girls who wanted to transition were also diagnosed with autism so their apparent discomfort with their biological sex could have been due to the autism but this was not fully explored.
From the 'outside', making appeals to worry about 'lady dicks' and 'threats of rape' in discussions about trans-men is akin to the longstanding equivocation between gay men and paedophiles.
No it isn't - it isn't even remotely similar. Yes, if you get enough trans-women into consideration some of them will have a history of sexual violence. To make laws, rules and judgements on that small minority is treating them all as potential rapists.
Again no it isn't - anymore than making laws, rules and judgments about men is treating them all as potential rapists. Society makes these rules based on the statistics for offending, the level of seriousness of consequences for victims and makes laws to try to reduce the probability of a seriously harmful event to vulnerable people - it is called safeguarding. When I am worrying about a man approaching behind me I am not thinking all men are potential rapists, I am thinking what is the probability that I could be in front of a man that sees me as prey and what am I going to do to protect myself.
The people I was referring to were trans women posting dick picks on Instagram threatening women they labelled as TERFS with rape as well as publicly threatening gender-critical women on their own social media feeds. Strangely they did not threaten gender-critical men with assault or threaten to rape them.
Of course, that's sort of the point. We're a lot further along the argument against religion, though, than we are against the notion of gender. In part because gods aren't real, but biological sex is.
Depends which religion - I think I have heard that Islam is increasing in terms of number of people who identify as Muslim.
I don't think we'll be getting rid of religion because it is an effective counter to other cultural influences. It is also a great way to motivate people to die or kill for a cause as it somewhat counters the non-religious beliefs such as patriotism that drive oppression, colonialism and conflict. Religious belief can help reduce some of the advantage of superior technological fire-power in a conflict that is used by some countries to try to force communities into submission. If you believe in Martyrdom, even if you die you win. We have just had the D-Day commemoration for the sacrifice of so many lives fighting in WW2. Why would a society lacking in technological advantages try to eliminate the belief of martyrdom and nobility of sacrifice from its people?
When society was ready to turn the corner on criminalising homosexuality in the West, it did. Across broad swathes of the rest of the world that's not the case yet, in some places it's regressing. That debate started in earnest in the mainstream in the late 1950s, and we still haven't 'solved' it. And it happened in small steps, as society updated and reevaluated, and sexuality went from being 'right and wrong' to 'normal and variant' and is approaching a place where individual preferences from asexuality through to pansexuality are seen as just that; individual preferences. I don't know how long it's going to take to get to the place regarding gender, but we're only at the start of the social transition - if you'll excuse the phrasing.
Not sure what your position is here - where there are societies with cultural pressure on people to not have homosexual sex because they believe it to be sinful - we should pander to those beliefs because that is a reality of the culture?
We already do. Gay has been a pejorative for so long that it's used by some to reclaim their identity, for others as a general epithet without necessary an explicit reference to sexuality at all, and large sections of the lesbian community don't identify with it at all any more.
Sure, so gay people survived and thrived so similarly let's find a term for men who identify with feminine traits to differentiate them from real women i.e. biological women. Lets call them "feminmen."
On an individual level, as a person, I would probably be inclined to try to dissuade them, yes. I don't see why having a penis stops you doing any of the things you want to do, any more than having breasts and a vagina stops you. However, if they, in conversation with someone with a lot more expertise in the field than me decides that the best way for them to feel good about themselves and their life is to transition I don't have the data or the expertise to speak against that. If someone's already transitioned, and they're happier for it, and it's working for them, I'm not going to tell them it was all in their head, I'm going to wish them well and hope they continue to feel good about their life.
Sure until they don't respect boundaries such as the feelings of women in single-sex spaces. Women care more about what makes them happier, given the biological disadvantages they already face, than they care about what makes men with a mental disorder happier. There is no requirement for women to care just because they tend to have a womb and because men's cultural gender stereotypes perceive biological women as people-pleasers and nurturers who sacrifice their own needs for the sake of others. The sooner those kind of dangerous cultural stereotypes are tossed out the better.
I think weaponising the legal system on people for having an opinion on an area like this, where we're collectively still trying to decide what we think is right, is not only unhelpful, but unjust.
I agree and that is what the current fight is against and that is why NS has been championing it on here - because he recognises it is unjust and he cares, not because he is "obsessed" as PD disparagingly said.
It varies - I work in schools, but I'm not an educator, I don't interact with the students a great deal, but there are female Muslim students who significantly underperform with male teachers, for instance, for as I understand it a variety of reasons from fear of being seen by their peers to be too interested to being too concerned of the social restrictions around them to speak up when they don't understand. Equally there are a male Muslim students who play up to female teachers, again in part because of a sense of peer-pressure at allowing women to direct them in some way. This is less prevalent in the schools with a lower proportion of Muslim students. The 'devout' phrasing isn't mine, I should not, it's the shorthand reference that's used in the Trust I work for; I don't doubt their are equally devout Muslims who don't have this sense, if there's a better phrasing you can think of I'm happy to use it.
I am less concerned about phrasing so long as you recognise that these are not "devout" characteristics and they are just stereotypes based on one particular limited, uninformed view of Muslims. I am not sure about other Muslim communities but certainly in the Sri Lankan Muslim community especially in Sri Lanka, Muslim girls are vastly out-performing Muslim boys in terms of education - to the point where they can't find a Muslim man to marry who is sufficiently educationally qualified to match them. And very often these professionally qualified Muslim girls wear hijab, pray, fast during Ramadan, and while excelling at school and work. They no doubt consider themselves devout Muslims.
If I didn't give a toss I wouldn't be trying to have the discussion, I'd just dismiss your concerns and tell you 'not to worry your pretty little head about'.
I was referring to your view of yourself as being dispassionately balanced - it's more likely that you're detached because it doesn't affect you as much, plus you've absorbed some of the bias that goes with living as a man.
Accepting a reality isn't pandering, any more than fighting against the current status quo is tilting at windmills.
Accepting reality is fine if you are willing to speak against reality in favour of change.
Politicians aren't the wind of change, they're driven before the wind. If they're moving that way it's because their voters - culture, society - is moving that way.
O.
No - it's just because self-interested parties and lobby groups are trying to manipulate society to move that way in order to try to remain relevant, keep their funding, gain power and influence. That is how lobby and interest groups work in society and politics and they amplify certain minority voices that pay them well and distort the picture because of their own self-interested agendas.
-
VG,
You quoted the law as though you agreed with it or it supported your position so I queried why you agreed with this part of the legislation.
Broadly I agreed with it (ie that trans women should not be discriminated against) for the same reason I agree with it about other protected groups – ethnic, age-related etc.
You on the other hard seem to want to carve out just one of those protected classes for different treatment, though I still don’t know why.
Again – as you focused just on the sub-group who intend to have reassignment surgery but haven’t started it yet, does that mean that you do support the legislation at least re trans women who have (or who have partially) already transitioned?
If you don't agree with parts of the legislation, then you won't have a problem with other people opposing legislation or drawing the line at a different place from you in terms of the parts of the legislation they oppose.
First, I didn’t say that I didn’t agree with it. I just said I didn’t know how in practice the “blokes who are faking it” group (if such people even exist) would be managed. Do the authorities just take their word for it that they plan to have the surgery, or is there a different procedure in place - taking lots of oestrogen and living as a woman for a year for example?
Second, i don’t have a problem with anyone disagreeing with any legislation. What I do have though is a problem with agreeing with them when they have no evidence base to justify their position.
You have not answered my question yet. You want to change safeguarding rules for women in a prison from segregation based on sex - what evidence are you using to assert that transitioned men who believe they are women are not a bigger risk to women prisoners than real women? You must be basing your opinion on some kind of evidence - why don't you provide it here so we can all look into it?
I didn’t say I wanted to change anything. What I did say however was that I don’t see why someone’s concerns about one group (transitioned women) should carry any more weight than their concerns about, say, black women or lesbians. If there is evidence that would justify those concerns for the former one but not the latter two then well and good; if not though, I still don’t know what your argument is for treating only the transitioned women group differently from the other groups.
You remind me a bit here of someone I spoke to recently who’s anti equal marriage and when pressed for a justification could only come up with “because marriage is meant to be between a man and woman” as if that was an argument. I get that a female inmate might be concerned about a fellow prisoner being a transitioned woman, but you still haven’t; told me why those concerns should be taken any more seriously than concerns about any other minority group.
If you can’t do that then ok, but if you can why keep it a secret?
Here’s my question again for you too:
Incidentally, if (heaven forfend) you were an inmate in a women’s prison and the governor came to you and said “we have two arrivals today, one of whom you have to share your cell with. One is a fully transitioned, post surgery woman with no history of sexual interest in other women, the other is a born woman with a history of predatory sexual behaviour toward other women” which would you pick, and why?
Would you not for example want both to be fully risk assessed, and then to pick the one with the lower risk profile?
-
Gordon,
As much as I think that nuance and flexibility has a role in some discussions I think that when it comes to bald facts they are of limited value. Biological sex is such a bald fact, and no matter what I may feel subjectively about myself I cannot switch from XX to XY chromosomes, and therefore I can never be factually considered to be a 'woman' no matter what I thought or how I presented myself.
To consider that a 'trans-woman' is the same thing as a 'woman' is to conflate 'gender' with 'biological sex', and to me that seems like a humongous non sequitur: it simply does not follow. Therefore if there are situations that are specific and exclusive to 'women', be it certain sports or changing/toilet/healthcare facilities, I don't think that 'trans-women' meet the inclusion criteria.
You’ve surprised me a bit here. You seem to me to be giving biological sex priority over the actualité in practice. If I was, say, a female inmate why would I care about X and Y chromosomes rather than about the fact of whether transitioned women pose any greater threat to me that do any other type of inmate?
The women (as in adult females) in my family agree with me.
Co-incidentally my three daughters (all adults) were over for dinner recently when I asked them what the JK Rowling brouhaha was all about. The result was an education (for me): to a woman they defended the trans women group with what seem to me to be pretty robust arguments. I’m pretty sure that if I asked them the question Gabriella avoided they’d all be relaxed about having a transitioned woman as a fellow inmate – and certainly more than they would, say, a predatory lesbian no matter that the lesbian had the requisite chromosomes of a “born” female.
-
Gordon,
You’ve surprised me a bit here. You seem to me to be giving biological sex priority over the actualité in practice. If I was, say, a female inmate why would I care about X and Y chromosomes rather than about the fact of whether transitioned women pose any greater threat to me that do any other type of inmate?
Co-incidentally my three daughters (all adults) were over for dinner recently when I asked them what the JK Rowling brouhaha was all about. The result was an education (for me): to a woman they defended the trans women group with what seem to me to be pretty robust arguments. I’m pretty sure that if I asked them the question Gabriella avoided they’d all be relaxed about having a transitioned woman as a fellow inmate – and certainly more than they would, say, a predatory lesbian no matter that the lesbian had the requisite chromosomes of a “born” female.
I find the description of the large number of death threats Rowling has received as a brouhaha revealing.
-
VG,
Broadly I agreed with it (ie that trans women should not be discriminated against) for the same reason I agree with it about other protected groups – ethnic, age-related etc.
The legislation allows discrimination against trans women when it comes to single-sex spaces, where the discrimination is proportionate and justified. The taxpayer has repeatedly paid for the courts to decide what is proportionate and justified. Lobby groups advocating for minorities have tried to brow-beat institutions through the use of ad-homs and the police and the law to try to bulldozer through access for feminmen to women's single-sex spaces.
The Tory party are the only party so far promising to redraft Equalities legislation to make it clear that protections it enshrines on the basis of a person’s sex apply only to their biological sex, not their gender.
You on the other hard seem to want to carve out just one of those protected classes for different treatment, though I still don’t know why.
Again – as you focused just on the sub-group who intend to have reassignment surgery but haven’t started it yet, does that mean that you do support the legislation at least re trans women who have (or who have partially) already transitioned?
First, I didn’t say that I didn’t agree with it. I just said I didn’t know how in practice the “blokes who are faking it” group (if such people even exist) would be managed. Do the authorities just take their word for it that they plan to have the surgery, or is there a different procedure in place - taking lots of oestrogen and living as a woman for a year for example?
Second, i don’t have a problem with anyone disagreeing with any legislation. What I do have though is a problem with agreeing with them when they have no evidence base to justify their position.
I actually disagree with Stonewall and other lobby groups and activists who have been misrepresenting the legislation and lying to institutions by saying that the legislation to protect single-sex spaces does not allow discrimination against transwomen - it does allow discirmination. See above. Hence it allows discrimination to prevent transwomen / feminmen being housed in women's prisons.
I didn’t say I wanted to change anything. What I did say however was that I don’t see why someone’s concerns about one group (transitioned women) should carry any more weight than their concerns about, say, black women or lesbians. If there is evidence that would justify those concerns for the former one but not the latter two then well and good; if not though, I still don’t know what your argument is for treating only the transitioned women group differently from the other groups.
Because transitioned women are men who really, really, really identify with feminine stereotypes. Very different from real women.
