[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Liam-

No, being a bigot = being a bigot, but you defending bigots in the name of ‘protecting women’ is nothing new

Personally I don't think that Niamh is Transphobic tbf.

Imo it's a tricky subject to solve without harming the rights of either group, imo everyone should be demanding that the Government comes up with a solution that pleases both sides rather than forcing either side to do something that most of them aren't comfortable doing.

And name calling isn't gonna help either I feel.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Personally I don't think that Niamh is Transphobic tbf.

Imo it's a tricky subject to solve without harming the rights of either group, imo everyone should be demanding that the Government comes up with a solution that pleases both sides rather than forcing either side to do something that most of them aren't comfortable doing.

And name calling isn't gonna help either I feel.

There is no way to please everyone, the only answer is ever compromise but unfortunately a large section of trans rights activism, and a section that's gaining significant traction with legislators and governments, simply won't accept that any compromise on this should never, ever, for any reason, place "individual comfort" or "desire for acceptance" above genuine physical safety concerns. That's the crux of what has women, IMO quite rightly, concerned about their rights and safety. The refusal to conceed that there IS a problem at all (and again I'll just say it; a rhetoric that comes prescribed straight from organisations like Stonewall) has inevitably lead to anger. It's gaslighting . Concerns that dangerous men will use new legislation to gain access to victims is met with "no never!" or at best "maybe but there's no proof of that". It's a flat out lie. They will, they do, they have.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

There is no way to please everyone, the only answer is ever compromise but unfortunately a large section of trans rights activism, and a section that's gaining significant traction with legislators and governments, simply won't accept that any compromise on this should never, ever, for any reason, place "individual comfort" or "desire for acceptance" above genuine physical safety concerns. That's the crux of what has women, IMO quite rightly, concerned about their rights and safety. The refusal to conceed that there IS a problem at all (and again I'll just say it; a rhetoric that comes prescribed straight from organisations like Stonewall) has inevitably lead to anger. It's gaslighting . Concerns that dangerous men will use new legislation to gain access to victims is met with "no never!" or at best "maybe but there's no proof of that". It's a flat out lie. They will, they do, they have.

I think that a middle ground approach needs to be taken.

Like in Sports for example why not have a third tier where Transwomen and Ciswomen (that are comfortable with taking on Transwomen in these events) take part, whilst the Ciswomen who aren't comfortable with taking on Transwomen in Sports still get to keep their version of the Sport.

When it comes to predators abusing the system with things like the Bathrooms etc I have no idea what should happen to try to solve that issue.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

I think that a middle ground approach needs to be taken.

Like in Sports for example why not have a third tier where Transwomen and Ciswomen (that are comfortable with taking on Transwomen in these events) take part, whilst the Ciswomen who aren't comfortable with taking on Transwomen in Sports still get to keep their version of the Sport.

When it comes to predators abusing the system with things like the Bathrooms etc I have no idea what should happen to try to solve that issue.

Nah sportspeople should just compete as their actual sex.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Nah sportspeople should just compete as their actual sex.

If you don't believe sportspeople should be put at a physical disadvantage (which I agree with), then sending trans people back to fight or run against men after taking estrogen is exactly what you're suggesting. The same way you want "women" loaded up with testosterone to go and fight other women. It's just nonsense.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

If you don't believe sportspeople should be put at a physical disadvantage (which I agree with), then sending trans people back to fight or run against men after taking estrogen is exactly what you're suggesting. The same way you want "women" loaded up with testosterone to go and fight other women. It's just nonsense.

Women who take performance-enhancing drugs are generally kicked out of sports anyway, so why should trans-identifying women be any different? I don't think men who deplete their own strength are penalised per say, but if they're damaging their own performance by altering their body chemistry, then it's their own fault if they can no longer make the cut.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Women who take performance-enhancing drugs are generally kicked out of sports anyway, so why should trans-identifying women be any different? I don't think men who deplete their own strength are penalised per say, but if they're damaging their own performance by altering their body chemistry, then it's their own fault if they can no longer make the cut.

It's not a performance-enhancing drug if a person is transitioning.

Ok so here's where I stand on this whole issue.

Firstly, Niamhs concerns are valid and understandable. I'm sympathetic to them myself, and actually believe a trans sports body will need to be formed so that everyone is on a level playing field.

However, trans people aren't going anywhere, a new bathroom category will not be created, and some tolerance is also going to be needed to ease integration.

There is no data to suggest that trans women are more likely to use access to historically trad spaces in order to commit sexual attacks. Women are still way more in danger from men they already have relationships with than anyone in a bathroom, and trans women are 4x more likely to be the victims of sexual violence or abuse.

These are the vulnerable people that folks insist should be using "male" bathrooms, because a trans woman in a mens bathroom would face absolutely no danger. And that's my whole issue really, that everything is looked at from the perspective of the status quo.

It should also be completely visible to anyone with a brain cell, that the folks women currently think are their allies in this area are anything but. The same tactics were used against gay people as they became more visible, with women being co-opted to protest about harm to the family, in order to provide cover for the biggots shouting fags and *****.

There are really complicated issues at play that go well beyond sports and bathrooms, so I'd personally question the motives of anyone that uses descriptors such as "bloke" and only wants to talk bathrooms and sports. Again, gay people in the dressing rooms/arses against the walls, lads, was even a thing when I was a kid, and probably still is today. It's exactly the same prejudice involved with ant-trans movements.