Sorry, Ian. I usually applaud your writing, but this essay is out to lunch.
Nobody is taking away any "trans" rights. These people have all the same rights as anyone else. What they keep demanding -- and getting, thanks to the blindness of supposed liberals (who have become, in fact, profoundly ILliberal) -- is special rights. Extra-special rights.
Meanwhile, women and girls are losing our rights in order to accommodate "trans" demands, and we're expected to shut up about it.
Well, guess what? We won't.
Men are being housed in women's prisons because they say the magic words "I'm transgender." Males are physically harming females on sports teams because those males suddenly declare they're female. Domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers, where women who have already been abused by men go to be safe, are being invaded by men. These things aren't one-offs. They are happening all over the western world.
Nobody can magically morph into the opposite sex. It's unbelievable that this simple biological fact even has to be stated, let alone contested.
Do you think Eddie Izzard is a woman just because he puts on a skirt and lipstick? Seriously?? Rachel Dolezal was raked over the coals because she claimed she was black. Well, if Eddie Izzard is a woman, then Rachel Dolezal is black. My heritage is Italian, but hey, I "identify" as a Celt. Therefore, I am. After all, how I "feel" is all that matters, reality be damned.
"Identity" has become religious dogma. You wanna believe in it? Fine. But you can't force anybody else to believe in it. Liberty allows you to pretend whatever you like about yourself, but not to compel others to do so as well.
Oh wait, they CAN get married. It's not like they're gay and the date is before 2015.
How about we let them own property. And go to school. And drive cars.
Oh wait, they CAN already to all those things. So what do transgenders actually want? They have demanded and gotten sex-based rights meant for the opposite sex. When men are given female sex-based rights, women automatically lose them. That’s how the law works. Either we have the right to privacy, safety and dignity in female showers, or men get to claim a female identity and deny us our rights.
After the UK Supreme Court decided that so-called "trans women" aren't actually women, a bunch of men doing a poor attempt at “performing woman" protested in distinctly male ways. They exhibited fury by tossing death threats at the women who don't believe in the religion called trans ideology. Trans Priority Activists (TP Activists) protested in London by urinating and defacing the statue of suffragette Millicent Fawcett. Huh, urinating. Is that a feminine way to protest, or is it something you'd expect from angry men? While male transgenders claim to honor women, defacing a statue of a historic, brave woman who fought for women's rights belies their claims. Flashing their fake moobs, looking as creepy as possible in their performance of "womanliness" really shows their hatred of women.
Nah, they don't want equal rights. They want their male rights to supersede female rights.
Tell a "trans woman" No and you'll quickly see the male persona emerge.
I think what they want is pretty simple. Take trans women for instance, as people who feel they are a woman, dress as a woman, style themselves as a woman, talk like a woman, potentially have undergone medical treatments and surgeries to physically look like a woman, they don't want to have to use male facilities (or according to the EHRC, no facilities at all) and submit themselves to the sort of abuse and harassment and violence that causes extreme rates of depression, self-harm and suicide, just to pee.
The lack of compassion for people in this position is astonishing and saddening.
Interesting, so you agree that only men who have removed their penis are ‘true trans’? What about (the majority) of trans identifying men who make no alterations to their bodies at all? Are they still men? Or special men who get to enter single sex female spaces?
There’s no such thing as “trans identifying men”. You can’t identify as trans as it’s an immutable characteristic that and a class that can only be recognized in the Uk with an ext rank diagnostic panel, and trans men do not remove their penises. The opposite, as many trans men get surgery (phalloplasty or metoidioplasty) to give them penises.
Of course there are. There are men who claim to be women. That they have ‘transitioned’. Therefore they are trans identifying men. This is much more honest and less confusing than saying ‘transwomen’.
And there is no such thing as “trans identifying men”. A man that is trans is called a trans man.
And there is no such word as “transwomen” either. There are trans women, which are women that are trans, but there is no such word as “transwomen”. Trans is an adjective. Just like short, tall, blonde, etc. A blonde woman is a woman that is blonde, but there is no such word as a “blondewoman”.
Men who pretend to be women don't want to look like the low income house cleaner who struggles to feed her kids.
[They] "dress as a woman, style themselves as a woman, talk like a woman, potentially have undergone medical treatments and surgeries to physically look like a woman"
Nope. They dress like porn stars, style themselves with creepy makeup, giant red lips like a huge vagina on their faces. They make their voice sound weak and childish, with misogynists like Dylan Mulvaney calling himself a girl instead of a woman. He's an adult man, FFS.
They gimp around on high heels like a weak and therefore "fvckable" woman. And of course there's the obsession with ginormous fake boobs. Have you seen the sissy porn that is emblematic of what male transgenders think should happen to women?
They just love that degrading porn look that makes it perfectly clear what they think of actual women. They are the abusers, David, not the women who demand safe female spaces. But since you're so compassionate, feel free to welcome them into your shower.
They don't identify as a woman. They identify as a what their male minds tell them a woman should look and act like. But maybe that's also what you think of women David.
Clearly you are not aware that you have seen many transgender women who look quite plain. That is because they are just normal people getting on with their lives.
I think what you are describing might be drag queens. They are not transgender. Drag queens are performers. They do not live their lives as women. After the performance, they take all of the theatrical stuff off and put on their stereotypical male clothes or flamboyant gay man’s clothes, or whatever they like. Some are gay. Some are straight. They are performing a show, not working for a pimp they and go by their male birth name. They are not confused about their gender.
Your naive comment suggests your opinions on this matter are based on a lack of information. Just as a bunch of old men shouldn’t be making decisions about women’s rights to their own bodies since they have demonstrated a general lack of knowledge on the biology of women, people who do not have a sincere understanding of transgender issues, directly from transgender people, should not be defining their rights.
I know many "trans women." Some are my friends. In spite of their wish to be women, they are male. Some of them were gay or are drag queens; others perform a similar male version of what men think women should look like and how we should act. None of them would use surgery to look like a frumpy, low income house cleaner. They don't want to be women; they want to be a particular TYPE of woman. It's a male perspective of what they should look and act like. Because they're men.
My friends aren't rapists. If other men hadn't been so obnoxious to women, my friends would be able to use the female facilities. If male transgenders had not gotten lesbians kicked off dating apps for not being willing to have "lesbian penetrative sex" (i.e.: heterosexual sex between a lesbian and a man with a penis), they would not have forced us to reject them. Do you not understand what same-sex attraction means?
This problem that men have created for women and children is not about your transgender friends. It's about male violence. Male domination. Men's rights being prioritized over women's rights.
You clearly only know a subset of transgender women. Perhaps because you believe transgender women are men? If I were a transgender woman I would steer clear of you. Based on your comments here, you would be someone I’d consider toxic.
There is a lot between drag queen stage glam and frumpy house cleaner. A 23 year old trans woman could look like any other college student. She wouldn’t necessarily be about standing out. She could be just trying to live her life. Some of you all seem to be preoccupied by larger than life transgender woman while pretending that people with otherwise average lives also are transgender.
Also you seem to be preoccupied with transgender women. Is it because transgender men do not scare you? Or because a transgender man is just a tomboy in your opinion?
Quote: "they don't want to have to use male facilities and submit themselves to the sort of abuse and harassment and violence"
Oh, so because MEN don't want to submit themselves to abuse and harassment and violence from other MEN, therefore women should? We should protect those men from other men? Gee, how about men stop abusing and harassing other men? Ever thought of that? We women already have our hands full trying to protect ourselves from male harassment and violence.
Quote: ". . . that causes extreme rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
False. Another abject falsehood that keeps being bandied about because it was fabricated by WPATH, a lobbying group, not a medical organization, even though it has been proven false again and again and again. Even the ACLU's lawyer Chase Strangio (unintentionally apt name) admitted at the Supreme Court that there are very few suicides committed by "trans" people, and in fact what suicides there are in that cohort have happened *AFTER* they transitioned.
Could it be because they already had mental health problems, such as depression, and were already in psychological distress, and thought that "transing" themselves would magically fix them? Nah, perish the thought.
When self ID is the order of the day to access women’s spaces it opens the the door to any and all men. Only a very small percentage of trans identified people have bottom surgery. Many facilities now have single restrooms to accommodate disabled people, a parent with a young child who is of the opposite sexual, etc. Basically anyone uncomfortable in a sex specific open locker room or restroom. Maybe consider the actual females of all ages and backgrounds who don’t want a naked male exposing themselves while they are undressing. Indecent exposure used to be a crime now it’s ok if it’s a girl penis.
If you are a man and you believe you were born in the wrong body, its likely that you will have some othet mental illnesses. Its unrelated to being able to piss in womens toilets
The majority of people don’t want to see any harm or harassment inflicted on trans men or women. We want them to STOP transing children. Most of whom will grow up to be gay.
There are no "trans" women bc there's no such thing as "trans."
They're all men.
What you're talking about is passing, which is what this always boils down to. Basically no men pass. They're men in dresses and they act exactly like men when they're told no--violence, anger, irrational temper tantrums.
They deserve no compassion bc they're men. It doesn't matter if they "style themselves as women." A man in a wig is still a man.
Women deserve compassion, along with no men in our spaces and sports.
The answer is to fight for their own spaces in the same way women and disabled people did. The answer is not to simply demand women make all their spaces mixed sex because this tiny number of men think it their right. They may present as women, but they do not talk or think like women because they are male. Their experiences have been male. Why should women simply have to welcome these males into their spaces, because we should be kind! Mammies and grannies are some of the fiercest people on the planet and it is time that men realise this. Even us women who don't have children are not giving up what our mammies and grannies fought long and hard for simply because some men are lazy, stupid and want everything we have handed to them on a plate because they have "feminised" their appearance. They dont behave like women because they think and act like the males they are and always will. A sense of entitlement is not a human right, ever!
They want access to public bathrooms, healthcare and sports.
They don’t want sex based rights of the opposite sex. They want sex based rights of their sex. Cis Women do not automatically lose any rights when trans women have rights. Just like how white woneb didn’t automatically lose rights when black women had rights.
Trans women are actually women. The Supreme Court decision will never change that. It’s simply an empirical, objective fact.
There’d no such thing as “performing woman”. Women aren’t a performance.
Stop with the racism. Saying naked females do not want to be seen by male strangers not do they want to observe naked males is the same as saying females of diff races can use the same spaces is making light of both struggles. We lose the right to that privacy when you demand that any male capable of uttering 4 words:”I am a woman” must have free access to places where women & girls undress. Nobody in the history of humanity has ever changed sex. TW are M. W are F. Nobody cares if TW want to look & be treated socially as W. The issue is the denial of W human right to privacy & dignity.
Take your own advice. Stop with the racism. Your ideology was the same one saying Black women were not women.
Also I have never encountered a naked person in a bathroom before. Even in locker rooms I seldom see anyone walking around buck naked. In any case, this has nothing to do with “male strangers”. It has to do with women you object to having equal rights. Trans women today, Black women yesterday.
Also, you can’t “utter 4 words” and be recognized as a gender in the UK. To legally be allowed to use a single sex space of your acquired gender, you technically need a GRC, which involves a judiciary panel reviewing your medical history to confirm that you have a clinical diagnosis of GD/GID and have undergone some sex change procedures and have lived for a certain amount of time as your acquired sex.
There is no difference, hence why 50 years ago, your ilk were saying that Black women were men (and some gender criticals are still saying it; most cis women falsely accused of being trans by gender critical religious activists are Black).
A woman is an adult human with a dominant female phenotype. That includes cis women, trans women, Black women, tall women, blonde women, intersex women, skinny women etc. It encompasses all women, and excludes all men.
Sadly not true. You do not need a GRC to claim the PC of Gender Reassignment. The only people I ever see claiming Black women are not women are T rights activists. I don’t know a single woman who would say that. The law allows for single sex spaces. This is , not about “bathrooms”. This is about communal changing rooms, showers, bedrooms, RCC, DV shelters, homeless shelters, intimate care - everywhere that separation by sex is necessary & expected.
This is false fyi. The former EHRC guidelines only gave legal protection to trans people who had a GRC, which was the only way they could, in law, be recognized as their sex in every legal instance. Without one, you had no technical legal protection. Hence why this SC ruling only really affects trans people with a GRC, as it effectively treats them as if they didn’t have one (in fact, the ruling explicitly states that trans people with a GRC are legally identical to those without one, which nullifies the GRA and puts the UK in violation of human rights, according to the 2003 ruling of the ECHR).
I have never heard of a trans activist saying that Black women are not women. I have seen numerous gender criticals claim that Black womens are not women. GC’s like JK Rowling have falsely accused Barbra Banda and Michelle Obama of being men.
You can believe all you want about men being able to "be" women. But I have to point to the fact that - whatever you and they believe them/selves to be - there are two things about them that were the exact rationale behind the creation of single-sex spaces for women. First, any person who have gone through male puberty are in general twice as strong as women (almost any man can overpower almost any woman). Second, they have a crime pattern that is very different from women's - men commit 98% of all sex offences, and almost 90% of the victims are women (a big part of the rest is children).
Those things DOESN'T CHANGE when men claim to be women. Clothes, makeup, mannerisms, doesn't change them. Hormones (or surgery) doesn't change them. Statistics from prisons in England and Wales speak clearly about it, should you doubt my word.
THAT'S WHY women lose our rights to protection when your kind of "women" can access women-only spaces.
It’s not to late to hit the edit button, as Ru Paul would say. Did you ask him to weigh in on this and whether he, as a gay man like you, doesn’t “perform woman”?
Go for it: go ask him if putting on fake tits and ass, full make-up and his enviable collection of wigs and dresses and tucking his male parts makes him a woman.
Leave aside your objections to trans people’s existence for one moment. Personally I suggest you meet some of them and discover for yourself that they are just like everyone else, living their lives. You’d be hard pressed to actually identify many of them as transgender, especially the transmen. I know that is a challenging thought.
However the point Ian is making is about a much wider erasure of law and human rights. For those who love to shout hooray when their opponents lose freedoms, just remember next time these powers may be used against you.
Total straw man argument that I have any "objections to trans people's existence." But entirely expected.
You might want to tell it to lesbian LeAnne Owen:
“The Right Wing Just Wanted Me to Marry a Man. The Left Wing Is Coming for My Genitals. Both sides want to convert gay people — and we must fight back.”
“I Was FG. But No One Put Me on Blockers. What The New York Times left out about the first child on puberty blockers—and what it means for the rest of us who made it through”
Or you might want to think about social contagion, which every physician and therapist acknowledges is a profound influence in culture no matter the subject, yet somehow the trans phenomenon has nothing to do with it?
“The profile of people seeking transition has shifted drastically, from overwhelmingly middle-aged males to predominantly adolescent females”
There are so many more sources, as reputable as the ones I’ve already posted. I doubt you'll read them. But I post these things for other people who might come across this discussion to read.
This is an article about misuse of statutory instruments to shove through something without proper parliamentary debate. Ian has used the trans issue because it is the current issue. Using statutory instruments to make laws without proper parliamentary debate is a threat to democracy & everyone's human rights & ought to appall anyone, whatever side of the example given you are on.
Almost everything you have posted bears no relation to the actual topic he is discussing.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
Let's accept for the sake of argument you are correct and "trans people" are angelic and never harm anyone. What stops a predatory man using this as cover to be a voyeur, exhibitionist or abuser in women's spaces?
Men make women less safe. It doesn’t matter if they utter a few words, they are, and always will be male. What are you finding difficult to understand about that?
Transvestite men aren't women. www.terfisaslur.com shows their hatred of women.
Reduxx substack has the receipts of these transvestite murderers, paedophiles, creeps, stalkers, rapists. They are too many to ignore. Go see.
All men are men - it's not a personality contest. 'Trans' women are men, so they have no right to women's spaces. Cry about it all you want, we're done lying for these men.
The thing is, though, you can hate a group but still be committed to ensuring that the people in that group and in every other group are guaranteed due process of law. That seems to be the crux of the matter here, the thing these critics of the OP are missing.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
NO new law has been created. No law or right has been taken away. All the Supreme Court has done is show that the law as interpreted by bodies like Stonewall is not the law and was not parliament's intent. Contrary to Dunt's assertions the Supreme Court is upholding the intent of Parliament to ensure women and girls have protections on the basis of them being female. Men who wish to be see as female in public have protections under a separate protected characteristic - gender reassignment.
The code is far broader than that, including why method of sex-interrogation should be utilised by service providers.
It is possible for women to both be entitled to single sex spaces and for trans people to be protected from harassment. If the code recommends harassment via sex interrogation, it should be halted.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
No new law has been created by the Supreme Court. No law has been taken away. The SC has merely asserted Parliaments intent in creating the EQ2010 and that interpretations spread by groups like Stonewall fall outside of Parliament's intent.
Women already have single sexed spaces. The dabate would be about whether it should be okay to ban certain demographics of women from single sexed spaces that religious activists do not approve of
It didn't need debate. All the SC did was confirm that stonewall and trans activists have been misinterpreting the law for 15 years. No law had changed no debate id needed. Sex means sex under the EA snd men are male and that is immutable. The lying has been stopped is all. You never had the rights you claimed.
Nobody is shoving anything through without proper debate. The Supreme Court judgment, which is the about the proper interpretation of the existing law, is crystal clear. The objections of the trans rights lobby are to the debate that trans people have tried all along to stifle. It wasn't the EHRC that invented the phrase "No debate". Women have rights too, whether you like it or not, and insisting that those rights under the law are recognised and respected is in no way anti-democratic.
Except it’s not at all. Even gender critical religious activists who celebrated the victory are conceding that the SC interpretation was too vague and strange and doesn’t even do enough to push through anti-trans legal options.
Women have rights too, including trans women, whether gender criticals like it or not. It’s not at all surprising to see gender critical misogynists embracing anti-democratic methods. A bit of another mask off moment for the gender critical lobby.
So are the voices of dissent. 🤞Ian starts to get the message of how many there are of us that think this is really misinformed journalism and we’re done reading this kind of propaganda.
The voices of dissent have already peaked. Gender critical activists like Trump and Andrew Tate are among the biggest voices in the world and have major influence, especially over men. Pro-trans voices, especially those of women, are very marginalized.
You absolutely are right Lisa, I won’t read them. Because I don’t need to do my research to be a tolerant person who doesn’t wish to persecute a tiny minority of people who, like any other group include the good, the bad and the ugly. We have literally been here before in the 90s with the section 28 moral panic.