You remind me a bit here of someone I spoke to recently who’s anti equal marriage and when pressed for a justification could only come up with “because marriage is meant to be between a man and woman” as if that was an argument.
Are you saying that if you weren't married you would be fine with marrying and having sex with a transitioned woman because they are the same as a biological woman?
I get that a female inmate might be concerned about a fellow prisoner being a transitioned woman, but you still haven’t; told me why those concerns should be taken any more seriously than concerns about any other minority group.
If you can’t do that then ok, but if you can why keep it a secret?
I'll get to that. First I would like to see your justification for treating feminmen like women rather than distracting you with my justification of why I think they shouldn't be. Don't worry, you'll have plenty of opportunity to pick apart my justification.
Here’s my question again for you too:
Incidentally, if (heaven forfend) you were an inmate in a women’s prison and the governor came to you and said “we have two arrivals today, one of whom you have to share your cell with. One is a fully transitioned, post surgery woman with no history of sexual interest in other women, the other is a born woman with a history of predatory sexual behaviour toward other women” which would you pick, and why?
Would you not for example want both to be fully risk assessed, and then to pick the one with the lower risk profile?
I'd pick sharing the cell with the real woman - predatory or not I will have a better chance of taking her on and smashing her head in because biologically she is a woman. I've hit women - it's a lot different to hitting men - women fall down a lot easier, they feel pain more, and if they fall on top of you, you are less likely to break a bone in your body because of their size and weight. If they hit you, you are less likely to feel dizzy or get knocked out.
Over to you to provide your answers on whether you would be fine to marry and have sex with a feminman. And to provide your justification on circumventing the single-sex protections allowed in Equalities legislation.
-
Gordon,
You’ve surprised me a bit here. You seem to me to be giving biological sex priority over the actualité in practice. If I was, say, a female inmate why would I care about X and Y chromosomes rather than about the fact of whether transitioned women pose any greater threat to me that do any other type of inmate?
I recall, although I can't remember the precise details, listening a while back to a senior male politician who was in favour of the GRC changes going through Holyrood. My recollection is that his position was that we should regard a 'trans-woman' as being a 'woman' (a biological adult female).
But what stopped me in my tracks was when the interviewer asked along the lines of 'so, do you think that a woman can have a penis?' and the politician concerned could have answered with a 'yes' or a 'no', but they simply resorted to evasion and waffle. It was at that point I think when I realised that to regard a trans-woman (an adult biological male) on the same basis as a woman (an adult biological female) made no sense whatsoever since they were intrinsically different.
-
I recall, although I can't remember the precise details, listening a while back to a senior male politician who was in favour of the GRC changes going through Holyrood. My recollection is that his position was that we should regard a 'trans-woman' as being a 'woman' (a biological adult female).
But what stopped me in my tracks was when the interviewer asked along the lines of 'so, do you think that a woman can have a penis?' and the politician concerned could have answered with a 'yes' or a 'no', but they simply resorted to evasion and waffle. It was at that point I think when I realised that to regard a trans-woman (an adult biological male) on the same basis as a woman (an adult biological female) made no sense whatsoever since they were intrinsically different.
And another thing - a Trans woman (biological man) who's had surgery is at best in the anatomical position of woman who's had a hysterectomy, so they are not fully female anatomically, let alone chromosomally (which is not in the least to denigrate real women who've had hysterectomies for medical reasons).
-
Hello Outrider,
"Gender" refers (or it used to) to a collection of stereotypes associated with men and women in any given society. Other than that, or its use in grammar, it was frequently used, mainly by Americans, as a synonym or euphemism for biological sex.
"The cotton ceiling" is not the equivalent of "the glass ceiling". It refers to lesbians declining to sleep with men who call themselves women. Overcoming The Cotton Ceiling was an educational package run by a man called Morgan Page for Stonewall.
Most men who call themselves women have had no surgical interventions. Over 90% of so-called "transwomen" (that word's transphobic, by the way, there "should" be a space between trans and women because, after all, they are just another kind of woman, like tall or black) have had no interventions at all. Check out Alex Drummond. He's been "broadening the bandwith of what it means to be a woman" since 2018.
Children in schools are being presented with the "genderbread" person, the "gender scale" from Barbie to GI Joe, being told that if they don't conform to stereotypical norms then they may have been born in the wrong body. The increase in referrals of girls to gender identity services in the UK over the last ten years has been ludicrous and should have raised questions for any professional with the interests of vulnerable children at heart. Children referred were massively disproportionately likely to be autistic, grow up gay, had abuse in their backgrounds, or had serious mental health co-morbidities that went untreated. Whistleblowers were ignored, lost their jobs and were demonised as phobic. E.g. Dr David Bell. Watch The Lost Boys. It's not very long.
I used to think it was kind and polite to use so-called preferred pronouns. I tried. Then I read Pronouns are Rohypnol and understood that this effort is not cost-free. And of course, there's the moral issue of endorsing and repeating a lie.
There's nothing wrong with being a man who wears dresses and make up. If surgery is the only cure for acute mental distress, then it's probably appropriate. But it doesn't change a person's sex. As I said earlier, "you can come in if you cut off your testicles and invert your penis" is not a reasonable position. Whatever accommodations are needed for such men, they should not be made at the expense of women.
And the "transmen"? Are they really men? Will they be housed in men's prisons if they are over, say, 5'6"? If they've had surgery to stitch a roll of arm or thigh flesh to their groin? Of course they won't. Because they're women, and no amount of testosterone or experimental surgery will turn them into men.
-
NS,
I find the description of the large number of death threats Rowling has received as a brouhaha revealing.
No you don't, and you used to be better than that.
-
NS,
No you don't, and you used to be better than that.
Yes, I fucking do. And what you are doing is by default supporting that type of behaviour.
-
NS,
Yes, I fucking do. And what you are doing is by default supporting that type of behaviour.
No you fucking don't, and describing the Rowling case as a brouhaha/controversy/episode/whatever does not imply for one second that I condone the death threats she's received, any more than you'd condone threats to trans people her comments may have been used to justify.
-
NS,
No you fucking don't, and describing the Rowling case as a brouhaha/controversy/episode/whatever does not imply for one second that I condone the death threats she's received, any more than you'd condone threats to trans people her comments may have been used to justify.
That's exactly what it does, and your entire shtick here plays down and other women's concerns and fears as prejudice and ignorance in an extremely patronising and misogynist way.
-
Co-incidentally my three daughters (all adults) were over for dinner recently when I asked them what the JK Rowling brouhaha was all about. The result was an education (for me): to a woman they defended the trans women group with what seem to me to be pretty robust arguments. I’m pretty sure that if I asked them the question Gabriella avoided they’d all be relaxed about having a transitioned woman as a fellow inmate – and certainly more than they would, say, a predatory lesbian no matter that the lesbian had the requisite chromosomes of a “born” female.
Sarah Jane Baker, convicted violent criminal, cut off his own genitals while in prison, and takes oestrogen, so presumably counts as "fully transitioned". While out on license he advised a large gathering of activists to punch terfs in the face on sight, to cheers and applause. He's back in prison now and the campaign to have him housed in the women's estate has, as far as I know, failed, thankfully.
I would choose to be incarcerated, if I had a choice, with a woman. Of course, women currently don't have a choice. And if they refer to a male inmate - regardless of "transition" status - as he, they are likely to get their time inside extended. For speaking the truth.
-
Co-incidentally my three daughters (all adults) were over for dinner recently when I asked them what the JK Rowling brouhaha was all about. The result was an education (for me): to a woman they defended the trans women group with what seem to me to be pretty robust arguments. I’m pretty sure that if I asked them the question Gabriella avoided they’d all be relaxed about having a transitioned woman as a fellow inmate – and certainly more than they would, say, a predatory lesbian no matter that the lesbian had the requisite chromosomes of a “born” female.
Have your daughters actually experienced prison or seen what the atmosphere is like being locked up with people of all ages, often from difficult or abusive backgrounds and broken homes? Have they stayed a few months in an overcrowded limited space with not much to do? If they haven't give them some advice - before they form an opinion on who should be in a cell with a woman, tell them to try interacting every day with a large group of prisoners who may have personality issues, ADHD, poor impulse control, low self esteem, who have probably lost their jobs, custody of their children, who get treated as prison scum by prison guards (who themselves face violent attacks from prisoners). Prisoners often act violently as a defence mechanism so they don't get dominated by the other prisoners or they may be ordered by another prisoner to carry out an attack as a way to prove their loyalty.
Incidentally have your daughters ever been in a physical fight with a woman or a man? Or are they imagining prison to be some kind of girls slumber party?
-
NS,
No you fucking don't, and describing the Rowling case as a brouhaha/controversy/episode/whatever does not imply for one second that I condone the death threats she's received, any more than you'd condone threats to trans people her comments may have been used to justify.
How would JK Rowling's comments be used to justify threats to trans people? That doesn't make any sense - do you have an example of a comment by JKR that could be used to justify violence?
-
Yes. They have a very good chance of winning it and according to the polls and May's council elections, it is very much a two horse race between the Green Party and Labour.
I should say that the Tories are nowhere to be seen either, nor any other parties.
Bet NS wishes he lived in your constituency JP, so that he could vote for the anti-trans 'Party of Women' party.
Will be interesting to see how many votes she gets!!!
-
And another thing - a Trans woman (biological man) who's had surgery is at best in the anatomical position of woman who's had a hysterectomy, so they are not fully female anatomically, let alone chromosomally (which is not in the least to denigrate real women who've had hysterectomies for medical reasons).
As BHS seems to think they are women, I am wondering why he has avoiding answering my question to him about whether he would kiss/ have sex with/ marry a trans woman.
-
Have your daughters actually experienced prison or seen what the atmosphere is like being locked up with people of all ages, often from difficult or abusive backgrounds and broken homes? Have they stayed a few months in an overcrowded limited space with not much to do? If they haven't give them some advice - before they form an opinion on who should be in a cell with a woman, tell them to try interacting every day with a large group of prisoners who may have personality issues, ADHD, poor impulse control, low self esteem, who have probably lost their jobs, custody of their children, who get treated as prison scum by prison guards (who themselves face violent attacks from prisoners). Prisoners often act violently as a defence mechanism so they don't get dominated by the other prisoners or they may be ordered by another prisoner to carry out an attack as a way to prove their loyalty.
Incidentally have your daughters ever been in a physical fight with a woman or a man? Or are they imagining prison to be some kind of girls slumber party?
I think it might also be useful if he reads Rhona Hotchkiss in this article. She has a bit more experience in such matters
https://archive.vn/hjJ1f
-
Bet NS wishes he lived in your constituency JP, so that he could vote for the anti-trans 'Party of Women' party.
Will be interesting to see how many votes she gets!!!
Advocating for women's rights and children's safeguarding isn't "anti-trans". Her objective is to raise awareness of the capture of public institutions and services by authoritarian political ideologues.
And if you're not anti-TRA you haven't met any.
-
I think it might also be useful if he reads Rhona Hotchkiss in this article. She has a bit more experience in such matters
https://archive.vn/hjJ1f
More on The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
https://archive.vn/1dy8T
-
As BHS seems to think they are women, I am wondering why he has avoiding answering my question to him about whether he would kiss/ have sex with/ marry a trans woman.
What turns an individual on sexually varies enormously, to the extent that a person ( recorded case) may be excited by radiators. The same person might well fully accept the arguments for certain people fervently wishing for gender re-alignment. Being persuaded by the arguments one way or the other has nothing to do with one's own sexual response, so your question is totally irrelevant.
-
Useful article on the confusions of the current law.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/09/the-law-on-single-sex-spaces-is-a-mess-it-needs-fixing-not-political-point-scoring
-
What turns an individual on sexually varies enormously, to the extent that a person ( recorded case) may be excited by radiators. The same person might well fully accept the arguments for certain people fervently wishing for gender re-alignment. Being persuaded by the arguments one way or the other has nothing to do with one's own sexual response, so your question is totally irrelevant.
Nope DU - you're wrong as usual - it's entirely relevant to BHS's question to me. BHS asked me whether I want to share a prison cell with a woman or with a man pretending to be a woman - with all the lack of privacy that sharing a prison cell and being locked up in prison entails.
I have answered his question, but BHS has run away as usual rather than answer mine.
My question to BHS, which he is avoiding answering, demonstrates that people like BHS are perfectly happy to misogynistically try to force women to share their personal space with men pretending to be women, but when it comes to his own personal space he will of course not want to kiss or have sex with a transwoman because of course he sees them as men pretending to be women, and not real women.
As SteveH's Guardian article points out BHS is just another example of men " who feel little empathy for women who don’t want to be forced to undress or talk about their trauma in front of, or receive intimate care from, anyone male, regardless of how they identify."
