[BBXX]

Originally Posted by bots

All it requires is social norms to be returned to what they were 20 years ago, before the world turned to ****

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

[Father Chris Mouse]

Originally Posted by BBXX

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

I don't think anybody is saying that.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Originally Posted by Swan

I don't think anybody is saying that.

Nope

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

So no blood donation from gay men? No 2007 Equality Act? No adoption for same sex couples in Scotland? No gay marriage? No strides towards legislations to ban conversion therapy?

Sorry, did we ask for too much with the above? Yikes!

On reflection I think "20 years ago" is extreme, the issues really weren't apparent until maybe only 5-7 years ago, when there started being an expectation of "unquestioning self-ID" and established gender ideology being completely rewritten. That's not to say that everything was perfect - just that the direction that was taken at that point was, ultimately, detrimental. There's no real argument that it wasn't to everyone's detriment. Where we are now is awful, precarious and (socially) yes I would say worse than 20 years ago.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Swan

I don't think anybody is saying that.

Returning to "the societal norms of 20 years ago" would remove a lot of advances that came about in the last 20 years. These advances are achieved through societal pressure and change in societal attitudes.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Author Andrew Doyle:

If any proof were needed of the power accumulated by activists, consider how
many companies and institutions have claimed they’ll ignore the Supreme Court
ruling on sex in the Equality Act.

Such is their narcissism and entitlement that they genuinely think they’re above
the law.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

The Times Newspaper Poll:

The sad unelectable Greens are backing the 4%

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

On reflection I think "20 years ago" is extreme, the issues really weren't apparent until maybe only 5-7 years ago, when there started being an expectation of "unquestioning self-ID" and established gender ideology being completely rewritten. That's not to say that everything was perfect - just that the direction that was taken at that point was, ultimately, detrimental. There's no real argument that it wasn't to everyone's detriment. Where we are now is awful, precarious and (socially) yes I would say worse than 20 years ago.

I think there is merit to say society as a whole is more at war with one another than 20 years ago and that does come from both sides of the political spectrum - anger and vengeance from the left and scaremongering and facism from the right. Most people however sit somewhere in the centre - left or right of it - and get on just fine with those around them.

I think social media makes things worse and emboldens everyone from all sides, however I think that extreme rhetoric is not present with most day-to-day in real life.


However, from a LGBT perspective, things are better than 20 years ago when we weren't able to adopt or marry or give blood.

However that is not to say I think tides aren't turning. I do think there are, from certain corners, of as you mentioned above, perceptions that LGBT people have "asked for too much", but the very notion of that being a legitimate concern is gross. The world is not straight people's to govern and decide how much rope they give us.

They don't get to throw down a ladder and expect LGBT people to stay on the 2nd step while they stand on the 4th, and then cry when we also want to be on the fourth alongside them.

[Parmy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Stop being so dramatic, I heard a transwoman yesterday say she was going to continue to use the ladies...pretty sure transmen will do the same with the mens, if they ever used them, because honestly that must the be worse part of being a man ...using the mens

Truth can be dramatic sometimes for you, I get that!


But if they are found in the wrong toilets they will be going on the sex register if it's a repeat offence, Mark my words.

This isn't a simple fix. People are forgetting the flip side of this andate forgetting the women who id as men, or perhaps not bothered as much about them as they do your day to day woman...perhaps they see them as freaks or something, I dunno

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I think there is merit to say society as a whole is more at war with one another than 20 years ago and that does come from both sides of the political spectrum - anger and vengeance from the left and scaremongering and facism from the right. Most people however sit somewhere in the centre - left or right of it - and get on just fine with those around them.

I think social media makes things worse and emboldens everyone from all sides, however I think that extreme rhetoric is not present with most day-to-day in real life.


However, from a LGBT perspective, things are better than 20 years ago when we weren't able to adopt or marry or give blood.

However that is not to say I think tides aren't turning. I do think there are, from certain corners, of as you mentioned above, perceptions that LGBT people have "asked for too much", but the very notion of that being a legitimate concern is gross. The world is not straight people's to govern and decide how much rope they give us.

