Trans issues discussion thread

[Cherie]

Author John Boyne has apologised to gender-critical comedian Graham Linehan after criticising his stance on trans issues.

Boyne says "You were right, I was wrong", despite penning a book about a trans teenager in 2019. Although best known for The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, Boyne also released My Brother's Name is Jessica.

In a newspaper column, Boyne criticised Linehan - the man behind the IT Crowd - for his views, saying: "At best, he seems like one of his own creations, roaring 'down with this sort of thing' to anyone who'll listen, while at worst he comes across as someone masking intolerance by promoting himself as a champion of women."

But now he says he has reflected on the issue, making a public apology on social media. Boyne wrote: "Graham Linehan - who is without question one of our best screenwriters - has sacrificed enormous amounts in his support of women, children, gay men, and lesbians. He's experienced trauma in his personal life, been vilified for his views online, in newspapers, and on television. He is currently unable to work in the industry he loves."

According to The Telegraph, he said there was no legal reason behind the post. He continued: "In fact, Graham will be as surprised by its appearance as anyone - but I've given a lot of thought to this and realised that all I did in that piece five years ago was add to the pile-on of a decent man in a vulnerable place, when I could have used my platform to defend and support him.

"Graham, without equivocation, without excuses, and without evasion: you were right, I was wrong, and I apologise."

Linehan, who has been vocally opposed to trans rights, thanked him for the apology, saying it was "very decent". The writer of Father Ted, Black Books and The IT Crowd no longer works in television, instead devoting his time on social media to speaking out against trans activists.

Recently, Linehan appeared at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, but peformed his set outside the Scottish parliament after two venues refused to host him. He said: "I think trans rights activists are the most evil people in the world."

Linehan says the backlash from activists has led to the breakup of his marriage. Speaking to The Telegraph he added: "Comedy is my first love, it's the thing I love to do, but I have not been allowed to do that for five years."

Boyne said his change of heart had been prompted by the row over comments made by Roisin Murphy, the pop singer. Murphy said "mixed-up kids" needed to be protected and not prescribed puberty blockers.

The comment then prompted a massive backlash on social media. In a statement, she said: "I cannot apologise enough for being the reason for this eruption of damaging and potentially dangerous social media fire and brimstone. To witness the ramifications of my actions and the divisions it has caused is heartbreaking."

Daily Express

[Niamh.]

Good for him, it takes a lot of courage to admit that you were wrong about this, the backlash is vicious.

[Cherie]

Tide is turning I think, people are actually thinking for themselves rather than bandwagon jumping

[Niamh.]

Tide is turning I think, people are actually thinking for themselves rather than bandwagon jumping

I hope so. I wish people would remember that they don't have to follow their "group" all the time and they can actually think for themselves sometimes, this issue has a lot of left voices but we're constantly being fed the lie that only right wingers/religious "nuts" are "against" the trans lobby. Graham has always been left wing, as has JK Rowling, Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel to name a few of the more outspoken voices on the issue. What I'm trying to say is this topic shouldn't be a left/right issue and really it isn't.

[user104658]

I'm telling you... the younger GenZ's have flipped and have no time for any of it; they accidentally stumbled upon the best response. They're fully accepting of people's gender "stuff" and whatever they say they are, they say "cool whatevz they/them" and give it no further attention.

... ... ... And so most of them have simply stopped doing it, because it's not actually about the "identity" for 99%, it was always about the special status, the celebration and the attention. Inevitably once the applause died down, the shine wore off over night. REALLY fascinating piece of sociology to watch unfold in real-time, there'll be whole textbook chapters about it in a few decades' time I reckon.

However it's also going to be very interesting to see what happens with the politicians & company executives who, for some mad reason, decided that this particular social contagion was going to last forever, and went all-in on it prematurely.

Identity politics has always been a thing for young people, and it's ever-changing. It was never going to stay stuck on gender identity forever. So now all that's going to be left is the people who ARE actually genuine who always existed but are a tiny minority... and a whole truckload of fetishists who no longer have the fickle mainstream zeitgeist to camouflage themselves in. Really a woeful situation.

[Niamh.]

My two are gen Z as well but at the other end to the younger genZers. My son is just starting University this month, my daughter is finished her degree but is actually staying on to do a PhD, it will be interesting to see the difference (if any) in the way the University they're in changes in the next 4 years from when my daughter started 4 years ago, they really are ground zero when it comes to identity politics I think. They're all in on the stuff right now according to my daughter although as she studies Chemistry it's not as prevalent in her circles

[The Slim Reaper]

I'm telling you... the younger GenZ's have flipped and have no time for any of it; they accidentally stumbled upon the best response. They're fully accepting of people's gender "stuff" and whatever they say they are, they say "cool whatevz they/them" and give it no further attention.

... ... ... And so most of them have simply stopped doing it, because it's not actually about the "identity" for 99%, it was always about the special status, the celebration and the attention. Inevitably once the applause died down, the shine wore off over night. REALLY fascinating piece of sociology to watch unfold in real-time, there'll be whole textbook chapters about it in a few decades' time I reckon.

However it's also going to be very interesting to see what happens with the politicians & company executives who, for some mad reason, decided that this particular social contagion was going to last forever, and went all-in on it prematurely.

Identity politics has always been a thing for young people, and it's ever-changing. It was never going to stay stuck on gender identity forever. So now all that's going to be left is the people who ARE actually genuine who always existed but are a tiny minority... and a whole truckload of fetishists who no longer have the fickle mainstream zeitgeist to camouflage themselves in. Really a woeful situation.

I think most trans people have always wanted the "cool, whatevz" treatment. They didn't make themselves into political footballs, there was a very concentrated and concerted effort to do that about them.

You know damn well that 99% aren't doing it for attention. If you don't know, then provide the data. I'm amazed that you don't get that it's a tiny minority of people anyway, it's not the ever encroaching trans menace it's been made out to be.

[Niamh.]

I think most trans people have always wanted the "cool, whatevz" treatment. They didn't make themselves into political footballs, there was a very concentrated and concerted effort to do that about them.

You know damn well that 99% aren't doing it for attention. If you don't know, then provide the data. I'm amazed that you don't get that it's a tiny minority of people anyway, it's not the ever encroaching trans menace it's been made out to be.

Not to speak for SB here but I think he's actually saying the same thing as you are.

ETA : For your first paragraph anyway

[Cherie]

Graham, without equivocation, without excuses, and without evasion: you were right, I was wrong, and I apologise."

Linehan accepted the apology, writing: "Don't know what to say. Apology accepted, obviously. I said some things in anger to John that must have made this doubly hard to write, so my particular thanks to him for looking past that. Very decent of you, John, thank you."

It comes after fellow Irish star Murphy, a Mercury-nominated solo musician after fronting dance act Moloko, faced criticism for a post she shared on Facebook, in which she reportedly said that puberty blockers "are ********d… big pharma laughing all the way to the bank" and that "little mixed-up kids are vulnerable and need to be protected".

She later issued an apology on X, saying: "I am so sorry my comments have been directly hurtful to many of you. You must have felt a huge shock, blindsided by this so abruptly. I understand fixed views are not helpful but I really hope people can understand my concern was out of love for all of us."



Sky News

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://twitter.com/Glinner/status/1697659295398031632?s=20

[arista]

[In 2022, FWS successfully challenged the original Act
over its inclusion of trans women in its
definition of women. The Scottish Government
then dropped the definition from the Act
and issued revised statutory guidance – essentially,
advice on how to comply with the law.]


1 hour ago




Just on GMBHD itv.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvg7pqzk47zo

[arista]

Live in London Court all 3 News Ch's
now


Only People Born Female are to be
recognised in the Equality Act.


Woman in UK Law means biological sex.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Trans women are not legally women, Supreme Court rules

Supreme Court unanimously backs For Women Scotland

Scottish Tory leader: Victory for common sense

For Women Scotland ‘absolutely jubilant’

[Beso]

Trans women are not legally women, Supreme Court rules

Hooray, I was correct all along.:dance:

[arista]

Makes Good Common Sense,


SkyNewsHD were just in
in Edniburgh


The Ladies are singing with Joy

[Crimson Dynamo]

The ruling by the Supreme Court that sex in equality law refers to biological sex
will have far reaching implications for the protection of women’s rights and
single sex spaces.

It means that people who were born male can lawfully be excluded from
women’s sports, changing rooms, toilets, women only support groups and
women only shortlist, which was the issue at the centre of this long running
legal dispute.

This case is significant as it is about those who have already legally changed
their gender by obtaining a Gender Recognition Certificate.

[arista]

Yes LT
all good news.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Maya Forstater, the chief executive of Sex Matters, said it meant the notion of
gender self-identification (self-ID) was “dead”.




“Everyone is going to have to pay attention to this, this is from the highest
court in the land. It’s saying sex in the Equality Act is biological sex. Self ID
Is dead.”

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/04/16/10/97338219-14617521-image-a-6_1744796071231.jpg

[arista]

Live Debate on LBC
right now


He is trying to talk up problems

[Cherie]

Finally, a ruling or common sense :clap1:

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/04/16/10/97338221-14617521-image-a-5_1744796067757.jpg

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/04/16/08/97334521-14617177-image-a-29_1744787533422.jpg

get in your lane


The Supreme Judge
has Ruled today Live

[Crimson Dynamo]

Badenoch: You cannot change your biological sex

Kemi Badenoch has said “you cannot change your biological sex” as she reacted
to the Supreme Court’s ruling.

“Saying ‘trans women are women’ was never true in fact, and now isn’t true in
law either,” the leader of the Conservative Party said.

“This is a victory for all of the women who faced personal abuse or lost their
jobs for stating the obvious. Women are women and men are men: you cannot
change your biological sex.

“The era of Keir Starmer telling us women can have penises has come to an
end. Well done to For Women Scotland!”

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2025/04/16/TELEMMGLPICT000420406337_17447972337640_trans_NvBQ zQNjv4Bqw7c3ECHYRFQGSIsJH1wAiWJoXaIvubr1VJ_EGf3sIx c.jpeg?imwidth=660

Susan Smith and Marion Calder, the directors of For Women Scotland, crack open champagne after the Supreme Court’s ruling

[Crimson Dynamo]

Sharron Davies MBE
@sharrond62

From now on I don’t want to see any media outlet refer to a man in a dress
who rapes, abuses or murders someone as a woman! These are NOT our
crimes.

what Sharon, like this? : https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/woman-smeared-faeces-over-nursery-35056718

https://x.com/Glinner/status/1912132816420163897

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Supreme Court’s ruling has “badly let down” transgender people, the
Scottish Greens have said.

A pro-transgender group has claimed gender-critical campaigners have “links to
the global far-Right” as it condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In a statement, Labour for Trans Rights said: “The Supreme Court’s decision is
hugely disappointing, and a result of ceaseless lobbying from
a well-funded anti-trans network with links to the global far-Right.

:rolleyes:

[Vicky.]

Common sense, can't believe it took this long

[Cherie]

The Supreme Court’s ruling has “badly let down” transgender people, the
Scottish Greens have said.

A pro-transgender group has claimed gender-critical campaigners have “links to
the global far-Right” as it condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling.

In a statement, Labour for Trans Rights said: “The Supreme Court’s decision is
hugely disappointing, and a result of ceaseless lobbying from
a well-funded anti-trans network with links to the global far-Right.

:rolleyes:

Oh not the Far Right again...:nono:

[Niamh.]

Oh not the Far Right again...:nono:

Sex matters in a lot of ways especially for women and so we need to keep a clear definition. Putting this down to some far right agenda is a way of trying to shut down very real and genuine concerns women have. It matters for us in so many different cases. I can't believe some people - even after rapists had been sent to women's prisons on some occasions and attempted to be sent to on others - still try to act like women don't really care about protecting our rights and spaces and "just hate transwomen" That isn't to say that there aren't groups who've jumped on that wagon because they are far right just like groups with more nefarious reasons will have joined the opposite "side", unfortunately that's just life.

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/AshDenhamMSP-May2016.jpg
Ash Regan MSP@AshReganMSP

ForWomenScot
won their appeal in the Supreme Court.

Women’s concerns were valid, women’s rights do matter and the Supreme
Court have confirmed the law matches biological reality.

3 Scottish mums humiliated the Scottish Government. This cannot be without consequences!

[Cherie]

Sex matters in a lot of ways especially for women and so we need to keep a clear definition. Putting this down to some far right agenda is a way of trying to shut down very real and genuine concerns women have. It matters for us in so many different cases. I can't believe some people - even after rapists had been sent to women's prisons on some occasions and attempted to be sent to on others - still try to act like women don't really care about protecting our rights and spaces and "just hate transwomen" That isn't to say that there aren't groups who've jumped on that wagon because they are far right just like groups with more nefarious reasons will have joined the opposite "side", unfortunately that's just life.

Indeed, its like talking to a brick wall though in some cases

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Sandie Peggie ruling is now very much in focus..

[BBXX]

Many think this will make women safer, but it won't really, because women aren't at risk from trans women, they are at risk from cis men, who if they want to attack a woman will do just that.

The next stop will likely be ensuring all trans people use the bathroom of the sex they were born as which will result in a load of bearded, muscular trans men sharing a space with biological women. We'll see how well that goes down :shrug:

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://sc0.blr1.digitaloceanspaces.com/large/829412-51490-hqjwecyxrp-1487144315.jpg

JK Rowling hails Supreme Court ruling


The Harry Potter author shared posts on X from For Women Scotland and the commentator Samantha Smith celebrating the judgment.

[Niamh.]

Many think this will make women safer, but it won't really, because women aren't at risk from trans women, they are at risk from cis men, who if they want to attack a woman will do just that.

The next stop will likely be ensuring all trans people use the bathroom of the sex they were born as which will result in a load of bearded, muscular trans men sharing a space with biological women. We'll see how well that goes down :shrug:

This is bad logic and not how safe guarding works. Women are at risk from predatory men, men who would use any loophole to get easy access to their victims. It's kind of like saying burglars will burgal anyway so no one should lock their houses or get an alarm.

The type of access you're giving men by allowing self ID (AKA allowing any man at all to simply say they are a woman) is access to women for example who are in prison and would have no way at all to remove themselves from a very dangerous situation should some rapist declare he's a woman upon his arrest.

What you're taking away from women and girls is the right to complain and raise the alarm if some creepy dude is hanging around the women's changing room but says "I'm a woman" when approached.

Yes predatory men will find victims but we don't make that easier for them and limit ways for women to make themselves safer. We don't allow them unrestricted access to women when they're at their very most vulnerable ie in a state of undress or unable to leave because it's a prison..

[Glenn.]

Many think this will make women safer, but it won't really, because women aren't at risk from trans women, they are at risk from cis men, who if they want to attack a woman will do just that.

The next stop will likely be ensuring all trans people use the bathroom of the sex they were born as which will result in a load of bearded, muscular trans men sharing a space with biological women. We'll see how well that goes down :shrug:

Yep.

[BBXX]

This is bad logic and not how safe guarding works. Women are at risk from predatory men, men who would use any loophole to get easy access to their victims. It's kind of like saying burglars will burgal anyway so no one should lock their houses or get an alarm.

