[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Not sure if I should splice this thread and put the sexual assault part in another thread or not. Mind its all relative, I guess. The thread is now offtopic, but it makes sense how its got to here

It's distasteful how it has, as in the inference that letting transwomen in ladies loos might raise the risk of assault, you can't hide form the possibility that predators could go to those lengths :/

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

It's distasteful how it has, as in the inference that letting transwomen in ladies loos might raise the risk of assault, you can't hide form the possibility that predators could go to those lengths :/

But that is true. The amount of 'transwomen' (I say in brackets as its debateable if these people actually have sex dysphoria) who have been done for sexual assault/rape is ridiculous. In prisons, the amount of people who are 'trans' and done for sexual assault are far higher (percentage wise) than normal men who do it. Predators go to extraordinary lengths to gain access to their victims. Saying they are a woman in their head is nothing really.

The entire movement as it is now, is so detrimental to actual transsexual people. Its detrimental to them, and its also detrimental to women.

Also the only study done does show that even transwomen who are transitioning with hormones or more...retain 'male pattern violence'. Which makes perfect sense as they were on the whole, socialized as male.

Its awkward to talk about it sure. But its a talk that simply HAS to be had. And at the moment any discussion of it gets shut down with cries of 'transphobia'. For gods sake, even when transsexual people speak about it they are accused of being transphobes...

[Jamie89]

Saying things like 'not all men are like that' and 'women do it too' may be defensive but I don't think it's entirely unreasonable for someone to want to add it to the conversation. Nobody's actually denied that men commit the most sexual assaults, I don't think that's anyone's intention.
Tbf sometimes people do refer to 'all men' and lump us all together, not in this thread but generally speaking, it's kind of instinctive just to want to point out that that's not the case (maybe that's to do with our socialisation lol) even if it's not really necessary to do so. I don't think there's any bad intent with it or trying to take anything away from women or it even being because people feel insulted tbh.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Not sure if I should splice this thread and put the sexual assault part in another thread or not. Mind its all relative, I guess. The thread is now offtopic, but it makes sense how its got to here

I think that would be a really good idea there's obvious links but it's a different topic now and an interesting one that's worthy of its own discussion imo.

[Vicky.]

I can't find a place to splice to make the new thread make sense. If I just make another thread can discussion about this move to there maybe? Or continue here, whichever

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I can't find a place to splice to make the new thread make sense. If I just make another thread can discussion about this move to there maybe? Or continue here, whichever

I suppose it doesn't really matter. I just think if more news comes out about Lily and people want to add it this thread, or add something to this original discussion it would be a bit hard/messy? It's not important though if you can't

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I suppose it doesn't really matter. I just think if more news comes out about Lily and people want to add it this thread, or add something to this original discussion it would be a bit hard/messy? It's not important though if you can't

There will be more news about Lily. For sure. You know the list of people who are happy for a male person to be taking spaces on the jo cox women in leadership thing? Well the people who resigned on the CLP when Anne Ruzlo had to quit due to being harassed for 'transphobic views' (worrying about the impact on females) are currently gathering signatures to say its wrong. So this ****storm has not ended yet

I have no doubts though that Labour will stand by the ridiculous decision. There are many many people saying they will no longer vote Labour due to Labour clearly not giving a **** about women. This whole thing seems to be ensuring yet another Tory win.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...eadership?pg=1

200 people so far. Including me.

I would never vote Tory as they are evil. But I don't think I can vote for a party that has such misogynistic views either. And Corbyn fully supports this crap. Might have to spoil my next ballot as no party seems willing to stand up for the rights of women (or children, or gay people...with the 'transing' gender non-conforming kids scandal thats currently happening)

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

There will be more news about Lily. For sure. You know the list of people who are happy for a male person to be taking spaces on the jo cox women in leadership thing? Well the people who resigned on the CLP when Anne Ruzlo had to quit due to being harassed for 'transphobic views' (worrying about the impact on females) are currently gathering signatures to say its wrong. So this ****storm has not ended yet

I have no doubts though that Labour will stand by the ridiculous decision. There are many many people saying they will no longer vote Labour due to Labour clearly not giving a **** about women. This whole thing seems to be ensuring yet another Tory win.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...eadership?pg=1

200 people so far. Including me.