-
More on The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
https://archive.vn/1dy8T
Kevin McKenna on The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
https://archive.is/RLTjy
-
LGB Alliance letter to leaders of Tories, Labour and Lib Dems
https://lgballiance.org.uk/our-asks-for-the-party-leaders/
-
'Labour candidate Rosie Duffield cancels hustings' over her fears of threats because she stands up for women's sex based spaces.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxx243yr16o
-
'Labour candidate Rosie Duffield cancels hustings' over her fears of threats because she stands up for women's sex based spaces.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxx243yr16o
Apologies for being a pedant, but Duffield had not, and indeed cannot, cancel the hustings. Hustings are meetings organised by organisations separate to politic parties, with candidates invited to attend and answer questions from local people. The one in question has the department of Politics and International Relations at Canterbury Christ Church University as the lead organisation in partnership with their Students Union, Canterbury Society, ACRA, Canterbury Inter-Faith group, the Kent Wildlife Trust, and Ethnic Minorities in Canterbury.
The hustings will take place on Wednesday - Duffield hasn't cancelled it, it will happen - she has just decided not to attend. And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.
But on the broader points - first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common. Indeed I suspect just about every MP has received death threats on the basis of one view or another, and of course two MPs have been murdered in recent years.
But this must be balanced against the need, in a democracy, for candidates to be challenged on their views and in some cases where views may be considered controversial those views will be challenged robustly by members of the public who hold different views. That is right and proper in a democracy.
But back to the hustings - there are typically highly organised affairs, with security arrangements essential and also the standard approach is that questions must be submitted in advance with the organisers choosing which questions get asked. Likely the questions will focus on the key issues in this election - cost of living, tax, immigration, NHS, energy, trust in politics, environment etc so it is quite likely that gender issues won't even feature in the hustings given the limited amount of time available and the need for all candidates to be given sufficient time to respond. So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk.
-
Apologies for being a pedant, but Duffield had not, and indeed cannot, cancel the hustings. Hustings are meetings organised by organisations separate to politic parties, with candidates invited to attend and answer questions from local people. The one in question has the department of Politics and International Relations at Canterbury Christ Church University as the lead organisation in partnership with their Students Union, Canterbury Society, ACRA, Canterbury Inter-Faith group, the Kent Wildlife Trust, and Ethnic Minorities in Canterbury.
The hustings will take place on Wednesday - Duffield hasn't cancelled it, it will happen - she has just decided not to attend. And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.
But on the broader points - first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common. Indeed I suspect just about every MP has received death threats on the basis of one view or another, and of course two MPs have been murdered in recent years.
But this must be balanced against the need, in a democracy, for candidates to be challenged on their views and in some cases where views may be considered controversial those views will be challenged robustly by members of the public who hold different views. That is right and proper in a democracy.
But back to the hustings - there are typically highly organised affairs, with security arrangements essential and also the standard approach is that questions must be submitted in advance with the organisers choosing which questions get asked. Likely the questions will focus on the key issues in this election - cost of living, tax, immigration, NHS, energy, trust in politics, environment etc so it is quite likely that gender issues won't even feature in the hustings given the limited amount of time available and the need for all candidates to be given sufficient time to respond. So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk.
That reads like you are just dismissing Duffield's fears.
Of course, you are more moderate in terns than Michael Xashman was. Good that Wes Streeting was so unequivocal in his support of Duffield.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news/content/ar-BB1ojMHn
-
That reads like you are just dismissing Duffield's fears.
Then you read this post and you read my points completely wrong. That I don't dismiss her fear should have been obvious from - "first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common."
So I don't dismiss her fears - quite the reverse. My point is that rather than this being an isolated matter for a single candidate there is a worry trend for MPs and candidates to be subjected to threats by members of the public. This is sometimes linked to specific views (and not just views on gender, but all sorts of views) but also there are people who consider that being an MP (or an MP of a particular party) is sufficient justification alone for threats of violence.
This is a deeply worrying trend and a major concern for our democracy. Perhaps you see this as about just one MP/candidate and one type of view. But I don't - and that isn't dismissing her fears, but recognising that her experience is, worryingly, far too common for our MPs.
-
Then you read this post and you read my points completely wrong. That I don't dismiss her fear should have been obvious from - "first no candidate should fear the threat of violence, but sadly this is all too common."
So I don't dismiss her fears - quite the reverse. My point is that rather than this being an isolated matter for a single candidate there is a worry trend for MPs and candidates to be subjected to threats by members of the public. This is sometimes linked to specific views (and not just views on gender, but all sorts of views) but also there are people who consider that being an MP (or an MP of a particular party) is sufficient justification alone for threats of violence.
This is a deeply worrying trend and a major concern for our democracy. Perhaps you see this as about just one MP/candidate and one type of view. But I don't - and that isn't dismissing her fears, but recognising that her experience is, worryingly, far too common for our MPs.
It was that you finished with "So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk" which read to me as if you were saying that Duffield was likely wrong in her fears. Perhaps you meant that it's very sad that even at a hustings she was worried?
-
It was thar you finished with "So various campaigning elements I would have thought that the hustings will be one of the least likely to pose a security risk" which read to Mr as if you were saying that Duffield was likely wrong in her fears. Perhaps you meant that it's very sad that even at a hustings she was worried?
There you go again - missing my point.
While I am trying to broaden the issue as indicating a worrying trend that is sadly becoming the norm for many, many MPs and candidates you want to narrow this to being about just one person and her specific views.
Sadly Duffield's fears aren't unique, indeed they aren't even rare - they are pretty well the norm for our elected politicians - having to deal with abuse and threat on the basis of their views, or even just on the basis of them being elected politicians. That is the big issue here NS.
Do you accept that Duffield's experience as an MP (receiving threats on the basis of the views that person holds) is far from unique, indeed rather common place?
For a healthy democracy we need MPs and candidates to be able to express their views without fear of abuse, threat of violence or actual violence. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we agree with.
But that has to be balanced by the equal need for the public to be able to challenge those MPs and candidates on their views and for that challenge to be robust and for PMs and candidates to be accountable for their views. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we don't agree with.
-
There you go again - missing my point.
While I am trying to broaden the issue as indicating a worrying trend that is sadly becoming the norm for many, many MPs and candidates you want to narrow this to being about just one person and her specific views.
Sadly Duffield's fears aren't unique, indeed they aren't even rare - they are pretty well the norm for our elected politicians - having to deal with abuse and threat on the basis of their views, or even just on the basis of their being elected politicians. That is the big issue here NS.
Do you accept that Duffield's experience as an MP (receiving threats on the basis of the views that person holds) is far from unique, indeed rather common place?
For a healthy democracy we need MPs and candidates to be able to express their views without fear of abuse or threat of violence or actual violence. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we agree with.
But that has to be balanced by the equal need for the public to be able to challenge those MPs and candidates on their views and for that challenge to be robust and for PMs and candidates to be accountable for their views. And that must apply to all MPs and candidates, not just those whose views we don't agree with.
Of course I accept your general point. Pity a then Labour peer didn't. Was I correct in what you seem to have meant in terms of the 'safety' of the hustings not being relevant but rather an illustration of the problem?
-
Of course I accept your general point.
Good - so I'm assuming you will speak out just as much for an MP or candidate (or even ordinary member of the public) receiving similar threats whose views you don't agree with.
Pity a then Labour peer didn't.
Err, an ex Labour peer.
-
Good - so I'm assuming you will speak out just as much for an MP or candidate (or even ordinary member of the public) receiving similar threats whose views you don't agree with.
Err, an ex Labour peer.
Yes, on here I've already covered the dangers of the attacks on Farage.
Err, that's why I put 'then' as in not now.
Good to know that you agree security of hustings just illustrates why Duffield was correct in her fears, and that it illustrates the problem.
-
Good to know that you agree security of hustings just illustrates why Duffield was correct in her fears, and that it illustrates the problem.
Not sure that you've ever had any meaningful involvement in political electoral campaigns NS. Well I have - I've been a candidate, I've been an electoral 'agent' at local election level and I've also been very heavily involved in campaigns for general elections.
And with that experience I stand by my view that in the range of activities an MP or a candidate may take part in Hustings are a pretty controlled and safe environment. They will be properly organised events, have security and in most cases (certainly in the case of the Canterbury Hustings) they are ticket only events. Anyone in the constituency can apply, but you only gain entry with a ticket, so they can't be hijacked easily. Add to that that questions must be submitted in advance (again definitely the case for tonight's Canterbury Hustings) and the organisers select the questions most relevant to get the views of all candidates. So from that perspective I doubt gender politics would have even got on the agenda as it isn't high on the list of issues that matter to people at the moment (see IPSOS issues polling) and they won't select a question that really only has relevance to one candidate (who has specific known views on the matter) as there are 6 candidates and they should all be treated equally in the hustings - it isn't all about one candidate.
Out knocking on doors with a couple of activists and no security nor closed and controlled environment - well that is a completely different matter in terms of potential risk.
-
Not sure that you've ever had any meaningful involvement in political electoral campaigns NS. Well I have - I've been a candidate, I've been an electoral 'agent' at local election level and I've also been very heavily involved in campaigns for general elections.
And with that experience I stand by my view that in the range of activities an MP or a candidate may take part in Hustings are a pretty controlled and safe environment. They will be properly organised events, have security and in most cases (certainly in the case of the Canterbury Hustings) they are ticket only events. Anyone in the constituency can apply, but you only gain entry with a ticket, so they can't be hijacked easily. Add to that that questions must be submitted in advance (again definitely the case for tonight's Canterbury Hustings) and the organisers select the questions most relevant to get the views of all candidates. So from that perspective I doubt gender politics would have even got on the agenda as it isn't high on the list of issues that matter to people at the moment (see IPSOS issues polling) and they won't select a question that really only has relevance to one candidate (who has specific known views on the matter) as there are 6 candidates and they should all be treated equally in the hustings - it isn't all about one candidate.
Out knocking on doors with a couple of activists and no security nor closed and controlled environment - well that is a completely different matter in terms of potential risk.
Not seeing what point you are trying to make, but it again reads as if you are dismissing Duffield's fears.
-
Not seeing what point you are trying to make, but it again reads as if you are dismissing Duffield's fears.
Yawn - we've been through that - broken record and all that.
-
Yawn - we've been through that - broken record and all that.
Well, yes, you are, since you seem to be back at saying that Duffield was wrong in her fears and should have attended the hustings. If that's not the case, I don't see why you have repeated the point about how safe the hustings are which would only be relevant if you are questioning Duffield's position on them.
-
... you seem to be back at saying that Duffield ... should have attended the hustings.
Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. Stop lying.
-
Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. Stop lying.
I said that is what you seem to be saying in your posts by your repeated assertions about how safe they are. If that's not the point, then I don't understand what you are trying to say, as I said it the post that you just misrepresented.
-
I said that is what you seem to be saying in your posts by your repeated assertions about how safe they are. If that's not the point, then I don't understand what you are trying to say, as I said it the post that you just misrepresented.
Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. You claimed I had, which is a lie. Please retract.
Indeed I mentioned in my first post on the matter that candidates decline to accept invites to hustings for all sorts of reasons - that is their choice. All candidates should be invited to a hustings, but there is no obligation for any to attend. I would never suggest that a candidate should attend - that is entirely their choice.
-
Where have I said that Duffield should have attended the hustings NS. You claimed I had, which is a lie. Please retract.
Indeed I mentioned in my first post on the matter that candidates decline to accept invites to hustings for all sorts of reasons - that is their choice. All candidates should be invited to a hustings, but there is no obligation for any to attend. I would never suggest that a candidate should attend - that is entirely their choice.
I said it was that it seemed to be what you were saying. There is a difference.
I still have no idea why you repeatedly emphasised your impression of the safety of the hustings.
-
I said it was that it seemed to be what you were saying. There is a difference.
Based on something that I never said - hmm. Perhaps you read what you want to hear rather than what I actually wrote.
As so often NS, you could just say 'my bad, you didn't say that, I retract and apologise' - but that's not what you do is it NS. Just keep digging.
-
Based on something that I never said - hmm. Perhaps you read what you want to hear rather than what I actually wrote.
As so often NS, you could just say 'my bad, you didn't say that, I retract and apologise' - but that's not what you do is it NS. Just keep digging.
No, exactly based on what you wrote, and I've explained why. And I still have no idea why you have spent so much time going over and over your assertions of the security of hustings.
-
No, exactly based on what you wrote, and I've explained why.
Stop lying - I never said that Duffield should attend - that's her choice, not mine. And as I said the following:
'And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.'
It should be pretty clear that I recognise that candidates make their own decision as to whether or not to attend - so how you could interpret that as 'if it is safe they should attend' is completely beyond me.
By the way in 2005 I was closely involved in a campaign where the Labour candidate (and MP at the time) refused to attend the hustings because he would not share a platform with another candidate who he considered to be racist. His non attendance was a matter of principle for him, and a choice for him. Was the hustings safe - sure was but whether or not to attend was his choice and his choice alone.
-
Stop lying - I never said that Duffield shouldn't attend - that's her choice, not mine. And as I said the following:
'And actually it isn't uncommon for candidates to decline to attend Hustings for various reasons - if you check out the local Kent press you will see that most of the hustings across the various constituencies have one or more candidate declining to attend.'