What Ian is saying and I would also like to reinforce is that these emotive culture war issues are a great way to remove freedoms from every single one of us. We should all be wary of creeping authoritarianism, no matter what our political views. (It was clear that politicians were not keen to give up Covid powers, although they did eventually.)
Existing legislation is enough to prosecute criminal activity, and not enough weight is given to this fact.
Can you block me too, Karen? Jesus, try googling some of the people commenting here before you throw out the “bigot” label at racial minorities and homosexuals.
There’s no such thing as a “trans identifying male”. You can’t identify as trans. It’s diagnosed by a 3rd party and is an immutable characteristic.
And we are specifically discussing trans females, not trans males. Women and girls already have singe sex spaces. No one disagrees with that, except gender criticals who want to ban certain women and girls from single sex spaces and force men into them
I’m going to try to keep this simple by addressing each essay separately.
LeAnne Owen:
“The Right Wing Just Wanted Me to Marry a Man. The Left Wing Is Coming for My Genitals. Both sides want to convert gay people — and we must fight back.”
This writer cites no references. They make big claims of children being pressured into sex-reassignment, but provide zero evidence to support their claims. I do not consider that essay to be anything but opinion at best, but more likely propaganda. It is inflammatory and vague. The author implies it comes from personal experience but it sounds like stories that have been regurgitated, talking points for a cause.
So, link #1 did not pass the test for supporting your posts with data. It only proves that others share your opinions.
“I Was FG. But No One Put Me on Blockers. What The New York Times left out about the first child on puberty blockers—and what it means for the rest of us who made it through”
While this article is the story of what happened to one child and the opinions of one person, again, not data, just an anecdote, and lacking citations, I have asked the author for their sources so that I can delve deeper.
How many children have puberty postponed for six years and until 18yo?
As for allowing children to have a say in their treatment, I think it is unlikely that the decision was based solely on the child’s demands. Parents must consent. Doctors can refuse to administer treatments. Suggesting this was done to FG based on a childish whim is questionable.
I am not saying I agree with stunting puberty for six years. I am reserving further comments until I know more about how often this is done.
Sure, but no one has the human right to deny someone else belonging to the sex class they empirically do belong to. Gender critical religious activists are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they cannot force them onto others. Same with creationists and flat earthers and other believers in pseudoscience
Your point is unclear. Most "gender critical" people are leftist secularists, not religious, so the association of GC beliefs with religion is mystifying. It's plain to me (someone with degrees in philosophy and religion) that the belief in "gender identity" is nothing but a belief in a gendered soul, which, as a non-falsifiable proposition, holds far more in common with creationists and flat-earthers than the skeptical gender critical position. No one has yet demonstrated the existence of "gender identity." Yet, an entire political movement holds not only that it exists, but that to even question it is an act of violence.
Gender identity is one of the most religious belief systems to emerge in recent times. The fact that there is nothing that one can ever present as evidence that it does not exist that is not dismissed as "transphobia" should be enough to demonstrate the self-sealing, anti-science characteristic of gender identity ideology.
There’s no such thing. The gender critical ideology is definitionally far right. Saying most gender criticals are leftist secularists is like saying most Nazis are leftist secularists. Nazism is a far right ideology.
The gender critical ideology has analogues to other pseudoscientific quasi-religious ideologies, most notably the flat-earther ideology, tho to a lesser extent creationism as well, however creationism is almost exclusively an Abrahamic pseudoscientific belief, while the gender critical belief is not explicitly Abrahamic, similar to flat eartherism. The three ideooogies also have extensive overlap (besrly all creationists and flat earthers are also gender critical). The origins of the gender critical belief are twofold— pseudoscientific sexual theories proposed by the Nazis in the 1930s (which in turn were predicated on pseudoscientific race science, which is why most gender criticals today also subscribe to race science theories and mostly falsely accuse non-white women of being trans or “men”), and the TradCath anti-gender movement.
Also, the courts in the UK ruled that the gender critical ideology was a protected religious belief.
There is no such thing as a “gendered soul”, nor a soul. This is religious terminology. That GC’s use this phrase is proof that they are religiously oriented.
Gender identity is an objective biological phenomenon. There is no debate of its existence in the scientific/medical field. It is settled science. The assertion that there is no proof that gender identity exists is an obfuscatory tactic used by adherents to other religious pseudoscientific ideas, especially creationists, who also argue that there is no evidence of macro-evolution, when this too is settled science within biology.
Questioning and outright non-belief in scientific concepts is not in and of itself violence. After all, flat earthers are not generally trying to strip civil rights away from people who believe that the earth is spherical. Gender criticals are a bit unique in this regard, as their ideology is not solely pseudoscientific, but also sociological. As it was borne out of Nazism (I don’t mean that metaphorically; the modern social and pseudoscientific opposition to trans and intersex rights was explicitly invented by the Nazis, mostly because the Institute of Sexual Science in Berlin coined medical transsexuality and intersexuality in the 1910s, immediately preceding the rise of Nazism), it is primarily a sociological and political quasi-religious movement. Flat earthers are not advocating that we structure society around belief vs non-belief in flat earthers theory, while gender criticals do believe that society should be structured according to their beliefs, with religious undesirables denied human rights in accordance with their faith, and people and institutions which threaten their ideology, especially medical experts and scientific institutions, criminalized, defunded and/or destroyed. Most gender criticals believe that studies into gender affirming care for minors should be banned, studies on any potential biomedical advantages of trans athletes should be banned (mostly because study result almost invariably go against gender critical dogma), that medical experts and institutions that treat and/or study trans and intersex people should be charged with a crime and shut down respectively, and accuse these same scientific experts and institutions of being ideologically captured.
Your errors in logic and reasoning are equalled only by the condescending confidence with which you are wrong. Like most Pomo-queer-theory adherents, you use a lot of words to obfuscate simple misapprehensions of science and philosophy. I'll take your points propositionally to eliminate all of the obscuring verbosity:
"Because Nazis believed in 2 sexes, if you believe in two sexes, you are a Nazi". The Nazis also believed in the trains running on time and being a snappy dresser. Do these beliefs also make you a Nazi? (I hope not, 'cause I'm screwed if so). Of course not. This is a form of the ad hominem fallacy, which focuses on the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. Your assertion that people who believe in Abrahamic religions are gender critical, therefore, gender critical beliefs are religious beliefs, is a laughable logical error. Specifically, affirming the consequent:
If it rained, the street will be wet.
The street is wet.
Therefore, it rained.
Of course, that's wrong because the street could have been made wet by any number of means. Similarly, people can believe that sex is immutable and important (the definition of gender criticality) for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.
All you have to do is look at the women who brought the suit in Scotland, a group of liberal and left lesbians who spent most of their lives campaigning for gay rights and other left-wing causes, to see what a tragic argument that is. You don't get to tell people that they are "definitionally" right-wing just because you say so. Context is important. My "gender critical" beliefs come from an empiricist philosophical perspective, even if you can't wrap your head around the fact that one can indeed be a left or left-liberal skeptic of gender ideology.
"There is no such thing as a “gendered soul”, nor a soul. This is religious terminology. That GC’s use this phrase is proof that they are religiously oriented". Yeah, we know that there's no such thing as a gendered soul; that's the point. We are making fun of you because that's what *you* believe in. That you think the fact we're pointing out that you have a religious belief makes us religious is just..wildly illogical. I don't even have a fallacy for it because it's such a basic logical error.
"There is no debate of its existence in the scientific/medical field. It is settled science." You are mistaking (or trying to convince others to mistake) the observation of a phenomenological belief as equivalent to the truth of the content of that belief. For example, there's no question about the existence of anorexia. That doesn't mean that it's "settled science" that these people are too fat. Because it's a known scientific phenomenon that some people think they are "born into the wrong body" does not make it "settled science" that they are born into the wrong or that "gender identity" exists. Believing something doesn't make it so (however heretical that belief would be among today's critical theory-addled youth).
This idea that gender identity is a settled scientific belief is just...nuts. Point me to a single article that treats it as anything but phenomenological and I'll concede your point. However, you cannot, because no reputable scientist has ever proven that the interior experience of gender has ontological truth value. First, because that's not what scientists do. They look at the real world, and gender identity isn't a real-world phenomenon. Second, this is a philosophical question, which is: what is the relationship between internal mental states or beliefs and existential or ontological reality?
Finally, your last paragraph was fished in whole cloth out of your fevered imagination. People who are critical of gender identity do so not because of religious dogma, but *because* gender identity *is* religious dogma. We're anti-religious, insofar as it shouldn't run policy and science. You want to believe your inner gender is opposite to your physical sex, fine. Just don't expect to make policy enforcing that belief on other people. GC folk don't believe in banning science, but we do think that gender ideology is harming children by confusing them about reality, and medicalizing an ideology is plainly mad. But your logic is so scattered in the last para that it is hard to figure out precisely what you're arguing or how you could possibly believe the deeply weird things you believe, so I'll leave it there.
"the courts in the UK ruled that the gender critical ideology was a protected religious belief."
No. They ruled that it is a protected *belief*. No religiosity is required or implied.
You haven't dealt with the above commenter's point. How do you prove or falsify gender identity? There is no objective measure of it, unlike sex. How do you explain detransitioners if it is an inherent property? It rests on tenets which resemble religion - beliefs requiring a scaffolding of unquestioned faith - far more than a parsimonious assessment of biology.
Jason, that's a whole lotta words to say you wish that men who pretend to be women are really women, and vice versa. But they're just not.
“Gender identity is an objective biological phenomenon.”
No. Gender expression is biological. Gender identity is just a label a person chooses to describe their alignment or discomfort with their sex or their sexed body.
Some boys and men seem more effeminate than others; some girls seem more boyish. But without stupid sex stereotypes, the description of effeminate and masculine wouldn't even apply. Those men would be seen as part of the normal range of look and behavior for males.
Without rediculous sex stereotypes, a girl who climbs a tree would be called a strong girl, not be told she has a boys brain in a girls body. She doesn't. Her girl brain told her that tree would be fun to climb. And her strong girl body allowed her to do it. Telling her she should medicalize to “transition” to a boy is inhumane. She's not a defective girl just because she doesn't fit in your religious belief system that perpetrates archaic sex stereotypes.
Finally, “gender affirming care” is more properly termed SEX MIMICRY. It it surgically and hormonally altering a person's natural look and way of being so that they conform to sex stereotypes. It's unethical and cruel to subject children to such destructive treatments.
If a person’s “existence” requires that every other person on the planet “affirm” their beliefs about themselves, then no one “exists”.
Ruth, you need to accept that most people don’t consider that women ad girls are an “identity” or a class of people you actually belong to simply by saying that you do.
Most people are fine with males not conforming to rigid, stereotypes.
They’re simply never going to support law and social policies that mandate everyone else accept that when males say they’re women or female they are indeed women or female.
No male will ever be female.
And no male will ever be a girl or a woman.
The onus is on males to accept their gender nonconforming brothers in their spaces. Period.
It’s not about affirmation. You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe trans people are alien reptiles, you can. But you can’t deny them civil or human rights based on your beliefs.
Women and girls are an identity. As are men and boys. It’s a sex class.
Gender critical religious activists are absolutely not okay with males (or females) not conforming to rigid stereotypes. Gender non-conforming cis people are usually falsely accused of being trans by GC’s, harassed and called pedophiles or rapists.
No male will ever be female. Transgender males (trans men) are men, not women, not female.
This has nothing to do with gender non-conforming males. It has to do with religious activists not wanting certain females to be allowed in female spaces.
They already have human rights. They can marry, if they can find someone who can tolerate their mental health problems that make them hate their sex or sexed bodies. The can drive cars. They can walk in the park.
What other rights do transgenders need?
They want special rights that allow them to oppress women by taking over the word that defines us. They (and apparently you) want to force us to call them the opposite sex, which is compelled speech. They want the right to deny us sex-segregated spaces, even though it's clear men are the most dangerous and violent of the two sexes.
Not going to happen. Women and children are at risk from men in our spaces, even if they're pretending to be the opposite sex. We're done arguing over this. We're taking back our rights.
They do not have the right to use public bathrooms, trans minors do not have the right to access some healthcare, and they can be banned from any public spaces or institutions. That is a blatant violation of human and civil rights. None of those are “special rights”. Everyone had those rights except for trans people.
Also, what? Gender criticals are literally telling women they are not allowed to define themselves and trying to ban the word woman. Didn’t you see Trump’s EO’s? They called use of the word woman “gender ideology”.
You can call people whatever you want. You can call trans people aliens from mars if you want. You simply cannot strip them of their civil and human rights based on your religious belief that they are a different sex than they actually are.
The only people getting rid of sex segregated spaces are gender criticals (remember when you forced a trans man to play in a woman’s wrestling league because you were so desperate to ban non-existent trans women and he absolutely annihilated his female opponents?).
Men are objectively on average the more dangerous and violent of the sexes. That is one of the reasons why it is so important for trans women and girls to use female single sex spaces. Black and indigenous trans women and girls in particular have the highest victimhood rates of sexual violence than any other demographic (even JK Rowling herself acknowledged this in her Terf Wars essay; white trans women meanwhile have similar rates of victimhood of sexual violence as white cis women).
Women and children, including trans women and children, are at risk of from men in their spaces.
No one pretends to be the opposite sex unless they are performers or drag artists.
We are done arguing over this. We are taking back our rights. Gender critical misogynists will lose and will not steal any more rights away from women and trans people.
None, because there’s no such thing as “men who identify as trans”. You can’t identify as trans. It’s an immutable characteristic. And the article explicitly states that the Supreme Court ruled that trans men can not only be barred from men’s bathrooms, but women’s bathrooms as well.
Jason's argument: People who are desperate to look like the opposite sex actually ARE the opposite sex. Also, the earth is flat, I tell you. I can see all the way to the edge. It's biological!
Sally’s argument: people who I don’t like are a different sex than what I say they are. I am the supreme god of sex and I get to overrule biology. Also the earth is flat, I tell you, and anyone who says otherwise is a proponent of gender ideology! I can see all the way over the edge! JK Rowling said the earth is flat so it is true! Scientists are liars and are brainwashed by trans ideology! The earth is flat! It’s biological! The flat earth is an adult human flat disk!
No one's objecting to trans people's existence that I've noticed and I'm sure some of them are lovely people, but men however they identify don't belong in womens spaces...why is that so hard to grasp?
Of course you are. A trans person is a person who has undergone sex change. You deny that such a thing exists (while also trying to ban sex change procedures for minors, which kinda gives the game away).
Also, no one is arguing for men to be in women’s spaces. It’s WOMEN that should have access to women’s spaces. Why is that so hard to grasp?
"A trans person is a person who has undergone sex change."
Two comments up you say it's an immutable characteristic. Something requiring surgery and, presumably, exogenous hormones cannot be immutable, because surgery treats the body as mutable. You simply have no idea what you're talking about - it's just drivel.
Being trans is an immutable characteristic. You can’t decide not to be trans. You can choose not to medically or socially transition, but you will still be trans. You just will not be legally recognized as your sex in most places.
You simply have no idea what you’re talking about. Your religion is causing you to not think clearly. You’re just spouting drivel.
If that’s true then there is no reason for you to try and ban sex change procedures for minors, and you should have no trouble paying for sex change procedures through your tax dollars, as such treatments don’t exist! You can’t ban something that doesn’t exist, and you can’t object to your tax dollars going to something that doesn’t exist.
Also, what does being a mammal have to do with sex change? Ignoring the fact that this is demonstrably untrue, why would mammalian physiology prevent sex change uniquely and not sauropsid physiology?
Grow up and get your head of out of your backside. Your religion is false. Science is real. Cope and seethe.
Good lord @Ruth Reid, why would you assume @Lisa Simeone or anyone hasn’t met people who identify as “trans”. What is this drivel and attempt to virtue signal you write? Hit the delete button. As Ru Paul said, it’s all about the edit.
I’m a lesbian. I, like @Jamie Reed, have partnered with or been effectively married to women who identified as “transgendered” and/or later came to identify as “transmen” for years. You know, what we used to call “butch” lesbians or “tomboys” who were convinced by academics like Judith Butler and health care practitioners that sex was socially constructed and that they should amputate their healthy breasts, undergo painful surgeries and hopped themselves up on testosterone. No way back for them. We’ve lived the horror of what happened to them from losing their voices and never being able to scream or sing again and the hideous life long medical complications of surgeries and wrong sex hormones.
Known many heterosexual male autogynephilics too (who now claim “trans” status and some call themselves “lesbians”). Who knew they outnumbered us? It’s used to be funny when straight men tried to hit on us by saying “they were lesbians too” because everyone got the joke. But not anymore because now I have straight dudes showing up to my parties saying they’re like me - they’re a lesbian too and everyone goes radio silent and stares at me awaiting my response which is always, “please get the fuck out of my house” because all I can do now is drop f bombs.
Also besties for decades with the fabulous transvestites like what Tim Curry portrayed in … what was that movie called?
I’m friends with so many people who say they have a “trans” child, I have lost count.
And I meet all of the others claiming “trans” status on a daily and throughout the day. From the blue haired “queers” making my expresso or working retail to the creepy voyeuristic dudes in washrooms and change rooms. Correct. They’re “trans” too.
Maybe you’re “hard pressed to actually identify many of them as transgendered, especially the transmen” but many of us are not. I call it an innate instinct humans possess to be able to identify the opposite sex, lest we become extinct. If you think being a woman or man is all about body parts, just sayin’, you could put me within the best presenting “transman” or “transwoman” and I will identify them within minutes. Because there is something different about the way woman move and something about the softness in their eyes that always gives it away … even if it’s not the large vs small hands or feet.
I don’t think anyone has ever claimed they want to ‘magically morph’ into the opposite sex.
But more importantly, the point here is that democracy is at stake. No matter your views, these laws affecting our human rights should be debated. Debated constructively and fairly, using language that is accessible to everyone.
How is democracy at stake? How do these people not already have all the rights the rest of us have? They do what they want, they dress how they want, they present themselves how they want, they go where they want.
In the UK most toilet cubicles are floor to ceiling so I’d be very concerned if we could see anyone’s private parts. I’ve never, ever seen anyone exposing themselves in a female toilet.
However, I wonder how transmen manage in male toilets at the urinals?