I would never vote Tory as they are evil. But I don't think I can vote for a party that has such misogynistic views either. And Corbyn fully supports this crap. Might have to spoil my next ballot as no party seems willing to stand up for the rights of women (or children, or gay people...with the 'transing' gender non-conforming kids scandal thats currently happening)

Corbyn supports a lot of dubious views in my opinion - hence why I have never liked or trusted the man. He says the right things when it suits.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Corbyn supports a lot of dubious views in my opinion - hence why I have never liked or trusted the man. He says the right things when it suits.

Corbyn is an odd one. He says there is a need for female only carriages on trains. But he also thinks its fine for any man to say he is a woman. Where do those views held simultaneously make any sense?

Problem if, both main parties support this regressive anti-woman bull****. As do the greens. Not sure on the Lib Dem view...but I suppose its the same as Labour. There is NO party willing to stand up for women (the kind without penises). I find that really sad.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

There will be more news about Lily. For sure. You know the list of people who are happy for a male person to be taking spaces on the jo cox women in leadership thing? Well the people who resigned on the CLP when Anne Ruzlo had to quit due to being harassed for 'transphobic views' (worrying about the impact on females) are currently gathering signatures to say its wrong. So this ****storm has not ended yet

I have no doubts though that Labour will stand by the ridiculous decision. There are many many people saying they will no longer vote Labour due to Labour clearly not giving a **** about women. This whole thing seems to be ensuring yet another Tory win.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...eadership?pg=1

200 people so far. Including me.

I would never vote Tory as they are evil. But I don't think I can vote for a party that has such misogynistic views either. And Corbyn fully supports this crap. Might have to spoil my next ballot as no party seems willing to stand up for the rights of women (or children, or gay people...with the 'transing' gender non-conforming kids scandal thats currently happening)

Is it technically off topic that you've brought this back on topic but yeah I agree it's not going to go away. Maybe in that case a new thread for all the other stuff would be best?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

There will be more news about Lily. For sure. You know the list of people who are happy for a male person to be taking spaces on the jo cox women in leadership thing? Well the people who resigned on the CLP when Anne Ruzlo had to quit due to being harassed for 'transphobic views' (worrying about the impact on females) are currently gathering signatures to say its wrong. So this ****storm has not ended yet

I have no doubts though that Labour will stand by the ridiculous decision. There are many many people saying they will no longer vote Labour due to Labour clearly not giving a **** about women. This whole thing seems to be ensuring yet another Tory win.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_...eadership?pg=1

200 people so far. Including me.

I would never vote Tory as they are evil. But I don't think I can vote for a party that has such misogynistic views either. And Corbyn fully supports this crap. Might have to spoil my next ballot as no party seems willing to stand up for the rights of women (or children, or gay people...with the 'transing' gender non-conforming kids scandal thats currently happening)

I would say that is my only worry that there is a danger of trying to be all things to all people, you are are at risk of alienating one group by supporting another. That is one topic trasnskids, I have done a 180 on, I was for the halting of puberty with drugs... and now I feel that counselling, support and peer mentoring is a better way.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

I would say that is my only worry that there is a danger of trying to be all things to all people, you are are at risk of alienating one group by supporting another. That is one topic trasnskids, I have done a 180 on, I was for the halting of puberty with drugs... and now I feel that counselling, support and peer mentoring is a better way.

Definitely. I would say giving puberty blockers is actually child abuse. There is a huge scandal in America of people given Lupron (the chemotherapy drug used to halt puberty) who have gone onto have lifelong medical problems off it, and this is fully grown women who were given it for only a few months. The effects on a childs body who has been given it for years is...awful to think about really.

Watchful waiting, is clearly the way to go with kids. Not drugging them up to the eyeballs just because they don't follow bloody stereotypes. I mean, there are parents saying their bloody 3 year olds are trans now. Its just silly.