They don't get to throw down a ladder and expect LGBT people to stay on the 2nd step while they stand on the 4th, and then cry when we also want to be on the fourth alongside them.

I agree in principle other than when the things that are being requested have safeguarding implications (which there have been) or when what's being demanded is a limitation or ending of open academic discourse (which has happened)... and I also object to the frequent gaslighting that those things have NOT happened. Anyone in even vague proximity to the psychology/sociology surrounding this knows it's a dumpster fire.

I'm genuinely all for people living the life they want to live as far as is possible, but individual "I feels" will never take precedence over robust academic evidence... And that's part of what people want.

[bots]

Laws are really created around the paths of least friction in society. The moment other considerations are brought into it, there is always trouble. What we have these days is an abundance of considerations created by all sorts of conflicting pressure groups. It never works out well

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

I agree in principle other than when the things that are being requested have safeguarding implications (which there have been) or when what's being demanded is a limitation or ending of open academic discourse (which has happened)... and I also object to the frequent gaslighting that those things have NOT happened. Anyone in even vague proximity to the psychology/sociology surrounding this knows it's a dumpster fire.

I'm genuinely all for people living the life they want to live as far as is possible, but individual "I feels" will never take precedence over robust academic evidence... And that's part of what people want.

I understand that but it would be interesting to know specifically which safeguarding issues you think the equal rights (ie: to exist alongside straight people) of LGBT people have caused?

And equally which academic evidence is being ended in lieu of demands (and which demands). Without specifics I can’t really give any truthful reply in agreement or otherwise.

I can make assumptions of what I think you mean based on previous discourse in this thread but that isn’t helpful

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

I understand that but it would be interesting to know specifically which safeguarding issues you think the equal rights (ie: to exist alongside straight people) of LGBT people have caused?

And equally which academic evidence is being ended in lieu of demands (and which demands). Without specifics I can’t really give any truthful reply in agreement or otherwise.

I can make assumptions of what I think you mean based on previous discourse in this thread but that isn’t helpful

They are part and parcel of the same issue - I know (not know of, personally know) some highly regarded academics who have been unable to write, or at the very least unable to openly publish, sociology and research papers on gender-related issues due to being harassed, doxxed and threatened for any hint of engaging in good faith gender study, rather than default gender acceptance.

If the research is vetoed before it can even begin and yet space-access is demanded, then safeguarding concerns can't even begin to be addressed. The argument is then that "there is no evidence of..." which is an entirely meaningless statement when people trying to discover the evidence either way are doxxed and threatened into submission before they can complete the research. That is, of course, the intention.

For the most part there are a few overzealous organisations that were originally at the root of it all. Stonewall, Mermaids, et al. But it quickly became the accepted rhetoric, and the eventual (inevitable) backlash has been catastrophic for the entire LGBT community.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Jessica.

What about all the female teachers in the UK who've abused young boy pupils? I've seen many a headline about that over the course of my life. It does happen way more than you think but the victims are way less likely to report the woman who violated them.

I should've clarified about meaning adult men are less likely to be sexually assaulted by women.

Granted you've definitely made an interesting point that I know that even South Park covered a few Seasons ago about female Teachers and Paedophilia.

And from my personal point of view I'm not personally that invested either way about if Transwomen use the women's bathroom or not.

I am personally happy that some Sports have tried to separate Transwomen from competing in women's Sports, because I do feel like there is a biological advantage there, and that women are having opportunities taken away from them, which I think is especially bad in cases where the female version of the Sport has only just started becoming more mainstream.

I personally in an ideal world would like to see Transwomen versions of these Sports, so that they can also compete in a fair competition with less judgment being flung their way.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

It does happen but it's waaaaayyy less common than the other way around, even accounting for cases that aren't officially reported. You're potentially over-estimating the percentage of male-abuser cases that are reported. Most of those are, sadly, unreported too - or only reported historically when the woman reaches adulthood (very unlikely to result in charges, or often reported after the abuser has died).