The type of access you're giving men by allowing self ID (AKA allowing any man at all to simply say they are a woman) is access to women for example who are in prison and would have no way at all to remove themselves from a very dangerous situation should some rapist declare he's a woman upon his arrest.

What you're taking away from women and girls is the right to complain and raise the alarm if some creepy dude is hanging around the women's changing room but says "I'm a woman" when approached.

Yes predatory men will find victims but we don't make that easier for them and limit ways for women to make themselves safer. We don't allow them unrestricted access to women when they're at their very most vulnerable ie in a state of undress or unable to leave because it's a prison..

I do appreciate that POV, but why are Trans women being held responsible for the actions of cis men? Why are they having their own protections removed for the safety of others for which the perpetrators are not them? Why are they collateral damage?

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1094327574031945729/tU8wz8DL_400x400.jpg

Richard Dawkins RichardDawkins

Supreme Court rules that a woman is legally defined as . . . a woman.
Congratulations.

And “The concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man”. Yes,
the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught
up.

[BBXX]

And “The concept of sex is binary, a person is either a woman or a man”. Yes,
the science was settled in the Precambrian. Nice that the law has finally caught
up.

Yes this statement was interesting, too. They just erased Intersex people and then talk about science... huh.

[Niamh.]

I do appreciate that POV, but why are Trans women being held responsible for the actions of cis men? Why are they having their own protections removed for the safety of others for which the perpetrators are not them? Why are they collateral damage?

with all due respect it isn't women's responsibility either to give up our safe guards to shield transwomen from predatory men.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Yes this statement was interesting to. They just erased Intersex people and then talk about science... huh.

Nobody is intersex. Humans aren’t inter-anything. They’re all male or female.


Intersex is not an identity but a congenital birth defect

[Vicky.]

Yes this statement was interesting, too. They just erased Intersex people and then talk about science... huh.

Intersex people are still male or female, there is no third sex.

[Beso]

Many think this will make women safer, but it won't really, because women aren't at risk from trans women, they are at risk from cis men, who if they want to attack a woman will do just that.

The next stop will likely be ensuring all trans people use the bathroom of the sex they were born as which will result in a load of bearded, muscular trans men sharing a space with biological women. We'll see how well that goes down :shrug:



Tbh it's usually the children the bad ones go for.

[Cherie]

I do appreciate that POV, but why are Trans women being held responsible for the actions of cis men? Why are they having their own protections removed for the safety of others for which the perpetrators are not them? Why are they collateral damage?

Women were expected to be the collateral damage for a teeny tiny percentage of the population who identify themselves as trans women, we were told to use the disabled toilets, that we didn't need to have penis free spaces even in domestic refuges, that we had to accept trans women who had gone through male puberty in womens sports, ...women represent over 50 per cent of the population, it is only right that womens spaces are protected do you not think? Whilst I agree trans women have a right to feel safe too, their rights do not take precedence over women and this includes lesbian women. I understand genuine transwomen will be upset over this judgement but it is the right call in my opinion even going on purely population

[BBXX]

with all due respect it isn't women's responsibility either to give up our safe guards to shield transwomen from predatory men.

You're right, but, as we've established, allowing Trans women to use women's bathrooms isn't sacrificing biological women's safety because trans women aren't at risk and any cis man who wants to attack a woman will do it anyway.

There isn't an epidemic of cis men cosplaying as women to attack women, the stats do not support it.

Between 2013 - 2023, the number of rape/sexual offences in the UK that took place in a public bathroom was 210 over a 10 year period. That's 21 cases a year. So approximately 0.010% of all cases. The effort is being concentrated in the wrong place.

[BBXX]

Intersex is not an identity but a congenital birth defect

That's precisely my point, it's biological and it's just been erased by saying biological sex is binary.

Intersex refers to individuals born with sex characteristics (chromosomes, hormones, genitals, or internal reproductive organs) that do not fit typical male or female definitions

It exists, in science, and now somehow doesn't.

[BBXX]

Women were expected to be the collateral damage for a teeny tiny percentage of the population who identify themselves as trans women, we were told to use the disabled toilets, that we didn't need to have penis free spaces even in domestic refuges, that we had to accept trans women who had gone through male puberty in womens sports, ...women represent over 50 per cent of the population, it is only right that womens spaces are protected do you not think? Whilst I agree trans women have a right to feel safe too, their rights do not take precedence over women and this includes lesbian women. I understand genuine transwomen will be upset over this judgement but it is the right call in my opinion even going on purely population

I've covered most of this above really.

I do agree with you in terms of the sporting aspect, someone born a man who went through puberty and hasn't taken any medication, such as HRT, to reduce testosterone levels, etc... to fall more in line with a biological women's levels shouldn't be allowed to compete professionally.

But again it feels like there is such a heavy focus on something so minimal. In the US, out of 500,000 college athletes, about 10 of them are trans.

[Niamh.]

You're right, but, as we've established, allowing Trans women to use women's bathrooms isn't sacrificing biological women's safety because trans women aren't at risk and any cis man who wants to attack a woman will do it anyway.

There isn't an epidemic of cis men cosplaying as women to attack women, the stats do not support it.

Between 2013 - 2023, the number of rape/sexual offences in the UK that took place in a public bathroom was 210 over a 10 year period. That's 21 cases a year. So approximately 0.010% of all cases. The effort is being concentrated in the wrong place.

The issue is there's not really anyway to tell which transwomen are genuine and which are not especially when you're talking about self ID. The whole point is they are all biological men and the way safeguarding works is to ban all men to protect women and girls.

Also you made a point in a previous post asking why transwomens protections are being removed for the safety of others, why is it OK for you to raise that as a point but when it's asked the other way round we're told women are going to be attacked anyway so what difference does it make to allow that safe guarding to be lowered

[OnTheRight]

Live in London Court all 3 News Ch's
now


Only People Born Female are to be
recognised in the Equality Act.


Woman in UK Law means biological sex.

Well done to the judges.
A victory for common sense.

[BBXX]

Also you made a point in a previous post asking why transwomens protections are being removed for the safety of others, why is it OK for you to raise that as a point but when it's asked the other way round we're told women are going to be attacked anyway so what difference does it make to allow that safe guarding to be lowered

I raised it as a point because trans women are being made to take the responsibility for something they're not guilty of, so it's an unjust removal of rights and freedoms based on the actions of cis men.

I don't think I did say "what difference does it make to allow the safe guarding to be lowered", I said it won't make a difference to the safety of cis women because the people it's removing from the space aren't the perpetrators of what it is that is making women unsafe in those spaces.

If that's the comment you're referencing I don't see how one negates the other.

I think that's what you're referring to but I'll be honest I am tired now so I am not sure if I've misunderstood the comment you're referencing, feel free to quote the part you are questioning :)

[Niamh.]

I raised it as a point because trans women are being made to take the responsibility for something they're not guilty of, so it's an unjust removal of rights and freedoms based on the actions of cis men.

I don't think I did say "what difference does it make to allow the safe guarding to be lowered", I said it won't make a difference to the safety of cis women because the people it's removing from the space aren't the perpetrators of what it is that is making women unsafe in those spaces.

If that's the comment you're referencing I don't see how one negates the other.

I think that's what you're referring to but I'll be honest I am tired now so I am not sure if I've misunderstood the comment you're referencing, feel free to quote the part you are questioning :)

Yes that's the comment I was refrencing.

I feel maybe we're going round in circles here because you're not accepting (I guess) that all biological men (this includes transwomen) are taking the responsibility for the "bad ones" and there is no way to know which ones aren't a danger to women and which are so they are all excluded.

[BBXX]

Yes that's the comment I was refrencing.

I feel maybe we're going round in circles here because you're not accepting (I guess) that all biological men (this includes transwomen) are taking the responsibility for the "bad ones" and there is no way to know which ones aren't a danger to women and which are so they are all excluded.

Fair enough. You are correct, I refuse to accept trans women are the same as cis men. I refuse even moreso when the subject is surrounding safety towards women and one group is safe and one group is not so much, and yet it's the safe group that is being persecuted as a way to protect women further, while the less safe group get to continue to live as they have been.

Appreciate the debate as always.

[Niamh.]

Fair enough. You are correct, I refuse to accept trans women are the same as cis men. I refuse even moreso when the subject is surrounding safety towards women and one group is safe and one group is not so much, and yet it's the safe group that is being persecuted as a way to protect women further, while the less safe group get to continue to live as they have been.

Appreciate the debate as always.

Yes, same to you, it can been a difficult and emotive topic to discuss I know

[Cherie]

Personally I think if transwomen and women were left alone to debate this topic reasonably, it would get sorted, but there are too many activists and men ready to shout TERF to drown out any debate that it just goes around in circles, as a woman I don't want to see any transwoman disadvantaged in any way, but I also equally do not want women disadvantaged and the evidence is clear, women have lost their jobs, their places on podiums, their scholarships, their safe spaces, their refuges ...I dont see any disadvantages on the other side??

[bots]

like with all political causes, there are bad actors involved that are hellbent on deliberately manipulating the system and therefore common norms for their own benefit. It's no accident that so many top companies took up the cause, they earned money from it.

It's pretty sad that it required the supreme court to make a ruling as law that simply follows scientific reality

[Maru]

with all due respect it isn't women's responsibility either to give up our safe guards to shield transwomen from predatory men.

Thank you

[user104658]

It's 100% the right decision in terms of safeguarding and in terms of legal clarity e.g. diversity and inclusion statistics - ultimately it had to be this way or there's total chaos.

That said, while I agree with the decision, I also these days have to acknowledge that it will be celebrated/agreed with "for the wrong reasons" by a large group of people, in a more pointed and agenda-driven manner, as a "victory against woke" that has nothing to do with the actual issue. That will come mainly from people who don't give a **** about safeguarding and to be frank who are often the LAST people I'd have around women and children, rather than the vast majority of trans people. For that reason I'm wary of not acknowledging the double-edged sword. Again though legally it is 100% the right decision and (hopefully) can be the start of some more sensible/reasonable legislation that protects everyone.

[arista]

Scottish Greens
not happy with this rule.

Live on SkyNewsHD Politics show

[Crimson Dynamo]

Scottish Greens
not happy with this rule.

Live on SkyNewsHD Politics show

These nasty misguided activists no one cares for or listens too

Thankfully

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-e274c9ed-7edb-4ae7-9f69-6ea036db054c.png

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-736ba87d-27d3-4ce0-bedc-7ca0f38b0b5d.png

[Ray.]

Wonder if those sorts who pathologically follow the letter of the law will respect this ruling

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-1046bf63-33b0-41b7-9f17-62e20c21985e.png

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-78b7a240-cfd3-413b-bb0a-c980370459be.png

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-9ef724aa-f201-4b46-a95e-6d19649e93d4.png

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-afe0e9d2-fa79-496f-8ea4-ff7f93040b2e.png

[arista]

On Ch4HDnews
last night the ending of a the show had

Activist Charlie Craggs
said "all this War against a tiny community,
we just want to be left alone."


This is Charlie Craggs, 33
Large image

https://vanda-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/2016/10/21/13/52/11/a9f1feb1-2f81-427d-a8fc-0d0591871287/charlie.jpg



It is Simple Charlie
Respect the new law of this nation.

[Ray.]

You're not really wanting to be left alone when you're constantly advocating for laws that compel speech and force your presence on people who don't necessarily want you in their changing rooms tbf.

[BBXX]

You're not really wanting to be left alone when you're constantly advocating for laws that compel speech and force your presence on people who don't necessarily want you in their changing rooms tbf.

Otherwise read as: "You're not really wanting to be left alone if you want to exist alongside others"

It's one thing being concerned that having trans women in cis women's spaces is opening up an opportunity for cis men to take advantage of at the detriment of women - an understandable worry (but one ultimately I believe is not the responsibility of trans women, as I have expressed already)

It's another to just not want trans people in your space "just because" and because you find it difficult to remember how to refer to someone the way they wish to be referred to...despite doing it daily with the concept of a first name.

All the same stuff has been said about people of colour and homosexuals in the past. Same rhetoric, different ****.

Moreover, for those advocating this a win for science and biology, then it has to, somewhere along the lines for the sake of consistency and, well.. science... be written into law that a trans man is actually a women. Right? In which case, nobody advocating for this can complain when a testosterone-fuelled bearded trans man starts using the women's toilets. It's literally what they want. :conf:

[arista]

Ella Morgan
a Trans, is still going to go into a Ladies Bog.


She spoke on GMBHD itv 7:15AM.

MP's would not deal with this
look at the state Starmer got into on LBC
a year back or so.


Legally Ella is a Man.
she admits it

1912753905286472013

[arista]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoquMDCXUAAVU_U?format=jpg&name=small

A press ladies Mug

[arista]

1912752863446442342

[Crimson Dynamo]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoqNw5xW4AAaoCx?format=jpg&name=medium

[Mystic Mock]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/04/16/10/97338219-14617521-image-a-6_1744796071231.jpg

Not Poetry.:bawling:

It's too intelligent for me.:laugh:

[Mystic Mock]

Out of interest.

What happens in the Bathroom/changing room situation where the Transwoman has had the full operation (Penis removed etc,) does she still not get the right to use the Bathroom?

[Mystic Mock]

I do appreciate that POV, but why are Trans women being held responsible for the actions of cis men? Why are they having their own protections removed for the safety of others for which the perpetrators are not them? Why are they collateral damage?

Did you know that some rapists in the UK only get 4 years in Prison?

A bit of a wild tangent on my part I know, but it's crazy how little deterrent there actually is for rape in the UK.

Because I know that apparently some rape cases in the UK can go up to 19 years in Prison, but I do tend to hear about the 4 year ones than I ever do the 19.

[Oliver_W]

Out of interest.

What happens in the Bathroom/changing room situation where the Transwoman has had the full operation (Penis removed etc,) does she still not get the right to use the Bathroom?

Despite how it sounds, this law change isn't actually stating that trans women are men - it's saying that women only means women on matters relating to the Equality Act.

Things like woman-only shortlists, they won't be required to allow trans women in.

[BBXX]

Despite how it sounds, this law change isn't actually stating that trans women are men - it's saying that women only means women on matters relating to the Equality Act.

Things like woman-only shortlists, they won't be required to allow trans women in.

And as a result, I think it's created more grey area than there was beforehand.

[Mystic Mock]

Despite how it sounds, this law change isn't actually stating that trans women are men - it's saying that women only means women on matters relating to the Equality Act.

Things like woman-only shortlists, they won't be required to allow trans women in.

Okay, thanks for the info.

I'm going to have to slowly understand it all as a facts nerd.:laugh:

[Crimson Dynamo]

And as a result, I think it's created more grey area than there was beforehand.

no it hasnt

[Glenn.]

Out of interest.

What happens in the Bathroom/changing room situation where the Transwoman has had the full operation (Penis removed etc,) does she still not get the right to use the Bathroom?

Be interesting to know people’s answers to this.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Judges unanimously ruled that the terms “woman” and “sex” in the 2010
Equality Act referred to biological sex, not the gender with which a person
identifies.