Its a sad statistic really, but when non-conforming kids are just left alone to develop (with counseling and such) 80-95% (depending where you look) of them effectively 'grow out' of their questioning. But when they are put onto blockers, near 100% go onto cross sex hormones. So blockers are NOT simply 'to give them time to figure it out'. Putting them on blockers is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Yes, the 5-20% of kids who do not grow out of it may benefit from blockers. But there is no way to tell which actually will grow up to be trans and which won't. I don;t feel its right to effectively throw 80% of kids under the bus to benefit the 20%. Watchful waiting is clearly the answer. If they still feel 'wrong' when they are adults, THEN drug them up and give them plastic surgeries to resemble to opposite sex.

Though, transition is made out to be the 'wonder cure' for trans people. When studies actually show that 5-10 years 'post transition' the suicide rate actually is higher than before any transition...something to think about really. I really do feel that 'transition' is not that different to giving someone with BDD a boob job, or cutting off a 'transabled' persons leg. Treating the illness but not the cause, in a way. Bandaid on a broken leg.

If it helps an individual person, great. Good for them. But much much more investigation and study needs to go into the whole thing. There was a guy..James Caspian..has worked with trans people most of his life and wanted to do a study on 'detransitioned' people. And was blocked from doing that study as the University he worked for were afraid of the response from transactivists, they were afraid of being labelled transphobic. Why would they be afraid of more study being done on people this affects?

Definitely more work needs to be done about how best to support these people.

I actually think with this 'transkids' thing there is going to be a massive backlash in 10 years or so. When these kids grow up and realise they were effective experimented on and that the people who should be looking out for their best interests, did not do that. Its similar to lobotomies in a way...the 'wonder cure. Which is anything but. I am worried that the backlash will be the end of the NHS, as the NHS encourage all of this, they signpost people to 'mermaids' (which is a pressure group, noone should be sent to them, they are horrendous). People trust the NHS. People think the NHS will always have their kids best interests. The NHS certainly do not have the kids best interests in this :S

[user104658]

To simplify this though;

You state an opinion. I state a counter opinion; this is debate and discussion. You now try to shut that counter opinion down by bleating "Mansplaining", in an attempt to negate it and leave only your original opinion.

This is soapboxing.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

To simplify this though;

You state an opinion. I state a counter opinion; this is debate and discussion. You now try to shut that counter opinion down by bleating "Mansplaining", in an attempt to negate it and leave only your original opinion.

This is soapboxing.

You don't , you begin with 'no' suggesting I'm in the wrong... have you never noticed that? I'm not getting into any tit for tat argument with you, I had no idea that using that word would unleash a torrent of pent up aggression so best leave it eh?

I note there was no response to your theory that should women suddenly become physically powerful that offences against men would rise, have you no explanation why then that date ape isn't more prevalent this effectively makes the woman stronger doesn't it?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

You don't , you begin with 'no' suggesting I'm in the wrong... have you never noticed that? I'm not getting into any tit for tat argument with you, I had no idea that using that word would unleash a torrent of pent up aggression so best leave it eh?

What are you even talking about? Do you start a counter opinion by saying "you're totally right!" and then saying something that contradicts it? If you have a counter opinion to someone then of course you believe them to be in the wrong. The alternative is agreement. How bizarre.

I note there was no response to your theory that should women suddenly become physically powerful that offences against men would rise, have you no explanation why then that date ape isn't more prevalent this effectively makes the woman stronger doesn't it?

No, it doesn't, it makes the woman exactly the same size and strength as before while the man remains stronger and heavier but incapacitated by drugs. I don't know if this is just down to you not actually understanding how date rape drugs work. They DON'T render the victim entirely unconscious, the man is still larger and heavier, and even if they did, how exactly would the woman heave the larger male away to assault him? Its simply not practical and the man being targeted is still a physical threat to the attacking woman. But I wouldn't want to Mansplain the effects of rohypnol to you.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

What are you even talking about? Do you start a counter opinion by saying "you're totally right!" and then saying something that contradicts it? If you have a counter opinion to someone then of course you believe them to be in the wrong. The alternative is agreement. How bizarre.



