Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720418)

Corbyn is an odd one. He says there is a need for female only carriages on trains. But he also thinks its fine for any man to say he is a woman. Where do those views held simultaneously make any sense?

Problem if, both main parties support this regressive anti-woman bull****. As do the greens. Not sure on the Lib Dem view...but I suppose its the same as Labour. There is NO party willing to stand up for women (the kind without penises). I find that really sad.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9720466)

Sad and bizarre! Across the globe women make up approximately 50% (just over I think) of the worldwide population so why has it , and why is it still, proving to be such a slog to get our views and opinions listened to and treated with the respect they are entitled to even from other women in power. Again probably social conditioning raising its ugly head from the ashes of so-called equality. We still seem to have to fight for everything.

Most women do NOT want men who have allegedly self-identified as women lurking around their bathrooms and that view should be respected and acted on. There are a lot of serious male predators out there and no-one, including Corbyn, has the right to expose any girl/woman to that.

At best he clearly lacks any real understanding of the potential risks and undervalues our opinions, certainly in comparison to minority groups, his speciality, and his only concern it seems. Do only minority gro7os matter to him or are they the headline catchers.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720475)

Jess Phillips recently said that it was not unreasonable to expect the government to actually consult with womens rights groups on this issue. And was immediately bombarded with death threats, and cries of 'terf' and transphobe... Just for saying women should get a say in stuff that will affect them...

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720475)

Women are not even being consulted. Any woman who objects is immediately a 'transphobe'. Only trans groups have been advising the government on this issue. And trans groups certainly do not give a crap about women. They only care about the 'women' who were born with dicks. Its such a sad state of affairs.

Jess Phillips recently said that it was not unreasonable to expect the government to actually consult with womens rights groups on this issue. And was immediately bombarded with death threats, and cries of 'terf' and transphobe... Just for saying women should get a say in stuff that will affect them...

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720451)

To simplify this though;

You state an opinion. I state a counter opinion; this is debate and discussion. You now try to shut that counter opinion down by bleating "Mansplaining", in an attempt to negate it and leave only your original opinion.

This is soapboxing.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720462)

Definitely. I would say giving puberty blockers is actually child abuse. There is a huge scandal in America of people given Lupron (the chemotherapy drug used to halt puberty) who have gone onto have lifelong medical problems off it, and this is fully grown women who were given it for only a few months. The effects on a childs body who has been given it for years is...awful to think about really.

Watchful waiting, is clearly the way to go with kids. Not drugging them up to the eyeballs just because they don't follow bloody stereotypes. I mean, there are parents saying their bloody 3 year olds are trans now. Its just silly.

Its a sad statistic really, but when non-conforming kids are just left alone to develop (with counseling and such) 80-95% (depending where you look) of them effectively 'grow out' of their questioning. But when they are put onto blockers, near 100% go onto cross sex hormones. So blockers are NOT simply 'to give them time to figure it out'. Putting them on blockers is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, the 5-20% of kids who do not grow out of it may benefit from blockers. But there is no way to tell which actually will grow up to be trans and which won't. I don;t feel its right to effectively throw 80% of kids under the bus to benefit the 20%. Watchful waiting is clearly the answer. If they still feel 'wrong' when they are adults, THEN drug them up and give them plastic surgeries to resemble to opposite sex.

Though, transition is made out to be the 'wonder cure' for trans people. When studies actually show that 5-10 years 'post transition' the suicide rate actually is higher than before any transition...something to think about really. I really do feel that 'transition' is not that different to giving someone with BDD a boob job, or cutting off a 'transabled' persons leg. Treating the illness but not the cause, in a way. Bandaid on a broken leg.

If it helps an individual person, great. Good for them. But much much more investigation and study needs to go into the whole thing. There was a guy..James Caspian..has worked with trans people most of his life and wanted to do a study on 'detransitioned' people. And was blocked from doing that study as the University he worked for were afraid of the response from transactivists, they were afraid of being labelled transphobic. Why would they be afraid of more study being done on people this affects?

Definitely more work needs to be done about how best to support these people.

I actually think with this 'transkids' thing there is going to be a massive backlash in 10 years or so. When these kids grow up and realise they were effective experimented on and that the people who should be looking out for their best interests, did not do that. Its similar to lobotomies in a way...the 'wonder cure. Which is anything but. I am worried that the backlash will be the end of the NHS, as the NHS encourage all of this, they signpost people to 'mermaids' (which is a pressure group, noone should be sent to them, they are horrendous). People trust the NHS. People think the NHS will always have their kids best interests. The NHS certainly do not have the kids best interests in this :S

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720493)

Thats how these things work now, haven't you heard? Made up buzzwords and mantras are the atom bombs of debate. "Terf!", "Lefty Liberal!", "Remoaner!"... *ahem*... "Mansplaining!"

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza (Post 9720495)

You don't , you begin with 'no' suggesting I'm in the wrong... have you never noticed that? I'm not getting into any tit for tat argument with you, I had no idea that using that word would unleash a torrent of pent up aggression so best leave it eh?