I guess they don’t have any problem really because nobody seems to object to them being in toilets or changing rooms at all…
How about we build new special showers and bathrooms for trans women, non-binary men and every other man as well as any woman stupid enough to prove how woke she is by getting naked with strange men. You'll eventually figure it out. You may have some very nice transgender friends. But men haven't stopped ogling and raping women and children. And so called “trans women” are men. Get a clue.
Those of us who have met the worst of the worst men DON'T WANT MEN IN OUR SPACES. Especially when we're vulnerable such as naked in showers or in booths we can be forced back into when we unlock the door. How are you not understanding this?
I wonder why males, don’t object to trans men in their toilets.? I wonder why that could be? I wonder why females object to trans women in their toilets ? I’m trying to figure it out?
I’m trying to figure out why Isla Bryson a convicted double rapist transitioned during his trial!!? (I wonder why his ex wife found that hilarious when she found out). I’m just trying to figure it all out!!
I’m wondering if Isla Bryson is the only Isla Bryson in the whole world!!!
At the most basic level, how can they take a full part in society when there is no public toilet that they can use without attracting adverse attention from someone, or in the case of trans men, possibly not being able to use one at all?
Trans men (women) are welcome in women's spaces. They are women. Men can use men's spaces. Simple. If trans identified men have a problem with male violence they can expend all the energy they've been expending onto forcing women to accept them, towards forcing men to accept them. Any argument you have against that will in fact support women's argument that we don't want men in our spaces.
Ann, here’s an idea: why don’t men use men’s toilets and women use women’s toilets? A man in a skirt and wig is still a man. Perhaps men should learn to be more tolerant of other men instead of expecting women to do it for them.
Many women are effectively banned from public services, sports teams, rape crisis centres & DV shelters because they *cannot* attend if the opp sex is there. Why do those women not matter to you?
As a cis woman, I strongly believe that a blanket restriction on where trans women can go will also negatively affect cis women, albeit with typically less severe consequences. That is to say, that in order to “protect” cis women from the minuscule number of trans women, a greater number of cis women will be challenged, threatened, assaulted etc due to being suspected of being trans or simply having the restriction used against them. Just the idea that a police officer might have the right to ask any woman to prove they are cis is horrifying and would undoubtedly be abused. There is no safe and workable one size fits all solution, it has to be nuanced.
First of all, I reject the terminology "cis" and "trans women." There's no such thing as "trans women" or "transwomen" -- those are men.
Second, the notion that a cop is ever going to "ask any woman to prove they are cis" is bullshit fearmongering. It doesn't happen, it hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen.
Why is it that the left (supposed left) employs the same nonsensical tactics as the MAGA horde when trying to make an argument? It's bogus when the right does it and it's bogus when the left does it.
I don't want a man swinging his dick around in my locker room or restroom. He can go into the men's locker room and restroom where he belongs.
The Supreme Court CONFIRMED the law as it has always been. Stonewall et al told people that males could ‘identify’ as women and be in women’s spaces, services and sports. They can’t and never could and the SC has confirmed that
Why did Stonewall demand "no debate" when women wanted to discuss their sex-based rights and sports and how men with tarns-identities interfered with them?
I assume this is a rhetorical question. Fair enough, perhaps they shouldn’t have done that. My gut feel is that is because they’re operating from a minority position and it’s very stressful, we’re all human, there is a temptation to ‘knuckle down’ in the face of adversity.
Not only did they insist on "no debate", any woman who spoke out to protect her sex-based rights was hounded as a bigot. This was Stonewall policy - a policy of identifying "suppressive persons" and flagging them as "fair game" by labelling them a terf.
That era is over. The debate has happened. The courts have heard it, and the terfs were vindicated. Debate is now proposed after the gender ideologists have lost.
Thanks for explaining. I feel now that you’re shutting down the debate. Can we all agree that’s it’s a very complicated issue with multiple layers / dimensions and keep trying to come to a consensus? Because there is a lot at stake that affects us all.
It is difficult to see how how a "consensus" can be reached when one side is making ontological claims that are just not true and insisting we all believe them
The only consensus that can be reached is for gender activists to recognise that not everyone believes their ideology and they have to live in a pluralistic society where other people have rights too and their own protected classes.
I see that as not going to happen as trans ideology is absolutist and immune to rationale discussion.
Sorry but expecting my 15 year old granddaughter to undress with males present is not complicated. It’s the hill I will die on. I will not accept that my granddaughters have fewer rights than I had. Why should Muslim women, Orthodox Jewish women & traumatised women be excluded from public space? Why should women & girls lose access to safe & fair sport?
No law has changed. Stonewall lied to providers to make them believe that the law had abolished all single sex spaces & services. The SC has merely reiterated the intention of Parliament when the EA was passed. When people trampled all over women’s rights for the last 15 years, did you demand a Parliamentary debate?
I don't give a shit that you think I'm talking absolute rubbish. Your ignorance on this subject speaks for itself. All the things I wrote are true. All the harms being done by these men-faux-women are true. The fact that you don't know about them is your problem.
I guess you're also in favor of psychologically distressed children being chemically and surgically altered rather than helped. And you're also in favor of transing away the gay.
I was wondering how long until you digressed and dropped a f bomb or used a swear word. Well done 👏. Sometimes people just need to speak their truth in plain language so everyone gets it. “I don’t give a shit what you think” and just “fuck off” can carry great power.
And people, can you use your fucking google search buttons to find out who the fuck you’re calling a racist, a Nazi, a bigot and a hater in online forums and go hang your head in shame for a spell?
I’m outta here. Gotta go listen to some calming music.
Codifying legal fictions around gender over sex into law is far more destructive to pluralistic, secular democracy than acknowledging that humans can’t change sex, that testosterone-induced androgynization is a powerful force that renders our species, like so many others, sexually dimorphic, and that females *also* have rights to safety, dignity, privacy, and opportunity.
Just because some women refuse to stand up for their sex-based rights doesn’t mean their consent is transferable to those who do. And as for “insulting”, it’s truly insulting to see people abuse reason & wield kindness as a weapon, in the service of female rights being subordinated to the demands of males.
Yeah, it's terrible that I don't want to defend fine upstanding creatures like these:
"Trans-Identified Male Killer Who Made 'Sissy' Erotica Sues Kentucky DOC Over Policy Terminating Distribution of Feminizing Hormones
"A trans-identified male serving 40 years for a brutal 2013 murder is suing the Kentucky Department of Corrections over a new law banning public funding for cross-sex hormones and surgeries. Matthew Smith, who now goes by the name Maddilyn Marcum, was convicted of stabbing Eric Schreiber 72 times and slitting his throat."
"CANADA: Trans-Identified Male Who Shared Sadistic Child Abuse Content And Called for Transitioning of Minors Will Serve Shortened Sentence In Women’s Jail"
And of course there's California's own Dana Rivers, the man who pretended to be a woman and was so angry that lesbians wouldn't accept him as a lesbian that he decided to murder a couple of them. And their son. He shot and stabbed a lesbian couple who had tried to be friendly to him. This same man had previously harassed lesbians who wanted to have female only events.
This is what vicious men do. They take the word we use to describe ourselves (woman), they demand everyone pretend that they have actually become women, they get it in their heads that since they are “actual women” that we should also go along with their insane belief that they are lesbians. And when lesbians politely turn them down because we are same-sex attracted, not same “gender identity” attracted, they harass us, call us bigots, tell us to suck their “girldick” and get us kicked off, you guessed it, LESBIAN dating apps. We are at risk of male violence because idiots like those posting here want to pretend that if a man thinks he's a woman, he must be less violent than other men who murder women.
Oh, guess where California put lesbian murderer Dana Rivers – yep, he's in a female prison. Good job you dopes. As I said in another comment here, I'm happy to pay for special showers and bathrooms for “trans women” to share with all of you who are too stupid to understand male violence. You'll eventually figure it out.
I have very good trans friends, who are lovely people just trying to live their lives, and wouldn't harm a fly.
You, on the other hand, are hateful piece of shit, who will at some point realise that the only people left in your life are the ones with a similar hateful worldview, because no normal, decent person will want anything to do with you.
What a nasty, spiteful reaction to a very good piece which is not only about trans rights, but all our human rights and why we are increasingly being let down by governments increasingly sidelining parliament to make laws.
Women have far, far more to fear from men than trans people.
You seem perfectly happy to throw other people onto the bonfire of your bigotry, applauding and even inviting a your fellow bigots to “give them hell”. What is so offensive to you about people just trying to live their lives and be themselves?
Ah, yes, the usual knee-jerk accusations. And the usual deliberate conflation.
I'm sorry you don't acknowledge reality. I'm sorry you don't understand what's at stake here. I'm sorry you approve of the chemical and/or surgical mutilation of children who are in psychological distress. I'm sorry you don't understand Biology 101.
And I'm sorry you assume that because a woman -- actually, many millions of us -- stands up for the rights of women, therefore, she must be a Trump supporter. Irrational, illogical, distracting, ad hominem, and false assumption.
All transwomen are males. Just like all other men. You presumably don’t think men should be able to walk into a female changing room where women are naked, so why should TW be able to?
If you don’t like the law that the Supreme Court have declared then campaign for a new statute to override the Equality Act. This focus on guidance is bizarre. Guidance isn’t law. The law is clear: biological sex is real and it matters.
You can continue to say this to yourself, but it doesn’t make it true.
Please know that I have genuine sympathy for anyone suffering from mental distress; I am unwilling to lie to myself or others as “treatment” for that distress.
Wow. Well then we clearly have nothing to discuss. We have such a fundamental disconnect that there is no way to even begin a rational debate. You are dismissing an awful lot of people as mentally ill — people who have a huge rate of suicide when they are not accepted for who they say they are, but much less when they are living safely with acceptance.
Sometimes what is passed off as mental illness is just incompatibility with a narrow-minded culture. As an autistic person I can attest that when I am in a more flexible environment, free from certain arbitrary societal conventions, I am more productive and relaxed. I exhibit fewer negative traits that interfere with my executive functioning.
Sometimes the constraints society puts on us are just there because that’s how things have always been. The reasons either no longer apply, or we have learned more and know better — yet we are slow to let go of the traditional way of doing things.
Although being transgender is very old. Trans people have always been around. Their acceptance has varied (and does vary) by culture.
Sorry, I said we have nothing more to discuss, then I rambled on again. 🤦🏻♀️ Diarrhea of the keyboard. lol
What made me so fucking angry was when gay and lesbian children and youth (and a inordinately high number of girls who are autistic or troubled) were sterilized and medically harmed. I tend to get real vicious about these things being a homosexual. As do I as a feminist when women’s rights are taken down.
It's scary isn't it how people identifying as politically moderate who are opposed to trans people being able to live normal lives are so willing to align themselves with far right enemies of democracy. You'd think it'd give them pause for thought but apparently not.
No one's saying people who identify as trans can't live lives free of discrimination but like tbe rest of us they also need to follow the rules meaning that in some instances spaces are exclusive to one sex, and therefore in the example of women only spaces men (however they identify) are neither welcome or permitted to enter.
People who identify as trans have the same rights as everyone else...
The principal opposition which led to the For Women Scotland case was from left-wing Scottish lesbians. Why aren’t you aligned with them against far right enemies of democracy? Aren’t left-wing lesbians the sort of people who protested at Greenham Common, for example?
The Nazis considered it crucial that the trains ran on time. Therefore, if you think the trains should run on time, you should reconsider that position because the Nazis held it?
See what a stupid argument that is?
Any proposition is true or false regardless of who (or who else) holds it. Any attempt to focus on the person who has an idea rather than the idea itself is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, one of the most basic fallacies of relevance.
Strangely the Muslim women that I spoke to who were scared that they would lose their 1 hr per week women only swimming session weren’t white. If “being yourself” means removing all privacy, dignity & safety from women & girls then I will fight back. This is new. T people have always been around, they just weren’t previously demanding access to naked women & children. All the hate is coming from them.
How many of these cases of trans women who you deny are women are there actually harming ciswomen as compared to how many transgender people are harmed either from assault by people who hate or fear them for being trans or self-harm because of attitudes like this? IYou might be embarrassed to learn how much of your argument is based on false information meant to manipulate you.
Even if a large percentage of the cases you base your opinion on are true, the number of transgender people (women and men) who are being genuinely harmed, not even just denied civil rights, but physically harmed, is much higher.
Just what percent of transgender people do you think are athletes and prisoners ? And while transgender people are probably targets of domestic abuse just like any other demographic, they are also targeted by their parents. Your belief system leaves those people without protection even though they are most definitely targeted because of their gender.
You don’t have to understand the science or psychology to understand the data. The most recent data I could find on the UK government website was from 2019/20 and the hate crimes against transgender people had been increasing every year for the five years included in the report. It increased by 16% just between 2018/19 and 2019/20.
According to spuk.org.uk 48% of transgender people in the UK have attempted suicide at least once in their lives. Compare that to less than 7% of the population as a whole. (according to mind.org.uk)
Where is the actual problem? Is it possible you are being fed conflated scary stories to influence your opinions about transgender people?
Note that your intention to strip people of civil liberties is based on anecdotal evidence and from what I’ve seen, when actually investigated, often they are not what they appear to be. In one particular case the girl who claimed to have been injured or intimidated by a trans girl in football/soccer was the daughter of a anti-trans activist and no such player existed. (Last Week Tonight investigated several claims)
You may be being manipulated into supporting something based on false premises.
Most men don’t harm women. But we still ban all men from women’s single sex spaces. The evidence is that TW commit sexual assault on women at the same rate as other men. So why would we treat them differently to any other man?
This is not credible evidence. It's produced by well known activists with links to hate group Sex Matters who are trying to do exactly what Timbrely describes.
They only looked at people who had committed crimes. There is no indication of the percentage of transgender women who commit violent crimes. They looked at what percentage of trans women who had committed crimes had committed violent crimes.
That is not an assessment of the criminality of trans women as a whole. I’ve not been able to find stats on the percentage of transgender people who commit violent crimes but there is plenty of data on them being assaulted and of self-harm. If trans people are more likely to commit acts of violence than cisgender people, where is the data?
Also, according to that report the trend was that as transgender support systems have been put in place over time those violent crimes lessened. (Though there was debate as to causality)
I already posted almost a dozen reputable articles, with links to further reporting, in evidence of the harms that trans ideology is doing to society, especially to women and to vulnerable children and teens.
People can choose to look at that evidence or not. I'm not going to keep repeating it over and over again.
Define “harm”. If a religious women cannot enter an intimate space that includes the opp sex, she is harmed. If a traumatised woman cannot enter the same space without triggering her ptsd, she is harmed. If a young girl is exposed to a naked male, that is grooming. If a severely disabled woman is denied care because she wants only F intimate carers, she is harmed. If a rape survivor cannot access counselling because she cannot speak of her trauma in front of the opp sex, she is harmed. There are many, many more of these women then there are transwomen. Try telling the 10 year old girl sexually assaulted by a TW in supermarket toilets that it didn’t happen . It did not happen because the attacker was trans, it happened because they were male. F need privacy from M. 5 minutes ago, nobody ever questioned that. How the M identified is irrelevant.
The people you mention who sneak their way into women's spaces to do harm are not Trans, and should not be used as an example of the Transgender community. It is the fault of the system for allowing these people to mask as Transgender and infiltrate safe spaces for women. Again, those people you mentioned are *not* Transgender. Even if some are, should we let the minority define the majority? If a white man committed a crime, would all white men be considered criminals? Look deeper into what you're spouting and realise that it's born from pure hatred rather than facts. \ (•◡•) / にぱー
In the case of women's restrooms/washrooms, for example, no lying is even necessary. No declaration of gender identity is required to enter a public restroom, so allowing male-bodied persons into the women's restroom allows any man, and therefore every man, to enter and use the women's room unchallenged. There is no security system, only the previously accepted social compact under which men would avoid breaching women's spaces, and women would support each other. As long as that compact is broken, as long as male-bodied persons are welcomed into women's spaces by overriding the consent of women (NO, one woman's consent does NOT substitute for another's), it's not just a woman's safety that's at risk. It's her fundamental autonomy; women's humanity is being threatened, yet again.
In that scenario, what difference does it make how a violent man presents? If he pretends to be trans or not? Nothing. Presenting female is not the problem, and doesn't facilitate it. Violence in men is the problem.
You are so close to getting it. That is why women have singlee sex spaces - to minimise the risk from abusive men. A man claiming to be a woman is not a ticket to bypass this protection.
Lol! You're so close to getting it, Andy! My point was that an abusive man doesn't even have to claim to be a woman, as long as women and men defend the "rights" of *any* man to bypass that protection. But you're fighting the good fight--keep it up! 👍
The only people who are a problem in the public bathroom are the ones committing crimes. Whether they wear a disguise to get in or are presenting as their gender identity of female but still have a penis, or used to have one, or present as male but still have ovaries, or are cisfemale, the only actual problem is if they commit a crime. Otherwise if they go in, pee, and wash their hands, no one is going notice them. I have genuinely not seen any support for this fear mongering that men are going through a whole ruse of disguising themselves as women just so they can walk into the women’s bathroom to assault a women. Predators slip in when no one is looking. They are more likely to put on a ski mask than a dress. They don’t need to disguise themselves as women.
On the other hand, demanding that a trans woman uses the men’s bathroom is a very good way to get them assaulted. They are more likely to the victim of violence than the perpetrator. If a person who presents as a woman walks into the men’s bathroom, goes pee, and washes their hands, they will be noticed. If the wrong man is in there, or notices them going in, they could be in genuine danger.
Plus, if all they are doing is going pee and washing their hands how does their gender assignment at birth affect you? How are they a bigger threat than a strong lesbian who doesn’t like the way you looked at her because you are trying to decide if she is actually a man, or a mentally ill woman, or a woman on drugs that make her unaware of pain or reality? Transgender people are not more likely to perpetrate violent crimes. I have seen no data to support such claims, only anecdotes. Those only account for a handful of cases. The statistics for the reported cases of assaults against transgendered people is significant. And how many do not report being attacked? Just as cis women do not always report sexual assaults.
The NIH has US statistics, the UK government’s website has statistics. Organizations that support the transgender community have statistics — not a handful of stories, actual data.
It is simply not true that it is only a problem if the man is committing crimes.