No, it doesn't, it makes the woman exactly the same size and strength as before while the man remains stronger and heavier but incapacitated by drugs. I don't know if this is just down to you not actually understanding how date rape drugs work. They DON'T render the victim entirely unconscious, the man is still larger and heavier, and even if they did, how exactly would the woman heave the larger male away to assault him? Its simply not practical and the man being targeted is still a physical threat to the attacking woman. But I wouldn't want to Mansplain the effects of rohypnol to you.

You counter an argument, you can't counter an opinion.... That's where you're going wrong if you feel you can change someones opinion simply by stating yours.

Do you think that once drugged women are firemen lifted off the street? ... Also I thought the point you made was purely based on physical strength as a factor, once drugged people are led away...why are we not hearing of women leading men away?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Christmas treeza

You counter an argument, you can't counter an opinion....

You can have an opinion that is the exact opposite of someone else's opinion and therefore believe that opinion to be wrong. You seem quite happy to say that, for example, the opinion that all Muslims should be deported is wrong? Wrong in this context simply meaning "something that you consider morally incorrect". An opinion can also be wrong if it is objectively and statistically incorrect,u usually when someone is claiming that their opinion is fact. Are you sure I haven't been challenging your "facts", rather than your opinions?

That's where you're going wrong if you feel you can change someones opinion simply by stating yours.

Oh. Well I'm not trying to change anyones opinion. But thanks for womansplaining where I'm going wrong to me.

Do you think that once drugged women are firemen lifted off the street? ... Also I thought the point you made was purely based on physical strength as a factor, once drugged people are led away...why are we not hearing of women leading men away?

No I am aware that drugged women are still semi conscious, which is entirely my point, incase you missed it. It's not feasible for a woman to drug and attack a larger, stronger male because - drugged or not - if that male resists or fights back (which drugged women can and do) then the woman who has drugged him is still at a physical disadvantage and probably putting themselves at very real physical risk... As once drugged the person defending the self isn't in full control.

Hiwever I accept that it's much easier to believe that it's simply because "women are nicer and don't want to do such bad things". The sad truth is that a lot of people are trash, and it's not gender specific at all.

[user104658]

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

Indeed. personally my view is someone who is actually transsexual using the areas associated with the sex they wish to be is fine. But I don't think this should extend to male bodied people who are simply crossdressers or who do not actually have sex dysphoria. I am fully for 'trans rights' when 'trans' means transsexual, not any bloke who says he is a woman one day. 'Transgender' and 'transsexual' are two very different things.

And yes, there is something sinister about the current transactivist agenda. Honestly, todays transactivists have so much in common with MRAs (the problematic ones...not people actually concerned about the rights of men..there is a difference) that its impossible to ignore.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Honestly I think Corbyn just thinks that this idea is populist and fits with the image he's trying to project. He thinks it's a left-vote-winner and recently my opinion is that there's actually not much more to Corbyn than that... He would stand up for the rights of mosquitos to bite malnourished children if he thought the mosquitos would vote.

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

Ironically, I think that one of the groups that all of this is MOST harmful to is actually transitioned / actively transitioning transsexuals. They are probably seen by one side as being supportive of all of it even if they aren't, and by the other as some sort of "traitor" if they have an opinion that deviates from the one that's prescribed. Can you imagine if a fully transitioned transexual responded to a "transwomen are women baaaah" mantra tweet with "Well, hold on a minute, I didn't consider myself a woman until after reassignment surgery"? They would be utterly slaughtered like some sort of defector.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

Ironically, I think that one of the groups that all of this is MOST harmful to is actually transitioned / actively transitioning transsexuals. They are probably seen by one side as being supportive of all of it even if they aren't, and by the other as some sort of "traitor" if they have an opinion that deviates from the one that's prescribed. Can you imagine if a fully transitioned transexual responded to a "transwomen are women baaaah" mantra tweet with "Well, hold on a minute, I didn't consider myself a woman until after reassignment surgery"? They would be utterly slaughtered like some sort of defector.