The justices said that for the purpose of equality laws, transgender women
were not legally women, even if they have a gender recognition certificate.


They found that blurring the boundary of sex would also create “confusion
and impracticability” around the provision of “single sex characteristic
associations and charities, women’s fair participation in sport, the operation
of the public sector equality duty, and the Armed Forces”.

Judges also ruled that sex is binary, meaning the central tenet of gender
ideology – that there is a spectrum of gender identities – has no basis in law.

The ruling means that people who were born male can lawfully be excluded
from women’s sports, changing rooms, lavatories, women-only support
groups and women-only shortlists. The judgment will require a wholesale
rewriting of rules across the public and private sectors.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/16/transgender-rules-women-supreme-court-ruling/

[Crimson Dynamo]

Be interesting to know people’s answers to this.

the answer is that you cannot change sex, its impossible to do so.

[Cherie]

Ella Morgan
a Trans, is still going to go into a Ladies Bog.


She spoke on GMBHD itv 7:15AM.

MP's would not deal with this
look at the state Starmer got into on LBC
a year back or so.


Legally Ella is a Man.
she admits it

1912753905286472013



Isn't it amazing, the idea that men would jump on the trans issue to access womens spaces has always been denied and poo poohed and women have been called TERFs for actually raising the issue and here we are the day after the ruling a journalist and a transwoman actually agreeing that this could happen and has happened....... the gaslighting on women on this issue has been horrible .... so its nice to finally have this actually acknowledged

[Glenn.]

the answer is that you cannot change sex, its impossible to do so.

Yeah exactly the answer I knew you were gonna say.

[Cherie]

Yeah exactly the answer I knew you were gonna say.

This affects lesbians as well you know so its not very cut and dried for your community

[Glenn.]

This affects lesbians as well you know so its not very cut and dried for your community

That’s not what I asked Cherie. The question asked was what happens with the trans women that no longer have a penis and have gone through full transition.

[Cherie]

That’s not what I asked Cherie. The question asked was what happens with the trans women that no longer have a penis and have gone through full transition.


Legally she is not a woman in the eyes of the law, its not the end of the world to use the disabled facilities is it? but I expect she will use the ladies and no one will bat an eyelid ..

[user104658]

Despite how it sounds, this law change isn't actually stating that trans women are men - it's saying that women only means women on matters relating to the Equality Act.

Things like woman-only shortlists, they won't be required to allow trans women in.

Correct it's only stating that there must be a clear legal distinction between biological sex at birth and gender identity and that sex-based protections apply to biological sex. There already are (and may be more) protections for trans people separate to that. The legal distinction is hugely important for various reasons... and does not say "transwomen are men". Just that they're not biologically women. They're transwomen.

Like I said on the previous page though, OF COURSE the "anti-woke warriors" will also want to frame all of this as a victory "against the libs". As I always say, women have good reason to celebrate this, but don't forget that a huge number of the men celebrating it as not the friends or allies of women. They don't care about you, and many of them hold women in outright contempt, they're just using this issue because it fits another agenda. Messy stuff.

[user104658]

That’s not what I asked Cherie. The question asked was what happens with the trans women that no longer have a penis and have gone through full transition.

As has always been the case, what SHOULD happen is that bathrooms etc should be gender neutral single self-contained rooms. That was always the solution to the "bathroom problem". It doesn't need to be a problem at all. I know it's more complicated than that - but only because communal bathrooms are already an established norm. They're an outdated concept. No one actually wants them.

[Cherie]

Correct it's only stating that there must be a clear legal distinction between biological sex at birth and gender identity and that sex-based protections apply to biological sex. There already are (and may be more) protections for trans people separate to that. The legal distinction is hugely important for various reasons... and does not say "transwomen are men". Just that they're not biologically women. They're transwomen.

Like I said on the previous page though, OF COURSE the "anti-woke warriors" will also want to frame all of this as a victory "against the libs". As I always say, women have good reason to celebrate this, but don't forget that a huge number of the men celebrating it as not the friends or allies of women. They don't care about you, and many of them hold women in outright contempt, they're just using this issue because it fits another agenda. Messy stuff.

I don't think this needs pointing out at all, there are bad actors on both sides, and women know they can only rely on themselves when it boils down to it, there may be allies on both sides of course, but if the past few years of being called bigot, Terf etc has taught us anything it is that we have to protect ourselves, men are not ging to step up for us ....look at Starmer wittering on about cervixs, a disgrace

[Niamh.]

Correct it's only stating that there must be a clear legal distinction between biological sex at birth and gender identity and that sex-based protections apply to biological sex. There already are (and may be more) protections for trans people separate to that. The legal distinction is hugely important for various reasons... and does not say "transwomen are men". Just that they're not biologically women. They're transwomen.

Like I said on the previous page though, OF COURSE the "anti-woke warriors" will also want to frame all of this as a victory "against the libs". As I always say, women have good reason to celebrate this, but don't forget that a huge number of the men celebrating it as not the friends or allies of women. They don't care about you, and many of them hold women in outright contempt, they're just using this issue because it fits another agenda. Messy stuff.

Yeah, unfortunately at the moment it feels like a mess for women coming from both "sides" for different reasons

[Niamh.]

As has always been the case, what SHOULD happen is that bathrooms etc should be gender neutral single self-contained rooms. That was always the solution to the "bathroom problem". It doesn't need to be a problem at all. I know it's more complicated than that - but only because communal bathrooms are already an established norm. They're an outdated concept. No one actually wants them.

Yeah, this is certainly the way, for public toilets anyway, although it could be a big expense or space issue for a lot of places that already have those communal set ups in place like schools and shopping centres etc. In my work we have just two self contained rooms like that.

[Vicky.]

Did you know that some rapists in the UK only get 4 years in Prison?

A bit of a wild tangent on my part I know, but it's crazy how little deterrent there actually is for rape in the UK.

Because I know that apparently some rape cases in the UK can go up to 19 years in Prison, but I do tend to hear about the 4 year ones than I ever do the 19.
Most rape cases get nothing at all

[Jessica.]

A woman gets murdered by her cis male partner every 2 days in the UK but "feminists" are putting their energy into fighting to take away the rights of trans women instead, you couldn't make it up.

[Niamh.]

A woman gets murdered by her cis male partner every 2 days in the UK but "feminists" are putting their energy into fighting to take away the rights of trans women instead, you couldn't make it up.

Murder is already illegal Jessica. But just fyi, feminists were the ones who set up all the domestic violence refuges for women

[Glenn.]

As has always been the case, what SHOULD happen is that bathrooms etc should be gender neutral single self-contained rooms. That was always the solution to the "bathroom problem". It doesn't need to be a problem at all. I know it's more complicated than that - but only because communal bathrooms are already an established norm. They're an outdated concept. No one actually wants them.

You say that but there is still people who are triggered by gender neutral toilets. Even though there are gender neutral toilets everywhere.

[user104658]

You say that but there is still people who are triggered by gender neutral toilets. Even though there are gender neutral toilets everywhere.

Well exactly, there are people who are concerned about the actual issues and then there are others who just "hate woke stuff" and bleat on about "mind viruses" and other memey/propaganda-stuff. That's half the issue all around, really.

[arista]

Good
London Transport Male Officers can
Now search Tran men/women

[BBXX]

Isn't it amazing, the idea that men would jump on the trans issue to access womens spaces has always been denied and poo poohed and women have been called TERFs for actually raising the issue and here we are the day after the ruling a journalist and a transwoman actually agreeing that this could happen and has happened....... the gaslighting on women on this issue has been horrible .... so its nice to finally have this actually acknowledged

When people say "it doesn't happen" they don't mean it's never happened in the whole of history - how would anyone know to make that claim? What they mean it's not happening with the frequency in which is it being made to look like it is.

People are called TERFS and transphobes when they weaponise a minute occurrence of a CIS MAN cosplaying as a trans woman as an example of a "trans issue" when literally no actual trans person was involved in the situation.

Let's flip things around instead. If a man pretended to be a straight woman and went into a gay club and attacked a trans person, and people said it was a "woman issue" it would justifiably be called sexist. Imagine then that straight women were no longer allowed in gay clubs because trans people were at risk from... erm... *checks notes* men.

[arista]

https://liveblog.digitalimages.sky/lc-images-sky/lcimg-f9bbbfed-af1f-4395-90c8-bf86ffed4eb1.png

[Mystic Mock]

Most rape cases get nothing at all

True enough.

But even when there is a guilty verdict, the rapist might only get 4 years in Prison.

Which in my view is a disgrace.

[arista]

A year back or so


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GoqkwhBWoAADOWA?format=jpg&name=small

[caprimint]

Finally. Thank ****ing god they're not pandering to this **** anymore

[arista]

David Tennant
actor needs to say sorry to the Conservative leader.

He got it very wrong.

Pointed out Live on GMBHD itv
with the great newspaper panel,
Ian Dale (LBC) and Caroline Flint (Former Labour Minister)

[Livia]

Police have visited people citing "hate speech" for saying online that a man cannot change sex and become a woman, something that is scientifically true. Now I hope the terms cisgendered, cis woman and TERF are treated in the same way. I am not a cis woman, I am a woman. I hope transwomen are very happy in the lives they have chosen, I bear them no ill-will, but they are not the same as me. And instead of demanding access to women only spaces, maybe they can campaign to have their own sports, refuges and support groups, just like women did.

This ruling appears to be far more impactful on transwomen than on transmen because they're making a lot of noise about it. But then it's always transwomen making the noise and the threats, never transmen. It was a transwoman who called for people to "punch a TERF in the face". Even coming up with the term TERF in the first place is quite the provocation, while being quite radical themselves. I mean, threats of rape, violence and bombing, pouring all kinds of liquid on women they disagree with... I've never heard of a feminist doing this stuff to transwomen. I've never heard of transmen doing it either, who seem to just want to get on with their chosen lives. Why have we not heard from transmen? Why are transmen not demanding access to men-only spaces and to men's sports and changing rooms? Is it because transwomen are biologically men and have grown up expecting to be listened to in a way women haven't?

[Cherie]

When people say "it doesn't happen" they don't mean it's never happened in the whole of history - how would anyone know to make that claim? What they mean it's not happening with the frequency in which is it being made to look like it is.

People are called TERFS and transphobes when they weaponise a minute occurrence of a CIS MAN cosplaying as a trans woman as an example of a "trans issue" when literally no actual trans person was involved in the situation.

Let's flip things around instead. If a man pretended to be a straight woman and went into a gay club and attacked a trans person, and people said it was a "woman issue" it would justifiably be called sexist. Imagine then that straight women were no longer allowed in gay clubs because trans people were at risk from... erm... *checks notes* men.

Your first point, one instance is one too many, it doesn't matter how many instances if you are the person it has happened to it has happened to you, nobody should turn around and say to that person, oh it doesn't matter it only happened to you so there is no issue here

As to your second point we were called TERFs and BIGOTS for daring to say that MEN would take advantage of self ID to access womans spaces at no point did I see anyone say transwomen would take advantage, of course people knew that but they just liked the idea they could throw around slurs with impunity

I dont get what you are saying with your third point sorry, imagine saying straight women were not allowed in gay clubs because?? of what

The issue here is MEN.....it has always been MEN....not transwomen, not transmen...but MEN

[BBXX]

As to your second point we were called TERFs and BIGOTS for daring to say that MEN would take advantage of self ID to access womans spaces at no point did I see anyone say transwomen would take advantage, of course people knew that but they just liked the idea they could throw around slurs with impunity

I dont get what you are saying with your third point sorry, imagine saying straight women were not allowed in gay clubs because?? of what

The issue here is MEN.....it has always been MEN....not transwomen, not transmen...but MEN

I completely agree the issue is men, so why are trans women the ones being forced to take the flack for something MEN are doing? That's been my disagreement with the rhetoric the whole time - we know it's men, we all agree it's men, but it's trans women who are being held responsible for those actions. People are called transphobes when they conflate the actions of men with the "trans issue". They're not trans, so why are trans women even being bought into the conversation.

My third point was playing on that logic - a man is the perpetrator, is using a pretending to be a woman to attack cis women and yet it's trans women who are being forced to take responsibility through removal of freedoms because of something men are doing. All I did in my example was swap the roles of trans and cis women around to highlight how ridiculous and unfair it is on the persons identity that's being hijacked.

The reason people refer to some of the conversations around this as transphobic is because trans women are being used as scapegoats ... some people use these situations to damage the reputation of trans people and refer to it as a "trans issue" when it's not.

It's great you agree it's nothing to do with trans people, but many don't see it that way. Many people see a cis man pretending to be a woman in the same way they see actual trans women and so for them, both of them are under that same umbrella. What we can't agree on, and that's fine, is that the remedy is to stop trans women being able to use the spaces that align with their identity.

[Glenn.]

I completely agree the issue is men, so why are trans women the ones being forced to take the flack for something MEN are doing? That's been my disagreement with the rhetoric the whole time - we know it's men, we all agree it's men, but it's trans women who are being held responsible for those actions. People are called transphobes when they conflate the actions of men with the "trans issue". They're not trans, so why are trans women even being bought into the conversation.

My third point was playing on that logic - a man is the perpetrator, is using a pretending to be a woman to attack cis women and yet it's trans women who are being forced to take responsibility through removal of freedoms because of something men are doing. All I did in my example was swap the roles of trans and cis women around to highlight how ridiculous and unfair it is on the persons identity that's being hijacked.

The reason people refer to some of the conversations around this as transphobic is because trans women are being used as scapegoats ... some people use these situations to damage the reputation of trans people and refer to it as a "trans issue" when it's not.

It's great you agree it's nothing to do with trans people, but many don't see it that way. Many people see a cis man pretending to be a woman in the same way they see actual trans women and so for them, both of them are under that same umbrella. What we can't agree on, and that's fine, is that the remedy is to stop trans women being able to use the spaces that align with their identity.

:clap1:

[BBXX]

Now I hope the terms cisgendered, cis woman and TERF are treated in the same way. I am not a cis woman, I am a woman.

Cis is a latin term, an adjective, that means "on this side of" or "on the same side as". It's the opposite of "trans-," which means "on the other side of". It was first used to refer to gender nonconformity in 1914. It's not an insult.

This might shed more light: Cis Is Not A Slur (https://medium.com/@davidallsopp/no-cis-is-not-a-slur-aae84f775279)

[Glenn.]

Don’t bother mate. As they say themselves the easily offended cannot be appeased.

[Cherie]

I completely agree the issue is men, so why are trans women the ones being forced to take the flack for something MEN are doing? That's been my disagreement with the rhetoric the whole time - we know it's men, we all agree it's men, but it's trans women who are being held responsible for those actions. People are called transphobes when they conflate the actions of men with the "trans issue". They're not trans, so why are trans women even being bought into the conversation.

My third point was playing on that logic - a man is the perpetrator, is using a pretending to be a woman to attack cis women and yet it's trans women who are being forced to take responsibility through removal of freedoms because of something men are doing. All I did in my example was swap the roles of trans and cis women around to highlight how ridiculous and unfair it is on the persons identity that's being hijacked.