The very fact a man may be in a woman's space means he may be engaging in voyeurism and exhibitionism. Women do not men to be in a position where they can enact their paraphilias like this. We cannot tell who is an angelic man who only wants to shower and change with women for wholesome reasons and a man who is a fetishist and abuser.
And as I said, the people committing crimes (including exposing themselves and so forth) are a problem. It is irrelevant if they are a cis man disguised as a woman, a transgender woman, or a cis woman.
I simply do not believe this whole scary story about some epidemic of predator cis men using the notion of trans women being allowed to use the women’s bathroom as a new venue you for assaulting women. Dressing in drag is a lot of effort just to get through the door. It isn’t that difficult to enter the bathroom dressed as a man; if one intends to commit a crime then one is going in when it is not crowded. These scary stories are pretty far fetched. They ring of fear mongering.
I think the fundamental conflict in this discussion is that some of you all simply do not believe that a transgender woman is a woman so you will never give them the equal rights that women so are desperately fighting for. If you, for the sake of the discussion, imagine that they truly are women, that this is a fairytale world in which people really do get assigned the wrong gender and can only live at peace when their mind and body match… would you let them use the women’s bathroom?
And as for not believing transgender people are the gender they say they are, why is your opinion about them more valid than theirs? You are not inside them. Just because you have never felt like anything except your gender that you were assigned at birth and what your external body shows, and if it has come up, what your internal organs show, doesn’t make you an authority on the gender identity of the entirety of the human race.
I am autistic. I am cis female. I have never thought I was not. However I don’t feel strongly about my gender identity. I don’t freak out if someone misgenders me because of my name or my appearance. As Hannah Gadsby said, for that brief instant they are viewing me as part of the patriarchy. For a moment they may subconsciously assume things about me that they dismiss once they realize I am a women, if they are like so many who have so many gender biases in their deep subconscious from growing up in a society that demonstrates the bias against women constantly even while saying we’re all equal.
Even though I have never questioned my gender, I am not going to assume I know others’ minds. I’ve heard enough people explain their experiences growing up feeling misgendered (yes, anecdotal, so not data, but I talking about why *I* believe transgender people are the authority on their own gender; I am not making an argument for my position) I have heard compelling stories from people who chose very difficult paths in order to resolve their body with their mind. They gave up a lot because their lives were untenable when their gender was incongruous.
And because I have read peer reviewed science and psychology papers about sex and gender on reputable sites like NIH I know that the factors that determine a living being’s sex are complex. It isn’t XX and XY. It isn’t indoor and outdoor plumbing. The fact that the biology around this has evidence of more than two sexes, and there are people whose gender is unclear at birth and sometimes the doctor makes a choice based on what they see because everybody’s first question is “what is it?” (Why are we so obsessed with gender?) convinces me that I cannot dismiss people who do not fit into a binary set of genders based on their assignment at birth. It’s not my place to ignore all of the science that proves it is more complex. It is not my place to erase the people who do not fit into the binary system simply because it is inconvenient. They are real people. They have rights. Making up scary stories about all of their bad intents based on subset of people is illogical. There are bad people who are trans women. There are bad people who are cis women. There are bad people who are transgender men. There are bad people who are cis men. There are bad people who are agender. And any other genders that other cultures recognize but that I am not familiar enough with to include here.
As long as you don’t believe that a transgender person is the gender they say they are, we will never be able to have a meaningful debate. I believe that most transgender people are who they say they are because choosing to be trans is choosing a tough life.
Crossdressers, drag queens, and people who identify as queer in terms of gender expression are not who I’m talking about. I’m talking about people who do not live their life as the gender they were assigned at birth. I would never assume I know better than them about that.
Are there people who think they are “the wrong gender” and come to a different conclusion later? Yep. There are people who take awhile to figure out their sexual orientation too. And what their love language is. And what their hopes and dreams are. And that they have been being gaslighted by their family for their whole life and have to learn self respect and to trust their own perception of reality. People are allowed to get it wrong. And they are allowed to make the decisions about who they are.
Their gender matters most to them. That’s who it affects most. It has next to nothing to do with me. If they are a criminal then their gender has nothing to do with that. Sure, there is a gender inequality issue and men perpetrate violent crimes against women more than the other way around. Sure, women are burdened with trying to be safer because there is no difference between a nice guy’s behavior and a predator’s. We have to do things that are ridiculous and inconvenient to reduce our risks. But none of that has anything to do with transgender rights if one actually believes they are the gender they say they are.
As long as you believe trans women are just men masquerading as women, you will fear them.
Clearly under that notion transgender men are not safe using the men’s bathroom, yet that is what they do.
You all do realize that you usually don’t know when a transgender person is in the bathroom with you, right? They are not waving pink, blue, and white flags as they go about their daily business. The fact that it’s only if you know that someone is transgender, if they have been public or are out that you are going to bar them. So you’ll only do this to people you know? Or are we going to use the personal data collected by DOGE to identify them all and make sure no one slips by unnoticed?
But I am wasting my time if you don’t believe transgender people. That fundamental point is a show stopper.
Oh, and that no one is a criminal until they commit a crime.
“I can’t believe men would do this and go to all that effort!” is not a credible safeguarding position.
Such gaps in protection is exactly where predators go.
Also please remember, it is not a requirement to dress in drag to claim to be a transwoman. A very poor effort will suffice or you are a bigot.
Also note only two sexes have ever evolved. All the “complex biology” is a smokescreen to confuse the ignorant about what a sex is and allow men to claim they are really women.
And if you think that transwomen really are women you have rendered the word “woman” devoid of any coherent meaning. You still need a word for thr roughly half of adults that have developed reproductive anatomy associated with conceiving and bearing children. What word should we give to this cohort of human beings?
Can you point me to the stats of assaults on T people? I have only seen data about total HI. As misgendering or ‘giving a funny look’ are reported as HI, I’d need to see a breakdown of actual assaults. T are currently the safest demographic in terms of murders (UK).
How many people who are trans and sneak into women’s spaces and do harm would be too many? Your argument is the “one true trans” one - if a man says he’s trans and harms someone then actually he isn’t, because nobody who is would do that. It’s an obviously flawed argument. And Katie Dolatowski and the Scottish butcher are only two examples in the UK and Ireland.
What about women who assault other women? Should all women be refused from women's spaces?
What about other anti-trans activists? Nicola Murray, a prominent GC woman was convicted of sexually assaulting children. So much for the story of protecting women and children. Maybe they should be banned from women's spaces too.
I'd much rather welcome a trans woman who needs to pee into the toilets with me than GC people who constantly obsess over what is in people's trousers when they're in a locked, isolated cubicle minding their own business.
What about women who assault other women? Should all women be refused from women's spaces?
What about other anti-trans activists? Nicola Murray, a prominent GC woman was convicted of sexually assaulting children. So much for the story of protecting women and children. Maybe they should be banned from women's spaces too.
I'd much rather welcome a trans woman who needs to pee into the toilets with me than GC people who constantly obsess over what is in people's trousers when they're in a locked, isolated cubicle minding their own business.
I think you'll find the men will stop them... And with a very high risk for abuse, harassment, assault. Kind of why trans people should be able to use facilities aligned with their gender if not specifically NB. And why your issue is with men, not trans people.
It's not women's responsibility to protect men from other men.
When you say, "your issue is with men, not trans people," yes, I agree insofar as there's no such thing as a "transwoman" -- that is a man. Nobody can change his or her sex. A man is a man, no matter what he wears, how he speaks, how he presents himself, or what he claims. He is a man, not a woman.
Likewise, no woman can become a man, no matter what she wears, how she speaks, how she presents herself, or what she claims, even if she gets her breasts chopped off. She is still a woman.
The profound, destructive delusion that a person can morph into the opposite sex is a mental disorder and deserves compassionate psychological care, not "affirmation" of the delusion.
Wow. "The men will stop" transwomen from using the men's room--by threat of violent crimes against them, yet--and that's okay. But women objecting to these same transwomen using the women's room--for numerous reasons, including feeling threatened--that's unacceptable? How are you not embarrassed by your own words?
What a weird comment. Nicola Murray wasn’t assaulting people in toilets. (For that matter, nor was Stephen Ireland, the Surrey Pride cofounder convicted of raping a 12yo boy under his care.) Males are the biggest threat to females. But look, if you want to use the men’s toilets, don’t let us stop you.
"How many people who are trans and sneak into women’s spaces and do harm would be too many?"
How many women who harm others would be too many?
I know that statistically the majority of (cis/trans) female-focussed abuse is from men. Cis/trans women make up a far smaller amount, but if one abusive trans person is enough to take away every trans person's rights, then one abusive cis woman could be enough to take away our rights.
At the end of the day, trans women face the same difficulties we do, and I'm not going to segregate them out of our spaces because of the beliefs of a few.
So your demand now is for a zero-crime world? Laudable, but I don’t think it’s feasible without an authoritarian presence that nobody would welcome except fascists.
It’s not about “how many is the right number to take away rights”. The SC decision showed that *no such rights exist*. Males do not have the right to be in female single-sex spaces. Trans women are men under the law wherever the EA 2010 applies.
You are very welcome to run your spaces as you like, but if you allow trans women and females into a space where the EA 2010 applies, you cannot exclude any other males. This is what the law says, even if Ian is hiding that fact from you and all of his readers.
Gosh, what should society do about all those women who rape? Oh wait. Nope, it's still men.
I don't care about what's in someone's trousers. I care about what's in his head. If he's male, his propensity to violence is enormous compared to a female. It's primarily men who rape, and crime stats show it doesn't matter if they think they're women, they're still more likely to rape. (Pssst, most "trans women" keep their penis. Why wouldn't they? Men love their penises.)
85% keep their penises. You need to spend some time on m2f forums and see how they talk when they think women aren't around. Eg. all the talk about their 'euphoria boners' - the arousal and erections they get when wearing women's clothing or undressing around women.
If it were only a question of locked, isolated cubicles, it may be a different question. Some kind of arrangement would probably have been agreed by now. However, the demand for entry to spaces of communal nudity, for intimate care, for denying women any & all single spaces/services, although there are plenty of T only spaces & services means that we cannot risk trusting any assurances about privacy.
Men are generally larger and stronger than women. Male rapists have waited for women to exit toilet booths and then shoved them back into the stall. Locked doors with men hovering outside them are clearly not safe. Remember, there are no security cameras to catch a violent male inside of a mixed sex bathroom waiting for a woman or child to unlock the stall door.
The fantasy of safety in communal bathrooms with lockable stall doors creates a danger to women and children. Teenage boys aren't even safe around adult men.
We need women like those posting here with a "be kind" message to understand how dangerous some men are. They probably haven't ever been sexually assaulted. Good for them but their experiences and opinions are not useful in policy discussions. Many people actually believe that if a man says he's a woman and does something to perform woman, that makes him different from other men. I think men who are so obsessed with women's bodies that they want to be us are probably more dangerous than people realize.
The best strategy to reclaim women's right to privacy, safety and dignity is to kick all men out of our female private spaces, then build special mixed sex facilities for use by male transgenders, nonbinaries and women who want to prove their woke bona fides. They'll eventually figure it out and decide to use single-sex facilities. Or maybe they'll feel so fulfilled cleaning the urine off toilet seats that they'll stay in there calling the rest of us bigots.
It’s not born from pure hatred. It’s born from the care for vulnerable women, and children. Do women deserve same sex intimate hospital care if they want it? Or are they bigots for asking for it?
Do children deserve to be assessed thoroughly before being affirmed for blockers or medicalisation that can leave them unable to give birth, or orgasm, and a hundred other medical conditions they’ll have to navigate for the rest of their lives?
Does a woman who has been sexually assaulted have the right to a space that is female only? Does she have a right to the terror she may feel at the thought of being attacked again but this time in a space that has always been for females?
It has nothing to do with hate. That gets shoved around when people are out of cogent arguments or just haven’t been bothered to do the research.
The bottom line is this:
Females in the majority have a right to say they are uncomfortable to the point that they want female spaces to remain as female spaces.
Watching a male boxer knock the bejesus out of a female boxer was a tough spectacle. Why did those female boxers look so amateur against him? He identified as female but his chromosomes said otherwise and he has never sued those that knew and spoke the truth. Because he knows what his chromosomes are, and everyone that was honest and that saw those fights knew the truth.
It has become a farce under a withering well meaning attempt at kindness. But it isn’t kind. Far from it.
It’s “out to lunch” only because you are a gender critical religious extremist.
You absolutely are taking rights away from trans people. You are barring them from single sex facilities. You are banning healthcare for trans minors. The ability to use a public bathroom, to get healthcare, and to play sports are not “special rights”. And while women’s rights are under attack, they are not under attack from trans people, but rather from the right, including from gender critical right wing activists who have allied with extreme misogynists.
There is no self ID in the UK, so it is physically impossible for a man to say “I’m transgender” and be recognized as a woman and put into a women’s prison. As of now, the law in England and Scotland requires that a trans woman have full sex reassignment surgery before even being *considered* being placed in a women’s prison, and even then she may be refused. Sports similarly do not allow self ID, and there are no “males” in women’s sports. There are no “men” invading women’s shelters either. This is a far right phantasm.
Sex change doesn’t occur my magic. It’s done by way of modern medicine. Surgery and hormones.
Even your claims about Eddie Izzard are counterfactual. She identifies as non-binary and gender fluid. She is not a trans woman, and she has not undergone any medical sex change procedures, as far as I know.
Race is completely non-biological and socially constructed, so it is not analogous to gender/sex.
You can’t strip rights away from people just because YOU don’t believe in their identity. You cannot compel others to conform to your religious beliefs. If you want to think trans women are men, fine, but you cannot strip sex based rights away from them on account of your belief.
Jason, it is false that “trans” people are losing any rights. A man in a skirt can still go into the men’s bathroom. He always did before. Now suddenly he can’t? Bullshit. The only “healthcare for trans minors” now being done is chemical and/or surgical mutilation. And it’s still happening. That’s not care. If you cared about them, you wouldn’t want them destroying their bodies with freakish hormone treatments and chopping off healthy body parts. You wouldn’t be trying to block their puberty and thereby trans away the gay. You’d be trying to get them help for their obvious psychological distress.
And nobody’s preventing them from participating in sports in their correct sex category. William (“Lia”) Thomas is a man. The reason he started pretending he was a woman is because he couldn’t cut it in male swimming competitions, so he cheated by joining the women’s team and obviously beating everyone there. Maybe he should grow up and get help for his mental health problems instead of cheating and leering at women in the locker room.
The only reason the UK is changing its tune is, as you already know, because of the Tavistock Clinic scandal, the Cass Report, the UK Supreme Court ruling, and the grotesque Isla Bryson case, among others. So yes, males have been housed with women in women’s prisons — in the US and the UK — and have attacked and raped them. It’s still going on in the US. Fact. And men are harming women in domestic violence centers and rape crisis centers. Fact.
Don’t give me this bullshit about rightwing blah blah blah. I’ll stack my liberal bona fides up against anyone any day. I’ve stood up for civil liberties and human rights all my life, including sacrificing my career for them (Google is your friend).
As the meme so aptly puts it, “The American Left will put you in a prison cell with a rapist; the American Right will make you have his baby.”
As for Eddie Izzard, he is a man. He can wear all the skirts and wigs and earrings he wants. He’s a man. He is not a she. But of course you pretend he is a woman yet somehow your head explodes if somebody claims he or she can change their race or ethnicity. Rank hypocrisy.
Liberty allows you to pretend whatever you like about yourself, but not to compel others to do so as well.
It is not false. That’s why your ilk were celebrating the SC ruling. Men in skirts were always using the men’s bathrooms. What you did was attempt to ban trans women from women’s bathrooms. Said women always used women’s bathrooms and will continue to.
Healthcare isn’t “chemical or surgical mutilation”. Your opposition to healthcare is religious extremism.
For Christ’s sake Jason, google who you’re speaking to before you throw any more salvos at her. You’re making us Canadians look really fucking ignorant, eh?
The only religious extremism here is that exhibited by the trans cult. It is religious dogma. I don’t believe in the tenets of your religion. You wanna believe in them? Fine. Have at it. You can’t force anyone else to.
As for your continued obfuscation about “trans women”, there’s no such thing. They are men. There’s no such thing as “trans women” or “transwomen”. They are men.
I have no religion. I am not gender critical. There is no such thing as “the trans cult”. Just like there is no such thing as “the Jewish cult” or “the Black cult” or “the woman cult”. These are characteristics, not ideologies. The gender critical religion meanwhile is an ideology.
You do not have to believe in anything. The courts in the UK ruled that being gender critical is a protected religious belief. You are entitled to believe what ever you want. If you want to believe that trans women are men, or that they’re aliens from Mars, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth is 6000 years old, you can believe it. But you cannot strip rights away from people based on your religious beliefs, and you cannot force anyone else to subscribe to your faith.
You are right that there is no such thing as “transwomen”. There are only trans women, which are women that are trans. Women that are trans are women, just as women that are Black are women, or women that are blonde are women, or women that are tall are women.
You aren’t thinking clearly, Jason. Biology (and as it happens the Supreme Court too) says that we remain the same sex. Trans people - trans women in particular - aren’t banned from all single sex spaces. They’re banned from female single sex spaces because they’re male.
On sports it’s the same: they’re welcome to compete in the male category, because they’re male. Using linguistic quirks like “their label includes women!” doesn’t survive a cheek swab and test for the SRY gene (which is why one develops as male). Biology is the divider.
Also, a cheek swab also can’t determine someone’s sex. Hence why they have not been in use for decades. Sex is a collection of characteristics and there is no single test that can test all sex characteristics at once.
I assure you I am thinking very clearly. “Biology” doesn’t say anything. It’s a field of study. You mean biologists, people who study biology. And they have said that the SC ruling was biologically and scientifically illiterate. Every medical and scientific institution in the UK condemned it. Only religious groups praised it.
Trans people, trans women in particular, can be banned from single sex spaces. The SC ruled that trans people can be banned from both male and female facilities. Trans women are female, not male, and have always had the right to use female spaces. Same thing with sports. Trans women can’t compete with men (not only because they can be banned, but also because it can be extremely dangerous for female people to compete in some sports against males) and they can be banned from women’s sports as well. That is a blatant violation of human and civil right.
If my “moronic ramblings” you mean statements of fact, I understand why a person like you would ignore them.
