[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Cherie

what a bizarre comment to make, what does malicious compliance mean?

It means to toe the line to the point of awkwardness.

If a woman is now defined solely by her biological sexual characteristics, then people should expect to see bearded, muscular, testosterone-patch wearing trans men in women's spaces, for example.

[BBXX]

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

If the former, then you'll never ever see a trans person as separate from their biological make-up and so the idea of a trans person being in the same safe spaces as biological cis women is an issue, of course, because ultimately to you they are and always will be a man.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

Look, I think this all really boils down to whether you believe someone's gender is based off their biological reproductive organs and chromosomes, or if you believe gender is separate from sex and someone can be a woman regardless of what they have between their legs.

I disagree and 15+ years ago before people (intentionally) muddied the water good science and sociology also disagreed - it doesn't boil down to that at all, it boils down to the fact that sex (biological) and gender (social construct) are entirely different concepts and while you can argue that there's nothing inherent about sex and gender that mean they have to "match", it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

Gender as a concept and it's origins is a deep and fascinating subject, my honest and frank opinion is that a lot of transgender rhetoric massively oversimplifies it conceptually and also far too often conflates gender and sex, and that's been an increasing issue over the last decade/decade and a half.

[BBXX]

Originally Posted by Quantum Boy

...it's irrelevant to whether or not sex-separated spaces should have anything at all to do with gender, any more than they should relate to any other social construct.

But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?

In fact (this part is just opinion, I will admit) rigid social rules are the whole problem; "I seem to behave and exist in a more traditionally feminine way than masculine, I identify with and feel more like the females I encounter than the males, therefore I must also BE female". It's easy to see where the conclusion comes from but it's bullsh** - it's just that we live in a rigid-thinking society when it comes to male/female social expression and most people are inclined to adhere to social norms. We "expect" to see men "looking like men" and women "looking like women" and if someone doesn't stay in their lane then they "are the other" (trans) instead of just... still being the sex they are, yet still presenting however they like.

In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

[user104658]

Originally Posted by BBXX

But why? We're not talking about someone feeling more feminine here, we're talking about someone's brain telling them they're a female to the point they have gender-reaffirming surgery to match as closely as possible their body to the gender in which they believe themselves to be. Why is that not considered enough?

My personal opinion on this and practical/what I should think should happen opinion are slightly different. My personal opinion is that what you're talking about is meaningless; there is no such thing as "your brain telling that you are a ____" that isn't inherently linked to social construct and established societal norms. Again though that is a personal academic stance; I acknowledge that there are people who disagree, and that's an interesting discussion to have (academically), I will confess I have zero interest in that discussion when it comes from a "well that's just how some folks feel and that's that" perspective. If the world operated purely on "individual feeling" we'd be nowhere.

My practical/pragmatic opinion is that what you're talking about was never a problem; people who had actually hormonally/surgically tansitioned were using their bathroom of choice FOR DECADES without it becoming a political issue. Yes there will have been many, many bigots and people who took issue with it but, largely, there was no issue with for want of a better word "proven" transgender people using chosen bathrooms or changing spaces. This is where there is - and has to be, sensibly, for any reasonable person - a clear and distinct difference between someone who is or has medically transitioned, and someone who hasn't or has no intention of doing so using those spaces on the basis of self-ID because they're wearing a wig and a dress and "women have long hair and wear dresses, right?" -- it's nonsense, and no matter how rarely it happens, it does happen, and the failure to acknowledge that it is a different scenario is the sort of gaslighting that's led to the whole thing becoming a wider political issue... and THAT has ultimately led to where we are now: with people who are/have medically transitioned being caught between a rock and a hard place. "Stonewalling"/Stonewall itself and other similar rganised movements flew too close to the sun and have done damage that will take generations to repair. That's just where we are. It's done, it won't change, and it can't be rushed.

In essence I agree that gender social rules are restrictive and can be problematic - funnily enough these rules are largely reinforced by right-wingers who take issue with anything that isn't binary and straight - but I think you're verging a bit too close to trans-erasure in your comment by suggesting that if someone doesn't fit into a typical masculine box they are now saying they're trans, or being told they are.

Don't get me wrong, I am not disputing that will happen in rare cases, but by and large, stats show the detransition rate is extremely low and I think it's important we don't assume that's what's happening and undermine the validity of something someone is going through just because we think we know better (because as cis people we never will truly understand it).

I'm not talking about a conscious pushing or anyone being "told" anything, I'm talking about interwoven gendered social constructs that predate written history. Again a fascinating conversation to talk about where they come from, what the nature of human civilisation and socialisation is and its origins, what it "means" (if anything) beyond reproduction to be male or female ... but the current state of gender ideology even in academics is wafer thin, let alone in the vast majority of those trying to assess their own gender. Do I think most people who choose to transition have a deep philosophical understanding of gender? Do I think they've unpacked all of their social ideas of norms / traumas and biases or have any intention of doing so beyond base "feeling"? No. I don't. And everything about the situation backs that up. The clear rage/frustration at being questioned can only come from an anxiety at being unable to fully answer the question.

[Vicky.]

I agree gender and sex are different. I don't see why 'gender' should have any affect on sex segregated spaces.

[arista]

PM Starmer
has stated he welcomes the Judge's Judgment.

First clip seen

BBC2HD Politics Live
Start of the show

[arista]

The SNP are changing nothing,
typical of them.
The Scottish Conservatives wanted answers from them.
got nothing

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

The SNP are changing nothing,
typical of them.
The Scottish Conservatives wanted answers from them.
got nothing

So they are breaking the law?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Cherie

So they are breaking the law?

Is it a different law up there?

[bots]

Originally Posted by arista

Is it a different law up there?

Supreme court is for the UK, thats why the case was heard there rather than in Scotland

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by arista

Is it a different law up there?

No...the Court sat in Scotland

[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?

[Cherie]

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?

No he flip flops more than Nicky

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No he flip flops more than Nicky

To be fair Starmer is a letter of the law type, he'll go with the official legal ruling. Which I don't think is necessarily a bad thing for a politician. That's what they're supposed to do. They can disagree with laws and campaign to have them changed, but while a law is in place, politicians should follow them.

We're all a bit to used to the Trump era and politicians just totally disregarding court rulings I suppose.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by Cherie

No he flip flops more than Nicky

[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.

[arista]

"Does anyone now believe a word the prime minister says?"

Yes great point,
I assume it depends on the Wind blowing
directions

[arista]

Well the SNP are Crazy

[arista]

[arista]

[arista]

Good on Radio5 Live

Telling a Labour MP
that Starmer is a Coward (headline)


Starmer Kicked out Rosie Duffield MP
over this

[user104658]

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.

[Cherie]

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 guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I guess she has taken enough abuse and death threats to allow herself her moment?

It's not just the one moment and I'm not sure why that moment would be sitting with drink and cigar in hand, it's a slight right-wing dog whistle, like I said it's a bit Laurence Fox. I'm not saying she shouldn't have had her say or even gloated. The cigar is odd imagery.