The reason people refer to some of the conversations around this as transphobic is because trans women are being used as scapegoats ... some people use these situations to damage the reputation of trans people and refer to it as a "trans issue" when it's not.

It's great you agree it's nothing to do with trans people, but many don't see it that way. Many people see a cis man pretending to be a woman in the same way they see actual trans women and so for them, both of them are under that same umbrella. What we can't agree on, and that's fine, is that the remedy is to stop trans women being able to use the spaces that align with their identity.

I have asked time and time and again why transwomen did not support women in their efforts to say self ID was a complete mess and a loophole by which MEN would try to access women and girls, they unfortunately like alot of people were paralysed by fear, I have heard transwomen interviewed on the radio who dared put their head above the parapet subjected to death threats etc, you really need to be looking at Stonewall who pushed for self ID, its not and never has been beneficial to transwoman or women for MEN to be able to self ID, unfortunately as well the male gay community have stayed silent while their lesbian sisters have been accused of being transphobic for not wanting to have a relationship with a transwoman and have remained largely silent and been part of the TERF /BIGOT brigade when it comes to women highlighting the issues around self ID, even when there was that very high profile case in Scotland where that MAN who RAPED TWO WOMEN and whilst in custody claimed transgender status for his own gain, ....where was the outrage from the LGBTQ community, you could see what was happening before your eyes but still remained silent, so unfortunately transwomen are collateral damage but you need to look at your community as to why that is.

[Cherie]

And just to add to the above if women and transwomen had been allowed to work around the issue of self ID being forced on us, this would have had a totally different outcome, instead the trans activists got involved, most of whom are women hating men, transwomen saw them as allies when they were not allies at all, but saw the opportunity to invade womens safe spaces with impunity and turn up at rallies and assault women protected by the paralysis of the police on the issue

[user104658]

It's great you agree it's nothing to do with trans people, but many don't see it that way. Many people see a cis man pretending to be a woman in the same way they see actual trans women and so for them, both of them are under that same umbrella. What we can't agree on, and that's fine, is that the remedy is to stop trans women being able to use the spaces that align with their identity.

My thoyht on this: largely and long term, I agree with you in sentiment, that genuine trans people (transitioned) ultimately should, in a world where facilities are only binary, not have to use facilities purely based on sex. But this involves a few things - such as an acknowledgement that there are different and more troubling aspects of the "trans umbrella" (autogynephilia is rife if anyone would care to admit it, and a clear risky mindset) and completely discarding the concept of "full self - ID" I.e. All must accept that one is what they say they are regardless of presentation. It often slides close to gaslighting.

Over and above that... it needs to be accepted that from a safeguarding perspective, anythibg that's established has to be done with good planning, proper assessment, carefully and sensitively for all. In recent years it's been done with sweeping broad strokes, and an attitude of "just accept it no questions!"... And at the end of the day that has caused massive damage all round for an entire generation.

[BBXX]

I have asked time and time and again why transwomen did not support women in their efforts to say self ID was a complete mess and a loophole by which MEN would try to access women and girls, they unfortunately like alot of people were paralysed by fear, I have heard transwomen interviewed on the radio who dared put their head above the parapet subjected to death threats etc, you really need to be looking at Stonewall who pushed for self ID, its not and never has been beneficial to transwoman or women for MEN to be able to self ID, unfortunately as well the male gay community have stayed silent while their lesbian sisters have been accused of being transphobic for not wanting to have a relationship with a transwoman and have remained largely silent and been part of the TERF /BIGOT brigade when it comes to women highlighting the issues around self ID, even when there was that very high profile case in Scotland where that MAN who RAPED TWO WOMEN and whilst in custody claimed transgender status for his own gain, ....where was the outrage from the LGBTQ community, you could see what was happening before your eyes but still remained silent, so unfortunately transwomen are collateral damage but you need to look at your community as to why that is.

Why is our community specifically responsible for denouncing the actions of straight, cisgendered men who piggy back off our real existence?

A straight man who raped two women and then claimed transgendered status has nothing to do with us. It's horrific, but why are you holding an entire community responsible for being spokesperson in that case? Do you do the same with every Catholic person when a Priest is found to be a pedophile?

People react an on individual level, not as a monolithic group. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be outraged and disgusted by such a story, but why specifically do you look to the gay community for a press release? Why not everyone? Why not the straight community, seeing as he is was a straight man. We don't all get together and write a weekly newsletter. What a bizarre thing to say.

As for being transphobic for not dating a trans person, I actually completely agree with you on this and every gay person and trans person I personally know, of which is a fair chunk, would also disagree with the idea that not wanting to date a trans person is transphobic.

[Cherie]

Why is our community specifically responsible for denouncing the actions of straight, cisgendered men who piggy back off our real existence?

A straight man who raped two women and then claimed transgendered status has nothing to do with us. It's horrific, but why are you holding an entire community responsible for being spokesperson in that case? Do you do the same with every Catholic person when a Priest is found to be a pedophile?

People react an on individual level, not as a monolithic group. I don't know anyone who wouldn't be outraged and disgusted by such a story, but why specifically do you look to the gay community for a press release? Why not everyone? Why not the straight community, seeing as he is was a straight man. We don't all get together and write a weekly newsletter. What a bizarre thing to say.

As for being transphobic for not dating a trans person, I actually completely agree with you on this and every gay person and trans person I personally know, of which is a fair chunk, would also disagree with the idea that not wanting to date a trans person is transphobic.

Of course not but you will find plenty people talking about it, denouncing it, writing about it....where was the denouncement? just taking TiBB as a snapshot I didn't see one gay member speak out about how MEN are piggybacking on self id for personal gain.....not one! Many TiBB female posters have raised the issue to be greeted by TERF, BIGOT responses, so forgive me if I feel the attitude of SOME of the gay community has not been helpful to the trans community at all but that is just my opinion of course

[BBXX]

Of course not but you will find plenty people talking about it, denouncing it, writing about it....where was the denouncement? just taking TiBB as a snapshot I didn't see one gay member speak out about how MEN are piggybacking on self id for personal gain.....not one! Many TiBB female posters have raised the issue to be greeted by TERF, BIGOT responses, so forgive me if I feel the attitude of SOME of the gay community has not been helpful to the trans community at all but that is just my opinion of course

Maybe it’s best for you not to take an internet forum as a benchmark for the actions and thoughts of an entire community.

SOME of the gay community may not have been helpful. Best not to denounce an entire group of people off the actions of some though. Every community has its bad eggs, right?

I have friends who are gay, trans and all those closest to me are straight cis women and we speak about this issue and always have spoken about similar matters. I do wonder how many people on this thread have ever actually met a trans person let alone had an actual discussion with them.

[BBXX]

Over and above that... it needs to be accepted that from a safeguarding perspective, anythibg that's established has to be done with good planning, proper assessment, carefully and sensitively for all. In recent years it's been done with sweeping broad strokes, and an attitude of "just accept it no questions!"... And at the end of the day that has caused massive damage all round for an entire generation.

I appreciate your thoughts.

What about the trans men, born women, who now should be using the women’s bathrooms as by definition they are women. What about cis men who want to attack women now cosplaying as trans men instead of trans women?

I feel like it’s not been thought through at all.

[arista]

I appreciate your thoughts.

What about the trans men, born women, who now should be using the women’s bathrooms as by definition they are women. What about cis men who want to attack women now cosplaying as trans men instead of trans women?

I feel like it’s not been thought through at all.



Thats a tangle.


Politicians in Parliament
After their bloody holiday,
will have to sort this

[Cherie]

Maybe it’s best for you not to take an internet forum as a benchmark for the actions and thoughts of an entire community.

SOME of the gay community may not have been helpful. Best not to denounce an entire group of people off the actions of some though. Every community has its bad eggs, right?

I have friends who are gay, trans and all those closest to me are straight cis women and we speak about this issue and always have spoken about similar matters. I do wonder how many people on this thread have ever actually met a trans person let alone had an actual discussion with them.

Maybe its best for you not to tell me how to interpret things? I also listen to a lot of political radio shows, and I read.... we have to have met a transwoman to have an opinion? as a woman I have a lot more skin in this game than you, and as I said above if transwomen and women had been allowed to sort this out it would have been done and dusted, instead as I previously posted WOMEN have lost their jobs, WOMEN's safety has been compromised by housing MEN in prisons, WOMEN have lost their places on podiums, WOMEN have lost job opportunities and all this for a small percentage of the population whose hard left activist supporters felt their rights trumped women, but they don't we should have equal rights as we have had since the 70s not this new version of erasing women. Btw I do know two transwomen one beautiful elegant lady and one who has slapped a wig and a bit of lipstick on

I also dont know why you are so focussed on bathrooms when that is the thin end of the wedge, transmen will find a way to go to toilet trust me.

I also find it interesting that you refer to cis women when you have been respectfully asked not to refer to us in this way on the forum, where is the two way street here?

Anyway I am done with this topic now, it will just go around in circles like it always does .

[BBXX]

Maybe its best for you not to tell me how to interpret things? I also listen to a lot of political radio shows, and I read.... we have to have met a transwoman to have an opinion? as a woman I have a lot more skin in this game than you, and as I said above if transwomen and women had been allowed to sort this out it would have been done and dusted, instead as I previously posted WOMEN have lost their jobs, WOMEN's safety has been compromised by housing MEN in prisons, WOMEN have lost their places on podiums, WOMEN have lost job opportunities and all this for a small percentage of the population whose hard left activist supporters felt their rights trumped women

And now some women who may be a bit more traditionally masculine presenting - broader, taller, perhaps have facial hair due to medical issues, will now be forced to prove they are women in order to gain access to women's spaces. That doesn't sound like a win for women to me, it sounds regressive.

I also find it interesting that you refer to cis women when you have been respectfully asked not to refer to us in this way on the forum, where is the two way street here?

I have also referred to cis men. As previously stated, cis is literally just a neutral adjective that is the antonym for 'trans' and has been used since the times of Ancient Greece where is derives from.

I'm using it to differentiate to avoid confusion and have never attached a positive or negative to its usage. It's the correct word being used in the correct way and isn't being used to insult or mock or disparage.

[arista]

Strategy Director TransAcual
Keyne Walker.

Moaning on SkyNewsHD Live
That already British Tansport Police
have changed the policy.
So they should Fella/Madame

(Trans Women will now be searched by Men)



He demands Clarity
From the MP's



Protest in Parliament Square?

It is Saturday, Fella/Madame
no one there.......................

[Jessica.]

I appreciate your thoughts.

What about the trans men, born women, who now should be using the women’s bathrooms as by definition they are women. What about cis men who want to attack women now cosplaying as trans men instead of trans women?

I feel like it’s not been thought through at all.

That's an excellent point, now they don't even need to make themselves look different, they can just say they're trans men. Once again the problem is CIS MEN being predators.

[bots]

there is no such thing as cis men

[arista]

there is no such thing as cis men


Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

[Cherie]

Yes


Search gave this

[A cis man is an adult male whose gender
identity aligns with the sex they were assigned
at birth. In simpler terms, a cis man is a person
who identifies as a man and was also assigned
the male sex at birth.
This means that their gender identity (man) matches
their assigned sex at birth (male)]

or in even simpler terms... Man :laugh: there is no confusion, Man, Transman, Woman, Transwoman,

[arista]

Good on SkyNewsHD
walking around the Noisy Protest
in London on the green at Parliament

No Fights
yet

[BBXX]

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you. :)

[Jessica.]

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you. :)

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.

[arista]

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/40b9/live/33607990-1d5d-11f0-80b3-83959215671c.jpg.webp

[Zizu]

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/40b9/live/33607990-1d5d-11f0-80b3-83959215671c.jpg.webp


After one day of protests ?

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20250420/9f2f96cb99484b151657b5842682bf1d.jpg

[Glenn.]

Okay, so from my perspective the use of saying cis as a distinguisher is important because when a conversation is distinguishing between two variations of the same person, the omission of an adjective on one implies the other is different and it creates an imbalance. Depending on the context, that can frame the 'different' one in a negative light. Using the correct adjectives equally allows for balance and equality when describing whatever it is you're talking about.

For example, if the conversation was around race and specifically two men, a white man and a black man, only mentioning the race of one of them would feel strange, and like it was worthy of highlighting while the other wasn't, treating the one not highlighted as standard or default or usual.

If the conversation was around sexuality and specifically two men, one straight and one gay, if I was just to say "The man said X and then the gay man said Y" you can see the implications there, no?

So when the conversation is between cis women and trans women, for example, omitting cis and not trans creates an imbalance that can frame things problematically, even subtly, when the focus of one is worthy of consideration and the other, not so.

The thing is, those who object to the 'cis' label often do so (and I am not saying that is anyone on here) because in their opinion a cis women is a 'real woman' and a trans woman isn't and so the need to mention cis is redundant to them, because they are default, whereas to them it's important to mention trans to make the distinction they are not a 'real woman'. That kind of viewpoint is more often than not rooted in transphobia. So I will absolutely protest such viewpoints by continuing to use a neutral adjective for both.

It's important to remember not all laws are equal and just because of this latest ruling, it doesn't mean everyone has to toe the line. Protests have always existed and will continue to do so. Historic laws surrounding gay rights were eventually recognised as discriminatory and worthy of fighting against and many people feel the same about this. It doesn't really matter whether others agree with that or not, we will all do our own thing as we have every right to do so.

I think that is the last think I will say on the matter, but I've enjoyed the lively debate, so thank you. :)

There is a cis woman on here that does this every time the word cis is mentioned. Like Jessica says, we kinda gave up on explaining it to her.

A great post :clap1:

[BBXX]

Sadly people on this forum will read this well written explanation and still say they're not a subset of women even though that's not what it means at all. A lot of us gave up trying to explain a long time ago. It's very nice to see posts from someone who is not jaded.

There is a cis woman on here that does this every time the word cis is mentioned. Like Jessica says, we kinda gave up on explaining it to her.

A great post :clap1:

Appreciate it :blush:

[Cherie]

Reports Labour to overturn
the Judge?

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/40b9/live/33607990-1d5d-11f0-80b3-83959215671c.jpg.webp

Its almost like they don't want a second term isn't it, no wonder Starmer didn't refer to the judgement at all...

[arista]

Its almost like they don't want a second term isn't it, no wonder Starmer didn't refer to the judgement at all...


Yes
This week
Parliament returns this Tuesday, 22nd April

So I am sure loads will try to drag this debate in.

[Cherie]

Yes
This week
Parliament returns this Tuesday, 22nd April

So I am sure loads will try to drag this debate in.

I will be well pissed off if they waste more time on this, they have plenty to be getting on with, and apparently there will be a rebellion over the proposed disability cuts

[Cherie]

Director of For Women Scotland Susan Smith has declared that women are "not human shields" for "vulnerable men" following demonstrations across the capital in protest of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Following a challenge by the For Women group, the Supreme Court ruled that women are determined by "biological sex", not those who are transgender and simply identify as women.

Storming the capital on Saturday, transgender protesters demonstrated against the decision, choosing to graffiti on key women's rights figures - including suffragette Millicent Fawcett.