They are. Regularly. There is even a word for them. 'Truscum'. Its disgusting really. and yes, one of the groups its most harmful to is transsexual people who have transitioned. As they are lumped in together with 'gender fluid' entitled dickheads who think putting on a dress one day means they should have access to the womens changing room.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

Indeed. personally my view is someone who is actually transsexual using the areas associated with the sex they wish to be is fine. But I don't think this should extend to male bodied people who are simply crossdressers or who do not actually have sex dysphoria. I am fully for 'trans rights' when 'trans' means transsexual, not any bloke who says he is a woman one day. 'Transgender' and 'transsexual' are two very different things.

And yes, there is something sinister about the current transactivist agenda. Honestly, todays transactivists have so much in common with MRAs (the problematic ones...not people actually concerned about the rights of men..there is a difference) that its impossible to ignore.

I don't think transgender and transexual are that seperate. Crossdressing can be a very different thing (although even then there can be crossovers, some people begin by crossdressing without fully acknowledging their trans thoughts/repressing them, and then later transition. And then some people just enjoy crossdressing for reasons that having nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being trans). But with transgender/transexual sometimes the difference can just come down to a transgender person being denied surgical treatment (which does happen - I'm not sure how much though) or through fear of having such extreme surgeries. However much they might feel they are the opposite sex and want to change physically it's such an extreme and frightening thing that it's understandable why not all transgender people transition. Their actual attitudes and who they are inside is often the same as a transexual though. Obviously not always and a lot of transgender people don't want to transition, I'm just saying that isn't always the case.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

I would also agree with this. And I used to be (forgive the phrase) a 'corbyn fangirl' pretty much. I thought he was brilliant, I thought he would 'save us'. I am starting to see a very different side to him (and a different side to Momentum also)

I think this is also why the Tories are supporting it all. To win votes that would otherwise go to Labour. With no thought to how it will affect the majority of the population. Very very ill judged, from both parties.

I think too..some people think this is similar to the fight for gay rights. Its not at all. Gay people wanted to be accepted for who they are. They were not proposing taking rights away from another group, they wanted their own rights. This is entirely different. Doesn't help that Stonewall added the T to LGB..which confuses people that little bit more. Ruth Hunt is a ****ing disgrace on this issue, truly. Shes throwing Lesbians especially under the bus. She refuses to comment on the amount of people who would otherwise simply be lesbian adults who are 'transed' as kids. Refuses to comment on the amount of lesbian adults who decide they are actually men so that they do not receive lesbophobic abuse anymore...and so on. She is who should be standing up for the rights of lesbians, being a butch lesbian herself ffs. But no, she won't comment and instead focuses all of her attention on 'trans'. Meanwhile, lesbians are being told they are transphobic for not sucking ladydick and such. Lesbians are deciding they are actually trans to escape the abuse they get as lesbians...more and more kids who would otherwise grow up to be gay are being given puberty blockers then cross sex hormones..and she won't comment at all. Absolutely mental.

We did get accused of trying to take away other peoples rights though during the whole gay marriage thing. For example infringing on peoples right to religion, if a religious person refused to conduct a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. Even that lesbian wedding cake story it was argued that the gay couple were infringing on the religious rights of the cake store owners, same with the gay couple who were refused a room in a b&b.

[Vicky.]

Originally Posted by Jamie89

I don't think transgender and transexual are that seperate. Crossdressing can be a very different thing (although even then there can be crossovers, some people begin by crossdressing without fully acknowledging their trans thoughts/repressing them, and then later transition. And then some people just enjoy crossdressing for reasons that having nothing to do with gender dysphoria or being trans). But with transgender/transexual sometimes the difference can just come down to a transgender person being denied surgical treatment (which does happen - I'm not sure how much though) or through fear of having such extreme surgeries. However much they might feel they are the opposite sex and want to change physically it's such an extreme and frightening thing that it's understandable why not all transgender people transition. Their actual attitudes and who they are inside is often the same as a transexual though. Obviously not always and a lot of transgender people don't want to transition, I'm just saying that isn't always the case.

'Transgender' is used for people who do not actually have sex dysphoria. How can anyone be trans without dysphoria? Transsexual are people with sex dysphoria. Its very different. 'Transgender' is about stereotypes. 'transsexual' is about an actual illness.