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720487)

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza (Post 9720497)

The conspiracy theorist in me would say it was to stop anyone 'gender confused' from reproducing :/

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720487)

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720514)

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720507)

Indeed. personally my view is someone who is actually transsexual using the areas associated with the sex they wish to be is fine. But I don't think this should extend to male bodied people who are simply crossdressers or who do not actually have sex dysphoria. I am fully for 'trans rights' when 'trans' means transsexual, not any bloke who says he is a woman one day. 'Transgender' and 'transsexual' are two very different things.

And yes, there is something sinister about the current transactivist agenda. Honestly, todays transactivists have so much in common with MRAs (the problematic ones...not people actually concerned about the rights of men..there is a difference) that its impossible to ignore.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720514)

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720543)

Ironically, I think that one of the groups that all of this is MOST harmful to is actually transitioned / actively transitioning transsexuals. They are probably seen by one side as being supportive of all of it even if they aren't, and by the other as some sort of "traitor" if they have an opinion that deviates from the one that's prescribed. Can you imagine if a fully transitioned transexual responded to a "transwomen are women baaaah" mantra tweet with "Well, hold on a minute, I didn't consider myself a woman until after reassignment surgery"? They would be utterly slaughtered like some sort of defector.

Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 9720550)

I don't think transgender and transexual are that seperate. Crossdressing can be a very different thing (although even then there can be crossovers, some people begin by crossdressing without fully acknowledging their trans thoughts/repressing them, and then later transition. And then some people just enjoy crossdressing for reasons that having nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being trans). But with transgender/transexual sometimes the difference can just come down to a transgender person being denied surgical treatment (which does happen - I'm not sure how much though) or through fear of having such extreme surgeries. However much they might feel they are the opposite sex and want to change physically it's such an extreme and frightening thing that it's understandable why not all transgender people transition. Their actual attitudes and who they are inside is often the same as a transexual though. Obviously not always and a lot of transgender people don't want to transition, I'm just saying that isn't always the case.

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720567)

Strangely enough, my autistic 5 year old is VERY "girly" - mores than her older sister - and there's literally no way that it can be by anything other than nature. She's still mostly non-verbal and entirely demand avoidant (i.e. Stubborn as ****, she knows exactly what she wants and when and makes it very clear :joker: ). She simply adores anything girly / sparkly / dresses / princesses / my little pony etc and it's completely untaught. Her learning disability is such that it can ONLY be untaught. Which does make me think that there have to be inherent gender differences that have nothing to do with socialisation because, basically, until she started school she wasnt really socialised beyond a very basic level... And all of her classmates are mostly non-verbal, and she's the only girl. Still girly as they come :shrug:.

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720505)

What are you even talking about? Do you start a counter opinion by saying "you're totally right!" and then saying something that contradicts it? If you have a counter opinion to someone then of course you believe them to be in the wrong. The alternative is agreement. How bizarre.



No, it doesn't, it makes the woman exactly the same size and strength as before while the man remains stronger and heavier but incapacitated by drugs. I don't know if this is just down to you not actually understanding how date rape drugs work. They DON'T render the victim entirely unconscious, the man is still larger and heavier, and even if they did, how exactly would the woman heave the larger male away to assault him? Its simply not practical and the man being targeted is still a physical threat to the attacking woman. But I wouldn't want to Mansplain the effects of rohypnol to you.

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720567)

Strangely enough, my autistic 5 year old is VERY "girly" - mores than her older sister - and there's literally no way that it can be by anything other than nature. She's still mostly non-verbal and entirely demand avoidant (i.e. Stubborn as ****, she knows exactly what she wants and when and makes it very clear :joker: ). She simply adores anything girly / sparkly / dresses / princesses / my little pony etc and it's completely untaught. Her learning disability is such that it can ONLY be untaught. Which does make me think that there have to be inherent gender differences that have nothing to do with socialisation because, basically, until she started school she wasnt really socialised beyond a very basic level... And all of her classmates are mostly non-verbal, and she's the only girl. Still girly as they come :shrug:.

Originally Posted by Toy Santa (Post 9720487)

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720569)

'Transgender' is used for people who do not actually have sex dysphoria. How can anyone be trans without dysphoria? Transsexual are people with sex dysphoria. Its very different. 'Transgender' is about stereotypes. 'transsexual' is about an actual illness.

I imagine you have seen this before..but all of these people are classed as 'transgender'



Though a lot of transsexual people do not like being associated with the rest. But protesting earns them the 'truscum' label. According to this, I am actually trans, as I am 'agender' so do not have a 'gender identity' and also as I have a mix of stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine attributes. So I could go waltzing into the mens changing room to gawp at the penises, and I could cry 'transphobe' at anyone who objects. Its nonsense.

Originally Posted by Vicky. (Post 9720569)

But wanting the right to marry is not actually taking away the rights of anyone else. Where declaring men are actually women and as such can enter the female changing rooms or something, IS taking away the rights of women to sex segregated areas.

Religious crap is usually quite bonkers though. But this is actually about taking away the rights of 99.9% of the population. Removing the right to sex segregated areas for both males and females.

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza (Post 9720582)

You counter an argument, you can't counter an opinion....

Originally Posted by Jamie89 (Post 9720608)

A transexual has to go through hormone treatment and/or surgery to be considered transexual though do they not? Maybe I'm just overcomplicating things but I'm talking about transgender people who would otherwise be transexual, who are the same in every other way, but for various reasons can't or are afraid to have the treatments and surgeries.