Discussing the ruling on GB News, Smith told host Camilla Tominey that the ruling was to simply "clarify" the legislation against those who have tried to "trespass across women's boundaries".

Smith explained: "We've got the clarity, that is what the Supreme Court ruling was, giving us that clarity. And people have really pushed and pushed and pushed and they have tried to trespass across women's boundaries.

"For a long time, women had been accommodating, they hadn't raised too many objections. And it was only when people really started to make our lives intolerable that we started to have to fight back."

Highlighting the women's argument further, Smith declared that women are "not human shields" for vulnerable men, and those who have been critical of women's only spaces have "no sympathy" for the women "unable to live their lives".

Smith told GB News: "I don't understand why a woman would be at risk in a men's space. And if they are at risk in a men's space, that's something that men have to start to deal with, because it shouldn't be up to women to protect men who might be vulnerable.

"There are plenty of men who are vulnerable for all sorts of reasons, not all of them people identify as being trans, and we're not human shields for them. And when they talk about not being able to live their lives, they have had no sympathy for the very many women who have not been able to live their lives."

Smith added: "They have not been able to go shopping because they can't use a mixed sex changing room, and that's especially the case, perhaps for ethnic and minority religious women. They've not had any sympathy for women who've been frightened to use a rape crisis shelter because it was headed up by a biological man.

"They've had no sympathy for these women who've been pushed right to the fringes because of their activism. And now they're trying to pull sob stories and try to make play on women's kindness. Well, we were kind for a very long time, and it got us into this mess."

When asked by Camilla Tominey if she is surprised by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's silence on the verdict, Smith claimed that many politicians "owe an apology" to women.

Smith explained: "I think a lot of politicians owe women an apology, and I think Keir Starmer is one of them. He did make some ridiculous comments about something like 1 per cent of women have penises.

"And I know that the Labour Party have stepped back a bit in recent times, and Keir Starmer has been conspicuously silent on it - I think a lot of politicians are afraid of some of the sorts of men that we saw out demonstrating yesterday. I think they're frightened of them, and they should be frightened of them, because a lot of them are dangerous people."

She concluded: "I am frightened, I'm terrified of them. But as mothers and grandmothers and young women, we've got an enormous amount of young women starting now to speak up at universities, and these are people who are actually at risk.

"He's the most powerful person in the country. He needs to stop being afraid of them and start to stand up for the people who need protection."


:clap1:

Perhaps someone can explain to me why a group protesting trans rights would choose to deface statues of womens rights figures Glenn Jessica in particular ....surely they dont want women to lose their rights...that cannot be so...these vulnerable transwomen

[Barry.]

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

[arista]

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?


Parliament must clarify the new Rules.
This Tuesday.

No need to Panic.

[Barry.]

Parliament must clarify the new Rules.
This Tuesday.

No need to Panic.

Was I panicking there?

[arista]

Was I panicking there?

A little bit
only

[Cherie]

I feel bad for trans people, they just want to have a normal life.

So this means trans men have to use woman’s bathroom too? Or will that be another red spot?

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

[Barry.]

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

Oh yes I worry about the men who pretend to be women to get in their prisons to abuse them, however I also feel bad for the trans woman who just wants to be them in the prison too. I see it from both sides but I don’t like that all trans women are put in the same box as those scumbags too

[Cherie]

Oh yes I worry about the men who pretend to be women to get in their prisons to abuse them, however I also feel bad for the trans woman who just wants to be them in the prison too. I see it from both sides but I don’t like that all trans women are put in the same box as those scumbags too

Agree, self ID has been a mess and has brought out the scum of society unfortunately, I can see it from both sides as well, but honestly I think bathrooms are the least of both sides issues

[Maru]

Comes a point where people really don't care what they are being called, if newly designed social conventions were needing to be forced through by law, then it was never voluntary in the first place. Government has gone too far.

[Jessica.]

Director of For Women Scotland Susan Smith has declared that women are "not human shields" for "vulnerable men" following demonstrations across the capital in protest of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Following a challenge by the For Women group, the Supreme Court ruled that women are determined by "biological sex", not those who are transgender and simply identify as women.

Storming the capital on Saturday, transgender protesters demonstrated against the decision, choosing to graffiti on key women's rights figures - including suffragette Millicent Fawcett.

Discussing the ruling on GB News, Smith told host Camilla Tominey that the ruling was to simply "clarify" the legislation against those who have tried to "trespass across women's boundaries".

Smith explained: "We've got the clarity, that is what the Supreme Court ruling was, giving us that clarity. And people have really pushed and pushed and pushed and they have tried to trespass across women's boundaries.

"For a long time, women had been accommodating, they hadn't raised too many objections. And it was only when people really started to make our lives intolerable that we started to have to fight back."

Highlighting the women's argument further, Smith declared that women are "not human shields" for vulnerable men, and those who have been critical of women's only spaces have "no sympathy" for the women "unable to live their lives".

Smith told GB News: "I don't understand why a woman would be at risk in a men's space. And if they are at risk in a men's space, that's something that men have to start to deal with, because it shouldn't be up to women to protect men who might be vulnerable.

"There are plenty of men who are vulnerable for all sorts of reasons, not all of them people identify as being trans, and we're not human shields for them. And when they talk about not being able to live their lives, they have had no sympathy for the very many women who have not been able to live their lives."

Smith added: "They have not been able to go shopping because they can't use a mixed sex changing room, and that's especially the case, perhaps for ethnic and minority religious women. They've not had any sympathy for women who've been frightened to use a rape crisis shelter because it was headed up by a biological man.

"They've had no sympathy for these women who've been pushed right to the fringes because of their activism. And now they're trying to pull sob stories and try to make play on women's kindness. Well, we were kind for a very long time, and it got us into this mess."

When asked by Camilla Tominey if she is surprised by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer's silence on the verdict, Smith claimed that many politicians "owe an apology" to women.

Smith explained: "I think a lot of politicians owe women an apology, and I think Keir Starmer is one of them. He did make some ridiculous comments about something like 1 per cent of women have penises.

"And I know that the Labour Party have stepped back a bit in recent times, and Keir Starmer has been conspicuously silent on it - I think a lot of politicians are afraid of some of the sorts of men that we saw out demonstrating yesterday. I think they're frightened of them, and they should be frightened of them, because a lot of them are dangerous people."

She concluded: "I am frightened, I'm terrified of them. But as mothers and grandmothers and young women, we've got an enormous amount of young women starting now to speak up at universities, and these are people who are actually at risk.

"He's the most powerful person in the country. He needs to stop being afraid of them and start to stand up for the people who need protection."


:clap1:

Perhaps someone can explain to me why a group protesting trans rights would choose to deface statues of womens rights figures Glenn Jessica in particular ....surely they dont want women to lose their rights...that cannot be so...these vulnerable transwomen

I've seen multiple videos of trans people and their loved ones literally bawling crying, feeling lost and hopeless because of the change of the definition of woman. People are lashing out, of course they don't want more rights taken away, they want to upset terfs, they are crying out for the hate to stop.

[Jessica.]

But you have no sympathy with women being locked up with men who choose to self ID while in custody for rape, or for women attending a rape crisis centre headed up by a transwoman, or for women in sport being beaten by transwomen who went through puberty, or for women made to feel uncomfortable by men just because they can etc etc....Baz everyone will still be able to pee don't worry

That's a problem with men though, trans women are not to blame for men lying, it's not their fault, they're being punished because of people who are taking advantage of systems that they need to live their lives and be safe.

[Swan]

That's a problem with men though, trans women are not to blame for men lying, it's not their fault, they're being punished because of people who are taking advantage of systems that they need to live their lives and be safe.

You can make all the distinctions you like between men and trans women, but no matter how you feel, every single trans women ever, then, now, and in future generations start out as a man/men. I just find it completely odd how you say "well, it's men who are to blame, not trans women", biologically they're the exact same thing.

Be free, live your life, don't get me wrong, but you're looking at this whole situation from a black and white standpoint. It is a very complex situation, but at times it really isn't.

[Niamh.]

That's a problem with men though, trans women are not to blame for men lying, it's not their fault, they're being punished because of people who are taking advantage of systems that they need to live their lives and be safe.

Transwomen are biological men though no matter how hard you try to emotionally blackmail people into a corner it's a fact that will never change. The only requirement to being a transwomen is that you're biologically male.

[BBXX]

You can make all the distinctions you like between men and trans women, but no matter how you feel, every single trans women ever, then, now, and in future generations start out as a man/men. I just find it completely odd how you say "well, it's men who are to blame, not trans women", biologically they're the exact same thing.

Be free, live your life, don't get me wrong, but you're looking at this whole situation from a black and white standpoint. It is a very complex situation, but at times it really isn't.

It’s quite bold to say “you’re looking at it from a black and white POV” while simultaneously refusing to recognise the nuanced and real distinction between a trans women and a cis men.

People are more than their genitals and reproductive systems. The reason trans people exist is because their mental identity doesn’t match their physical identity, therein lies the key difference between a trans women and a cis man. Just because you might be happy to disregard that as valid, it doesn’t make it so.

I do wonder is those celebrating realise that the next time a cis women goes into a woman’s only space, and is reported because someone thinks she’s trans, it will be a male police officer who strip searches her to check, unless she carries her birth certificate with her everywhere she goes. Horrific.

[Swan]

It’s quite bold to say “you’re looking at it from a black and white POV” while simultaneously refusing to recognise the nuanced and real distinction between a trans women and a cis men.

People are more than their genitals and reproductive systems. The reason trans people exist is because their mental identity doesn’t match their physical identity, therein lies the key difference between a trans women and a cis man. Just because you might be happy to disregard that as valid, it doesn’t make it so.

I do wonder is those celebrating realise that the next time a cis women goes into a woman’s only space, and is reported because someone thinks she’s trans, it will be a male police officer who strip searches her to check, unless she carries her birth certificate with her everywhere she goes. Horrific.

Did i not say it's a complex situation in that very same sentence?

BIB - One, im not celebrating, this affects biological women, and trans women, not me. Two, that scenario you're describing has never, ever happened, it's not even very rare, it's just not a thing.

[BBXX]

Transwomen are biological men though no matter how hard you try to emotionally blackmail people into a corner it's a fact that will never change. The only requirement to being a transwomen is that you're biologically male.

A gay cis man has the same biological real estate than a straight cis man, but I am sure you'd be willing to agree that they are really not a sexual-assault risk to cis women, right? So why can't the same be suggested for trans women?

Sexual assault and abuse to cis women at the hand of cis men is a mentally-led issue, not because they have a penis, which is why it's completely valid to say trans-women are not to blame for the sexual crimes at the hands of straight cis men in the same way it's valid to say gay men are not to blame for the sexual assault crimes from straight men.

[BBXX]

Did i not say it's a complex situation in that very same sentence?

"but at times it really isn't" and you seemed to be implying Jessica's point wasn't.

Two, that scenario you're describing has never, ever happened, it's not even very rare, it's just not a thing.

Not previously no, because it's not been illegal for trans women to be in women's only spaces in the way it is now.

It's already been said that male officers will now strip search trans women. So now, if a cis women is accused of being trans she has one of two options:

1. Be strip searched by a male officer or
2. Prove she is a cis woman (how?)

One is worse than the other of course, but both are horrible scenarios.

[Niamh.]

A gay cis man has the same biological real estate than a straight cis man, but I am sure you'd be willing to agree that they are really not a sexual-assault risk to cis women, right? So why can't the same be suggested for trans women?

Sexual assault and abuse to cis women at the hand of cis men is a mentally-led issue, not because they have a penis, which is why it's completely valid to say trans-women are not to blame for the sexual crimes at the hands of straight cis men in the same way it's valid to say gay men are not to blame for the sexual assault crimes from straight men.

Sure but as with transwomen there's no way to tell if a gay man is actually gay or just pretending to be gay, that's why all gay men are not allowed in female only spaces. Safeguarding bans all biological males to protect women even though most biological men won't be a threat.

[BBXX]

Sure but as with transwomen there's no way to tell if a gay man is actually gay or just pretending to be gay, that's why all gay men are not allowed in female only spaces. Safeguarding bans all biological males to protect women even though most biological men won't be a threat.

Gay men identify as men, that's why they aren't allowed in women's spaces.

Until now, of course. Now identity doesn't matter so now a gay trans man will be in allowed in women's spaces, beard and testosterone patch included.

I said I'd stop but I'm too opinionated :joker: but I do feel like I am just repeating myself, which is my bad. We're allowed not to agree, I don't want to make it seem like my incessant opinions are trying to convince you otherwise, it's too emotive and complex a subject for people just to change their minds because of a stranger on the internet :)

[Jessica.]

Gay men identify as men, that's why they aren't allowed in women's spaces.

Until now, of course. Now identity doesn't matter so now a gay trans man will be in allowed in women's spaces, beard and testosterone patch included.

I said I'd stop but I'm too opinionated :joker: but I do feel like I am just repeating myself, which is my bad. We're allowed not to agree, I don't want to make it seem like my incessant opinions are trying to convince you otherwise, it's too emotive and complex a subject for people just to change their minds because of a stranger on the internet :)
Now you can see why we're jaded, no matter how much logic you use it won't change a thing here. Trans women are the easy target and they'll always be ridiculed and invalidated on this forum. It's incredibly frustrating and it's been going on for years. I know trans people both irl and online, I've even lived in the same household as a trans woman and I've never felt threatened by any of them. However the people demonising them have zero personal experience or anecdotes related to the so called villains (human beings) we're discussing.

[Niamh.]

Now you can see why we're jaded, no matter how much logic you use it won't change a thing here. Trans women are the easy target and they'll always be ridiculed and invalidated on this forum. It's incredibly frustrating and it's been going on for years. I know trans people both irl and online, I've even lived in the same household as a trans woman and I've never felt threatened by any of them. However the people demonising them have zero personal experience or anecdotes related to the so called villains (human beings) we're discussing.Logic mmhmm

[Niamh.]

Now you can see why we're jaded, no matter how much logic you use it won't change a thing here. Trans women are the easy target and they'll always be ridiculed and invalidated on this forum. It's incredibly frustrating and it's been going on for years. I know trans people both irl and online, I've even lived in the same household as a trans woman and I've never felt threatened by any of them. However the people demonising them have zero personal experience or anecdotes related to the so called villains (human beings) we're discussing.Not true Jessica, you have no idea about my real experiences, but I can tell you your assumptions are wrong.

[Niamh.]

Gay men identify as men, that's why they aren't allowed in women's spaces.

Until now, of course. Now identity doesn't matter so now a gay trans man will be in allowed in women's spaces, beard and testosterone patch included.

I said I'd stop but I'm too opinionated :joker: but I do feel like I am just repeating myself, which is my bad. We're allowed not to agree, I don't want to make it seem like my incessant opinions are trying to convince you otherwise, it's too emotive and complex a subject for people just to change their minds because of a stranger on the internet :)Gay men are biological men as are transwomen. Women need female only spaces because of biological differences

[Jessica.]

Not true Jessica, you have no idea about my real experiences, but I can tell you your assumptions are wrong.