And if by “rotting the brain” you mean we have rejected the far right war on science by gender critical religious extremists, you’d be correct. Canada bucked a general global trend of support for trans rights decreasing (especially in the US and UK). Instead, support for trans rights increased, and one of the central aspects of that increase was support for scientific and medical institutions which have been threatened by Trump and other gender critical activists.
The ad hominem is merited because you indulge in gish gallops. You don’t engage with the point and spout endless nonsense. I’ll have nothing more to do with you.
Good lord, tell me Jason is not Canadian! True dat, we take the cake on complete entrenchment in the junk science of Gender Ideology by our ruling 🇨🇦 government into law and civil society. Perhaps only surpassed by our friends in Australia 🇦🇺. But have faith because we’re both common countries so we look to the UK 🇬🇧 to save us. Airstrip One goes down we’re really in a mess.
I am Canadian. There’s no such thing as “gender ideology” and I am very proud to live in a country like Canada where the gender critical religion is considered a fringe and evil pseudoscientific political ideology. Australia too has been steadfast in rejecting gender critical ideology as a pernicious export of MAGAland and TERF island. In fact, in 2025 both countries bucked the global trend and support for trans rights increased in both places, especially in Australia.
They can live however they want. Nobody's saying they can't.
Why do so many of you insist on misrepresenting what I'm saying?
I don't care what myths trans people believe about themselves or anyone else. A man can't become a woman. Women deserve safety, dignity, and privacy in safe single-sex spaces. Period.
Would you allow my teenage daughter the right to have female only changing rooms and showers in school and sports clubs as the EA does? Or should males who claim to be "women" be allowed in with her?
The over 2000 female athletes who have lost medals, records, prize money and sports scholarships to mediocre male athletes allowed to enter female sports because they ‘identify’ as women would disagree with you Mary
Your stats are highly questionable. There is a source of such data that was revealed to be false. I cannot remember the source but it continues to be referenced even though it was fabricated information. I’m sorry I can’t remember enough information to lead you to the fact checking but just a heads up, the sports argument has been debunked.
No, Timbrely, it is not false. The Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which includes athletes Martina Navratilova, Nancy Hogshead, Mariah Burton Nelson, Donna de Varona, among others, has been tracking this. There have been thousands of girls and women who have lost honors and opportunities because men and boys are competing on female teams.
The people you mention who sneak their way into women's spaces to do harm are not Trans, and should not be used as an example of the Transgender community. It is the fault of the system for allowing these people to mask as Transgender and infiltrate safe spaces for women. Again, those people you mentioned are *not* Transgender. Even if some are, should we let the minority define the majority? If a white man committed a crime, would all white men be considered criminals? Look deeper into what you're spouting and realise that it's born from pure hatred rather than facts. \ (•◡•) / にぱー
I agree. I love Ian’s essays and this is the first time I have ever disagreed with him. We should love trans kids and keep them safe but we shouldn’t tell them they are something they are not. It’s not right, not for them and not for us.
Ann, exactly. As I wrote almost 20 years ago, I'm not in favor of discriminating against them in any way. They deserve -- and already have -- the same rights as anyone else. But they can't be allowed to trample on other people's rights, which they have been doing with abandon, and with the blessing of government policies:
"Alarm Bells on Transgender Ideology Ignored
Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls for Thee (pace, John Donne)"
This thread has gotten too confusing for me to reply to all of the replies. I’ll make more comment and then you all can have the last word. You’re not going to change your opinion no matter what I say anyway. And while I understand where some of you are coming from, I don’t know the answer to accommodate both of our concerns. I do know that I’m not okay with choosing to strip one group of their rights and safety for the other group’s. We need a better solution than what is being is offered.
For those of you who simply do not believe that trans women are women, I can’t even begin to discuss this with you. You will never understand. You are picking and choosing which science to look at. You are ignoring anything inconvenient. Perhaps you think people with XXY chromosomes simply don’t count, or that people with indeterminant genitalia are a mistake, or that people with testes and ovaries are not worth being covered by civil rights. And perhaps you don’t believe that those people are evidence that there are more subtle ways a person can be non-binary or misgendered at birth. They assign the gender immediately upon birth. Rarely do they reconsider. There are so many ways it could be more complicated than just two absolutely separate options. But I am speaking to the void about that.
It is telling that people are only up in arms about trans women. The fear of men — the deep-seated misogynistic belief that the controlling power of men will be there no matter what … that it is inevitable. This fear that no matter what a person believes they are, they are still a man with that inside them.
On a side note, [as a gross generalization that may not actually apply to anyone in this thread, so don’t take this personally; I am using a broad brush speaking only about the people who I am describing. I am not saying what you, the reader, believe.] it is also unsurprising that a group of whom many are also anti-women’s-reproductive-healthcare under the guise of anti-abortion (that decision is a medical one, not a legal one) are not quite as loud about providing for healthcare, and supplemental programs for food and education for the children once they are born. There are disconnects, for some people, when compassion is inconvenient. Again, not necessarily the people in this group, but being unable or unwilling to look at situations from the perspective of others yet pushing legislation that affects them is not a great idea.
I dug through UK crime statistics and found 144 violent crimes by trans people for 2024. In 2021 the prison population was .33% transgender. (That includes non-violent offenders.) Note the decimal point. 295 out almost 88K.
I commented somewhere else on this thread that over 45% of transgender people have attempted suicide at least once in their life. (I forget the actual number. Maybe 47? 48?) They are driven to this because their family, their friends, their church, don’t believe them. They are shunned and shamed. They are taught from early on that they are broken. Many are trapped in untenable situations being abused emotionally, sexually, and/or physically. Is it any wonder some of the abused become abusers? (There was a report shared by one of you that showed a decline in crimes by transgender people… it’s very possible it was due to more acceptance by a community, more support, medically, psychologically, socially)
Again, as for whether a transgender person is the gender they identify as — their gender matters very little to me. I was raised to believe my gender (I am cis female and have never questioned that) is not a barrier to anything I might want to do. I was raised to not be intimidated by men socially. Sure, I acknowledge the threat of the higher instance of violent crime by men against women. I take precautions accordingly.
(I recommend looking into the device called Birdie+ as a non-violent self-defense option. It provides 24/7 link to a representative who can send emergency services at the press of a button, but also offers a discrete was to leave awkward situations if someone is making you uncomfortable but not enough to warrant calling for help. Also it can send your location to your emergency contacts without you touching your phone. It’s only $50/year. I don’t work for them. I just think it’s important to be safe and not escalate a situation)
Anyway, I do not have the concept of something being a “man’s” job even though I do sometimes need somebody stronger… I will accept that help from whoever is stronger than me. I have never felt like a damsel in distress in my life.
If someone is committing a crime, their gender still doesn’t matter. They are a criminal. That is what matters. I blame it on a disconnect in their brain… a lack of empathy or a lack of self control, something. Something that they have or are missing. They break the Social Contract and that is down to them as an individual. They are not acting on behalf of a group. They do not represent anyone except other people who have committed the same crime, and then only when comparing criminals.
*************************
The thing I’ve gathered from all of these conversations in this thread is that we are at odds because we need a different solution than the two being offered here.
We need to protect people from criminals, and we need to protect people’s civil liberties. I don’t know what the solution is, but I will never agree to taking away a group’s rights who have committed no crimes just because some people are lumping them in with people who have. We don’t do that. Judging transgender people based on one’s personal beliefs is not okay. I promise you that the descriptions some of you have given do not represent the entire community. Not every transgender person is noticeable. Not every one is extraordinary. Not every one is seeking attention.
So I don’t know how we let transgender people live as their gender (yes, I mean the gender they identify as. It’s not up to you. It’s not up to me.) *and* keep criminals from exploiting the system. In an ideal world people keep their genitals to themselves unless it’s consensual. There is no knowing if more people would become violent criminals if transgender people were allowed to go where they identify. Perhaps it would just be that some criminals would change their methods. But regardless, there must be a third option because taking away rights is not okay.
Obviously some of you don’t believe their rights are being taken away but I feel you are ignoring facts. I don’t think you are truly putting yourself in their shoes. You are oversimplifying it. I’m not going to bother listing all of the ways their rights are being violated though. You aren’t listening.
I concede that, while I believe you are inflating the risk, it is a complicated issue to define legal gender for when it does matter to someone else. I don’t want to look at a penis either. But I don’t want to shower with anyone, so I would be lobbying for private showers. (But protections to prevent assaults, so not *too* private)
So I am not outright saying you are wrong. I’m saying your solution goes too far and needs to take the collateral damage into consideration. As does what you think my solution is. We don’t have a viable solution yet.
*************************
For those of you who complain that my comments are too long, you were never obligated to read any of them. Why would you bother commenting. It will not compel me to write less. I am a stream of conscious commenter.
I know Ian means to be kind, but telling people with gender distress that they cannot live an ordinary life, that their rights and very existence are under threat, is not helpful to them.
There are young people in my town, unhappy about their gender, who have terrified themselves into hiding at home, convinced that life is unliveable for them outside. Yet I see trans people on the street, in the shops, and I know they are in workplaces, book groups, at gigs etc. I can only guess where they go to the toilet. Probably they have carried on as before and everyone let's it slide.
The idea that For Women Scotland/the EHRC guidance will make life literally unliveable for trans people is parallel to the discredited idea that young people are uniquely likely to take their own lives if they do not have medical interventions like puberty blockers. It was never true, it's now acknowledged to be untrue (even by Chase Strangio, the trans advocate in the recent Skermetti case in the US Supreme Court.) But the false idea has done a lot of harm in it's brief inglorious life.
Ian is concerned that gender non-conforming people should be able to live an ordinary life in society. I agree.
In which case it's a bad idea to tell people suffering from being human (in all it's fine variety) that they have a quasi-medical condition beyond their control, which will last forever and which means that the whole world is against them.
I don't say Ian fully articulates that unhelpful view in this substack - but it is the essential meaning and message of the 'pro-trans/gender-affirming' stance that he aligns himself with.
Maybe we should stop trying to strip rights away from trans people and threaten them with jail if they use a public bathroom and strip them of their right to medical care if you don’t want them to be terrified. Every trans person I know is terrified. Many trans people when denied healthcare do commit suicide. It’s true, no matter how staunchly you wish to deny it (Stangio also never stated what you are accusing him of saying. Your ideas are doing alot of harm in their brief, inglorious lives. Leave trans people be.
I am a homosexual and I refer to myself as a lesbian because I’m female. In case you missed the memo, we’re the L word in the acronym.
You can call yourself whatever you want but I tend to look up words in a dictionary (preferably Oxford) because words and how they are used to communicate matter to me. I call any gay man who doesn’t give a damn about the loss of women’s rights a misogynist.
Then you are a lesbian, not a “homosexual”. This isn’t the 1950s where being gay is a clinical condition. There is no H in the LGBTI+ acronym.
There is a sad irony in an anti-feminist and homophobe calling a gay person “a misogynist” while allying themselves with the *most* violent and misogynistic men in the world in a crusade against women you religiously disapprove of.
I give a damn about women’s rights. You don’t. You have Trump and Andrew Tate on your side. I have feminists on mine.
What kind of asinine comment is this and do you not possess a dictionary?
Homosexual: “sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex.” Lesbian: “denoting women who are sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to other women”. LG are the “H” or homos in the acronym. We did that historically to differentiate between males and female homosexuals. How old are you and why are you clueless to your “gay” history?
And there we have it folks - a gay man calling a lesbian “anti-feminist” and a “homophobe” and making leaping assumptions about people’s political affiliations.
I am so done with flippant, stupid gay men being coddled and striking back at women. Stand down. Because feminists are not with you.
I’ll say it, sister, because no one else likely will. Please send the memo to your gay brothers - we see one more of your sorry asses competing against us in sports because you can’t cut it competing against men; one more gay man steal our prizes and awards; one more gay man win a women’s beauty pageant; one more gay man flip his pretty hair back and declare “ain’t I a real woman” on the cover of Time Magazine; one more gay man wag his junk around a female locker room with complete and utter disrespect to women; one more gay man show up at the Olympics with their balls hanging out of their sparkly shorties dancing with children and I won’t be the only one telling you to zip it.
You do not care one bit about women or women's rights. You are a misogynist who couldn't care less if women are harmed. You actively promote harm to women - and to gay people.
The "LGBTI+" acronym is a load of anti-gay garbage imposed on gay people to erase us while simultaneously exploiting sympathy for us to promote the homophobic, misogynistic trans ideology.
That's good to know! I thought we were called "queers" today, especially by the people who try to force us to believe the homophobic falsehood that transwomen are men. They are also trying to erase the word gay, if you hadn't noticed. I personally am a lesbian but I'm happy with gay and homosexual to describe myself as well. Homosexual, i.e. exclusively same-sex attracted person, is actually a very useful word because it's clearcut and less easy for certain devious people to try to obfuscate with it. Both I and Chase Strangio are female homosexuals, for example.
What homosexuals? Gender ideology and trans activists and their supporters have already obliterated our identities and taken away our rights to gather with our own kind @Spam Spam.
Keep reading the comments. According to @Jason Sarasti (a gay man) am “a lesbian” and “not a homosexual” and he reminds me this isn’t the 1950s (well before I was born btw) where homosexuals were considered a clinical condition.
And I note, my government 🇨🇦 has also declared the term “homosexual” to be obsolete and suggests people stop using it. If that isn’t erasure, not sure what is. But of course they also seem rather confused and unable to define clearly “what is a woman” so there’s that.
A person who claims to be something they are not — such as a man claiming to be, even “knowing they are” a woman — isn’t the same as actually being that thing.
Is it inhumane for you to deny that I know myself to be the true King of both England and Canada?
If not, how is your implicit claim that it is inhumane to ground law and public policy in material reality any different?
There’s no such thing as “a man claiming to be a woman”.
Being king is an occupation. Being a woman or a man is a physical characteristic.
You are literally claiming that we should ground law and public policy against material reality and in favour of religious extremism.
Also, as a Canadian myself, I am disgusted that a gender critical extremist would have my country’s flag in their bio. The gender critical cult is NOT welcome in Canada. Keep that shit in Trumpland and on Terf Island where it belongs
Yeah. Fewer & fewer parts of the world are safe for women. Canada made it quite clear that we are second class citizen’s subject to male diktat years ago.
Fewer and fewer parts of the world are safe for women in no small part due to the rise of the gender critical misogynist movement.
Canada has its issues, but I am so proud that we have stood up for the rights of women and trans people and resisted the fascist creep of gender criticals from MAGA-land and Terf Island.
Oh fuck off, Jason. Being a king or queen is not an occupation - it’s a birthright. Just like I was born female (as has always been defined by biology) and, therefore, I inherited certain birthrights called “women’s rights”.
As a Canadian myself, I am disgusted that our government’s justice department obliterated women’s rights and LGB rights without so much as public referendum. Go ahead: look it up. Need the direct link, I am happy to provide it. The term “homosexual” has been put out of use; “lesbians” can be males; and anyone who says differently and expresses their views publicly can be charged with a hate crime. Need me to cite bills passed by our parliament, just ask.
What a poor excuse of a democracy we’ve become. Of all of the Western nations, we don’t yet have one case before our Supreme Court to decide one of the most fundamental questions - “what is a woman”? It’s as if we flushed the Oxford dictionary down the memory hole, along with England’s monarch and High Court (who used to be our High Court and has decided to clarify this point in law). As if it needed to be clarified to village idiots that sex is, by definition, based on biology and it matters.
Stop with the religious extremist argument and far right Maga insults. It’s such a standard, stupid, misinformed retort by trans activists and their handmaidens. I’m an atheist and have previously held office with the NDP. You don’t get to lob Nazi, fascist, hater bombs at every Canadian who dissents with your beliefs. So UnCanadian. If you want that, move to Iran where there is only one viewpoint allowed to be publicly stated; where women have lost all rights and where they deal with homosexuals (like me) exactly the same way as what trans activists and their supporters do (say homosexuality does not exist, tell homos they’re the opposite sex and send them off to be sterilized and have their body parts amputated so they can attempt to “pass” as the opposite sex. It’s now a $1 billion+ industry in Iran which they’re taken to promoting as a tourism draw. So don’t worry if we ban publicly funded operations to mutilate and sterilize people who believe they’re the opposite sex and stop doling out of wrong sex hormones and puberty blockers … Iran is standing by to fill the gap.
"The term “homosexual” has been put out of use; “lesbians” can be males; and anyone who says differently and expresses their views publicly can be charged with a hate crime".... THIS. Absolute, fucking insanity.
It is. This is what happens when we lie to children and youth and tell them they can change their sex to feel more comfortable in their bodies and when we elect politicians who pass ill thought out laws and do not hold them accountable for taking away hard won civil rights.
Because I suspect Jason is female and given that most “gender confused” kids grow up to be same sex attracted and get over their “dysphoria”, I wonder if Jason might be a lesbian like me. So I’ll ask Jason: what sex were you “assigned” at birth and are you a homosexual? Hopefully I won’t hear back “I’m intersex” (because so many youth are confusing disorders in sexual development (DSDs) with their being a third sex or with “intersex” being a new sexual orientation). I was shocked to hear this from a young group of people who I recognized as LGB and spoke to at a protest - they were gobstruck when I told them I’m a homosexual and asked them are any of you homosexuals too and it’s okay if you don’t want to say? “Intersex” they ALL answered. When I said that’s not a sexual orientation - there are three to choose from and, again, it’s okay if you haven’t figured it out yet or want to tell me to fuck off. One spit at me and they moved away. How parents with kids who think they’re the opposite sex navigate this is insanity and behaviour is beyond me.
Someone needs to be held accountable for fucking up the little ones. While there is so much blame to be shared, I’ll start with the person who drew the infamous “gingerbread person” where elementary school children were presented with a pictograph and got to pick and choose their body parts, were lied to and told humans could change sex and were praised by teachers for inventing their own pronouns (which we were then coerced into accepting and affirming the fantasy world of children’s ever so creative minds). It’s the basis of SOGI education here in 🇨🇦 - the Gingerbread person. While I am aware who funded this junk science in our country, I’m looking for a name - who drew the gingerbread person? Because they’re my second hard crit as an artist. Having taken great delight in being asked to share my thoughts on the hideous “trans progress” flag which should be taken down if for no other reason than it’s bad art and it offends my eyes, I can’t wait to weigh in on the Gingerbread person.
No, mate, kind is something I very much am not. And I'll be delighted to demonstrate just how unkind I can be to genocidal bigots like yourself, just as soon as we meet in person. Rather looking forward to it, actually.