I imagine you have seen this before..but all of these people are classed as 'transgender'

Spoiler:

Though a lot of transsexual people do not like being associated with the rest. But protesting earns them the 'truscum' label. According to this, I am actually trans, as I am 'agender' so do not have a 'gender identity' and also as I have a mix of stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine attributes. So I could go waltzing into the mens changing room to gawp at the penises, and I could cry 'transphobe' at anyone who objects. Its nonsense.

We did get accused of trying to take away other peoples rights though during the whole gay marriage thing. For example infringing on peoples right to religion, if a religious person refused to conduct a marriage ceremony for a gay couple. Even that lesbian wedding cake story it was argued that the gay couple were infringing on the religious rights of the cake store owners, same with the gay couple who were refused a room in a b&b.

But wanting the right to marry is not actually taking away the rights of anyone else. Where declaring men are actually women and as such can enter the female changing rooms or something, IS taking away the rights of women to sex segregated areas.

Religious crap is usually quite bonkers though. But this is actually about taking away the rights of 99.9% of the population. Removing the right to sex segregated areas for both males and females.

[Jamie89]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

'Transgender' is used for people who do not actually have sex dysphoria. How can anyone be trans without dysphoria? Transsexual are people with sex dysphoria. Its very different. 'Transgender' is about stereotypes. 'transsexual' is about an actual illness.

I imagine you have seen this before..but all of these people are classed as 'transgender'

Spoiler:

Though a lot of transsexual people do not like being associated with the rest. But protesting earns them the 'truscum' label. According to this, I am actually trans, as I am 'agender' so do not have a 'gender identity' and also as I have a mix of stereotypically masculine and stereotypically feminine attributes. So I could go waltzing into the mens changing room to gawp at the penises, and I could cry 'transphobe' at anyone who objects. Its nonsense.

A transexual has to go through hormone treatment and/or surgery to be considered transexual though do they not? Maybe I'm just overcomplicating things but I'm talking about transgender people who would otherwise be transexual, who are the same in every other way, but for various reasons can't or are afraid to have the treatments and surgeries.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

But wanting the right to marry is not actually taking away the rights of anyone else. Where declaring men are actually women and as such can enter the female changing rooms or something, IS taking away the rights of women to sex segregated areas.

Religious crap is usually quite bonkers though. But this is actually about taking away the rights of 99.9% of the population. Removing the right to sex segregated areas for both males and females.

I know this but that's not what a lot religious people would argue. It's much the same thing for me because I don't believe in either case that rights are being taken away (I don't think the 'right' is having a sex segregarted area, the 'right' is having a safe environment, and the difference being that I don't think sex segregation = safety, whereas advocates for sex segration tend to base it on that, so it's a difference in opinion of what actually constitutes safety and whether non segregated areas would actually be less safe... but the actual cause and 'rights' is about safety of women, sex segregation just being a possible means to that.)

[DemolitionRed]

Originally Posted by Toy Santa

However I think he has drastically misjudged the situation... It's a very, very small niche that actually thinks this is a good idea. Most I would say are supportive of fully transitioned transgender people using the bathroom they want to use... But the idea that this should be extended to people who are not physically trans is not a popular one at all and is going to alienate a lot of his core voters. The idea has placed feminist and trans rights activists - who would normally stand on the same side of the equality / rights fence on the vast majority of issues - at each other's throats in such a way that I'd say it's almost as if it's by design... "make them fight each other and they won't have time to campaign for anything else".

Up until very recently (from on here) I hadn't even given trans women a thought. If I saw one in a ladies loo I doubt I'd even notice because I don't tend to observe people in ladies toilets. To my knowledge, apart from that club Stunners, I have never spotted a trans female using a public toilet... and I've used many. I believe most people are like me and haven't given it much thought.

As for women who haven't fully transitioned, how would we know? There are women who have fully transitioned who still find it hard to pass as women and there are women who haven't fully transitioned who are very convincing as women.

I think its sad and pathetic that some of these trans have taken it upon themselves to campaign so aggressively. I think its sad to hear people saying 'trans aren't real women and never will be' but then I'm a live and let live person.

One thing I do know for sure is, if one of my sons came to me and told me they wanted to transition into a female, I would accept them and love them and fight with them for that right.