Fair point.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Niamh.

Yeah, I agree, although you men are filthy beggers in public toilets, womens public toilets are usually pretty clean, Gav tells me the mens are usually minging

Gav is not wrong.

[Merry Mockmas]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

One of the first places I worked had to have Ł15000 of work done because when they went to replace the flooring in the men's toilets, they discovered that the floorboards themselves were so soaked in piss that the entire room had to be pulled out and rebuilt from the ground up.

That's how bad some men's toilets are

Yuck!

I remember going into a men's Bathroom in Burger King once, and there was no Toilet roll in any of the cubicles.

And yes I checked them all as nobody else was in there at the time.

I was only about 10 years old at the time, mortifying doesn't even begin to describe it.

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

[Zizu]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

Interesting

Wasn’t Chelsea’s star striker a bloke ?

I saw her/him/them racing through the opposition defence a few weeks ago with players bouncing off her /him left , right and centre backs !

They looked around 6’ and walked like a docker

[bots]

my cousin was over 6ft tall and she used to arm wrestle with men down the pub. Women come in all shapes and sizes, just like men do

[Christmas Dynasnow]

Currently the English FA do allow male sex trangender women to play against women but Id imagine this will now change

[bots]

contracts etc will be allowed to expire so i wouldn't expect immediate changes

[Cherry Christmas]

Originally Posted by Crimson Dynamo

Scottish Football Association set to ban "transgender women" competing in
women's football

The move comes after the UK Supreme Court announced that the Equality Act's
definition of a woman is based on biological sex.

It means that from next season, only those born biologically female will be allowed to take part in competitive matches in the women's game in Scotland. (madness it ever was tbh)

The BBC reports that the new policy will apply to all competitive football in
Scotland, including the grassroots game from under-13s and over.

The bathroom law...

[Livia]

Trans women banned by the FA from the women's game from 1st May. Finally, common sense prevails.

[ChristmasNeeve]

This is a good article

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...A8rxPFvTVH6JhA

Stonewall’s policy of ‘no debate’ on trans rights was a mistake
The LGBTQ+ rights charity’s former head Ben Summerskill and the parent of a trans-identifying young person respond to coverage of the recent supreme court ruling

Both Gaby Hinsliff, in her typically thoughtful piece (If Britain is now resetting the clock on trans rights, where will that leave us?, 18 April), and your correspondent who says “All sensible, two-way discussion of this topic has been prevented” (Letters, 22 April) highlight the risks that both trans people and many other individuals and organisations face from continuing uncertainty over an important area of public policy.

Sadly, a significant contribution to the prevention of sensible, two-way discussion of this sensitive issue was Stonewall’s 2015 decision to adopt an approach of “no debate” – online, on public platforms and in the broadcast media. This has now had huge reputational and financial consequences for the charity, where dozens of staff have since faced redundancy.

A core message for charities and all advocates for social justice from this regrettable situation might be that campaigning by diktat rather than persuasion is very rarely successful. Winning folk over to your position while recognising and addressing their anxieties, while very hard work, is usually a better way of securing legislative and social progress that can be embedded and lasts. If you decline even to enter a debate, you rarely win it.
Ben Summerskill
Chief executive, Stonewall, 2003-14

I am the parent of a trans-identified young person who has nuanced views of the debate on sex and gender (Editorial, 23 April). The reason the supreme court ruling feels like such a threat to the trans community is because for the last decade activists have misled them about the existing law, staked everything on the complete erasure of sex as a meaningful category in society, and framed any dissent as bigotry, transphobia or worse.

It has been catastrophic for a generation of trans-identified youth to have been misled into thinking that their wellbeing is dependent on everyone in society colluding in a pretence that biological sex can simply be overridden by gender identity, irrespective of context. The consequences are all too apparent in the distressed response to what is a compassionate legal ruling that balances the rights of trans people (under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment) while identifying the specific contexts where sex will be relevant too.