It should be pretty clear that I recognise that candidates make their own decision as to whether or not to attend - so how you could interpret that as 'if it is safe they should attend' is completely beyond me.
By the way in 2005 I was closely involved in a campaign where the Labour candidate (and MP at the time) refused to attend the hustings because he would not share a platform with another candidate who he considered to be racist. His non attendance was a matter of principle for him, and a choice for him. Was the hustings safe - sure was but whether or not to attend was his choice and his choice alone.
So why did you repeatedly emphasise your impression of the safety of the hustings. What point, other than implying that Duffield was wrong which is how I read your post, were you seeking to make?
And yes, I could be reading you wrong but I'm struggling with your inability to say what point you were seeking to make by those repeated assertions?
-
J K Rowling on why she'll struggle to vote Labour.
https://archive.vn/43Xqe
-
And Susan Dalgety on her issues
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/keir-starmers-arrogant-sexism-is-revealed-during-question-time-trans-debate-4674773
-
You'll all have seen the news from yesterday about women attending a lawful rally to talk about their lives and political views being abused by a mob, pursued through the streets of Brighton by said mob and having to hide in a shop to await police protection to get away? No?
I'd post a link to the news story, but apparently, women being followed and threatened by masked thugs screaming abuse at them through loud-hailers, despite a big police presence, isn't news.
Luckily the evidence is on X and YouTube. Isn't it fascists who try to shut down free speech?
https://www.youtube.com/live/n4Sgw2jsDJA?feature=shared
-
You'll all have seen the news from yesterday about women attending a lawful rally to talk about their lives and political views being abused by a mob, pursued through the streets of Brighton by said mob and having to hide in a shop to await police protection to get away? No?
I'd post a link to the news story, but apparently, women being followed and threatened by masked thugs screaming abuse at them through loud-hailers, despite a big police presence, isn't news.
Luckily the evidence is on X and YouTube. Isn't it fascists who try to shut down free speech?
https://www.youtube.com/live/n4Sgw2jsDJA?feature=shared
In some ways, of course, it isn't news because this is what happens so frequently at LWS rallies.
-
In some ways, of course, it isn't news because this is what happens so frequently at LWS rallies.
It's not news to the women who attend. It would have been to anyone who relies on the BBC, ITV, C4, Sky, The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro etc for news though. They don't report it, in my opinion, because the facts don't match the dishonet narrative they are promoting.
-
It's not news to the women who attend. It would have been to anyone who relies on the BBC, ITV, C4, Sky, The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro etc for news though. They don't report it, in my opinion, because the facts don't match the dishonet narrative they are promoting.
And as Prof D might have it, Kellie Jay Keen and all the women who speak are just anti trans.
-
'Sunak wades into Badenoch row with actor Tennant' - stupid remarks from Tennant. The Tories though in keeping the Hester donations aren't really talking from a strong position
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz77exew09lo
-
Women nurses being forced to change in the presence of men who say they are women, and getting disciplined for complaining about it. Ffs!
https://archive.is/3VI5B
-
Labour being utterly unclear
https://archive.ph/Yzikj
-
Kathleen Stock and Richard Dawkins discussion on gender identity
https://youtu.be/PgEjwxeS2go?si=RuY1NpW7aSIUwk9b
-
So you are happy with inaccurate reporting
I'm happy with not reporting facts that are not relevant to the story.
-
I'm happy with not reporting facts that are not relevant to the story.
But they are reporting incorrect facts
-
But they are reporting incorrect facts
In your opinion they are reporting incorrect facts.
-
The always excellent Victoria Smith on why Labour still doesn't get the issue on sex and gender.
https://thecritic.co.uk/why-labour-doesnt-understand-the-gender-wars/
-
Moderator Now the party is over the two Trans topics including the one that arose specifically from the election have been merged.
-
My employment tribunal claim against the Insolvency Service has been settled. To my satisfaction.
Gender identity ideology isn't just costing vulnerable people their mental and physical health, and politicians and journalists their integrity, and victimised women who speak up their livelihoods.
It's a (currently state-sponsored) cult.
https://x.com/wrongbodies/status/1811125941541687316
-
My employment tribunal claim against the Insolvency Service has been settled. To my satisfaction.
Gender identity ideology isn't just costing vulnerable people their mental and physical health, and politicians and journalists their integrity, and victimised women who speak up their livelihoods.
It's a (currently state-sponsored) cult.
https://x.com/wrongbodies/status/1811125941541687316
Glad you got a satisfactory outcome, Christine. Shocking that it's been an issue.
-
Thank you. It's a massive relief that my personal nightmare is over.
That Keir Starmer has appointed two women who claim to not know what a woman is to oversee women's rights is disappointing, but not unexpected.
-
Thank you. It's a massive relief that my personal nightmare is over.
That Keir Starmer has appointed two women who claim to not know what a woman is to oversee women's rights is disappointing, but not unexpected.
Could have been worse I suppose, could have been Lisa Nandy
-
Could have been worse I suppose, could have been Lisa Nandy
Lisa Nandy who thinks rapists should be sent to a women's prison if they would prefer it?
https://youtu.be/oUon9j1zJ_E?feature=shared
-
Lisa Nandy who thinks rapists should be sent to a women's prison if they would prefer it?
https://youtu.be/oUon9j1zJ_E?feature=shared
I remember the first time I watched that having to replay it a couple of times, as I was sure I was missing something because obviously she couldn't have possibly said it.
-
Be interesting to see how this plays out:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/15/wes-streeting-defends-puberty-blocker-ban-decision-after-labour-criticism
-
BMA to vote on a motion in whether to reject the Cass Report. Dismally sad.
https://archive.vn/y7G9S
-
My employment tribunal claim against the Insolvency Service has been settled. To my satisfaction.
Gender identity ideology isn't just costing vulnerable people their mental and physical health, and politicians and journalists their integrity, and victimised women who speak up their livelihoods.
It's a (currently state-sponsored) cult.
https://x.com/wrongbodies/status/1811125941541687316
That's very welcome news Christine. Well done!
-
That's very welcome news Christine. Well done!
Thank you.
-
Not really time to find out but then given there was no evidence for the claim that it did cause suicide, despite some witless Labour MPs, amongst others, arguing that there was, the lack of evidence for experimenting on children is not a surprise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9x8j5p0992o
-
That a rape crisis centre has become so compromised and dangerous to women because of those touting gender ideology should be shocking, but it's just tragically sad
https://archive.ph/Z1fDY
-
Libby Purves on the dangerous use of suicide as blackmail by some gender ideologues
https://www.thetimes.com/article/2f8a4fd5-28e5-43f5-8959-d710a10accfe?shareToken=398622c25a150951ee63279babd17b8a&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR10_tOwsmtmSsX3KeDcNI--_6oh0b6LG5wI0q5dFMwKRtmSKhyG1lZyFs4_aem_VpQEDk82jk_LZmjCi5iHyQ
-
More on the complicity of Scottish politicians in the disgraceful situation at Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13664689/EUAN-McCOLM-Vulnerable-women-let-gender-zealots-blame-want-forget-not.html
-
Another woman cheated from winning by anti scientific gender ideology.
https://www.iwf.org/female-athlete-stories/lauren-miller/
-
Another woman cheated from winning by anti scientific gender ideology.
https://www.iwf.org/female-athlete-stories/lauren-miller/
Seems like you are posting old news NS - given that the NXXT Women’s Championship have since changed their rules so that Hailey Davidson is no longer able to compete.
-
Seems like you are posting old news NS - given that the NXXT Women’s Championship have since changed their rules so that Hailey Davidson is no longer able to compete.
And yet Lauren Miller hasn't as far as I'm aware been awarded first place in the event. Good for NXXT for what I think is a suspension at the moment. I take it you support the women's sport being for women only, and not the anti scientific gender ideology approach?
-
And yet Lauren Miller hasn't as far as I'm aware been awarded first place in the event.
But if she competed on the basis of the rules as they were at the time and won why should they change the result retrospectively. You (and others) may feel the rules at that time were unfair, but they were the rules under which the competitors competed. I don't think there is any suggestion that Hailey Davidson broke any rules that were in place at that time.
When a sport changes it's rules we don't go back and readjust results on what they might have been had a different set of rules been applied at that time. Football used to award two points for a win - then they changed the rules to three points - there are without doubt cases where a team would have won the first division had the three-points for a win rules applied at that time. But we don't go back and retrospctively change the ranking becasue each team (on in this case player) was abiding by the rules as they stood at the time of competition.
-
But if she competed on the basis of the rules as they were at the time and won why should they change the result retrospectively. You (and others) may feel the rules at that time were unfair, but they were the rules under which the competitors competed. I don't think there is any suggestion that Hailey Davidson broke any rules that were in place at that time.
When a sport changes it's rules we don't go back and readjust results on what they might have been had a different set of rules been applied at that time. Football used to award two points for a win - then they changed the rules to three points - there are without doubt cases where a team would have won the first division had the three-points for a win rules applied at that time. But we don't go back and retrospctively change the ranking becasue each team (on in this case player) was abiding by the rules as they stood at the time of competition.
Do you support the rules as they were, as being fair?
-
Do you support the rules as they were, as being fair?
That is besides the point - the point I am making is that players compete on the basis of the rules in place at the time they compete. And they win or lose on the basis of those rules. Whether those rules are fair, unfair, bonkers, sensible, dangerous etc etc is a totally different matter.
If someone competed under the rules in place at the time of that competion and did not break those rules and won that competition I'm struggling to see why you would strip them of that title just becasue the rules have subsequently changed. If they had cheated - in other words broke the rules that were in place at the time - well that would be a different matter, but I've seen no evidence that Davidson broke any rules that were in place at the time she won that particular competition.
-
That is besides the point - the point I am making is that players compete on the basis of the rules in place at the time they compete. And they win or lose on the basis of those rules. Whether those rules are fair, unfair, bonkers, sensible, dangerous etc etc is a totally different matter.
If someone competed under the rules in place at the time of that competion and did not break those rules and won that competition I'm struggling to see why you would strip them of that title just becasue the rules have subsequently changed. If they had cheated - in other words broke the rules that were in place at the time - well that would be a different matter, but I've seen no evidence that Davidson broke any rules that were in place at the time she won that particular competition.
No, it is the point. Do you think the rules were fair?
-
No, it is the point. Do you think the rules were fair?
Whether or not I think the rules were (or now are) fair is irrelevant to the fundamental point that if you win a competition under the rules that were in place at the time of the competition it would be unfair to strip you of that title as you have broken no rule (the only rules that are relevant being the ones in place at the time of the competition).
-
Whether or not I think the rules were (or now are) fair is irrelevant to the fundamental point that if you win a competition under the rules that were in place at the time of the competition it would be unfair to strip you of that title as you have broken no rule (the only rules that are relevant being the ones in place at the time of the competition).
Do you think the rules were fair? I just want your opinion.
-
Do you think the rules were fair? I just want your opinion.
You can ask until you are blue in the face NS - but my opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant.
But here is a relevant question - NS do you think it is fair to strip a person of a title who fairly won it under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke none of those rule in place at the time) on the basis that the rules have been subsequently changed.
If so - then you'll be doing a lot of rearranging of names on trophies, across an awful lots of sports.
-
You can ask until you are blue in the face NS - but my opinion on this matter is totally irrelevant.
But here is a relevant question - NS do you think it is fair to strip a person of a title who fairly won it under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke none of those rule in place at the time) on the basis that the rules have been subsequently changed.
If so - then you'll be doing a lot of rearranging of names on trophies, across an awful lots of sports.
Why won't you answer a simple question?
As to changing winners, in the case where men have been allowed to compete in women's sports then yes, I would change it because I don't believe the rules were fair.
So there's your question answered.
-
As to changing winners, in the case where men have been allowed to compete in women's sports then yes, I would change it because I don't believe the rules were fair.
So there's your question answered.
Nope - because you are only arguing it in a narrow set of circumstances. If you believe that there should be retrospective re-awarding of titles when rules are changed on the basis of the rules that now apply, rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competion then you cannot narrowly cherry pick. You'd have to apply that in all cases - including (but not limited to) cases where the key rule changes may be around who is, and is not, qualified to compete.
-
Nope - because you are only arguing it in a narrow set of circumstances. If you believe that there should be retrospective re-awarding of titles when rules are changed on the basis of the rules that now apply, rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competion then you cannot narrowlyt cherry pick. You'd have to apply that in all cases - including (but not limited to) cases where the key rule changes may be around sho is, and is not, qualified to compete.
Yes, I'm arguing in a narrow set of circumstances because context matters.
Meanwhile you won't even answer why you won't answer a simple question.
-
Yes, I'm arguing in a narrow set of circumstances because context matters.
Nope becasue we are talking about a fundemental point - namely whether winners should be determined (and reallocated) on the basis of current rules of a sport rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competition itself. You are cherry picking context (due to your specific opinions on a matter). I am asking you about the principle (of reallocating titles when rules are changed), not about this particular example.
Meanwhile you won't even answer why you won't answer a simple question.