I agree that trans people should be able to live a life that is not hindered by incompetent laws or people’s abject behaviour. And I know from experience that it happens. But the problem is primarily a social issue; living in Amsterdam in the 1970’s it never appeared to be a major problem to either the trans people or the environment they lived in. Maybe that environment, known for its weird sense of humour at the time, helped.
I lose nothing by trans people being able to live with dignity. I certainly do lose something if a desire to avoid scrutiny leads the government to bypass democratic processes to pass new laws
Living with dignity is a separate issue. You cannot legislate "dignity". Current laws to protect women are being re-written to take protections for women out so men, men who pretend to be women, can be in our spaces. Biological men do not belong in our spaces. Biological men are not women. Biological men do not belong in women's prisons. Biological men do not belong in women's sports. Biological men do not belong in women's bathrooms, shelters for abused women, spaces established for lesbian women......Women lose our identity as women when men make claims that they somehow "feel" like us. Being a woman is not a "feeling". Being a woman is not about looking or acting a particular way. The entire notion that one is in the wrong body is a mental/intellectual/emotional construct and not a biological reality. Unlike anorexia (skeletal people feel fat and believe they look fat) or other mental/emotional/intellectual constructs, wearing women's clothing and pretending to be a woman is not physically dangerous or harmful so it does not really need to be addressed. Trans people do not pose a threat to themselves or society and can live as they wish. Like all humans, they will find their community of friends. How they choose to identify is not, however, a biological reality any more than identifying as a dog or cat is actually a "real" thing. Writing women out by writing men in to our spaces is not a violation of men's rights or protections but it absolutely is a violation of women's rights and protections. Trans rights are basic human rights. They should not be discriminated against or subjected to hate, but we can't redefine reality or rewrite laws that eliminate the rights of women because men want to be us. They can't. That's not mean or unfair...it's a fact they need to reconcile as part of their decision.
No new laws have been passed but an existing law which protects single sex spaces especially for women and girls has been clarified. What’s so difficult for everyone to understand?
Men cannot become women and women cannot become men, Jason. Trans women have xy chromosomes. They are male. Trans men have xx chromosomes. This isn’t a religious argument but is a matter of fact. It’s not an act of heresy to point out the truth. Trans women are men. Trans men are women.
I’m curious as to how I’m “losing everything” - I’m not aware of my rights being violated or diminished whereas if the EHCR gets what seems to be its way, trans people will see a substantial diminution in their ability to play a full part in society.
As for your “delusional men” barb the only delusional men I’m aware of are the chaps who put themselves forward as the protectors of women’s rights and safe spaces with one side of their mouths, and with the other gleefully disparage professional sportswomen like our footballers.
We have to consider why such men with trans identities may feel restricted in society. One reason not talked about is that by pretending to be something they are not, they are causing huge social issues that prevent them living their deception to the full. Women are not to blame for some men feeling rejected by society.
The biological identity of women will cease to exist if biological males are defined as women. They are not and can never be women. Trans people will not have a diminished role in society because they can't be women. I'm using the term "delusional" as a medical term and not as a barb: Individuals with delusional disorder may experience difficulties in social interactions and exhibit behaviors consistent with their delusional beliefs, but their overall functioning is generally not markedly impaired. Trans men who believe they can or have become women are delusional, as proven by their biological sex, which is immutable. No amount of hormones, surgeries, make-up or bibbity-bobbity-boo can change this reality.
There is no such term as “biological male”. This is religious terminology. Male is a biological term definitionally. And the only people classifying males as female are gender criticals like yourself
Trans women are women. They are female. They can never be male.
“Trans people” are not synonymous with wonen. There are trans men and non-binary people who are not women.
The gender critical religion which you subscribe to is delusional, and I’m not using that term as a barb, but in a medical sense. It is a false belief that rejects objective evidence that which disproves its validity.
Gender critical “religion”? That actually made me laugh out loud.
Trans women are male, defined by the xy chromosome. If it’s not clear enough at birth perhaps we should cheek swab babies. You can’t change from a man to a woman or vice versa. It’s simply not possible.
Yes, it’s a pseudoscientific cult belief, closely associated with flat-eartherism and young earth creationism.
Trans women are female. Ironically, you are committing heresy in the GC religion, as the Gender critical dogma defines femaleness as a supernatural intention for an organism to go down a developmental pathway towards large gamete production. XY chromosomes cannot define femaleness, because there are cis women with XY chromosomes that have gotten pregnant and given birth and have produced ova. On the contrary as well, there are cis men with XX chromosomes, which would make them female according to you.
Chromosomes are not tested at birth, and there are no cheek swabs that can determine sex.
Trans people don’t change from a man into a woman, they change from male to female or female to male. Trans women are always women, never men, but they are assigned male at birth and so have to undergo medical sex change to give themselves a female phenotype
So if the biological sex of trans women (and presumably men) is immutable, how can the biological sex of women cease to exist due to defining biological males as women?
The issue at play is the legal recognition of biological sex as a protected characteristic. That is what the Supreme Court restored.
Removing women's rights to female-only spaces does not make biological sex cease to exist, true. But it does mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist, or at least that it's unmentionablyn private.
Recognising trans people as trans rather than pretending they have changed sex doesn't erase them either.
Trans peoples and everyone else's equality rights are pretty much governed by the statutory instrument that is the EHRC guidance which was signed off by the previous government years ago.
All the SC did was cofirm that exclusion of trans people is permitted, NOT mandated, under the EA 2010 (mandatory exclusion is an EHRC aspiration). But any exclusion must still be a justifiable and proportionate means to exclude, in other words fair. That's always been the case.
This is why so many gencrits/Nazis/germs are frantically lying about the risks posed by trans women to try and shift opinion so that mandatory exclusion appears proportionate and legitimate.
It's what fascist extremists do. Shift the Overton so that eliminating a minority they hate appears legitimate and sensible.
The nature of how stat instruments are signed off was what the peice was about. When they can be used to support such activities so easily we are all in trouble.
Not at all. You’re just confused about the definition of gender and biological sex, which are not the same thing. Women, as a biological sec and as a protected category will not exist. Men will be men and men will be women.
The issue at play is the legal recognition of biological sex as a protected characteristic. That is what the Supreme Court restored.
Removing women's rights to female-only spaces does not make biological sex cease to exist, true. But it does mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist, or at least that it's unmentionablyn private.
Recognising trans people as trans rather than pretending they have changed sex doesn't erase them either.
Trans peoples and everyone else's equality rights are pretty much governed by the statutory instrument that is the EHRC guidance which was signed off by the previous government years ago.
All the SC did was cofirm that exclusion of trans people is permitted, NOT mandated, under the EA 2010 (mandatory exclusion is an EHRC aspiration). But any exclusion must still be a justifiable and proportionate means to exclude, in other words fair. That's always been the case.
This is why so many gencrits/Nazis/germs are frantically lying about the risks posed by trans women to try and shift opinion so that mandatory exclusion appears proportionate and legitimate.
It's what fascist extremists do. Shift the Overton so that eliminating a minority they hate appears legitimate and sensible.
The nature of how stat instruments are signed off was what the peice was about. When they can be used to support such activities so easily we are all in trouble.
Ann, you may live an incredibly privileged life, one in which you don't face the prospect of needing intimate care for medical reasons and preferring it to be rendered by a woman; one in which you aren't detained in prison and find yourself housed in close quarters with a male convicted of sex crimes; one in which your daughter doesn't find herself oogled by a man in a women's shelter when she seeks refuge there; one in which your six year old granddaughter isn't exposed to an adult man's genitals in a public accomodation or gymnastics club locker room. If so, count your blessings, because other women and girls are very aware of our losses. "Trans people" are simply men and women, still protected to play sports, work, seek housing, and use public bathrooms aligned with their sex. If the problem is that men can't deal with their brothers wearing make-up or heels, it's men who need to evolve.
Yes, all of those are major problems faced by most women today? Not. No the biggest problem is that of violence by cis men. Who if these changes go through will be free to enter women’s spaces pretending to be trans men doing all the things you have mentioned but much, much worse.
Meanwhile many trans people who have been going about their lives without impinging on anyone (when was the last time you noticed a trans woman in a ladies’ loo? I never have) will have to alter their lives considerably. Why? To appease a very small number of bigots.
Trans people aren’t infringed upon at all by correctly defining their biological sex. They lose nothing and the argument that they do is nonsense. They simply have to live within the boundaries of reality. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with biological males and physical violence against women or children.
Your persistent mention of male violence against women makes the argument to keep men out of women’s spaces stronger since there is no such thing as a trans woman who is a woman. They are men. Not all violence is physical.
Of course they are. You are being wilfully blind to the problem. By being forced to use the bathroom of their sex assigned to them at birth they lose their right ti privacy and trans women in particular are put at risk of assault.
Not to mention that cis women who do not fit the traditional image of femininity are put at risk of assault by any passing vigilante.
Basically apart from cis men we all lose. What a surprise.
Sex assigned at birth is their biological sex. The gender they choose later is not the same thing. Biological males are men. Biological females are women. There is no confusion when they are born. Humans are not birds, which do not have obvious sex traits. It’s pretty darn obvious whether a human baby is male or female. You are attempting to reinforce a mental/emotional/intellectual construct decided by an individual as if it is biological fact. It is not biological fact. Their dna is male. Their sex organs are male. Their hormones are male. Everything about them is male. If they decide they want to look like a female they can decide to look like a female, but that does not make them female any more than Robin Williams became gender fluid and became Mrs. Doubtfire by day and a man by night.
There is only the belief that one is in the wrong body, just as an anorexic believes they are fat despite having a skeletal frame. A belief or desire to be something else does not magically make that happen.
Men pretending to be women to gain access to them in prison, in bathrooms, in elementary school locker rooms, in sports…. puts women and children at risk for assault, retraumatizes victims of sexual assault, and causes discomfort little girls, athletes, prisoners and women should not have to tolerate.
The decision to be trans comes with consequences. Those consequences belong to the decision maker alone.
Why does the risk of men who "identify as women" being put at risk bother you more than actual women being put at risk? As a gnc woman, I wonder why you're worried about us being hassled now when nobody seems to have cared previously, except to engage in victim blame. Seems a disengenuous argument. We're happy to take our chances ---- and to have the women's room remain a place we can duck into without the fear that were going to find another man there.
We can agree, Ann! Yes, male violence against women, and the threat of male violence against women is arguably women's greatest challenge. So, when a male who has raped women claims to be a woman himself, and is placed in a women's prison, he has more access to potential female victims, as the documented cases of rape in women's prisons by male prisoners documents. Giving males access to women's locker rooms, bathrooms, hospital rooms, and shelters expand their hunting grounds and reduces women's safety and freedom. Protecting women's single sex spaces for women and girls reduces our vulnerability to male predation. Truth is: males who identify as women earnestly actually respect women's spaces in and do their damnedest not to terrorize women, so protecting women's single sex spaces does them no harm.
We already know that there is no difference; they are all men. Always have been. Always will be. If they choose to define their maleness/manhood differently than traditional "norms" for men, that's their prerogative and their right. However, this does not make them women no matter how they express themselves. They are biological males.
Sorry - what am I missing? You do realise the Supreme Court has already declared the law without any need for these machinations? Women’s rights to safety and dignity are restored and I say about bloody time.
The Equality Act is the consequence of parliamentary debate about how to protect vulnerable groups and ensure equality in society. All the Supreme Court has done is to show what parliament intended and to state clearly the law. They were clear that no rights have been taken away from any group and showed how all groups could be given appropriate protections. You are quite simply wrong to say rights are being taken away without a parliamentary vote.
In all your analysis, there is not a single acknowledgement that the Equality Act protects women as a sex class - females. And that women have rights under that act. This is what parliament intended. And the Equality Act 2010 gives women those rights to their own spaces and groups. We cannot move forward unless commenters like yourself stop seeing this whole issue through the lenses of men who wish to co-opt women's rights for themselves.
What Melanie Field "intended" is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law actually *says*, and which interpretation of it doesn't create impossible contradictions.
What about women Ian, you know, the other half of society? Your article completely ignores the fact that for years trans activists and their flying monkeys have misrepresented and lied about the equality act, to the very real detriment of women. The Supreme Court clarified what the law has always been, why you arent going after the people/organisations who have misrepresented the law is beyond me, is it beyond you?
"the challenge has a high likelihood of being successful, particularly on the basis of Articles Eight and Eleven of the European Convention of Human Rights"
I think you've been reading too many of the Not-So-Good-At-Law Project's updates. I will bet you £50, to go to the charity of your choice, that any challenge will be unsuccessful. (You're invited to reciprocate, on the basis that you're confident of what you wrote. FTR my charity of choice would be Shelter.)
My reasoning: the EtCHR will not intervene on the interpretation of existing law (as opposed to a case which shows a lacuna in the law), nor on a case determined unanimously by the highest court in the land, nor on a case which is about conflicting rights (A8: private life, A11 freedom of assembly). The ECHR's reasoning about a women's walking group is that because - as the Supreme Court ruled - a trans woman is a man (something where many people seem to have their own mental lacuna) therefore you can't say "only women and trans women, not men", because that's equivalent to saying "only women and men, not men".
Not quite. The consequence of "a trans woman is a man" is that "some men are trans women", so the two statements aren't equivalent. You can say "only women and trans women, but not those men who are not trans women", and that makes complete logical sense, and is probably what most people would mean by the shorter formulation.
Whether that would be lawful in any given case is, of course, a different matter.
If the women’s walking group allows trans women, it is by definition mixed sex. To deny entry to any other man is therefore discrimination (I can’t remember if it’s direct or indirect) and liable to challenge and being struck down. So it is not legal.
In your opinion, would (say) a walking group with membership restricted to trans women, and in particular excluding men who were not trans women, be lawful?
You mean, consisting *solely* of, or restricted to, trans women? The problem is that under the EA you can’t ask to see a GRC (very few people have them anyway), and so you’d have to wonder what the basis for inclusion/exclusion is exactly since in that situation being “trans” just a verbal or written claim which can’t be falsified.
I really don’t know about the lawfulness: the problem is more practical in that it would have to be restricted to “those holding a GRC”, or else absolutely any man could belong. And I don’t know how you’d enforce that exclusion. It might be unlawful or lawful - my understanding of the law isn’t broad enough on that.
The Supreme Court decision did not change any rights. It confirmed the rights that trans people and women already had. Just because Stonewall et al ran a campaign of disinformation about the law doesn’t mean the law changed. And the SC decision has confirmed that. Single sex services guarantee women basic rights like safe, fair sport, single sex changing spaces, a female for intimate care if she wants it.
Males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are protected from harassment and discrimination but this doesn’t include taking women’s rights to single sex spaces, services and sports
This is the actual specific law on gender recognition. The equality act 2010 is a much wider piece of legislation. People need to read this, because it is in direct contradiction to the judgement on the 2010 act.
This is what Ian refers to in the article. It’s the legal position.
No, the ERA ruling does not override the GRA except in very specific defined circumstances where there is a single sex space meeting certain criteria. For example, it would not apply where there is privacy and dignity in a mixed sex space eg where there is one private toilet cubicle in a small workplace.
Sex has always been a protected characteristic under the. 2010 act and transgender is another protected characteristic.
This ruling is a complete mess and a trap for Labour especially if they don’t allow further scrutiny in parliament. Which is the point of the article. Which people should read properly.
Yes: the EA overrules the GRA *wherever the EA applies*. That is the meaning of S9.3 of the GRA. You're referring to a specific corner of the Workplace Regulations 1992, which specify that you don't need single-sex spaces *if* there are single-use spaces that only one person can use at any time, ie don't have any multiple occupancy.
The GLP thought this was a massive gotcha, when in fact it's just part of the WRs - which are subject to the EA. Which goes to show that there's a lot of poor comprehension out there.
The SC ruling specified that in the EqA the PC of sex, wherever it is written, means biological sex. A female single sex space means what it says on the tin - biological females only. If a male holds a GRC saying he is legally female it makes no difference. The ruling is very clear to all but those who didn’t like it
“Transgender” is nto a protected characteristic. The SC ruling has made clear the protected characteristic of “sex” means just that and that a GRC does not trump that protection.
I can see that. What, specifically, is your point? The GRA describes how someone can get a GRA. The SC ruling said that in the EqA the term ‘sex’ meant biological sex and did not include sex as modified by a GRC
This is the point Ian is making in the essay. The ruling does not clarify and the guidance is not clear- essentially there are now no toilet facilities for trans people by your interpretation, which excludes them from society and asks them to out themselves in many different situations. This is discriminatory in itself and imposes a completely new and unique restriction.
The issue he has raised is not particularly about trans rights BUT the removal of freedoms and actively causing discrimination without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
For those splitting hairs over trans people “without a gr certificate” to get one you need to live in your acquired gender for two years. This is now actually impossible.
Anyway it’s also impossible to be clearer here, everyone celebrating the constraint on trans people’s lives needs to stop and think about what they are enabling government to control. Women in particular, because this ruling also enables further social policing of our bodies and appearance, but allowing the disturbing narrative of all trans people as being sexually criminal is coming down the line as an argument against many other groups.
“there are now no toilet facilities for trans people”
Trans-identified people can use the toilet for their sex.
“which excludes them from society and asks them to out themselves”
As if we can't clock a dude trying to look or act like a woman. If men weren't pretending to be female, there'd be no issue of being “outed” as you call it.
You sound like you think being transgender is like being gay. It's not. Gays and lesbians are a natural, normal part of human behavior. Transgender /nonbinary are simply labels a person chooses to describe how uncomfortable they are with their sex or their sexed body.
“This is discriminatory in itself”
Wrong again. Male transgenders who perform what they believe a woman should look or act like are not being discriminated against simply because we recognize that they are male. And vice versa for female transgenders who mimic men.
“this ruling also enables further social policing of our bodies and appearance”
Nonsense. The ruling is clear that sex is real and sex matters, especially for safeguarding of women and children from dangerous, violent men.
No one is saying ALL transgenders are sexual criminals. Just as not ALL men are rapists. But since some are, many in fact, we need to keep ALL men out of female spaces, even if they perform woman.