If someone on this forum had a bad experience with a trans person they'd be shouting it from the rooftops because it proves a point for them that they have no basis behind otherwise.

[Niamh.]

If someone on this forum had a bad experience with a trans person they'd be shouting it from the rooftops because it proves a point for them that they have no basis behind otherwise.

Why did you jump to bad experiences straight away? I know a transwoman through work, I haven't had any bad experiences. I was just saying that just because people have their opinions here it doesn't mean that they don't know transpeople irl

[Cherie]

Nobody has answered my question as to why the trans protesters defaced a statue of a Suffragette ...why do they hate our rights so much?

[Niamh.]

Nobody has answered my question as to why the trans protesters defaced a statue of a Suffragette ...why do they hate our rights so much?

What a conundrum

[Barry.]

Nobody has answered my question as to why the trans protesters defaced a statue of a Suffragette ...why do they hate our rights so much?

There’s always a few bad apples, however, do we know it was a trans that did that? Or are we assuming? Could of been an ally of the trans community

[Barry.]

Oh sorry Cherie just read the that again. Some protesters are vandals, and that’s why they join in the protest

[Cherie]

Oh sorry Cherie just read the that again. Some protesters are vandals, and that’s why they join in the protest

Bingo...and some are jumping on the self ID bandwagon so they can harrass women.... it needs to be stopped and hopefully the Supreme Court Judgement will achieve that..

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/4a5f/live/76ffcd50-1e2e-11f0-b1b3-7358f8d35a35.jpg.webp

[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Express reports that campaigners
who won the landmark Supreme Court ruling
on the definition of a woman are facing a campaign
of "death threats and abuse"]


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/e88b/live/94473640-1e2a-11f0-80b3-83959215671c.jpg.webp

[arista]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Telegraph is another paper
still leading with the fallout from the
gender ruling.
It says the prime minister has refused
to stop a plot by ministers to "thwart" the judgment.
It writes Labour ministers and MPs
will meet this week to discuss how to promote
trans rights following the landmark judgement.]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/38ad/live/4f14e130-1e2f-11f0-b1b3-7358f8d35a35.jpg.webp

[user104658]

Gay men identify as men, that's why they aren't allowed in women's spaces.

Until now, of course. Now identity doesn't matter so now a gay trans man will be in allowed in women's spaces, beard and testosterone patch included.

I said I'd stop but I'm too opinionated :joker: but I do feel like I am just repeating myself, which is my bad. We're allowed not to agree, I don't want to make it seem like my incessant opinions are trying to convince you otherwise, it's too emotive and complex a subject for people just to change their minds because of a stranger on the internet :)

I mean can we just cut to the chase and say it like it is here: a trans man no matter how much T they've taken or how long their beard is, is highly unlikely to attack or harass a woman in a changing area or bathroom, whereas an autogynephilic male self-IDing as a woman is a clear risk, in multiple ways, even if it's not of carrying out a physical attack.

If the claim is that some self-IDing trans women are not autogynephiles... Well, that claim is simply false/a lie. It exists as a notable percentage of the trans community. The refusal to (for want of a better word) "separate out" the different motivations between trans identities and the refusal to even acknowledge that those motivations can be wildly different - that most are harmless lifestyle choices, but some are sexually motivated and rooted in sometimes serious comorbid mental health issues - is part of what's led to this entire issue for all. "That Doesn't Happen" is the mantra. It does happen.

[Cherie]

BBC News Text :
[The Daily Express reports that campaigners
who won the landmark Supreme Court ruling
on the definition of a woman are facing a campaign
of "death threats and abuse"]


https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/e88b/live/94473640-1e2a-11f0-80b3-83959215671c.jpg.webp

Are these the same people who we are told just want to live their lives quietly? Can people wake up these men are not trans per se ...and never have been

[BBXX]

Oh sorry Cherie just read the that again. Some protesters are vandals, and that’s why they join in the protest

Exactly - the same happens with every protest, they’ll be people who vandalise things because that’s what they do.

Jumping on it like some kind of point is super cheap and a silly tactic. Same as those burning things last summer, and racially abusing strangers, etc… those people just needed an excuse and a protest allowed that.

The same goes for every protest in history and every protest in the future.

[BBXX]

Are these the same people who we are told just want to live their lives quietly? Can people wake up these men are not trans per se ...and never have been

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

[Cherie]

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

Are they not, why do they want them accessing womens spaces then with impunity?

Why did Kathleen Stock lose her job?

[BBXX]

Gay men are biological men as are transwomen. Women need female only spaces because of biological differences

I understand, but what biological differences determine this female-only space?

Is it the fact they have a penis? What is they are post-op and not longer have a penis? Is it because they don’t have the reproductive organs? If so, what about women who have had a hysterectomy? Is it because of breasts? What about women who have had a mastectomy? Or is it about chromosomes - in which case what about the people who have chromosomal anomalies like intersex people?

I’m being genuine here - if we are serious about pigeon-holing someone’s gender to their sexual/reproductive organs what about those people who no longer have those?

I understand female only spaces are important, but don’t you see how reductive it is to define a woman purely by her sexual real estate and baby-making organs?

[BBXX]

[/B]

Are they not, why do they want them accessing womens spaces then with impunity?

Why did Kathleen Stock lose her job?

I’m talking about the people giving death threats. Radicals exist in every group?

Is it a common opinion of yours that legitimate reasonable people of a certain demographic should pay the price for the actions of a bad minority within the same community?

If so, it’s a very toxic mentality. If not, why do you do it with this group?

[user104658]

I don’t know, are they the same people?

What’s your point? Radicals exist in every single demographic in life. I don’t think anyone is disputing that.

See I agree with this, but yes people are disputing it, that's the problem; it "being disputed" is a cornerstone of where the whole discussion has gone so badly south... a refusal to admit that within trans communities, there are a number of outliers/a percentage -- not the majority, but not an insignificant number -- who are NOT acting in good faith and are self-IDing as women for extremely problematic reasons and with questionable motivation, often sexual, sometimes dangerous. Acknowledging that these people exist - that "radicals" (those with motivations outside the norm, who will act in ways outside the norm) exist in all demographics. Including the trans community. And that is a risk to women's spaces that can't be simply dismissed out of hand.

I understand, but what biological differences determine this female-only space?

Is it the fact they have a penis? What is they are post-op and not longer have a penis? Is it because they don’t have the reproductive organs? If so, what about women who have had a hysterectomy? Is it because of breasts? What about women who have had a mastectomy? Or is it about chromosomes - in which case what about the people who have chromosomal anomalies like intersex people?

I’m being genuine here - if we are serious about pigeon-holing someone’s gender to their sexual/reproductive organs what about those people who no longer have those?

I understand female only spaces are important, but don’t you see how reductive it is to define a woman purely by her sexual real estate and baby-making organs?

I also agree that this ruling is not a full stop and does introduce a whole host of further questions and issues that no one has the answer to yet however I would suggest that this is an important step towards the proper conversations that need to be had about finding the best and safest way forward. This ruling is a starting point not a conclusion. Any ability to discuss these issues properly from an academic/safeguarding perspective has been "off the table" for YEARS due to, being blunt, the strict adherence to "stonewalling" tactics by the LGBTQ community when it comes to this issue, that would paint any attempt at reasonable discussion that isn't 100% unquestioningly trans-positive as "transphobic", accuracy and facts be damned. University professors with vast experience were being doxxed, harassed, threatened and sometimes fired for daring to carry out perfectly ethical research for crying out loud. The damage that has been done by these tactics is huge. Absolutely massive. It will take decades to repair. I get what you're saying about these being "outlying elements of the community" but honestly... increasingly less outlying, increasingly vocal, increasingly standard/accepted tactics and a massive mess left in their wake. You can say that you've always disagreed with those tactics but you have to acknowledge that it happened.

[Cherie]

I’m talking about the people giving death threats. Radicals exist in every group?

Is it a common opinion of yours that legitimate reasonable people of a certain demographic should pay the price for the actions of a bad minority within the same community?

If so, it’s a very toxic mentality. If not, why do you do it with this group?

and its a common opinion of yours that women should pay the price for a bad minority .... that is a toxic mentality as well, why do you feel women should pay the price with their safety, their jobs, their places on podiums, as I have said previously if transwomen had supported women on this might be in a different place, instead they threw their lot in with people acting in bad faith....

I think this was a very pertinent point made by Susan Smith, I dont know how old you are but this is very relevant

For a long time, women had been accommodating, they hadn't raised too many objections. And it was only when people really started to make our lives intolerable that we started to have to fight back."


Women have been very accommodating, its only since self ID and there has been an explosion of Marchs on transrights calling for women to be decapitated, women being assaulted, calling us bigots, women being called Nazis that the problems have started, and no it has nothing to do with bathrooms, the trans community remained quiet while all these bad faith men hijacked their community, you cannot deny that has happened surely? yet you call me toxic....I literally give up

[user104658]

and its a common opinion of yours that women should pay the price for a bad minority .... that is a toxic mentality as well, why do you feel women should pay the price with their safety, their jobs, their places on podiums, as I have said previously if transwomen had supported women on this might be in a different place, instead they threw their lot in with people acting in bad faith....

I think this was a very pertinent point made by Susan Smith, I dont know how old you are but this is very relevant

For a long time, women had been accommodating, they hadn't raised too many objections. And it was only when people really started to make our lives intolerable that we started to have to fight back."


Women have been very accommodating, its only since self ID and there has been an explosion of Marchs on transrights calling for women to be decapitated, women being assaulted, calling us bigots, women being called Nazis that the problems have started, and no it has nothing to do with bathrooms, the trans community remained quiet while all these bad faith men hijacked their community, you cannot deny that has happened surely? yet you call me toxic....I literally give up

I agree and it's not just that -- there's a clear disparity. Men raising objections or outright mocking do NOT get the same violent backlash that women get. Not even 10% of it. I say that from direct experience - people don't give a **** that I'm a "TERFy" straight male, it's basically expected. Women are expected to be accepting and accommodating, and treated as "vile" if they dare to be anything else, even if it's done intellectually and politely.

And (again being blunt) most of that rhetoric comes from -- some trans women but frankly... OVERWHELMINGLY from LGBTQ males. It's just another form of the same-old-same-old male privilege, and has leaned into some (strange, entirely false) notion that "gay men can't be misogynists" or that threats from men in the gay community towards women are somehow "less of an issue" than straight-male-female violence.

"What about trans men" is thrown in almost as some sort of kicker but (more bluntness incoming) trans men in this debate are pretty much collateral damage, whether that's in refusal to acknowledge the complex psychological issues facing adolescent girls, or the "trans men in male bathrooms" issue. Used as ammo. Unsurprising because... well... they were born female, so why not?

This is the crux of it really.

There is no real issue with trans men using male bathrooms, it's not like-for-like, men's toilets don't need protecting. The only issue is in fact the risk TO young clearly-female-featured trans boys walking into a men's public toilet.

[Cherie]

I agree and it's not just that -- there's a clear disparity. Men raising objections or outright mocking do NOT get the same violent backlash that women get. Not even 10% of it. I say that from direct experience - people don't give a **** that I'm a "TERFy" straight male, it's basically expected. Women are expected to be accepting and accommodating, and treated as "vile" if they dare to be anything else, even if it's done intellectually and politely.

And (again being blunt) most of that rhetoric comes from -- some trans women but frankly... OVERWHELMINGLY from LGBTQ males. It's just another form of the same-old-same-old male privilege, and has leaned into some (strange, entirely false) notion that "gay men can't be misogynists" or that threats from men in the gay community towards women are somehow "less of an issue" than straight-male-female violence.

"What about trans men" is thrown in almost as some sort of kicker but (more bluntness incoming) trans men in this debate are pretty much collateral damage, whether that's in refusal to acknowledge the complex psychological issues facing adolescent girls, or the "trans men in male bathrooms" issue. Used as ammo. Unsurprising because... well... they were born female, so why not?

This is the crux of it really.

There is no real issue with trans men using male bathrooms, it's not like-for-like, men's toilets don't need protecting. The only issue is in fact the risk TO young clearly-female-featured trans boys walking into a men's public toilet.



I was actually going to mention that even in the context of this thread again its the women being called names and told to get over themselves, very sad times

[BBXX]

See I agree with this, but yes people are disputing it, that's the problem; it "being disputed" is a cornerstone of where the whole discussion has gone so badly south... a refusal to admit that within trans communities, there are a number of outliers/a percentage -- not the majority, but not an insignificant number -- who are NOT acting in good faith and are self-IDing as women for extremely problematic reasons and with questionable motivation, often sexual, sometimes dangerous. Acknowledging that these people exist - that "radicals" (those with motivations outside the norm, who will act in ways outside the norm) exist in all demographics. Including the trans community. And that is a risk to women's spaces that can't be simply dismissed out of hand.


It's important people don't dispute it, but you have to realise the difficulty when a minority of a minority acting badly is used as an argument in critique of a marginalised demographic.

It happens often - people use negative examples of tiny proportions of a minority group to "prove their point". For example, they spent their time calling homosexuals pedophiles and then one actually is it's a "see I told you".

This creates an extremely difficult balance where people should criticise the bad person, without giving credence to the insinuations that it's a common occurrence within X community.

Sorry, but it's happened in this thread continuously. Minute examples are being used to insinuate it's a more common issue than it actually is. Not acknowledging that isn't disputing it's happening, but it is ignoring the idea it's a common theme.

[Niamh.]

I understand, but what biological differences determine this female-only space?



Is it the fact they have a penis? What is they are post-op and not longer have a penis? Is it because they don’t have the reproductive organs? If so, what about women who have had a hysterectomy? Is it because of breasts? What about women who have had a mastectomy? Or is it about chromosomes - in which case what about the people who have chromosomal anomalies like intersex people?



I’m being genuine here - if we are serious about pigeon-holing someone’s gender to their sexual/reproductive organs what about those people who no longer have those?



I understand female only spaces are important, but don’t you see how reductive it is to define a woman purely by her sexual real estate and baby-making organs?What biological differences? Ugh. No.

[BBXX]

and its a common opinion of yours that women should pay the price for a bad minority .... that is a toxic mentality as well, why do you feel women should pay the price with their safety...

It's not that at all. Women's safety is one of primary concerns - all the people in my life I care about most are women so their safety is importance to me. My point has always remained that trans women aren't a risk to cis women's safety and while I understand Self-ID creates an opportunity for cis men to take advantage of that, I don't believe the answer is to remove trans women's rights and put them at risk, OR that the actions of doing that will have any positive effect towards women's safety. If I really thought it would make women safer, I would find better validity to it but I don't believe it does because I think cis men will do whatever it takes to commit that crime anyway.

Your argument is legitimate from a black and white perspective, but I truly believes it lacks nuance. Let's look at it from this scenario: straight men suggest that sharing a space with gay men makes them uncomfortable. Would you advocate that to make straight men feel safer it would be better to have separate gay and straight changing facilities? Why should straight men's comfortability be ignored just so gay men's freedoms get to remain intact?