Because my opinion on that matter is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
-
Nope becasue we are talking about a fundemental point - namely whether winners should be determined (and reallocated) on the basis of current rules of a sport rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competition itself. You are cherry picking context (due to your specific opinions on a matter). I am asking you about the principle (of reallocating titles when rules are changed), not about this particular example.
Because my opinion on that matter is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
No,you're arguing that rules have to be absolutes in terms of how they are applied. I disagree. I think here the rules in women's sports are such that by default men should not be competing in them.
Your opinion on the matter is relevant to the matter being discussed it's relevant to the thread.
To expand it do you think that what happened at the Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre, as mentioned in earlier post, was correct?
See link below
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13664689/EUAN-McCOLM-Vulnerable-women-let-gender-zealots-blame-want-forget-not.html
-
No,you're arguing that rules have to be absolutes in terms of how they are applied. I disagree. I think here the rules in women's sports are such that by default men should not be competing in them.
Fine so you think the rules around eligibility to compete in women's compeititons should be framed in a particular way - we get it NS. Hardly news to us. And indeed this is what seems to be the case now for that competition, so I would have thoought you'd be happy for that rule change.
But that isn't what we are talking about - we are discussing whether sports competititors (and perhaps others) should be held to the rules that are in place now or the rules that were in place at the time of the competition. Regardless of views on whether the changes in the rules was sensible or not I don't think that someone who competed fairly under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke no rules) and won should have their title removed on the basis that had the current rules applied they would not have won.
That seems to me to be a pretty fundamental principle that can surely be applied more widely in other circumstances where there are 'rules' or 'laws'.
So an analogy, that maybe will pull you out of your narrow rabbit hole. In Wales in the last year rules were changed so that many speed limits were reduced from 30mph to 20mph. Now if someone was driving at 28mph before the law was changed (perfectly lawfully) the analogy is that they should retrospectively be held to a rule that wasn't in place at the time - so fined and points for driving at 8mph above the speed limit (even though the speed limit in place at the time was 30mph). I think that would be grossly unfair - and my opinion on whether I think 20mph speed limts are a brilliant idea or a bonkers idea has no relevance in a discussion at to whether someone should be penalised for breaking a law that wasn't in place at the time.
-
Fine so you think the rules around eleigibility to compete in women's compeititons should be framed in a particular way - we get it NS. Hardly news to us. And indeed this is what seems to be the case now for that competition, so I would have thoought you'd be happy for that rule change.
But that isn't what we are talking about - we are discussing whether sports competititors (and perhaps others) should be held to the rules that are in place now or the rules that were in place at the time of the competition. Regardless of views on whether the changes in the rules was sensible or not I don't think that someone who competed fairly under the rules in place at the time (i.e. broke no rules) and won should have their title removed on the basis that had the current rules applied they would not have won.
That seems to me to be a pretty fundamental principle that can surely be applied more widely in other circumstances where there are 'rules' or 'laws'.
So an analogy, that maybe will pull you out of your narrow rabbit hole. In Wales in the last year rules were changed so that many speed limits were reduced from 30mph to 20mph. Now if someone was driving at 28mph before the law was changed (perfectly lawfully) the analogy is that they should retrospectively be held to a rule that wasn't in place at the time - so fined and points for driving at 8mph above the speed limit (even though the speed limit in place at the time was 30mph). I think that would be grossly unfair - and my opinion on whether I think 20mph speed limts are a brilliant idea or a bonkers idea has no relevance in a discussion at to whether someone should be penalised for breaking a law that wasn't in place at the time.
Again you're arguing from your view that absolutes apply to rules. As pointed out I disagree. I don't think the analogy works sufficiently.
And since I raised the question of Laureb Miller's being cheated out of her title by gender ideology, and since it's in the article that she saw it is unfair, I'm not sure why you think the subject should be limited to only what you want to discuss.
-
Nope becasue we are talking about a fundemental point - namely whether winners should be determined (and reallocated) on the basis of current rules of a sport rather than the rules that were in place at the time of the competition itself. You are cherry picking context (due to your specific opinions on a matter). I am asking you about the principle (of reallocating titles when rules are changed), not about this particular example.
Because my opinion on that matter is entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
No the fundamental point of this thread (or one of them) is whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports and whether it is fair to let them.
The point you are arguing - that nobody cheated under the rules and therefore the results still stand - is at best a side point in this thread.
For the record, I agree with you that the result should stand as it was in compliance with the rules as they stood, but I agree with NS that the rules were unfair. It's absurd that a male should be allowed to compete in women's golf because they have significant advantage in general in how far they can hit the ball.
-
Malcolm Clark on the Webberleys and their medical experimentation on children which was backed by gender ideologues.
https://thecritic.co.uk/irreversible-damage/
-
And more people determined to have children being medically experimented in. I get that many have what they see as good intentions but it's based around an idea as outlandish as a soul.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4ng3gz99nwo
-
I'm struggling that generalists are voting that Cass was too much of a generalist despite spending the time on the review, which they won't have done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqe6npgyr5ro
-
Huge mess, in part because this appears, though not clear, to be about people with DSDs. Overlay that with boxing politics and there is murkiness abounds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cw0yvln9z00o
-
Huge mess, in part because this appears, though not clear, to be about people with DSDs. Overlay that with boxing politics and there is murkiness abounds.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cw0yvln9z00o
Good summary from the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/articles/cye0ex43k63o
-
Another excellent summary
https://quillette.com/2024/08/03/xy-athletes-in-womens-olympic-boxing-paris-2024-controversy-explained-khelif-yu-ting/
-
I'm struggling that generalists are voting that Cass was too much of a generalist despite spending the time on the review, which they won't have done.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqe6npgyr5ro
1,000 senior doctors write to question the BMA's action.
-
After the issue of possible DSDs was raised in the Olympics, we have a no question bloke running against women in the Paralympics.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/articles/cpvymmpyjeko
-
The issue of gender set to be big at the SNP conference
https://archive.is/NFPbx
-
Ffs! "What is a woman? Australian court rules in landmark case"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po
-
Ffs! "What is a woman? Australian court rules in landmark case"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po
Amnesty International celebrating getting rid of women's sex based spaces. They are a fucking misogynist disgrace.
https://x.com/amnesty/status/1826982698226737303
-
Victoria Smith on Tickle vs Giggle. I think the comment on the judge's statement that sex is changeable is slightly problematic. It's not a scientific statement but one based around the legal fiction in Australian law so it's correct in legal terms even if the law is monumentally stupid, and dangerous.
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-war-on-womens-spaces/
-
Two blokes being held out as examples of women. Not much different from the Black and White Minstrel Show but cheered on by people who think themselves progressive.
https://www.ellecanada.com/culture/society/canadian-changemakers
-
After the fucking disgrace of Amnesty, the disgrace that is Creative Scotland and its indulgence in removing free speech, and the sleekit acceptance by the 'progressive' misogynists.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/artists-should-be-demanding-the-closure-of-creative-scotland-argues-euan-mccolm/ar-AA1pMPt2
-
Medical experimentation on his kid to indulge a bloke's sexual fetish but woman is in trouble for calling it out.
-
Medical experimentation on his kid to indulge a bloke's sexual fetish but woman is in trouble for calling it out.
Breast feeding is a sexual fetish? You might want to rethink that.
-
Breast feeding is a sexual fetish? You might want to rethink that.
It is if you're a man and want to do it. Perhaps you need to think what is being done to the child here and why?
-
It is if you're a man and want to do it.
What's your evidence for that?
Perhaps you need to think what is being done to the child here and why?
I do not know about the medical ins and outs of men growing breasts to breast feed but your article says it could be done although not exclusively.
It may be a bad idea and delusional but it doesn't therefore follow that the motive is a sexual fetish.
-
What's your evidence for that?
I do not know about the medical ins and outs of men growing breasts to breast feed but your article says it could be done although not exclusively.
It may be a bad idea and delusional but it doesn't therefore follow that the motive is a sexual fetish.
The way I've seen it described by men who want to do it. The disregard of the rights of the child as regards satisfying those desires.
-
Cheating man doesn't get the point
https://archive.vn/xVhWX
-
The way I've seen it described by men who want to do it.
Citation needed.
The disregard of the rights of the child as regards satisfying those desires.
I would certainly agree that, if the child is endangered in any way by doing it, it should not be done. However, an expert in your story claimed that the only risk is that males could't produce enough milk.
-
Rape crisis centre failed to protect women-only spaces
Sad tragic farce
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o
-
Rape crisis centre failed to protect women-only spaces
Sad tragic farce
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o
Lots of political parties involved in this scandal but worth remembering how complicit the Scottish Greens are
-
"Our review has concluded that the Census 2021 gender identity statistics published by ONS do not comply with important quality aspects of the Code of Practice for Statistics. Today we wrote to ONS and confirmed the cancellation of the accreditation of these statistics. We support ONS’s view that these should instead be classified as official statistics in development."
Muddled thinking has made the stats worthless, and they were warned about it.
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-publishes-its-final-report-on-the-review-of-the-statistics-collected-on-gender-identity-during-the-england-and-wales-census/
-
Rape crisis centre failed to protect women-only spaces
Sad tragic farce
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clynyky7kj9o
Wadhwa gone, bland statement from ERCC
https://www.ercc.scot/statement-from-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-board-of-directors/
-
Statement from For Women Scotland , issued before Wadhwa had gone
https://forwomen.scot/12/09/2024/statement-on-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre/
-
What's your evidence for that?
I do not know about the medical ins and outs of men growing breasts to breast feed but your article says it could be done although not exclusively.
It may be a bad idea and delusional but it doesn't therefore follow that the motive is a sexual fetish.
You think men are taking drugs to grow "breasts" in order to feed babies? You think that's their primary motivation?
The baby has a mother, as all babies do, and if the mother isn't able to feed it there are alternatives that don't involve making an infant swallow discharge from pharmaceutically induced gynaecomastia. That you can't see the sick perversion involved is disturbing. If a man was doing this while not calling himself a woman, would that be alright?
Quote from Stranger on a different thread, on a different subject: "That people insist on trying to justify this insanity is testament to how faith can destroy reasoning".
This is where we are. New born babies are being abused for the "validation" of mentally ill men, and all the so-called "progressives" care about are the feelings of the men.
-
Lots of political parties involved in this scandal but worth remembering how complicit the Scottish Greens are
Wadhwa - a good friend of Nicola Sturgeon, Destroyer of Women's Rights.
He is a man, with no GRC, who applied for a job legally reserved for a woman and despite his deceit was given the job by some ideologically captured misogynists (or alternatively, just plain idiots). He said "bigots" who had been raped and didn't want to talk to a man about it should "reframe their trauma".
It's taken "progressives" to really bring back Victorian values, hasn't it? Women's rights are so 20th century ::)
-
Wadhwa - a good friend of Nicola Sturgeon, Destroyer of Women's Rights.
He is a man, with no GRC, who applied for a job legally reserved for a woman and despite his deceit was given the job by some ideologically captured misogynists (or alternatively, just plain idiots). He said "bigots" who had been raped and didn't want to talk to a man about it should "reframe their trauma".
It's taken "progressives" to really bring back Victorian values, hasn't it? Women's rights are so 20th century ::)
It seems incredible that those women seeking help from a Rape Crisis Centre have been treated like this. Incredibly vulnerable, traumatised women and girls and their concerns were treated as if they were expressing racism, and they needed to 'reframe their trauma', and the fucking disgrace of politicians cheering this on.
-
This is from Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre's website today on their 'women only' services - which are not women only. Those who have contributed to this have contributed to the abuse of raped women and girls. Those who have used the empty mantra of 'trans women are women' are at best idiots, and at worst dangerous abusers of women
-
"Our review has concluded that the Census 2021 gender identity statistics published by ONS do not comply with important quality aspects of the Code of Practice for Statistics. Today we wrote to ONS and confirmed the cancellation of the accreditation of these statistics. We support ONS’s view that these should instead be classified as official statistics in development."
Muddled thinking has made the stats worthless, and they were warned about it.
https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-publishes-its-final-report-on-the-review-of-the-statistics-collected-on-gender-identity-during-the-england-and-wales-census/
We [The OSR] support ONS’s view that these should instead be classified as official statistics in development.
Doesn't sound like muddled thinking. They agree with each other. Also, the statistics are not completely worthless. They should help in developing statistics that tell them something useful. That's what "in development" means.
-
You think men are taking drugs to grow "breasts" in order to feed babies? You think that's their primary motivation?
I do not know what their motivation is. I would guess that they want to be as much like women as possible. I do not think that the motivation isn necessarily sexual and nobody has provided evidence to suggest that it is (I accept it could be in some cases).
The baby has a mother, as all babies do, and if the mother isn't able to feed it there are alternatives that don't involve making an infant swallow discharge from pharmaceutically induced gynaecomastia.
If you are claiming that the person in the article who said it does no harm is wrong, fair enough, but I would like to see some evidence.
That you can't see the sick perversion involved is disturbing.