Ian, you seem to think that being transgender means having innate trans characteristics. That's incorrect. Gender nonconformity is innate because effeminate men and masculine women exist in nature and in society. But without the stupid sex stereotypes that you and trans ideologues believe in, a “masculine woman” would simply be a strong and brave women. That wouldn't distinguish her from other women because the fact that she's female and strong would MEAN that women are strong. Just as when a girl climbs a tree, it's not because she has a boy's brain in a girls body. It's because girls climb trees. The same goes for little boys who like dolls. What's wrong with creative play acting, EVEN if you're a boy? Nothing. The erroneous thinking is your belief that not fitting into a stereotype makes that boy a girl. That's not just stupidity, it's cruel to children to tell them they're defective for the sex that they got at conception.
If people like you didn't promote idiotic sex/gender stereotypes, teachers wouldn't be able to screw up those kids confusing them and by making them feel bad about who they are.
“... trans rights... the story of trans people's ability to exist in public space”
Trans people can exist in space. We just don't want male transgenders in female spaces. Men can sashay their dresses into the men's bath and changing rooms. Why? Because they are MEN in dresses. And guess what – male transgenders have the same or higher propensity to violence against women and children, including rape and other sex crimes.
“For instance, the ruling found that a trans woman was a man for the purposes of the Equality Act.”
So called “trans women” are men by definition. The freaking definition of transgender is based on a person's choice of a gender identity label that doesn't match their actual sex. And yes, it's a choice. A boyish proto lesbian could potentially grow up to be a lesbian. Unless that girl is made to feel so bad about herself that she chooses a transgender on nonbinary “identity.” That's simply a label someone chooses to describe their discomfort with their sex or sexed body.
“there are all sorts of mysteries about the consequences of the judgement”
Wrong again. If a male goes into a female bath or changing room, he can be challenged and removed. Because he's male, regardless of what he does to “perform woman.” If someone wants a female caregiver on a medical ward, the organization cannot assign a male who is “performing” woman. Have you not noticed that unconscious women have been raped and even impregnated by staff the hospitals called women but were actually men? Now the law is clear. No men means NO MEN.
“Trans people should be excluded from all single sex spaces.”
Wow, you just don't get it. A male transgender is not excluded from all single sex spaces, only from the FEMALE single sex spaces. He's welcome to use the MALE single sex space. Because he's MALE.
Aw shucks, those hulking, misogynistic men who have been making their female colleagues uncomfortable by forcing their way into female bathrooms at work now have to “out themselves.” LOL, women can clock a gender pretender at a hundred meters. We have a part of our brain that makes us wary of men we are not close to (husbands, lovers, sons, brothers, cousins and the like).
“A women's walking group, for instance, could not choose to be trans inclusive.”
Of course they can. Just make it a mixed sex group. Duh. This idea that so called “trans women” are a subset of women is really obtuse. They are a subset of men. They're men who call themselves or really, really wish they were women.
“ every trip to the toilet denies your identity”
Their “identity” is a figment of their imagination. They can still pretend by wearing their woman face into the men's bathrooms.
Jeez, I'm only a third of the way through your article and every few sentences you write such inane statements that I think I'll have to write an article to rebut them all.
Men's rights don't trump women's. “Trans women” are men. Unless you believe humans can change sex, almost everything you say is absurd.
"OPEN LETTER TO LEGACY ORGANIZATIONS THAT LOST THEIR WAY
"Regarding: Your abandonment of the women and girls you purport to work on behalf of; your support of programs that increase the risk of violence against women and girls; your misrepresentation of medical and biological science; your ignoring of the crimes committed against women in prison by men, your support of efforts to secure extraordinary privileges for predatory individuals by obliterating the rights of every woman and girl you claim to speak for; your degradation of women and girls by supporting policies that admit men to the sex class of women and girls; your complete undermining of female athletes; and your silencing of women and girls who dissent.
"Petitioners request: That you cease the following behavior, apologize to your natural constituencies, and make restitution for damages to the rights of others and the reputation of your purported communities, or resign your claims to speak:"
Sexual mimicry is a difficult act to pull off because once sex is accurately perceived by others, the act collapses - willing suspense of disbelief and all that.
George Burns didn’t become God by playing him, Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t become a robot by playing one, but both are powerful delusions that some people have - God and Robots.
We all have the right to ignore actors in roles, and so to ignore the gods and robots among us.
We also have the right to ignore men who sexually mimic women, as generally we do with people with delusional beliefs they are a god, or robots.
If you believe people can become gods, robots, or women from acting or delusion, that’s your failure of reason. It’s a state of mind which usually goes away after childhood, Christopher Robin.
The world builds laws based on reason and reality (but sometimes irrational faith) and we tend to agree in law that women don’t want men, particularly men who are pretending to be women, around them when they are vulnerable.
If that makes you sad, or terrified of government not affirming actors, perhaps some self-reflection is due. Life doesn’t revolve around delusional men, and laws aren’t made to maintain the act of sexual mimicry, the same that laws aren’t made to sustain robot and god people act or delusion.
Sorry, Ian. I usually applaud your writing, but this essay is out to lunch.
Nobody is taking away any "trans" rights. These people have all the same rights as anyone else. What they keep demanding -- and getting, thanks to the blindness of supposed liberals (who have become, in fact, profoundly ILliberal) -- is special rights. Extra-special rights.
Meanwhile, women and girls are losing our rights in order to accommodate "trans" demands, and we're expected to shut up about it.
Well, guess what? We won't.
Men are being housed in women's prisons because they say the magic words "I'm transgender." Males are physically harming females on sports teams because those males suddenly declare they're female. Domestic violence shelters and rape crisis centers, where women who have already been abused by men go to be safe, are being invaded by men. These things aren't one-offs. They are happening all over the western world.
Nobody can magically morph into the opposite sex. It's unbelievable that this simple biological fact even has to be stated, let alone contested.
Do you think Eddie Izzard is a woman just because he puts on a skirt and lipstick? Seriously?? Rachel Dolezal was raked over the coals because she claimed she was black. Well, if Eddie Izzard is a woman, then Rachel Dolezal is black. My heritage is Italian, but hey, I "identify" as a Celt. Therefore, I am. After all, how I "feel" is all that matters, reality be damned.
"Identity" has become religious dogma. You wanna believe in it? Fine. But you can't force anybody else to believe in it. Liberty allows you to pretend whatever you like about yourself, but not to compel others to do so as well.
“Trans rights are human rights!!!!!”
Gosh, we should let trans people get married.
Oh wait, they CAN get married. It's not like they're gay and the date is before 2015.
How about we let them own property. And go to school. And drive cars.
Oh wait, they CAN already to all those things. So what do transgenders actually want? They have demanded and gotten sex-based rights meant for the opposite sex. When men are given female sex-based rights, women automatically lose them. That’s how the law works. Either we have the right to privacy, safety and dignity in female showers, or men get to claim a female identity and deny us our rights.
After the UK Supreme Court decided that so-called "trans women" aren't actually women, a bunch of men doing a poor attempt at “performing woman" protested in distinctly male ways. They exhibited fury by tossing death threats at the women who don't believe in the religion called trans ideology. Trans Priority Activists (TP Activists) protested in London by urinating and defacing the statue of suffragette Millicent Fawcett. Huh, urinating. Is that a feminine way to protest, or is it something you'd expect from angry men? While male transgenders claim to honor women, defacing a statue of a historic, brave woman who fought for women's rights belies their claims. Flashing their fake moobs, looking as creepy as possible in their performance of "womanliness" really shows their hatred of women.
Nah, they don't want equal rights. They want their male rights to supersede female rights.
Tell a "trans woman" No and you'll quickly see the male persona emerge.
I think what they want is pretty simple. Take trans women for instance, as people who feel they are a woman, dress as a woman, style themselves as a woman, talk like a woman, potentially have undergone medical treatments and surgeries to physically look like a woman, they don't want to have to use male facilities (or according to the EHRC, no facilities at all) and submit themselves to the sort of abuse and harassment and violence that causes extreme rates of depression, self-harm and suicide, just to pee.
The lack of compassion for people in this position is astonishing and saddening.
Hi David -
I’m sorry for the circumstances that resulted in your recent comatose state.
Let me catch you up:
It’s 2025 and there is no such thing as “walking, talking, styling like a woman”.
See, we now recognize the only prerequisite to being a woman, is to be female— doesn’t matter what we wear, don’t wear, or the style of our hair.
You’re welcome.
Interesting, so you agree that only men who have removed their penis are ‘true trans’? What about (the majority) of trans identifying men who make no alterations to their bodies at all? Are they still men? Or special men who get to enter single sex female spaces?
There’s no such thing as “trans identifying men”. You can’t identify as trans as it’s an immutable characteristic that and a class that can only be recognized in the Uk with an ext rank diagnostic panel, and trans men do not remove their penises. The opposite, as many trans men get surgery (phalloplasty or metoidioplasty) to give them penises.
Of course there are. There are men who claim to be women. That they have ‘transitioned’. Therefore they are trans identifying men. This is much more honest and less confusing than saying ‘transwomen’.
No there aren’t.
And there is no such thing as “trans identifying men”. A man that is trans is called a trans man.
And there is no such word as “transwomen” either. There are trans women, which are women that are trans, but there is no such word as “transwomen”. Trans is an adjective. Just like short, tall, blonde, etc. A blonde woman is a woman that is blonde, but there is no such word as a “blondewoman”.
They're still just men.
Oh wow.
This must be satire.
Immutable?
It’s literally the only diagnosis that requires the subjective affirmation of a patient.
Without those magical words “I’m a woman!” Spoken by a man, “transgenderism” does not exist.
I’m sure facts and science would seem like satire to a religious extremist.
Yes, immutable, you cannot choose to not be trans.
Also, what? It does not require a subjective affirmation of a patient.
There’s no such thing as “magical words”, and there’s no such word as “transgenderism”. And men don’t proclaim that they are women,
Men who pretend to be women don't want to look like the low income house cleaner who struggles to feed her kids.
[They] "dress as a woman, style themselves as a woman, talk like a woman, potentially have undergone medical treatments and surgeries to physically look like a woman"
Nope. They dress like porn stars, style themselves with creepy makeup, giant red lips like a huge vagina on their faces. They make their voice sound weak and childish, with misogynists like Dylan Mulvaney calling himself a girl instead of a woman. He's an adult man, FFS.
They gimp around on high heels like a weak and therefore "fvckable" woman. And of course there's the obsession with ginormous fake boobs. Have you seen the sissy porn that is emblematic of what male transgenders think should happen to women?
They just love that degrading porn look that makes it perfectly clear what they think of actual women. They are the abusers, David, not the women who demand safe female spaces. But since you're so compassionate, feel free to welcome them into your shower.
They don't identify as a woman. They identify as a what their male minds tell them a woman should look and act like. But maybe that's also what you think of women David.
Clearly you are not aware that you have seen many transgender women who look quite plain. That is because they are just normal people getting on with their lives.
I think what you are describing might be drag queens. They are not transgender. Drag queens are performers. They do not live their lives as women. After the performance, they take all of the theatrical stuff off and put on their stereotypical male clothes or flamboyant gay man’s clothes, or whatever they like. Some are gay. Some are straight. They are performing a show, not working for a pimp they and go by their male birth name. They are not confused about their gender.
Your naive comment suggests your opinions on this matter are based on a lack of information. Just as a bunch of old men shouldn’t be making decisions about women’s rights to their own bodies since they have demonstrated a general lack of knowledge on the biology of women, people who do not have a sincere understanding of transgender issues, directly from transgender people, should not be defining their rights.
I know many "trans women." Some are my friends. In spite of their wish to be women, they are male. Some of them were gay or are drag queens; others perform a similar male version of what men think women should look like and how we should act. None of them would use surgery to look like a frumpy, low income house cleaner. They don't want to be women; they want to be a particular TYPE of woman. It's a male perspective of what they should look and act like. Because they're men.
My friends aren't rapists. If other men hadn't been so obnoxious to women, my friends would be able to use the female facilities. If male transgenders had not gotten lesbians kicked off dating apps for not being willing to have "lesbian penetrative sex" (i.e.: heterosexual sex between a lesbian and a man with a penis), they would not have forced us to reject them. Do you not understand what same-sex attraction means?
This problem that men have created for women and children is not about your transgender friends. It's about male violence. Male domination. Men's rights being prioritized over women's rights.
You clearly only know a subset of transgender women. Perhaps because you believe transgender women are men? If I were a transgender woman I would steer clear of you. Based on your comments here, you would be someone I’d consider toxic.
There is a lot between drag queen stage glam and frumpy house cleaner. A 23 year old trans woman could look like any other college student. She wouldn’t necessarily be about standing out. She could be just trying to live her life. Some of you all seem to be preoccupied by larger than life transgender woman while pretending that people with otherwise average lives also are transgender.
Also you seem to be preoccupied with transgender women. Is it because transgender men do not scare you? Or because a transgender man is just a tomboy in your opinion?
They're just men.
There are no "transgender" women bc there's no such thing as "transgender."
They're just men. They have no right to invade women's spaces and force others to lie.
The answer is no.
They are all Buffalo Bill or Norman Bates.
Quote: "they don't want to have to use male facilities and submit themselves to the sort of abuse and harassment and violence"
Oh, so because MEN don't want to submit themselves to abuse and harassment and violence from other MEN, therefore women should? We should protect those men from other men? Gee, how about men stop abusing and harassing other men? Ever thought of that? We women already have our hands full trying to protect ourselves from male harassment and violence.
Quote: ". . . that causes extreme rates of depression, self-harm, and suicide"
False. Another abject falsehood that keeps being bandied about because it was fabricated by WPATH, a lobbying group, not a medical organization, even though it has been proven false again and again and again. Even the ACLU's lawyer Chase Strangio (unintentionally apt name) admitted at the Supreme Court that there are very few suicides committed by "trans" people, and in fact what suicides there are in that cohort have happened *AFTER* they transitioned.
Could it be because they already had mental health problems, such as depression, and were already in psychological distress, and thought that "transing" themselves would magically fix them? Nah, perish the thought.
When self ID is the order of the day to access women’s spaces it opens the the door to any and all men. Only a very small percentage of trans identified people have bottom surgery. Many facilities now have single restrooms to accommodate disabled people, a parent with a young child who is of the opposite sexual, etc. Basically anyone uncomfortable in a sex specific open locker room or restroom. Maybe consider the actual females of all ages and backgrounds who don’t want a naked male exposing themselves while they are undressing. Indecent exposure used to be a crime now it’s ok if it’s a girl penis.
Self ID doesn’t and has never existed in the UK.
Tell that to Eddy Izzard
That's bc the "trans" lie is forcing others to lie and "ID" a man as a woman when he's not.
The whole thing is a fraud.
If you are a man and you believe you were born in the wrong body, its likely that you will have some othet mental illnesses. Its unrelated to being able to piss in womens toilets
Many of these kids are on the autism spectrum.
And?
That makes vulnerable to being lured into believing that "changing sex" will solve all their problems ... Surprise! It doesn't.
David,
The majority of people don’t want to see any harm or harassment inflicted on trans men or women. We want them to STOP transing children. Most of whom will grow up to be gay.
There are no "trans" women bc there's no such thing as "trans."
They're all men.
What you're talking about is passing, which is what this always boils down to. Basically no men pass. They're men in dresses and they act exactly like men when they're told no--violence, anger, irrational temper tantrums.
They deserve no compassion bc they're men. It doesn't matter if they "style themselves as women." A man in a wig is still a man.
Women deserve compassion, along with no men in our spaces and sports.
Men in wigs can use men's spaces.
End of.
Why are you so bigoted against men? You need to make those vulnerable men welcome to pee with YOU!!!
The answer is to fight for their own spaces in the same way women and disabled people did. The answer is not to simply demand women make all their spaces mixed sex because this tiny number of men think it their right. They may present as women, but they do not talk or think like women because they are male. Their experiences have been male. Why should women simply have to welcome these males into their spaces, because we should be kind! Mammies and grannies are some of the fiercest people on the planet and it is time that men realise this. Even us women who don't have children are not giving up what our mammies and grannies fought long and hard for simply because some men are lazy, stupid and want everything we have handed to them on a plate because they have "feminised" their appearance. They dont behave like women because they think and act like the males they are and always will. A sense of entitlement is not a human right, ever!
They want access to public bathrooms, healthcare and sports.
They don’t want sex based rights of the opposite sex. They want sex based rights of their sex. Cis Women do not automatically lose any rights when trans women have rights. Just like how white woneb didn’t automatically lose rights when black women had rights.
Trans women are actually women. The Supreme Court decision will never change that. It’s simply an empirical, objective fact.
There’d no such thing as “performing woman”. Women aren’t a performance.
Stop with the racism. Saying naked females do not want to be seen by male strangers not do they want to observe naked males is the same as saying females of diff races can use the same spaces is making light of both struggles. We lose the right to that privacy when you demand that any male capable of uttering 4 words:”I am a woman” must have free access to places where women & girls undress. Nobody in the history of humanity has ever changed sex. TW are M. W are F. Nobody cares if TW want to look & be treated socially as W. The issue is the denial of W human right to privacy & dignity.
Take your own advice. Stop with the racism. Your ideology was the same one saying Black women were not women.
Also I have never encountered a naked person in a bathroom before. Even in locker rooms I seldom see anyone walking around buck naked. In any case, this has nothing to do with “male strangers”. It has to do with women you object to having equal rights. Trans women today, Black women yesterday.
Also, you can’t “utter 4 words” and be recognized as a gender in the UK. To legally be allowed to use a single sex space of your acquired gender, you technically need a GRC, which involves a judiciary panel reviewing your medical history to confirm that you have a clinical diagnosis of GD/GID and have undergone some sex change procedures and have lived for a certain amount of time as your acquired sex.
Black women are women. Trans women are men.
That is the difference here.
If I am wrong, what does the word "women" mean that allows both to he actual women?
Black women are women. Trans women are women.
There is no difference, hence why 50 years ago, your ilk were saying that Black women were men (and some gender criticals are still saying it; most cis women falsely accused of being trans by gender critical religious activists are Black).
A woman is an adult human with a dominant female phenotype. That includes cis women, trans women, Black women, tall women, blonde women, intersex women, skinny women etc. It encompasses all women, and excludes all men.
Sadly not true. You do not need a GRC to claim the PC of Gender Reassignment. The only people I ever see claiming Black women are not women are T rights activists. I don’t know a single woman who would say that. The law allows for single sex spaces. This is , not about “bathrooms”. This is about communal changing rooms, showers, bedrooms, RCC, DV shelters, homeless shelters, intimate care - everywhere that separation by sex is necessary & expected.
