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

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

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

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..

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/standar...5671c.jpg.webp

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/standar...35a35.jpg.webp

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.

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

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.

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?

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’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?

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 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.

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.

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

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.

What biological differences? Ugh. No.

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.


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.

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.

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.