I can't get into the mind of a trans person. I have no concept of what it feels like to thin k you are trapped in the wrong body. Frankly, I think calling it a sick perversion is defamatory, unless you provide some evidence.
If a man was doing this while not calling himself a woman, would that be alright?
I think it would be weird and icky, but that is just my prejudices. If it's harmful to the baby, fair enough stop it, but provide me with the evidence that it is harmful first please.
Quote from Stranger on a different thread, on a different subject: "That people insist on trying to justify this insanity is testament to how faith can destroy reasoning".
This is where we are. New born babies are being abused for the "validation" of mentally ill men, and all the so-called "progressives" care about are the feelings of the men.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. All I'm saying is I'd like to see the evidence apart from the fact that it makes you feel icky.
-
I do not know what their motivation is. I would guess that they want to be as much like women as possible. I do not think that the motivation isn necessarily sexual and nobody has provided evidence to suggest that it is (I accept it could be in some cases).If you are claiming that the person in the article who said it does no harm is wrong, fair enough, but I would like to see some evidence.
I can't get into the mind of a trans person. I have no concept of what it feels like to thin k you are trapped in the wrong body. Frankly, I think calling it a sick perversion is defamatory, unless you provide some evidence.
I think it would be weird and icky, but that is just my prejudices. If it's harmful to the baby, fair enough stop it, but provide me with the evidence that it is harmful first please.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. All I'm saying is I'd like to see the evidence apart from the fact that it makes you feel icky.
You've got your safeguarding the wrong way round. You need to show it's not harmful to the baby before any discussion on this even begins.
-
You've got your safeguarding the wrong way round. You need to show it's not harmful to the baby before any discussion on this even begins.
Thank you.
Icky. My God. Sometimes the naturally evolved disgust response is entirely justified. This is about babies. Defenceless babies. Shame on anyone excusing or justifying this abuse.
-
Thank you.
Icky. My God. Sometimes the naturally evolved disgust response is entirely justified. This is about babies. Defenceless babies. Shame on anyone excusing or justifying this abuse.
And interesting that jeremyp says he is incapable in getting into the mind of a 'trans person' but is perfectly happy to tell you as a woman what you are thinking.
-
Victoria Smith on the disgrace of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre's treatment of women looking for single sex spaces.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/rape-crisis-centre-ceo-resigns-over-failure-to-protect-single-sex-spaces/
-
Susan Dalgety on the scandal at Edinburgh Rape Crosis Centre. Her anger mirrors my own.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/sexual-abuse-survivors-edinburgh-rape-crisis-centre-trans-ideology-4780614
-
One way of making clear who counts as what:
-
"Social worker wins £55,000 after row about gender-fluid dachshund" - of course
https://archive.vn/HfCZg
-
You've got your safeguarding the wrong way round. You need to show it's not harmful to the baby before any discussion on this even begins.
I've got a person quoted in the story you posted who says it is not harmful. I accept that person might be wrong, but, at this time* I have no evidence that they are.
* I haven't read further down the thread than your post I am quoting, so I acknowledge the evidence might already be there.
Edit: Oh well, you haven't posted the evidence yet. The ball is in your court.
-
And interesting that jeremyp says he is incapable in getting into the mind of a 'trans person' but is perfectly happy to tell you as a woman what you are thinking.
I haven't tried to tell you what Christine is thinking.
-
Thank you.
Icky. My God. Sometimes the naturally evolved disgust response is entirely justified. This is about babies. Defenceless babies. Shame on anyone excusing or justifying this abuse.
You haven't provided any evidence to suggest that it is abuse yet. Shame on you for appealing to people's emotions instead of providing an evidenced argument.
-
I've got a person quoted in the story you posted who says it is not harmful. I accept that person might be wrong, but, at this time* I have no evidence that they are.
* I haven't read further down the thread than your post I am quoting, so I acknowledge the evidence might already be there.
Edit: Oh well, you haven't posted the evidence yet. The ball is in your court.
The article says that 'breast milk' can be produced, bot that it is safe, not thar there have been any longterm resistance, not that the additional hormones needed have been tested for. Again you need to show quote that supports no harm, rather than supporting experimentation on babies because of a delusion
-
Victoria Smith on thr film Will and Harper
https://thecritic.co.uk/allyship-on-easy-mode/
-
You haven't provided any evidence to suggest that it is abuse yet. Shame on you for appealing to people's emotions instead of providing an evidenced argument.
There are good evolutionary reasons for feeling emotional about the protection of infant humans. In my opinion, experimenting on babies for the benefit of deluded men's feelings is indefensible. Those who try need to prove benefit to THE BABY before they feed him or her pharmacologically induced discharge.
-
There are good evolutionary reasons for feeling emotional about the protection of infant humans. In my opinion, experimenting on babies for the benefit of deluded men's feelings is indefensible. Those who try need to prove benefit to THE BABY before they feed him or her pharmacologically induced discharge.
Good statement here
https://www.womensforumaustralia.org/victorian_breastfeeding_advocate_faces_legal_action_for_comments_critical_of_men_chest_feeding
-
I do not know what their motivation is. I would guess that they want to be as much like women as possible. I do not think that the motivation isn necessarily sexual and nobody has provided evidence to suggest that it is (I accept it could be in some cases).If you are claiming that the person in the article who said it does no harm is wrong, fair enough, but I would like to see some evidence.
I can't get into the mind of a trans person. I have no concept of what it feels like to thin k you are trapped in the wrong body. Frankly, I think calling it a sick perversion is defamatory, unless you provide some evidence.
I think it would be weird and icky, but that is just my prejudices. If it's harmful to the baby, fair enough stop it, but provide me with the evidence that it is harmful first please.
I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong. All I'm saying is I'd like to see the evidence apart from the fact that it makes you feel icky.
There seem to have been various cases in the past of babies having health conditions after ingesting baby formula that has not been properly tested for its harmful effects and which does not have the nutritional value of breast milk. Unfortunately, these things only come to light after the damage has been done to the babies e.g Remedia brand baby formula lacking Vit B1 caused 3 deaths and 20 babies to have severe disabilities.
Many real women apparently feel less of a woman if they can't breast feed their baby - possibly due to cultural pressures on them - not sure how much societies prioritise their need to feel like a woman over what's best for the baby.
As for getting into the mind of a trans person who thinks they are trapped in the 'wrong body' - I don't know what's so special about the mind of a trans person compared to any other person who struggles with their identity. Gender categories are just socially-constructed classifications based on the prevailing culture at the time. If Trans people have developed a sense of identity that doesn't match their body or sex organs, doesn't seem any more difficult to understand than other groups of people who struggle with mental health issues while they try to change what's on the outside to reflect/ match who they feel they are on the inside - clothes, haircuts, wigs, extensive tattoos, body-piercings and surgery/ medical procedures such as fillers, boob jobs, limb-lengthening surgery. Or people who try to change other biological traits to match their sense of identity. Some people try to supress their biological attraction to others or sexual preferences through medical intervention because it does not match their sense of who they are.
Sure, there could also be a biological basis for our sense of identity. For example a study on the Physiological Sensitivity to Disgust as a Predictor of Political Attitudes suggests political attitudes connect to broad, dispositional, perhaps biological temperaments https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/myl/SmithDisgust2009.pdf.
There could be a biological basis for our sense of gender identity that is different from the basis that classifies our biological sex. But our politics, gender and religious identities still all seem to be social constructs based on meanings we associate with experiences and actions and based on values and beliefs we hold that change as our surrounding culture and experiences changes.
So if I considered myself a Muslim trapped in an atheist's body who felt I needed to mutilate my body to validate my new identity, society might go along with it but it wouldn't be surprising if people objected to me expressing my religious identity by feeding my baby substances that could potentially harm it. It would be even less surprising if people objected to me mutilating my baby to express my religious identity such as having the baby circumcised. If there is some evidence that gender is not mostly a social construct like religion based on meanings we associate with experiences, would like to see some links to that.
-
I see some sad fuck threw soup over Kellie-Jay Keen at a Let Women Speak rally in Sheffield today. I don't agree with her on everything but this sort of low level violence against women speaking is a disgrace.
https://x.com/MartiBlagi/status/1837500390859854049
-
"The judge told Secker: "At the time of this offence, you were a man.""
And is still a fucking man.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8rdpdm4r4ro
-
Mr Menno on men who don't understand boundaries.
"The Trans Takeover of Womanhood: 100 Years of Madness"
Plenty of evidence and references. Enjoy.
https://youtu.be/iM_VlChiDQY?feature=shared
-
Queen Arthur
-
Charming
-
I don't always agree with Andrew Doyle but this is very good on the homophobia in the gender movement.
https://www.andrewdoyle.org/p/the-new-anti-gay-activism
-
More on the failings to women of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
https://archive.vn/rLnHV
-
Julie Bindel on the failings and scandal of the Tavistock
https://juliebindel.substack.com/p/julie-in-genderland-dc4
-
Glasgow Rape Crisis Centre breaks away from Rape Crisis Scotland over the question of being able to provide single sex support.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz7w322230go
-
From 11 years ago. It's all there.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/07/the-left-hand-of-darkness/
-
Oh ffs!
-
Interview with Jenny Lindsay about the abuse and cancellation she has suffered for standing up for women's sex based rights and spaces. But whose experience has been dismissed by Prof D as not real, or perhaps real but he's too much of a coward to actually speak up for her in case he might get a wee pile on on a moderated board.
And irrelevant by bluehillside because anyone who says they are a woman is a woman because of some mystical soul like thing.
It was quite nice to see Outrider accept that sport can sometimes be necessarily sex based but I've not seen that accepted for changing rooms or prisons.
And it's not just misogynist, it's deeply homophobic because it attacks lesbians for wanting same sex spaces - but hey, it's 'progressive'.
The board has a number of 'progressive' men who are happy to give up the rights women fought for to accommodate men who say they are women, who dismiss rape victims experiences as less than some people arguing against them on a message board, who lack either the courage or the principled to agree that what has happened to Lindsay is wrong.
https://archive.vn/mbv5a
-
The board has a number of 'progressive' men who are happy to give up the rights women fought for to accommodate men who say they are women, who dismiss rape victims experiences as less than some people arguing against them on a message board, who lack either the courage or the principled to agree that what has happened to Lindsay is wrong.
https://archive.vn/mbv5a
That's right NS. What we need in this debate is more demonisation.
-
That's right NS. What we need in this debate is more demonisation.
Yeah, you're probably right. I posted in anger after reading the interview, and I was aiming to be provocative because of it. It's difficult to avoid when I know so many woman affected by this.
-
Janice Turner on the failure of Unison to defend its women members
https://archive.vn/maa5g
-
Rapist who pretends to be a woman defends man pretending to be a woman being in charge of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre. It would be like satire, if it wasn't so utterly sad and depressing.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/trans-rapist-isla-bryson-launches-34023503
-
Meanwhile in Germany, this piece of nonsense has been passed.
https://thecritic.co.uk/rocking-the-reichstag/
-
Good decision on Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
https://archive.is/JFPzA
-
And an appalling one from FA banning for 6 matches a 17 year old girl for asking a man if he was a man
https://archive.vn/t7DzN
-
Man plays man
https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/other-sports/darts/noalynn-vanleuven-grand-slam-draw-34038292
-
JK Rowling on the failure of too many on the left to stand up for women.
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1854854517293998488
-
Jenny Lindsay on the disgrace of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre
https://archive.vn/CB8Gm
-
Those not on X may have missed Alastair Campbell mansplaining to JK Rowling on how she should behave despite admitting his lack of knowledge but here's Victoria Smith on it.
https://unherd.com/newsroom/alastair-campbell-has-no-right-to-lecture-women-on-trans-issues/
-
The continued idiocy of men and breastfeeding
https://archive.vn/NsquC
-
Lifelong, irreversible harm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGgR3W_jjg
-
Lifelong, irreversible harm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSGgR3W_jjg
I agree but then it's just like this is lifelong irreversible harm.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22257.0
-
I agree but then it's just like this is lifelong irreversible harm.
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=22257.0
I entirely agree - the evidence shows that evil has infiltrated to the highest levels in our society.
But none of this would have happened if the powers that be had followed the teachings of the gospels,
-
I entirely agree - the evidence shows that evil has infiltrated to the highest levels in our society.
But none of this would have happened if the powers that be had followed the teachings of the gospels,
And yet many who believe that were following the teachings of the Gospels have done what you think is evel. You are claiming your interpretation to be true but so are they. It's in the end merely subjective opinion.
-
Alex Massie on the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers case and its impact
https://archive.is/C1UmR
-
And yet many who believe that were following the teachings of the Gospels have done what you think is evil. You are claiming your interpretation to be true but so are they. It's in the end merely subjective opinion.
There is a worrying trend to try to reinterpret the gospel message to fit in with current popular opinion.
Jesus did not pander to popular opinion when he gave his teachings - quite the opposite in fact.
But now we see the teachings of the Gospels being watered down, even by church hierarchy, to make them more popular - sadly to the detriment of our souls
-
There is a worrying trend to try to reinterpret the gospel message to fit in with current popular opinion.