Aside from that, one of my main disagreements for this ruling is not anything to do with trans people, it's because I feel it's actually a negative for all women. Reducing their identity to their reproductive system and their vagina feels reductive and gross and I worry about women having to 'prove' they are women to access certain spaces and as stated above, I don't think this makes women any safer at all and so none of this feels like a win for women at all. They're not any safer and in addition their identity is being reduced to incubators and vaginas.


Women have been very accommodating, its only since self ID and there has been an explosion of Marchs on transrights calling for women to be decapitated, women being assaulted, calling us bigots, women being called Nazis that the problems have started, and no it has nothing to do with bathrooms

I don't condone any of that, but in the same way that the riots last summer with racial attacks and widespread vandalism doesn't represent every person who has issues with immigration, the above doesn't represent the entirety of the trans community.

the trans community remained quiet while all these bad faith men hijacked their community, you cannot deny that has happened surely? yet you call me toxic....I literally give up

I can't really deny it or not. I've not spoken to every trans person to know there is widespread silence. I don't believe any demographic - whether it's based on race, sexuality, gender, religion, politics, is responsible for speaking as a collective up on the extremists within their community.

In the same way I don't expect everyone who voted Reform to speak out on every attack on immigrants, for example.

[BBXX]

What biological differences? Ugh. No.

I didn't mean to imply there was no biological differences - of course I know there are - I was questioning which create that distinction for you and how I think defining someone as man or woman based purely on their biological make-up can be problematic.

The reason I believe this is because I believe there is a difference between sex and gender.

None of this has been me dismissing the difference biologically between someone born a man and someone born a woman, but that someone's gender-identity should boil down to more than what their reproductive system is, that's all.

[user104658]

It's important people don't dispute it, but you have to realise the difficulty when a minority of a minority acting badly is used as an argument in critique of a marginalised demographic.

It happens often - people use negative examples of tiny proportions of a minority group to "prove their point". For example, they spent their time calling homosexuals pedophiles and then one actually is it's a "see I told you".

This creates an extremely difficult balance where people should criticise the bad person, without giving credence to the insinuations that it's a common occurrence within X community.

Sorry, but it's happened in this thread continuously. Minute examples are being used to insinuate it's a more common issue than it actually is. Not acknowledging that isn't disputing it's happening, but it is ignoring the idea it's a common theme.

I don't disagree but the fact that it's "the minority of a minority" is all the more reason for it to be called out as a problem that does happen, rather than ignored and again I'll use the term "stonewalled" as the main line of defense -- the "That Doesn't Happen" mantra I mentioned, which feels like gaslighting, vs the "That rarely happens and we need to minimise the risk of it ever happening" -- a nuanced discussion that just isn't, or hasn't been, allowed to happen. People have been threatened, attacked and have lost their livelihoods for even attempting to have that discussion openly. I hope that now changes, but I think it'll still take time, it's still going to be a fraught issue.

[Vicky.]

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

[BBXX]

ToThe equivalent here would be if gay men felt they needed a space away from straight men, not the other way sround. And I don't see the issue if they did? They have in the past because of straight mens behaviour, stuff like gay bars, gay only groups etc.

(Reply to BBX, quoting is awkward on my phone)

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

However, even in your example, gay spaces are rarely straight-excluding and even social clubs like LGBT sports teams are often inclusive of all (gay, straight, trans, women) and things like gay running groups, book clubs etc are done as a way to meet other gay people, rather than exclude straight people.

[user104658]

The reason I did it that way around was because on the fact gay man find men attractive and straight men finding that uncomfortable leading to the exclusion of gay men in male spaces would be considered discriminatory. Also because in both cases it’s the minority and marginalised community being ostracised in both cases. (I’m not saying women aren’t marginalised but comparatively to the trans community it’s quite different and they’re not the minority)

I'm going to be controversial here and say that with the example of toilets/changing facilities... it's actually the other way around that the numbers need to be considered. I fully appreciate the need to consider minorities at, for example, a political representation level where the risk is being drowned out / over-ruled by majority opinion arbitrarily and without consideration, but in the case of access to public spaces and risk/comfort, the balance being towards the comfort of the people who will most commonly be using that space is ... actually the primary consideration.

It's difficult to use bathrooms and changing to illustrate this well but you can easily do it with violence against women shelters, where there needs to be a feeling of safety not only in male threats not being present, but in it being not possible for male threats to be present (the possibility is in itself a direct concern). Because 99.9% off people accessing that space will be women, coming from an abusive situation... unfortunately yes, those people do have to be the primary consideration, and that 99.9% can't be disproportionately impacted to accommodate a minority situation. I appreciate that this is a difficult thing to consider.

I would basically counter (as I usually do) that the solution is to head in the direction of individual, self-contained, securable units (toilets, changing, whatever) where this doesn't need to be a concern in the first place. The answer is not shoehorning a situation that, simply, I suspect doesn't HAVE a solution that works for everyone. It does not exist.

[arista]

This is why Tomorrow PM Starmer
should speak in an announcement in parliament
after 2:30PM

To Clarify this Mess.


Then on Weds
no one can take the Piss of him
in PMQ's

[bots]

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

[arista]

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law


The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

[Cherie]

The real trouble is
they will not.


This is why it's sensible for PM Starmer
to go into Parliament after 2:30PM, Tuesday
and give his new view on the judgment.

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

[arista]

Bit late isn't it, we all know his views quiet clearly now

Yes, Months back he was confused on LBC Live.


He must speak up tomorrow
or PMQ's on Weds
will take the piss him

[Jessica.]

I’m talking about the people giving death threats. Radicals exist in every group?

Is it a common opinion of yours that legitimate reasonable people of a certain demographic should pay the price for the actions of a bad minority within the same community?

If so, it’s a very toxic mentality. If not, why do you do it with this group?

This is the infuriating part, there are scary people in every group, there are dangerous cis women in women only spaces too and dangerous cis men will always find a way to prey on others. This isn't protecting anyone, it's just excluding.

[BBXX]

it's really not a mess anymore. It's time for the activists to obey the law

Prepare for malicious compliance.

[Cherie]

This is the infuriating part, there are scary people in every group, there are dangerous cis women in women only spaces too and dangerous cis men will always find a way to prey on others. This isn't protecting anyone, it's just excluding.

so you would be perfectly happy to accommodate a transwoman with a penis in a domestic refuge?

[BBXX]

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

If the former, then you'll never ever see a trans person as separate from their biological make-up and so the idea of a trans person being in the same safe spaces as biological cis women is an issue, of course, because ultimately to you they are and always will be a man.

[Jessica.]

so you would be perfectly happy to accommodate a transwoman with a penis in a domestic refuge?

If she needed help?? Yeah!

[user104658]

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.



I disagree and 15+ years ago before people (intentionally) muddied the water good science and sociology also disagreed - it doesn't boil down to that at all, it boils down to the fact that sex (biological) and gender (social construct) are entirely different concepts and while you can argue that there's nothing inherent about sex and gender that mean they have to "match", it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

Gender as a concept and it's origins is a deep and fascinating subject, my honest and frank opinion is that a lot of transgender rhetoric massively oversimplifies it conceptually and also far too often conflates gender and sex, and that's been an increasing issue over the last decade/decade and a half.

[BBXX]

...it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.


But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

[Cherie]

Prepare for malicious compliance.

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?

[Vicky.]

I agree gender and sex are different. I don't see why 'gender' should have any affect on sex segregated spaces.

[BBXX]

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?

It means to toe the line to the point of awkwardness.

If a woman is now defined solely by her biological sexual characteristics, then people should expect to see bearded, muscular, testosterone-patch wearing trans men in women's spaces, for example. :shrug:

[Cherie]

It means to toe the line to the point of awkwardness.

If a woman is now defined solely by her biological sexual characteristics, then people should expect to see bearded, muscular, testosterone-patch wearing trans men in women's spaces, for example. :shrug:

I dont think this will happen in all honesty

Transmen are barely heard

[BBXX]

I dont think this will happen in all honesty


But it's the law?

[user104658]

But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?


My personal opinion on this and practical/what I should think should happen opinion are slightly different. My personal opinion is that what you're talking about is meaningless; there is no such thing as "your brain telling that you are a ____" that isn't inherently linked to social construct and established societal norms. Again though that is a personal academic stance; I acknowledge that there are people who disagree, and that's an interesting discussion to have (academically), I will confess I have zero interest in that discussion when it comes from a "well that's just how some folks feel and that's that" perspective. If the world operated purely on "individual feeling" we'd be nowhere.

My practical/pragmatic opinion is that what you're talking about was never a problem; people who had actually hormonally/surgically tansitioned were using their bathroom of choice FOR DECADES without it becoming a political issue. Yes there will have been many, many bigots and people who took issue with it but, largely, there was no issue with for want of a better word "proven" transgender people using chosen bathrooms or changing spaces. This is where there is - and has to be, sensibly, for any reasonable person - a clear and distinct difference between someone who is or has medically transitioned, and someone who hasn't or has no intention of doing so using those spaces on the basis of self-ID because they're wearing a wig and a dress and "women have long hair and wear dresses, right?" -- it's nonsense, and no matter how rarely it happens, it does happen, and the failure to acknowledge that it is a different scenario is the sort of gaslighting that's led to the whole thing becoming a wider political issue... and THAT has ultimately led to where we are now: with people who are/have medically transitioned being caught between a rock and a hard place. "Stonewalling"/Stonewall itself and other similar rganised movements flew too close to the sun and have done damage that will take generations to repair. That's just where we are. It's done, it won't change, and it can't be rushed.


In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

I'm not talking about a conscious pushing or anyone being "told" anything, I'm talking about interwoven gendered social constructs that predate written history. Again a fascinating conversation to talk about where they come from, what the nature of human civilisation and socialisation is and its origins, what it "means" (if anything) beyond reproduction to be male or female ... but the current state of gender ideology even in academics is wafer thin, let alone in the vast majority of those trying to assess their own gender. Do I think most people who choose to transition have a deep philosophical understanding of gender? Do I think they've unpacked all of their social ideas of norms / traumas and biases or have any intention of doing so beyond base "feeling"? No. I don't. And everything about the situation backs that up. The clear rage/frustration at being questioned can only come from an anxiety at being unable to fully answer the question.

[Cherie]

But it's the law?

People will use common sense, I was in a pub on Friday and a transwoman used the ladies, nobody batted an eyelid, never seen a transman in sport, and if a transman rocks up at a refuge they are biologically female so where is the issue

[user104658]

People will use common sense, I was in a pub on Friday and a transwoman used the ladies, nobody batted an eyelid, never seen a transman in sport, and if a transman rocks up at a refuge they are biologically female so where is the issue

Only thing I can see being an issue is that trans women are disproportionately (by percentage of course, not overall number) likely to be victims of domestic abuse and have few places to go in that situation -- however, women's refuges being women-only is essential, one of the most essential parts of this debate because of potential trauma-triggering, so the solution is not access to women's shelters. I just acknowledge that it's a problem - but the problem is in failing to provide refuges that cater to trans people, and the solution is creating those, NOT changing access to women's shelters.

Or to dream an even bigger dream;

Completely modernise the system so that people seeking refuge are properly and safely housed and it isn't communal living at all (with the associated risks). But we all know that's not going to happen or be funded.

[Cherie]

Only thing I can see being an issue is that trans women are disproportionately (by percentage of course, not overall number) likely to be victims of domestic abuse and have few places to go in that situation -- however, women's refuges being women-only is essential, one of the most essential parts of this debate because of potential trauma-triggering, so the solution is not access to women's shelters. I just acknowledge that it's a problem - but the problem is in failing to provide refuges that cater to trans people, and the solution is creating those, NOT changing access to women's shelters.

Or to dream an even bigger dream;

Completely modernise the system so that people seeking refuge are properly and safely housed and it isn't communal living at all (with the associated risks). But we all know that's not going to happen or be funded.

I do think abused women benefit from being able to meet women in a similar situation as it creates an informal support group so not sure I agree that communal living is a bad thing, but certainly a fairly simple solution would be to create refuges specifically for trans women ...that said I don't think that would be acceptable either

[arista]

PM Starmer
has stated he welcomes the Judge's Judgment.

First clip seen

BBC2HD Politics Live
Start of the show

[arista]

The SNP are changing nothing,
typical of them.
The Scottish Conservatives wanted answers from them.
got nothing

[bots]

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sir Keir told the Times, external that "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law".

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

The spokesman added: "That is set out clearly by the court judgment."

Pressed over when the PM had changed his mind, his spokesman insisted the Labour government had been consistent that single-sex spaces "are protected in law".

The ruling also makes it clear that a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have the right to use spaces or services designated as for women-only.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro


---------------------------------

Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?

[arista]

"Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?"

Yes great point,
I assume it depends on the Wind blowing
directions

[Cherie]

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer does not believe transgender women are women, his official spokesman has said.

It comes after the UK Supreme Court ruled last week that a woman is defined by biological sex under equalities law.

In March 2022, when he was leader of the opposition, Sir Keir told the Times, external that "a woman is a female adult, and in addition to that transwomen are women, and that is not just my view - that is actually the law".

Asked if Sir Keir still believed that a transgender woman was a woman, the PM's official spokesman said: "No, the Supreme Court judgment has made clear that when looking at the Equality Act, a woman is a biological woman."

The spokesman added: "That is set out clearly by the court judgment."

Pressed over when the PM had changed his mind, his spokesman insisted the Labour government had been consistent that single-sex spaces "are protected in law".

The ruling also makes it clear that a person who was born male but identifies as a woman does not have the right to use spaces or services designated as for women-only.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crldey0z00ro


---------------------------------

Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?

No he flip flops more than Nicky

[Cherie]

The SNP are changing nothing,
typical of them.
The Scottish Conservatives wanted answers from them.
got nothing

So they are breaking the law?

[arista]

So they are breaking the law?





Is it a different law up there?

[bots]

Is it a different law up there?

Supreme court is for the UK, thats why the case was heard there rather than in Scotland

[Cherie]

Is it a different law up there?

No...the Court sat in Scotland

[arista]

Well the SNP are Crazy

[user104658]

No he flip flops more than Nicky

To be fair Starmer is a letter of the law type, he'll go with the official legal ruling. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing for a politician. That's what they're supposed to do. They can disagree with laws and campaign to have them changed, but while a law is in place, politicians should follow them.

We're all a bit to used to the Trump era and politicians just totally disregarding court rulings I suppose.

[arista]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/ace/standard/976/cpsprodpb/c0c1/live/f7a19580-1fbc-11f0-9c65-a5c3dc449bf3.jpg.webp

[arista]

https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2025/04/22/20/97568691-0-image-a-23_1745349431447.jpg

[arista]

Good on Radio5 Live

Telling a Labour MP
that Starmer is a Coward (headline)


Starmer Kicked out Rosie Duffield MP
over this

[user104658]

JK Rowling really is off down the pipeline at this point which is a shame. She really didn't need to go full Lozza Fox, it's not a good look and cheapens her platform if anything.

[Cherie]

JK Rowling really is off down the pipeline at this point which is a shame. She really didn't need to go full Lozza Fox, it's not a good look and cheapens her platform if anything.

