[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

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]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

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]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

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]

Originally Posted by Maru

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

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by 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?

The answer to your question is no.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No he flip flops more than Nicky

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

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 think it's going to be hard for almost anyone to be like Laurence Fox.

That man is nearly as bad as Andrew Tate imo.

[Niamh.]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Great post Maru

Yep, well said @Maru

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I think it's going to be hard for almost anyone to be like Laurence Fox.

That man is nearly as bad as Andrew Tate imo.

I don't know if he's as bad as Tate because he isn't an actual pimp/sex trafficker, but the really amazing talent he has, is that he's managed to be just as gross and unappealing a human being as Tate without doing those things. He's just so... snivelling...

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

I don't know if he's as bad as Tate because he isn't an actual pimp/sex trafficker, but the really amazing talent he has, is that he's managed to be just as gross and unappealing a human being as Tate without doing those things. He's just so... snivelling...

You've definitely hit the nail on the head.

He is so effortless at being gross.

[arista]

[Vicky.]

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...court-judgment

For anyone interested

[user104658]

The "trans men (biological women) shouldn't use male toilets" conundrum is a major, major stumbling block I cannot even fathom what the solution there is going to be. Literally any bloke could walk into a women's changing room claiming that they are a trans man and I can't see how anyone could prove one way or the other without peeking their genitals.

Being blunt; more often than not, you can tell when a trans woman is trans. People are polite and claim otherwise but most are not entirely "passing".

But testosterone therapies have a HUGE effect on biological women and trans men can easily look 100% male, if often on the short side, but we can't go assuming that all short kings are actually biologically female.

I dunno how that's going to be solved.

Honestly I think the simplest safeguarding solution would be to say that biological men can't use women's spaces, but biological women can use men's spaces if they choose to. Trans men should, if they choose to, still use men's toilets.

That would be a nightmare (or basically impossible) to write into any coherent law though.

[user104658]

I'd go as far as to say that the situation with public spaces is now actually worse.

Its not an issue with shelters/sports/anything where actual identity will be known, but open public spaces? Situation is currently broken. Oop.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

The "trans men (biological women) shouldn't use male toilets" conundrum is a major, major stumbling block I cannot even fathom what the solution there is going to be. Literally any bloke could walk into a women's changing room claiming that they are a trans man and I can't see how anyone could prove one way or the other without peeking their genitals.

Being blunt; more often than not, you can tell when a trans woman is trans. People are polite and claim otherwise but most are not entirely "passing".

But testosterone therapies have a HUGE effect on biological women and trans men can easily look 100% male, if often on the short side, but we can't go assuming that all short kings are actually biologically female.

I dunno how that's going to be solved.

Honestly I think the simplest safeguarding solution would be to say that biological men can't use women's spaces, but biological women can use men's spaces if they choose to. Trans men should, if they choose to, still use men's toilets.

That would be a nightmare (or basically impossible) to write into any coherent law though.

There is no conundrum, most restaurants, bars etc have a 3rd space or if they can provide a lockable cubicle then there is no issue, honestly this is not the big deal it is made out to be, heard a transwoman on the radio this moring saying people would gather outside ladies toilets to assault transwomen, literal scaremongering AND might I add this lady said she was going to continue to use the ladies facilities, which I dont mind as long as there is common sense involved, I do not want to see an obvious man in a dress in female spaces, this will also make it much clearer for sporting bodies and for quotas on employing women

[Crimson Dynamo]

Community notes

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Community notes

Just sums up the contempt for female safeguarding, reducing it to be called 'a bathroom bill' I don't understand what is being said here, if they are not out to their colleagues and classmates, how would going into a bathroom they are supposed to use out them .. Not thought that one through

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

There is no conundrum, most restaurants, bars etc have a 3rd space or if they can provide a lockable cubicle then there is no issue, honestly this is not the big deal it is made out to be, heard a transwoman on the radio this moring saying people would gather outside ladies toilets to assault transwomen, literal scaremongering AND might I add this lady said she was going to continue to use the ladies facilities, which I dont mind as long as there is common sense involved, I do not want to see an obvious man in a dress in female spaces, this will also make it much clearer for sporting bodies and for quotas on employing women

No, I'm saying how do you stop a predatory male from pretending to be a trans man (biological female) in order to enter women's bathrooms, when it's been legislated that bathroom use is biological sex. I honestly feel like it's part of the equation that's been overlooked with the focus being on predatory men pretending to be trans women to get to women... we do now have an issue where predatory men can pretend to be trans men (people who look like men can claim they were born female) to access women's toilets.

I'm not talking about the people who will voluntarily use the correct spaces I'm talking about the ones who will exploit the ability not to.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Just sums up the contempt for female safeguarding, reducing it to be called 'a bathroom bill' I don't understand what is being said here, if they are not out to their colleagues and classmates, how would going into a bathroom they are supposed to use out them .. Not thought that one through

They are saying if they're living life as a trans woman, and haven't told their colleagues they were born a man, they either now have to use the mans toilet which effectively outs them or break the law and use the women's.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

They are saying if they're living life as a trans woman, and haven't told their colleagues they were born a man, they either now have to use the mans toilet which effectively outs them or break the law and use the women's.

BBXX I genuinely don't mean this in an offensive way, just a realistic/pragmatic/honest way...

Very, very few trans women are actually passing. Often, in polite society, people will pretend it to be the case, but it just isn't. Most individuals who have been through male puberty simply don't convincingly pass as women.

Testosterone has a huge effect on body development which is why the opposite problem I posed above is true - when a biological female has been on testosterone for a few years they will become very masculine and many will convincingly pass as male. It's also why it's very difficult for trans men to detransition (after a few years of T they will ALWAYS look masculine).

There are some obvious biological reasons for this. Male hormones have a huge transformative effect t on the human body in a way that female hormones (or removal of male hormones) does not.

But yeah. Tl;Dr there are going to be very few situations where a trans person is "outed" as trans to their coworkers because of this.

There are definitely plenty of other human moral/ethical concerns but I don't think this is one.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

BBXX I genuinely don't mean this in an offensive way, just a realistic/pragmatic/honest way...

Very, very few trans women are actually passing. Often, in polite society, people will pretend it to be the case, but it just isn't. Most individuals who have been through male puberty simply don't convincingly pass as women.

Testosterone has a huge effect on body development which is why the opposite problem I posed above is true - when a biological female has been on testosterone for a few years they will become very masculine and many will convincingly pass as male. It's also why it's very difficult for trans men to detransition (after a few years of T they will ALWAYS look masculine).

There are some obvious biological reasons for this. Male hormones have a huge transformative effect t on the human body in a way that female hormones (or removal of male hormones) does not.

But yeah. Tl;Dr there are going to be very few situations where a trans person is "outed" as trans to their coworkers because of this.

There are definitely plenty of other human moral/ethical concerns but I don't think this is one.

I was just explaining what they meant by what they said. It will affect trans men more than trans women, but I don't want to get into the debate side of things again as I've said all I really need to without repeating myself, I just wanted to clarify what that person meant that's all.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I was just explaining what they meant by what they said. It will affect trans men more than trans women, but I don't want to get into the debate side of things again as I've said all I really need to without repeating myself, I just wanted to clarify what that person meant that's all.

"but I don't want to get into the debate side of things again "

that seems rather convenient in this section of the site

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

"but I don't want to get into the debate side of things again "

that seems rather convenient in this section of the site

To be fair to BBXX if they have nothing new to add then rereading old ground can be a waste of time, most of us could learn to do that more. Not me but others definitely.

Although...

If we were afraid to retread well worn paths this section would be completely dead.