Jesus did not pander to popular opinion when he gave his teachings - quite the opposite in fact.
But now we see the teachings of the Gospels being watered down, even by church hierarchy, to make them more popular - sadly to the detriment of our souls
Yes, that's just you claiming you are right because you think you are right.
-
The utter confusion in this article where it switches between gender and sex and what it means is part of the problem. The BBC are unable to report coherently on this.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cdxvpl5zw19o
-
On April 15th I put in a FOI request for my ex-employer's policies on gender identity. The first reply contained this:
"Your request is asking for all guidance, procedures, and policies available to staff relating to
diversity, inclusion, and equality. Given the vast number of policies, guidance, and
procedures available to staff and that diversity and inclusion are at the heart of many of the
policies and procedures, to fulfil this request the agency would have to manually inspect
every appropriate policy, procedure, or guidance file, thus exceeding the cost limit outlined in
the FOIA. There are nine directorates within the agency, with several teams within each
directorate. Each of these teams have their own policies, procedures, and guidance as well
as the agency wide policy, procedures, and guidance.
If you were to make a new request for a narrower category of information, we may be able to
comply with the renewed request within the appropriate limit, however, we cannot guarantee..."
It's concerning that HR don't know what procedures they've got where (must be a nightmare for staff looking for guidance) and that it would take more than 3 working days to find and collate it. Anyway, eventually (3 modified requests later, on August 20th) they sent me their guidance/policy on gender, attached.
You may, of course, disagree with my opinion that this is a waste of public money.
-
Article by Jenny Lindsay triggered by her appearance on Australian TV.
https://archive.md/2024.11.21-130117/https://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/review/the-impact-of-the-trans-debate-on-biological-women/news-story/7f2d023686e2c0e7f403e28481f98b7e
-
Martina Navratilova calling out the idea touted by Zooey Zephyr that 'trans women' are every bit as 'biologically female' as 'cis women'. Anti scientific nonsense given a free pass by some on here who take this religion as true in complete contradiction to their position on religion generally.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-martina-navratilova-puts-full-stop-transgender-montana-rep-zooey-zephyr-opposing-speaker-mark-johnson-s-capitol-restroom-policy
-
Blokes who say they are women allowed to strip search women according to British Transport Police.
https://archive.vn/iwvtW
-
Blokes who say they are women allowed to strip search women according to British Transport Police.
https://archive.vn/iwvtW
State sanctioned sexual assault.
If you spout the idiotic mantra "transwomen are women" you're complicit in this.
-
Martina Navratilova calling out the idea touted by Zooey Zephyr that 'trans women' are every bit as 'biologically female' as 'cis women'. Anti scientific nonsense given a free pass by some on here who take this religion as true in complete contradiction to their position on religion generally.
https://www.sportskeeda.com/tennis/news-martina-navratilova-puts-full-stop-transgender-montana-rep-zooey-zephyr-opposing-speaker-mark-johnson-s-capitol-restroom-policy
Yes, I've noticed that.
-
Anti scientific nonsense given a free pass by some on here who take this religion as true in complete contradiction to their position on religion generally.
Name them.
-
Name them.
I have done previously. You regarded that as demonising.
-
Euan McColm on the upcoming legal case on the impact of a Gender Recognition Certificate
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/crucial-legal-battle-over-the-definition-of-a-woman-is-one-for-our-bizarre-times-euan-mccolm-4880056
-
I have done previously. You regarded that as demonising.
Well you are.
I don't know anybody on this forum who subscribes to the idea that sex as opposed to gender is a social construct.
-
Well you are.
I don't know anybody on this forum who subscribes to the idea that sex as opposed to gender is a social construct.
Thar is the effect of bluehillside's views as expressed on here. And Prof D's support for men in women's sport.
-
Article on For Women Scotland
https://archive.vn/EVA1P
-
The redoubtable Victoria Smith on Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez selling out women
https://thecritic.co.uk/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-and-the-forgetting-of-feminist-principles/
-
Listen to Emily Chung explain how it would be perfectly fine for a boardroom or public body to meet equal representation targets with 50% men and ...the other 50% men too!
https://youtu.be/pL1zEdrw0C4?feature=shared
-
Be interesting to see the outcome of this, in due course.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgv8v5ge37o
-
Be interesting to see the outcome of this, in due course.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgv8v5ge37o
Been watching it on and off. Quite extraordinary stuff.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2024-0042/261124-am.html
-
Women's Place UK Statement
https://womansplaceuk.org/2024/11/28/a-womans-place-uk-the-right-side-of-history/
-
Been watching it on and off. Quite extraordinary stuff.
https://www.supremecourt.uk/watch/uksc-2024-0042/261124-am.html
Good article by Hannah Barnes on the case
https://www.newstatesman.com/comment/2024/11/scottish-government-is-ignoring-womens-rights
-
And one from Milli Hill on the flawed claims of induced 'lactation' in males being the equivalent of breathing milk.
https://millihill.substack.com/p/breaking-nhs-trust-u-turns-on-male
-
Also posted in the 'Jokes' thread.
-
'LPGA updates policy on transgender women golfers' or rather men who say they are women.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/golf/articles/cd9x8341xnqo
-
'Gender diversity has always been part of the church' - the Roman Catholic one that is, apparently
https://uscatholic.org/articles/202406/gender-diversity-has-always-been-part-of-the-church/
-
More bollocks
https://archive.vn/Dv1d0
-
Govt extends ban on puberty blockers - good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2z0gx3p5o
-
Govt extends ban on puberty blockers - good.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly2z0gx3p5o
Hilary Cass on the dangerous idiocy of MPs opposing the ban on the grounds of 'discrimination'. The Green Party continued in its campaign to experiment on children due to antiscientific belief in something like a soul.
https://archive.vn/pFD8B
-
Janice Turner on the puberty blockers ban, and the issues of any proposed trial.
https://archive.ph/BNAw6
-
Apart from getting the science wrong, ffs!
https://metro.co.uk/2024/12/16/wanted-breast-cancer-feel-comfortable-body-22198422/
-
Apart from getting the science wrong, ffs!
https://metro.co.uk/2024/12/16/wanted-breast-cancer-feel-comfortable-body-22198422/
The Cass Report into gender identity services, which came out earlier this year, called puberty blockers ‘powerful drugs with unproven benefits and significant risks.’
But I believe the real risk to young trans and non-binary people comes from banning them.
That's alright then. Shivani Dave's opinion trumps Cass.
-
Euan McColm on Sturgeon's rewriting of history
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14202817/EUAN-MCCOLM-Scotlands-paying-price-Sturgeons-toxic-politics-brass-neck-rewriting-recent-history-simply-self-serving-ROT.html
-
Confusion by the UK govt, or a broken promise?
https://x.com/SexMattersOrg/status/1869359740754768240
-
Iain MacWhirter on For Women Scotland and The Women Who Wouldn't Wheesht
https://archive.vn/iJk1w
-
https://reduxx.info/exclusive-five-male-inmates-transferred-to-minnesota-womens-prison-including-two-convicted-pedophiles/
I think the tide is turning, but not fast enough. Cruel and unusual punishment FOR THE WOMEN.
-
Steven Pinker resigns from being Honorary President of the Freedom of Religion Foundation because of their censoring of Jerry Coyne. The idea of gender in its modern ideology is religious, not scientific.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/29/steve-pinker-resigns-from-the-freedom-of-religion-foundation/
-
Steven Pinker resigns from being Honorary President of the Freedom of Religion Foundation because of their censoring of Jerry Coyne. The idea of gender in its modern ideology is religious, not scientific.
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/12/29/steve-pinker-resigns-from-the-freedom-of-religion-foundation/
You can see Coyne's own resignation from the above link, and also Dawkins's resignation.
This is the piece to which Coyne had replied, and then had his piece removed.
https://freethoughtnow.org/what-is-a-woman/
-
You can see Coyne's own resignation from the above link, and also Dawkins's resignation.
This is the piece to which Coyne had replied, and then had his piece removed.
https://freethoughtnow.org/what-is-a-woman/
Saw this on YouTube about a prominent YouTube atheist refuses to share a platform with Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/n09JGRMfMds?si=fIGBS22gByWtUUda
Are the things that made Dawkins an attractive atheist icon, his no nonsense biology and science now working against him?
-
Saw this on YouTube about a prominent YouTube atheist refuses to share a platform with Dawkins.
https://youtu.be/n09JGRMfMds?si=fIGBS22gByWtUUda
Are the things that made Dawkins an attractive atheist icon, his no nonsense biology and science now working against him?
I think it would be better phrased as to whether there is a split in the atheist/sceptic/freethought communities on the subject of gender ideology, and allowing for my own scepticism about whether such classifications were ever that useful, then I think the answer is yes.
That divide crosses various political boundaries as well, and despite the attempts to portray standing up for women's sex based spaces by some 'progressives', it is not a 'right wing' position or simply a 'culture war' whatever people think such a thing is.
-
The article from Coyne that was removed
https://archive.ph/psT4I
-
The article from Coyne that was removed
https://archive.ph/psT4I
Good, succinct article, but I noticed he couldn't help advertising his brand of atheism in it.
-
Good, succinct article, but I noticed he couldn't help advertising his brand of atheism in it.
Given the context, it seems relevant
-
Good article on the issue of women's spirt, and why too many on the left have punted their misogynist ideology.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/democrats-trans-rights-sports/681130/
-
Good, succinct article, but I noticed he couldn't help advertising his brand of atheism in it.
I don't care about his atheism, and I enjoyed his book .Why Evolution Is True., but unfortunately, he's a hard determinist.
-
A response to Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins from an atheist, who subscribes to the idea that feelings trump facts.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/three-prominent-atheists-resigned
-
A response to Coyne, Pinker, and Dawkins from an atheist, who subscribes to the idea that feelings Trump facts.
https://www.friendlyatheist.com/p/three-prominent-atheists-resigned
Sounds like trouble at Mill with public, media atheism but then again what position on religion isn't experiencing difficulties. Is society at present just that schismatic over stuff itshould really be able to just take in it's stride?
-
Sounds like trouble at Mill with public, media atheism but then again what position on religion isn't experiencing difficulties. Is society at present just that schismatic over stuff itshould really be able to just take in it's stride?
It hasn't been particularly good at unity in the past.
-
Good, succinct article, but I noticed he couldn't help advertising his brand of atheism in it.
What on Earth are you talking about? He doesn't talk about atheism at all in the article, which was written, by the way, for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
-
Sounds like trouble at Mill with public, media atheism but then again what position on religion isn't experiencing difficulties. Is society at present just that schismatic over stuff itshould really be able to just take in it's stride?
Compare to religious disputes in which the losers often got burned at the stake or had other grisly fates.
-
What on Earth are you talking about? He doesn't talk about atheism at all in the article, which was written, by the way, for the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
I think the part Vlad was referring to was this
"I sincerely hope that the FFRF does not insist on adopting a “progressive” political stance, rationalizing it as part of its battle against “Christian Nationalism.” As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get! "
Which seems entirely relevant to the article.
-
I think the part Vlad was referring to was this
"I sincerely hope that the FFRF does not insist on adopting a “progressive” political stance, rationalizing it as part of its battle against “Christian Nationalism.” As a liberal atheist, I am about as far from Christian nationalism as one can get! "
Which seems entirely relevant to the article.
-
Dawkins appeal to science in his sex and gender argument undermines his sex and gender argument.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2025/01/dawkinss-gender-dilemma
-
Dawkins appeal to science in his sex and gender argument undermines his sex and gender argument.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2025/01/dawkinss-gender-dilemma
I think that presents a simplistic view of Dawkis position, and also one that looks at a purely philosophical issue ignoring practicalities. I don't think Dawkins thinks science is 'normative' as asserted here, rather that there in making normative decisions scientific facts need to be acknowledged, and that any normative decisions based on a denial of those facts are inherently flawed.
In terms of the practicality, I have little time for looking at notional possibilities when women I know cannot attend rape counselling because the rape crisis centres will not support single sex spaces.
-
You appear just to have quoted me in reply 2422, and not added anything???
-
I think that presents a simplistic view of Dawkis position, and also one that looks at a purely philosophical issue ignoring practicalities. I don't think Dawkins thinks science is 'normative' as asserted here, rather that there in making normative decisions scientific facts need to be acknowledged, and that any normative decisions based on a denial of those facts are inherently flawed.
In terms of the practicality, I have little time for looking at notional possibilities when women I know cannot attend rape counselling because the rape crisis centres will not support single sex spaces.
But, I haven't heard Dawkins 'opponents' in the matter claim that on the strength of feeling, they no longer have XY chromosomes or have strangely developed cellular Barr bodies.
I think the point being made here is that Dawkin's stretches the science to far and begins to use it to cover ground better covered by religion or philosophy....which imv is consistent with Dawkins generalised intellectual imperialism.
So the question, why should biology be normative here when it isn't elsewhere is a valid question.