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

[user104658]

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

It's not just the one moment and I'm not sure why that moment would be sitting with drink and cigar in hand, it's a slight right-wing dog whistle, like I said it's a bit Laurence Fox. I'm not saying she shouldn't have had her say or even gloated. The cigar is odd imagery.

[Livia]

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

Everyone's a critic... After all she's had to take you'd think people would lay off the criticism, but no...

[user104658]

Everyone's a critic... After all she's had to take you'd think people would lay off the criticism, but no...

I'm not firing tweets at her am I, I doubt she's going to see my commentary on TiBB debates but I suppose you never know :think:.

[Beso]

So what's going to happen to all those bearded muscular trans men when someone sees them going into a woman's toilet behind their girlfriend?

Only way this can be solved is a third toilet.

[arista]

Clive Lewis MP Labour Party
on the BBC2HD Politics Live

Said he does not agree with his Prime Minister,
and he will not obey the Judge

One of many.

[user104658]

So what's going to happen to all those bearded muscular trans men when someone sees them going into a woman's toilet behind their girlfriend?

Only way this can be solved is a third toilet.

There's no safeguarding issue in a trans man choosing to use a men's toilet but yes from a legal standpoint this part is now a complete mess - as I can see many of them worried that they're in the wrong by going into the wrong toilet (and technically by law they would be). "Safest" option currently would be to use the disabled toilets (which anyone can use, there are no rules that you have to "prove" yourself to be disabled, because of hidden disabilities etc.)

Again I think the only long-term solution is having more single-unit toilets for anyone's use. Honestly surely most people would prefer it anyway.

[Niamh.]

Clive Lewis MP Labour Party
on the BBC2HD Politics Live

Said he does not agree with his Prime Minister,
and he will not obey the Judge

One of many.

So he's fine with people not obeying court rulings in general? Not a good look for an MP surely? What's the point in courts in that case?

[arista]

So he's fine with people not obeying court rulings in general? Not a good look for an MP surely? What's the point in courts in that case?


Yes he stated he does not agree with the Judge or PM Starmer
on this topic.



We need a list of these Labour MP's

[Niamh.]

Yes he stated he does not agree with the Judge or PM Starmer
on this topic.



We need a list of these Labour MP's

Disagreeing with it is one thing but saying he won't obey the court ruling is surely not something that should be accepted as member of the government

[arista]

Disagreeing with it is one thing but saying he won't obey the court ruling is surely not something that should be accepted as member of the government


I agree
he stated Live on BBC2HD today


The Problem PM Starmer has
There is a large number of Labour MP's
the same way.

Joey is the Labour Expert
I hope he can add to this.

[bots]

Simple comparisons i look at are things like the wearing seatbelt mandate or the smoking ban, where overnight it enforces a behaviour change

Having experienced them both, there was push back initially, but within a month or 2 people basically fall into line. I expect this to be similar, people will express their opposition, but for the overwhelming majority they will fall into line

[user104658]

Simple comparisons i look at are things like the wearing seatbelt mandate or the smoking ban, where overnight it enforces a behaviour change

Having experienced them both, there was push back initially, but within a month or 2 people basically fall into line. I expect this to be similar, people will express their opposition, but for the overwhelming majority they will fall into line

Pushback against the smoking ban I understand the reasons for, but a pushback against mandatory car safety is wild. "How DARE you tell me not to die in a car crash??" :umm2:.

[Niamh.]

Pushback against the smoking ban I understand the reasons for, but a pushback against mandatory car safety is wild. "How DARE you tell me not to die in a car crash??" :umm2:.

It's not just telling you not to die either, I was only talking to my son about this ad that used to be on TV in the 90's for car safety it was pretty grim viewing and the "tag line" was "The guy without the seatbelt did the damage"


Contains car accident scenes (fake ones obviously)
epTdI-9V6Jk

[bots]

Pushback against the smoking ban I understand the reasons for, but a pushback against mandatory car safety is wild. "How DARE you tell me not to die in a car crash??" :umm2:.

they had all sorts of devices that made it look like you were wearing a belt if the police passed by. It was crazy :laugh:

[Beso]

Some trans women's thoughts..


Sounds like they havnt listened..https://youtu.be/CldNDGzsg7Q?si=mlSJyKEeufkl32ql

[Beso]

they had all sorts of devices that made it look like you were wearing a belt if the police passed by. It was crazy :laugh:




Just a thought...
https://images.app.goo.gl/SgwR1

[Cherie]

Some trans women's thoughts..


Sounds like they havnt listened..https://youtu.be/CldNDGzsg7Q?si=mlSJyKEeufkl32ql

They don't listen they only want what they want

They can fight for their own spaces just like women did, nobody is claiming they are invisible but rather than piggy backing on women only spaces go and fight for your own?

and again why is everyone hung up on bathrooms, people will still be able to pee dont worry, I only watched the first 10 minutes but no one mentioned anywhere other than bathrooms, like when you are in the pub nobody is watching like a hawk who is using which toilet

[user104658]

It's not just telling you not to die either, I was only talking to my son about this ad that used to be on TV in the 90's for car safety it was pretty grim viewing and the "tag line" was "The guy without the seatbelt did the damage"


Contains car accident scenes (fake ones obviously)
epTdI-9V6Jk

they had all sorts of devices that made it look like you were wearing a belt if the police passed by. It was crazy :laugh:

It's insane, I was in a relatively-minor accident at 18 (friend was driving who had just passed his test, understeer on a corner and off through a fence into a field/ditch)... no one seriously hurt, bit of whiplash, but without seatbelts we would both 100% have been through the windscreen and badly hurt if not dead.

Imagine what TiBB would be like if there were no seatbelt :worry:.

But in all seriousness, surely MOST people have a "minor accident" story like that, that would be a much more serious accident without a seatbelt on...

[Maru]

The trans issue was never a 2-way conversation, so that's why I don't spend a ton of energy trying to argue about it.

[Cherie]

The trans issue was never a 2-way conversation, so that's why I don't spend a ton of energy trying to argue about it.

Very true, all I saw from the little bit of the video I watched was transwomen whining about themselves..no empathy for women who have lost their jobs, their places on podiums, been driven out of the political party they supported, been put at risk in prisons, in refuges, they are making it all about bathrooms....

[Jessica.]

Very true, all I saw from the little bit of the video I watched was transwomen whining about themselves..no empathy for women who have lost their jobs, their places on podiums, been driven out of the political party they supported, been put at risk in prisons, in refuges, they are making it all about bathrooms....

Where's the empathy for the trans people losing rights, taking their own lives, being abused, being molested, being murdered. The ones who don't know how they'll go on after this law has been passed? What refuge will they feel safe in?

[Cherie]

Where's the empathy for the trans people losing rights, taking their own lives, being abused, being molested, being murdered. The ones who don't know how they'll go on after this law has been passed? What refuge will they feel safe in?

What rights have they lost exactly? trans rights have been upheld under the lastest ruling, instead of piggy backing on womens rights they should have been fighting for their own safe spaces no? particularly when it was clear predatory MEN were using self ID to invade womens spaces, but no they would not listen, they covered their ears when women were highlighting the obvious loopholes with self ID, of course self ID made their lives easier but it also made predators lives easier, instead of aligning themselves with women who they profess to be, they aligned themselves with predatory MEN who took advantage of self ID, they took the easy option because they were part of the cool crowd, they had politicians, actors, alot of celebrity backers who are all are beginning to look a bit foolish now and are starting to backtrack....sorry no sympathy...they profess to be women but threw women under the bus for their own gain but sadly that has now backfired...no sympathy all all I am afraid

[Maru]

Where's the empathy for the trans people losing rights, taking their own lives, being abused, being molested, being murdered. The ones who don't know how they'll go on after this law has been passed? What refuge will they feel safe in?

You've made it sound like they're living in war conditions. The law is not a fun fun toy to just apply labels haphazardly without giving any sound thought as to what processes that would have to entail for that to reasonably apply to every scenario across society.

The problem there is we already have seen how that plays out in incarceration setting with self-ID, which is practically de facto without the spirit of laws (due to legal liability concerns which governs most policies in "empathy"-backed governing). Just as mental health is being accommodated at every step even when it is obviously an abuse of the system.

When a system tries to accommodate too much, it slows things down, denies the most vulnerable people who don't have access to good doctors or lawyers access to needed services here in the States because of all the false claims. It's become a huge problem in incarceration settings where people are being held for really long periods of time in deplorable conditions hoping to get paperwork through to get into a facility, largely due to lack of space. When there is no space, new rules are invented out of thin air under the guise of "empathy" to suddenly dump hundreds of mentally ill and even potentially dangerous back out onto the street because there's just no way to accommodate them. The system can only work so fast.

Do we really need to tie up the courts with more additional nonsense because Jerry thinks wearing a dress and someone making fun of how he looks is akin to rights being violated? There has to be a point where reasonable lines have to be drawn and people learn to self-manage. And in an era where people don't really agree on very much, at least we can agree on what is biology. Otherwise we can't function even basic services without rampant abuse without standards becoming so unreasonable that nobody can reasonably apply them without lawyers or judges having to be involved at every step. This dream world where all things can magically come together and be accommodated at the same time without very significant drawbacks doesn't exist. Government knows this, but continues to sell people on that false dream because it expands their hold on power. This is one of the primary reasons why mental health is so jacked up in the States and has gone nearly for profit. It's also why we are seeing many major rollbacks on these policies now because people are starting to realize they've been lied to about the availability and ability to reallocate resources.

People using labels and classification systems to their advantage themselves with extra perks happens all the time, every single day, every minute. Our culture at this point does very little to penalize this, so there's no reason to pretend that this attitude is very occasional. Just take a brief look at any social service that offers an easy, obstacle-free application process.

What's also normal in a setting where victims are common are perverts and predators. They particularly love getting into the mental health areas where vulnerable people are housed because of 1) perks, 2) easier access to victims and their resources so they can to exploit. When a non-verbal family member ends up raped in the corner out of camera view not able to defend themselves it's because every doctor in that facility has been told if they don't pass that individual through the checks without adequate enough proof to keep them out (good luck), they're out of a job. I know it happens because my husband used to have to do the paperwork and take the statements to get people like that out regularly. Incarcerations is packed with this abuse because we are throwing entire populations of society's most troubled individuals sometimes, which by most people's descriptions includes trans folk (even yours, apparently), into the same bucket and expecting that this will all just work out fine because either the system shows "empathy" or all those folk who just want to do their part are out of a job.

A vast majority of people are not trying to put trans-people into harsher situations if they can help it. If anything, common sense people want to prevent that plight from expanding. But the activists don't really care about the above because they're far more concerned with breaking the system further with more random experiments (usually incarcerated are the first...because "gotta help trans people or else", all because it is keeping them and their interests advantaged. Making a country a bigger hellhole for all people to live in just to a few more feel more accommodated is not real empathy in my book. And from experience, most activists are assholes not really caring about the end result of the damage being done, but rather they're more interested in making sure everyone in whose hand is in the pot is getting some credit for it. There's a reason that their behavioral habit is to become incredibly hostile or thin-skinned when their credibility and intentions comes under even minor question. Many more people work in social services or other needed facilities without major complaint but will tend to take the blame and be forced to put up with all kinds of scrutiny just for simply existing and doing their job, just as a comparison to supposed "activism".

Nobody wants to be on the "wrong" side and be part of doing more evil. Obviously, it's the opposite or so many services or parts of governing would not have gotten as bad as they have in the past few decades.

[Cherie]

You've made it sound like they're living in war conditions. The law is not a fun fun toy to just apply labels haphazardly without giving any sound thought as to what processes that would have to entail for that to reasonably apply to every scenario across society.

The problem there is we already have seen how that plays out in incarceration setting with self-ID, which is practically de facto without the spirit of laws (due to legal liability concerns which governs most policies in "empathy"-backed governing). Just as mental health is being accommodated at every step even when it is obviously an abuse of the system.

When a system tries to accommodate too much, it slows things down, denies the most vulnerable people who don't have access to good doctors or lawyers access to needed services here in the States because of all the false claims. It's become a huge problem in incarceration settings where people are being held for really long periods of time in deplorable conditions hoping to get paperwork through to get into a facility, largely due to lack of space. When there is no space, new rules are invented out of thin air under the guise of "empathy" to suddenly dump hundreds of mentally ill and even potentially dangerous back out onto the street because there's just no way to accommodate them. The system can only work so fast.

Do we really need to tie up the courts with more additional nonsense because Jerry thinks wearing a dress and someone making fun of how he looks is akin to rights being violated? There has to be a point where reasonable lines have to be drawn and people learn to self-manage. And in an era where people don't really agree on very much, at least we can agree on what is biology. Otherwise we can't function even basic services without rampant abuse without standards becoming so unreasonable that nobody can reasonably apply them without lawyers or judges having to be involved at every step. This dream world where all things can magically come together and be accommodated at the same time without very significant drawbacks doesn't exist. Government knows this, but continues to sell people on that false dream because it expands their hold on power. This is one of the primary reasons why mental health is so jacked up in the States and has gone nearly for profit. It's also why we are seeing many major rollbacks on these policies now because people are starting to realize they've been lied to about the availability and ability to reallocate resources.

People using labels and classification systems to their advantage themselves with extra perks happens all the time, every single day, every minute. Our culture at this point does very little to penalize this, so there's no reason to pretend that this attitude is very occasional. Just take a brief look at any social service that offers an easy, obstacle-free application process.

What's also normal in a setting where victims are common are perverts and predators. They particularly love getting into the mental health areas where vulnerable people are housed because of 1) perks, 2) easier access to victims and their resources so they can to exploit. When a non-verbal family member ends up raped in the corner out of camera view not able to defend themselves it's because every doctor in that facility has been told if they don't pass that individual through the checks without adequate enough proof to keep them out (good luck), they're out of a job. I know it happens because my husband used to have to do the paperwork and take the statements to get people like that out regularly. Incarcerations is packed with this abuse because we are throwing entire populations of society's most troubled individuals sometimes, which by most people's descriptions includes trans folk (even yours, apparently), into the same bucket and expecting that this will all just work out fine because either the system shows "empathy" or all those folk who just want to do their part are out of a job.

A vast majority of people are not trying to put trans-people into harsher situations if they can help it. If anything, common sense people want to prevent that plight from expanding. But the activists don't really care about the above because they're far more concerned with breaking the system further with more random experiments (usually incarcerated are the first...because "gotta help trans people or else", all because it is keeping them and their interests advantaged. Making a country a bigger hellhole for all people to live in just to a few more feel more accommodated is not real empathy in my book. And from experience, most activists are assholes not really caring about the end result of the damage being done, but rather they're more interested in making sure everyone in whose hand is in the pot is getting some credit for it. There's a reason that their behavioral habit is to become incredibly hostile or thin-skinned when their credibility and intentions comes under even minor question. Many more people work in social services or other needed facilities without major complaint but will tend to take the blame and be forced to put up with all kinds of scrutiny just for simply existing and doing their job, just as a comparison to supposed "activism".

Nobody wants to be on the "wrong" side and be part of doing more evil. Obviously, it's the opposite or so many services or parts of governing would not have gotten as bad as they have in the past few decades.

Great post Maru