Trans rights: a perspective

[Outrider]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[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.

The women (as in adult females) in my family agree with me.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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]

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.

[SteveH]

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).

[Christine]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Christine]

   
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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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?

[ProfessorDavey]

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!!!

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Christine]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[SteveH]

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