-
But, I haven't heard Dawkins 'opponents' in the matter claim that on the strength of feeling, they no longer have XY chromosomes or have strangely developed cellular Barr bodies.
I think the point being made here is that Dawkin's stretches the science to far and begins to use it to cover ground better covered by religion or philosophy....which imv is consistent with Dawkins generalised intellectual imperialism.
So the question, why should biology be normative here when it isn't elsewhere is a valid question.
You seem to have completely ignored what I said as regards normative.
-
Hugely significant case in terms of rolling back gender ideology in the civil service.
https://archive.vn/XnnEv
-
Hugely significant case in terms of rolling back gender ideology in the civil service.
https://archive.vn/XnnEv
Eleanor Frances's summary of her treatment and case
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1878164412139184162.html#google_vignette
-
And details on case which will now not be held in private where again the idea of single sex spaces has been challenged.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/politics/government/backers-of-trans-row-nurse-complain-lip-service-is-being-paid-to-keeping-women-only-spaces/ar-BB1riUKd
-
Joan Smith on the attempts to censoring the Oxford Literary Festival
https://unherd.com/newsroom/oxford-literary-festival-faces-growing-trans-backlash/
-
But, I haven't heard Dawkins 'opponents' in the matter claim that on the strength of feeling, they no longer have XY chromosomes or have strangely developed cellular Barr bodies.
I think the point being made here is that Dawkin's stretches the science to far and begins to use it to cover ground better covered by religion or philosophy....which imv is consistent with Dawkins generalised intellectual imperialism.
So the question, why should biology be normative here when it isn't elsewhere is a valid question.
No ground is better covered by religion.
-
No ground is better covered by religion.
Although Trueman's article proposes that a Theist who talks about the genders being complimentary and therefore purposeful is on firmer ground than someone proposing science delineates what is normal vis a vis gender and sex.
-
Although Trueman's article proposes that a Theist who talks about the genders being complimentary and therefore purposeful is on firmer ground than someone proposing science delineates what is normal vis a vis gender and sex.
A theist proposing anything based on their religion is not on any kind of ground at all.
-
A theist proposing anything based on their religion is not on any kind of ground at all.
No, that assumes that religion does not have a linguistic and philosophical framework or argument which of course, is crap.
Trueman also points out that Dawkins, apart from any religious consideration, cannot derive his authority to speak on gender and sex from science in the way he thinks he has.
So assuming God the person arguing of a traditional view of gender and sex is arguing consistently
But a person arguing those same traditional views from science is not being consistent.
The difficulty for the Freedom from religion movement is that it made Coyne and Dawkins their authoritative base and are the victims of their own scientism.
-
The lesbophobia of the gender ideology
https://thecritic.co.uk/cotton-ceiling-2-0/
-
Susan Dalgety on Trump's Executive Order on sex.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/the-left-must-realise-that-donald-trumps-gender-views-strike-a-chord-with-voters-4958884
-
Susan Dalgety on Trump's Executive Order on sex.
https://www.scotsman.com/news/opinion/columnists/the-left-must-realise-that-donald-trumps-gender-views-strike-a-chord-with-voters-4958884
And alternative view. Not one I have much time for
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/trump-executive-order-sex
-
And alternative view. Not one I have much time for
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/25/trump-executive-order-sex
Carole Hooven who was approached to provide info to the writer on the piece
https://x.com/hoovlet/status/1883607864025194744
-
From the Grauniad:
-
Article that covers a lot of my thoughts on gender ideology
https://archive.is/u419l
-
No, that assumes that religion does not have a linguistic and philosophical framework or argument which of course, is crap.
No. It assumes religion is not based on fact, which it isn't.
-
Joan McAlpine on the current Peggie v Fife Health Board case where a woman's right to private spaces has once more been called into doubt by people sticking up for a man who says he is a woman.
-
Superb from JK Rowling
https://x.com/jk_rowling/status/1887472120541679690?s=48&t=ntLKx9gC7KodUQ3uihBo1A
-
And Jo Bartosch on the Peggie case.
https://thecritic.co.uk/describing-reality-is-not-harassment/
-
And a good article on the Peggie case from Sonia Sodha
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/feb/09/no-woman-should-be-forced-to-change-her-clothes-in-front-of-a-trans-colleague
-
The problem with Pete - good article on the issues raised by the Peggie case
https://forwomen.scot/12/02/2025/the-problem-with-pete/
-
How do we get it right?
Shouldn't one law cover all? Do we give special right for all? How does the 'all/old boys club', really get covered/present itself here. Is there a place in this for transgendered women/men??
A round peg suddenly becomes square. How so we make it fit in?
They do not need to be include with the natural way/order they need to be added as a natural part of the order of all things as they are.
Do we make everything about rights and do we get a say?
Transgender people have an hard enough time during transition. Before moving, I gave a lift to a girl who struggling with shopping bags to bread and butter club. Moved to get away from people
making her life a misery. Grateful for the lift and a friendly person. At the end of the day we need to treat everyone the same and be kind to them and help.
My two penneth, Treat everyone with respect and kindness.
-
How do we get it right?
Shouldn't one law cover all? Do we give special right for all? How does the 'all/old boys club', really get covered/present itself here. Is there a place in this for transgendered women/men??
A round peg suddenly becomes square. How so we make it fit in?
They do not need to be include with the natural way/order they need to be added as a natural part of the order of all things as they are.
Do we make everything about rights and do we get a say?
Transgender people have an hard enough time during transition. Before moving, I gave a lift to a girl who struggling with shopping bags to bread and butter club. Moved to get away from people
making her life a misery. Grateful for the lift and a friendly person. At the end of the day we need to treat everyone the same and be kind to them and help.
My two penneth, Treat everyone with respect and kindness.
So you do think there should be single sex spaces for women or not?
-
So more on the religion of trans as regards Sandie Peggie case
https://archive.vn/9CgsC
-
I hope Sandie Peggie's ordeal at the hands of "progressive" bullies will go some way to exposing the utter lunacy that's been allowed to take hold in the HR departments of publicly funded institutions.
How could that happen? Here's a piece about the instruction manual.
The Dentons Document:
https://feministlegal.org/the-document-that-reveals-the-remarkable-tactics-of-trans-lobbyists/
-
I suppose i should be happy about Labour in Scotland's change of position as regards the gender ideology thar lead to the disgrace of the Sandy Peggie case but as it's not combined for an apology for their complicity in this, it's hard to think much of it. Jenny Lindsay who was ignored for years by them writes on it
https://archive.ph/dUBNr
-
Alex Massie on Labour's row back in supporting the GRR bill
https://archive.vn/LHfil
-
Alex Massie on Labour's row back in supporting the GRR bill
https://archive.vn/LHfil
And Sarwar's article rowing back. The problem with it is thar he was told all the stuff that he says he didn't know when support for the was whipped. But he didn't listen.
https://archive.vn/DH4we
-
So you do think there should be single sex spaces for women or not?
Hi NS,
''Spaces', what spaces are we referring to? We all as individuals, regardless of us being male or female take spaces up on the planet.
Do I think men and women should share the same bathrooms. Clear answer IS NO. Do I think men would want to share a urinal/toilet with a woman transgendered to a man.
Does it matter how a non transgender male would feel? Especially those in the forces?
Do you feel that there is a simple 'yes'/'No' to the question.
I think there should be male and female toilets for all the above. for both sexes including trans. But how would you tell if you didn't know?
We need to protect people. If trans believe they are now the right sex after change then what rights do they need. Any rights of any gay/trans/heterosexual should never be about an individual sex.
Give them there own toilet and allow them to exist with the same rights of men and women. No one who wants to be equal should be treated differently. Acceptance is not about differences. It is about being treated all the same. With the same rights.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/commentisfree/2025/feb/20/trump-trans-women-sport-austin-killips
Where to begin? Also, this needs translating into English: In fact, the only action items referencing funding simply establishes a precedent for rescinding money...
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/commentisfree/2025/feb/20/trump-trans-women-sport-austin-killips
Where to begin? Also, this needs translating into English:
A piece of autofellation
-
Good article on the Peggie case and Labour in Scotland's facile conversion
https://www.holyrood.com/comment/view,peggie-v-nhs-fife-more-casualties-to-come
-
"Doctors who change gender are allowed to scrub past wrongdoing from public record" - absolute gender idiocy
https://archive.vn/zgiO7
-
"Regulator sends equality 'reminder' to NHS Fife"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c78ed8v0g8lo.amp
-
And Sarwar's article rowing back. The problem with it is thar he was told all the stuff that he says he didn't know when support for the was whipped. But he didn't listen.
https://archive.vn/DH4we
But the party in Scotland rejects Sarwar's u turn , and does full scale misogyny.
https://archive.vn/5kwY5
-
Jo Bartosch in excoriating form on the case of the Darlington Five
https://thecritic.co.uk/the-nhs-is-letting-down-its-nurses/
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/25/ncaa-trump-trans-athlete-ban (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/25/ncaa-trump-trans-athlete-ban)
Trans athletes on Trump’s executive order: ‘Stripping us of sports is devastating’
& "I was devastated. We all knew it was coming – it wasn’t necessarily a surprise – but there’s a difference between anticipatory grief and present grief. It made me feel awful, knowing my identity and existence are being debated every single day, with the rhetoric only intensifying."
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/25/ncaa-trump-trans-athlete-ban (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/25/ncaa-trump-trans-athlete-ban) & "I was devastated. We all knew it was coming – it wasn’t necessarily a surprise – but there’s a difference between anticipatory grief and present grief. It made me feel awful, knowing my identity and existence are being debated every single day, with the rhetoric only intensifying."
Of course they are not being stripped of sport, they are only being stripped of the right to compete in women's sport. I think they are still free to compete in the men's competitions.
OK, so maybe they aren't good enough to compete professionally in men's sport. Well neither am I, but it doesn't make me feel awful.
I think it was a strategic error by the TRAs to try to get accepted into women's sports. They should have left sports alone because nothing says "I am really male" more forcefully than beating all your female competitors by a mile in front of thousands of spectators.
-
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/25/ncaa-trump-trans-athlete-ban (https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/feb/25/ncaa-trump-trans-athlete-ban) & "I was devastated. We all knew it was coming – it wasn’t necessarily a surprise – but there’s a difference between anticipatory grief and present grief. It made me feel awful, knowing my identity and existence are being debated every single day, with the rhetoric only intensifying."
Except they aren't being stripped of sport. Rather the Democrats idiotic approach to gender was putting women at disadvantage and risk.
-
Of course they are not being stripped of sport, they are only being stripped of the right to compete in women's sport. I think they are still free to compete in the men's competitions.
OK, so maybe they aren't good enough to compete professionally in men's sport. Well neither am I, but it doesn't make me feel awful.
I think it was a strategic error by the TRAs to try to get accepted into women's sports. They should have left sports alone because nothing says "I am really male" more forcefully than beating all your female competitors by a mile in front of thousands of spectators.
The problem is if your approach is transwomen are women you end up having to take all sorts of illogical positions since it's based on an antisecientific piece of nonsense.
-
"I won’t forgive any actor who joins the Harry Potter TV series" - unhinged logic free drivel
https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/28/wont-forgive-actor-joins-harry-potter-tv-series-22639499/
-
"I won’t forgive any actor who joins the Harry Potter TV series" - unhinged logic free drivel
https://metro.co.uk/2025/02/28/wont-forgive-actor-joins-harry-potter-tv-series-22639499/
Who the hell is Danni Scott, and why does she think anyone gives a shit about her opinions?
-
Who the hell is Danni Scott, and why does she think anyone gives a shit about her opinions?
Well she managed to persuade the editor of The Metro to publish her piece, so it's reasonable to assume somebody cares about them, even if they don't agree with them.
-
VOCALIS TESTIS!!!
-
Susan Dalgety and Lucy Hunter Blackburn on the impact of the Peggie case and where we are now
https://thecritic.co.uk/turning-the-tide-on-gender/
-
Akua Reindorf on the upcoming Supreme Court decision on the For Women Scotlsnd case and its impact on how the law regards lesbians. One particular pararahraph stands put which illustrates the idiocy that arises of the case goes against For Women Scotland:
If it is the latter, the result is chaos. It means that under the Equality Act a lesbian is either a female without a GRC or a male with a GRC, who is attracted both to females without GRCs and to males with GRCs, but not to females with GRCs or to males who identify as women but do not have GRCs. A lesbian couple could consist of two males with GRCs, but not two males who identify as women but do not have GRCs (those would be gay men) or one with a GRC and one without (that would be a straight couple).
https://archive.ph/IoTDr
-
JK Rowling being on point
-
Great interview with Naomi Cunningham the lawyer acting for Sandie Peggie
https://www.holyrood.com/inside-politics/view,naomi-cunningham-im-fuelled-by-rage-and-ive-been-lucky
-
Morning Star on the failures of trade unions in the Sandie Peggie case
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/wake-call-trade-union-movement
-
Susan Dalgety on Sturgeon not standing at the next Holyrood election
https://www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/comment/petulant-nicola-sturgeon-still-refuses-348495199