This is false fyi. The former EHRC guidelines only gave legal protection to trans people who had a GRC, which was the only way they could, in law, be recognized as their sex in every legal instance. Without one, you had no technical legal protection. Hence why this SC ruling only really affects trans people with a GRC, as it effectively treats them as if they didn’t have one (in fact, the ruling explicitly states that trans people with a GRC are legally identical to those without one, which nullifies the GRA and puts the UK in violation of human rights, according to the 2003 ruling of the ECHR).
I have never heard of a trans activist saying that Black women are not women. I have seen numerous gender criticals claim that Black womens are not women. GC’s like JK Rowling have falsely accused Barbra Banda and Michelle Obama of being men.
Separation by sex was already in place.
You can believe all you want about men being able to "be" women. But I have to point to the fact that - whatever you and they believe them/selves to be - there are two things about them that were the exact rationale behind the creation of single-sex spaces for women. First, any person who have gone through male puberty are in general twice as strong as women (almost any man can overpower almost any woman). Second, they have a crime pattern that is very different from women's - men commit 98% of all sex offences, and almost 90% of the victims are women (a big part of the rest is children).
Those things DOESN'T CHANGE when men claim to be women. Clothes, makeup, mannerisms, doesn't change them. Hormones (or surgery) doesn't change them. Statistics from prisons in England and Wales speak clearly about it, should you doubt my word.
THAT'S WHY women lose our rights to protection when your kind of "women" can access women-only spaces.
Do you get it now?
It’s not to late to hit the edit button, as Ru Paul would say. Did you ask him to weigh in on this and whether he, as a gay man like you, doesn’t “perform woman”?
Go for it: go ask him if putting on fake tits and ass, full make-up and his enviable collection of wigs and dresses and tucking his male parts makes him a woman.
Huh? Rupaul is a drag queen. He is not trans.
I know. He’s a gay man like you. Please go tell him he doesn’t “perform woman” and get back to me with his response.
Lisa if I could downvote this I would.
Leave aside your objections to trans people’s existence for one moment. Personally I suggest you meet some of them and discover for yourself that they are just like everyone else, living their lives. You’d be hard pressed to actually identify many of them as transgender, especially the transmen. I know that is a challenging thought.
However the point Ian is making is about a much wider erasure of law and human rights. For those who love to shout hooray when their opponents lose freedoms, just remember next time these powers may be used against you.
Leopards, faces, parties etc.
Total straw man argument that I have any "objections to trans people's existence." But entirely expected.
You might want to tell it to lesbian LeAnne Owen:
“The Right Wing Just Wanted Me to Marry a Man. The Left Wing Is Coming for My Genitals. Both sides want to convert gay people — and we must fight back.”
https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/the-right-wing-just-wanted-me-to
“I Was FG. But No One Put Me on Blockers. What The New York Times left out about the first child on puberty blockers—and what it means for the rest of us who made it through”
https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/i-was-fg-but-no-one-put-me-on-blockers
Or lesbian Evie Ullman:
“Why Do You Care? This Doesn't Affect You!! And other thought terminating clichés in the gender culture war…”
by Evie Ullman
https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/cp/166089338
Or this detransitioner:
“Why I Quit the LGBTQIA+ Community: Chance, a lesbian detransitioner, on why she's leaving and never coming back”
https://genspect.substack.com/p/why-i-quit-the-lgbtqia-community
Or detransitioner Maia Poet, who has autism:
https://maiapoet.substack.com
Or you might want to think about social contagion, which every physician and therapist acknowledges is a profound influence in culture no matter the subject, yet somehow the trans phenomenon has nothing to do with it?
“The profile of people seeking transition has shifted drastically, from overwhelmingly middle-aged males to predominantly adolescent females”
https://statsforgender.org/the-sex-ratio-of-people-seeking-transition-has-shifted-drastically-from-overwhelmingly-male-to-predominantly-female/
Or you might want to listen to Martina Navratilova:
“We Need to Refer to Male Athletes as Male”
https://strongerwomen.substack.com/p/guest-column-by-martina-navratilova
WPATH is a lobbying group, not a reputable medical organization:
“The WPATH Files”
by Kara Dansky
https://karadansky.substack.com/p/the-wpath-files
“The New Gay Conversion Therapy: A Psychologist’s Perspective”
By Trayce Hansen, PhD
https://genspect.substack.com/p/the-new-gay-conversion-therapy-a
“Unsealed Court Documents Show That Admiral Rachel Levine Pressured WPATH To Remove Age Guidelines From The Latest Standards Of Care”
https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/unsealed-court-documents-show-that
There are so many more sources, as reputable as the ones I’ve already posted. I doubt you'll read them. But I post these things for other people who might come across this discussion to read.
This is an article about misuse of statutory instruments to shove through something without proper parliamentary debate. Ian has used the trans issue because it is the current issue. Using statutory instruments to make laws without proper parliamentary debate is a threat to democracy & everyone's human rights & ought to appall anyone, whatever side of the example given you are on.
Almost everything you have posted bears no relation to the actual topic he is discussing.
You need a parliamentary debate to decide whether women are entitled to safe single-sex spaces?
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
Let's accept for the sake of argument you are correct and "trans people" are angelic and never harm anyone. What stops a predatory man using this as cover to be a voyeur, exhibitionist or abuser in women's spaces?
Men, however they identify, do not belong in women only spaces...end of,no debate etc and so forth
Men make women less safe. It doesn’t matter if they utter a few words, they are, and always will be male. What are you finding difficult to understand about that?
Transvestite men aren't women. www.terfisaslur.com shows their hatred of women.
Reduxx substack has the receipts of these transvestite murderers, paedophiles, creeps, stalkers, rapists. They are too many to ignore. Go see.
All men are men - it's not a personality contest. 'Trans' women are men, so they have no right to women's spaces. Cry about it all you want, we're done lying for these men.
The thing is, though, you can hate a group but still be committed to ensuring that the people in that group and in every other group are guaranteed due process of law. That seems to be the crux of the matter here, the thing these critics of the OP are missing.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
Are you a bot? Why are you just copying and pasting the same response? Trans identifying males offend at the same rate as other males.
You need a Parliamentary debate + vote to put something into law (or not). That is the issue not trans rights per se.
NO new law has been created. No law or right has been taken away. All the Supreme Court has done is show that the law as interpreted by bodies like Stonewall is not the law and was not parliament's intent. Contrary to Dunt's assertions the Supreme Court is upholding the intent of Parliament to ensure women and girls have protections on the basis of them being female. Men who wish to be see as female in public have protections under a separate protected characteristic - gender reassignment.
No law has been passed ffs.
The code is far broader than that, including why method of sex-interrogation should be utilised by service providers.
It is possible for women to both be entitled to single sex spaces and for trans people to be protected from harassment. If the code recommends harassment via sex interrogation, it should be halted.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
Are you a bot? Why are you just copying and pasting the same response? Trans identifying males offend at the same rate as other males.
"Trans people do not make anyone less safe."
Except for the ones who have raped or murdered women and children.
FFS Michelle, do some research.
Your propagating myths. Trans people do not make anyone less safe. Just admit that you are a transphobe and hate them instead of trying to convince everyone your concerns are for women and girls safety.
Are you a bot? Why are you just copying and pasting the same response? Trans identifying males offend at the same rate as other males.
You need a Parliamentary debate + vote to put something into law (or not). That is the issue not trans rights per se.
No new law has been created by the Supreme Court. No law has been taken away. The SC has merely asserted Parliaments intent in creating the EQ2010 and that interpretations spread by groups like Stonewall fall outside of Parliament's intent.
Women already have single sexed spaces. The dabate would be about whether it should be okay to ban certain demographics of women from single sexed spaces that religious activists do not approve of
LOL, "certain women." You mean men who perform their male opinion of what a woman should look and act like.
It didn't need debate. All the SC did was confirm that stonewall and trans activists have been misinterpreting the law for 15 years. No law had changed no debate id needed. Sex means sex under the EA snd men are male and that is immutable. The lying has been stopped is all. You never had the rights you claimed.
That’s a semantically null statement. Trans women aren’t male.
😂 you can’t be serious.
Trans women aren't male and the earth is flat. Jason sez!
A buccal cheek swab does not lie.
Can you say what right was taken away from people with trans identities and what law gave them that right?
It is already the law. The Supreme Court have ruled. The degree of legal illiteracy on display here is quite shocking.
Nobody is shoving anything through without proper debate. The Supreme Court judgment, which is the about the proper interpretation of the existing law, is crystal clear. The objections of the trans rights lobby are to the debate that trans people have tried all along to stifle. It wasn't the EHRC that invented the phrase "No debate". Women have rights too, whether you like it or not, and insisting that those rights under the law are recognised and respected is in no way anti-democratic.
Except it’s not at all. Even gender critical religious activists who celebrated the victory are conceding that the SC interpretation was too vague and strange and doesn’t even do enough to push through anti-trans legal options.
Women have rights too, including trans women, whether gender criticals like it or not. It’s not at all surprising to see gender critical misogynists embracing anti-democratic methods. A bit of another mask off moment for the gender critical lobby.
Transwomen are males though. Most people in the UK believe this and that will never change.
Who conceded it was too vague? Name names
It's you and your ilk that are celebrating anti-democratic methods. Have a look in the mirror.
At least Ian will be getting a boost in the algorithm 😂
So are the voices of dissent. 🤞Ian starts to get the message of how many there are of us that think this is really misinformed journalism and we’re done reading this kind of propaganda.
The voices of dissent have already peaked. Gender critical activists like Trump and Andrew Tate are among the biggest voices in the world and have major influence, especially over men. Pro-trans voices, especially those of women, are very marginalized.
You absolutely are right Lisa, I won’t read them. Because I don’t need to do my research to be a tolerant person who doesn’t wish to persecute a tiny minority of people who, like any other group include the good, the bad and the ugly. We have literally been here before in the 90s with the section 28 moral panic.
What Ian is saying and I would also like to reinforce is that these emotive culture war issues are a great way to remove freedoms from every single one of us. We should all be wary of creeping authoritarianism, no matter what our political views. (It was clear that politicians were not keen to give up Covid powers, although they did eventually.)
Existing legislation is enough to prosecute criminal activity, and not enough weight is given to this fact.
More straw man arguments. My god, the logical fallacies come fast and furious from "trans allies."
Everything is a straw a man? How typical of a bigot.
Of course, Veronica. I'm a bigot because you said so.
Q. E. D.
You seem very angry Lisa, and I don’t usually block people on here but perhaps you should go back to x?
Projection.
Can you block me too, Karen? Jesus, try googling some of the people commenting here before you throw out the “bigot” label at racial minorities and homosexuals.
Trans identifying males offend at the same rate as other males. Women and girls deserve single sex spaces, why are you disagreeing with that? Wtf?
There’s no such thing as a “trans identifying male”. You can’t identify as trans. It’s diagnosed by a 3rd party and is an immutable characteristic.
And we are specifically discussing trans females, not trans males. Women and girls already have singe sex spaces. No one disagrees with that, except gender criticals who want to ban certain women and girls from single sex spaces and force men into them
How is saying “a M may not share a space of communal nudity with an F” persecution?
It’s not. It is however persecution to falsely call a demographic of women “M” and ban them arbitrarily from using a women’s space.
Nothing you’re saying here is an argument against having a proper debate on the topic
The irony is that for years the mantra of the trans activist world was "no debate".
Probably because debating far right extremism doesn’t work. When you try to debate Nazism, you give it oxygen.
Nazism, lol. That all you got? I'm a Jew. It's lame when dopes who have no logical argument resort to name calling.
I’m going to try to keep this simple by addressing each essay separately.
LeAnne Owen:
“The Right Wing Just Wanted Me to Marry a Man. The Left Wing Is Coming for My Genitals. Both sides want to convert gay people — and we must fight back.”
https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/the-right-wing-just-wanted-me-to
This writer cites no references. They make big claims of children being pressured into sex-reassignment, but provide zero evidence to support their claims. I do not consider that essay to be anything but opinion at best, but more likely propaganda. It is inflammatory and vague. The author implies it comes from personal experience but it sounds like stories that have been regurgitated, talking points for a cause.
So, link #1 did not pass the test for supporting your posts with data. It only proves that others share your opinions.
Unlike Ruth, I've subscribed purely to like your comment. Well said.
BOT says whose comment Freya? This post is in need of clarity.
“I Was FG. But No One Put Me on Blockers. What The New York Times left out about the first child on puberty blockers—and what it means for the rest of us who made it through”
https://lgbcouragecoalition.substack.com/p/i-was-fg-but-no-one-put-me-on-blockers
While this article is the story of what happened to one child and the opinions of one person, again, not data, just an anecdote, and lacking citations, I have asked the author for their sources so that I can delve deeper.
How many children have puberty postponed for six years and until 18yo?
As for allowing children to have a say in their treatment, I think it is unlikely that the decision was based solely on the child’s demands. Parents must consent. Doctors can refuse to administer treatments. Suggesting this was done to FG based on a childish whim is questionable.
I am not saying I agree with stunting puberty for six years. I am reserving further comments until I know more about how often this is done.
Brilliant Lisa!
Amen to this, Lisa.
No one has a human right to identify into a sex class they empirically do not belong.
Sure, but no one has the human right to deny someone else belonging to the sex class they empirically do belong to. Gender critical religious activists are entitled to their religious beliefs, but they cannot force them onto others. Same with creationists and flat earthers and other believers in pseudoscience
Your point is unclear. Most "gender critical" people are leftist secularists, not religious, so the association of GC beliefs with religion is mystifying. It's plain to me (someone with degrees in philosophy and religion) that the belief in "gender identity" is nothing but a belief in a gendered soul, which, as a non-falsifiable proposition, holds far more in common with creationists and flat-earthers than the skeptical gender critical position. No one has yet demonstrated the existence of "gender identity." Yet, an entire political movement holds not only that it exists, but that to even question it is an act of violence.
Gender identity is one of the most religious belief systems to emerge in recent times. The fact that there is nothing that one can ever present as evidence that it does not exist that is not dismissed as "transphobia" should be enough to demonstrate the self-sealing, anti-science characteristic of gender identity ideology.
There’s no such thing. The gender critical ideology is definitionally far right. Saying most gender criticals are leftist secularists is like saying most Nazis are leftist secularists. Nazism is a far right ideology.
The gender critical ideology has analogues to other pseudoscientific quasi-religious ideologies, most notably the flat-earther ideology, tho to a lesser extent creationism as well, however creationism is almost exclusively an Abrahamic pseudoscientific belief, while the gender critical belief is not explicitly Abrahamic, similar to flat eartherism. The three ideooogies also have extensive overlap (besrly all creationists and flat earthers are also gender critical). The origins of the gender critical belief are twofold— pseudoscientific sexual theories proposed by the Nazis in the 1930s (which in turn were predicated on pseudoscientific race science, which is why most gender criticals today also subscribe to race science theories and mostly falsely accuse non-white women of being trans or “men”), and the TradCath anti-gender movement.
Also, the courts in the UK ruled that the gender critical ideology was a protected religious belief.
There is no such thing as a “gendered soul”, nor a soul. This is religious terminology. That GC’s use this phrase is proof that they are religiously oriented.
Gender identity is an objective biological phenomenon. There is no debate of its existence in the scientific/medical field. It is settled science. The assertion that there is no proof that gender identity exists is an obfuscatory tactic used by adherents to other religious pseudoscientific ideas, especially creationists, who also argue that there is no evidence of macro-evolution, when this too is settled science within biology.
Questioning and outright non-belief in scientific concepts is not in and of itself violence. After all, flat earthers are not generally trying to strip civil rights away from people who believe that the earth is spherical. Gender criticals are a bit unique in this regard, as their ideology is not solely pseudoscientific, but also sociological. As it was borne out of Nazism (I don’t mean that metaphorically; the modern social and pseudoscientific opposition to trans and intersex rights was explicitly invented by the Nazis, mostly because the Institute of Sexual Science in Berlin coined medical transsexuality and intersexuality in the 1910s, immediately preceding the rise of Nazism), it is primarily a sociological and political quasi-religious movement. Flat earthers are not advocating that we structure society around belief vs non-belief in flat earthers theory, while gender criticals do believe that society should be structured according to their beliefs, with religious undesirables denied human rights in accordance with their faith, and people and institutions which threaten their ideology, especially medical experts and scientific institutions, criminalized, defunded and/or destroyed. Most gender criticals believe that studies into gender affirming care for minors should be banned, studies on any potential biomedical advantages of trans athletes should be banned (mostly because study result almost invariably go against gender critical dogma), that medical experts and institutions that treat and/or study trans and intersex people should be charged with a crime and shut down respectively, and accuse these same scientific experts and institutions of being ideologically captured.
Your errors in logic and reasoning are equalled only by the condescending confidence with which you are wrong. Like most Pomo-queer-theory adherents, you use a lot of words to obfuscate simple misapprehensions of science and philosophy. I'll take your points propositionally to eliminate all of the obscuring verbosity:
"Because Nazis believed in 2 sexes, if you believe in two sexes, you are a Nazi". The Nazis also believed in the trains running on time and being a snappy dresser. Do these beliefs also make you a Nazi? (I hope not, 'cause I'm screwed if so). Of course not. This is a form of the ad hominem fallacy, which focuses on the person making a claim rather than the claim itself. Your assertion that people who believe in Abrahamic religions are gender critical, therefore, gender critical beliefs are religious beliefs, is a laughable logical error. Specifically, affirming the consequent:
If it rained, the street will be wet.
The street is wet.
Therefore, it rained.
Of course, that's wrong because the street could have been made wet by any number of means. Similarly, people can believe that sex is immutable and important (the definition of gender criticality) for reasons that have nothing to do with religion.
All you have to do is look at the women who brought the suit in Scotland, a group of liberal and left lesbians who spent most of their lives campaigning for gay rights and other left-wing causes, to see what a tragic argument that is. You don't get to tell people that they are "definitionally" right-wing just because you say so. Context is important. My "gender critical" beliefs come from an empiricist philosophical perspective, even if you can't wrap your head around the fact that one can indeed be a left or left-liberal skeptic of gender ideology.
"There is no such thing as a “gendered soul”, nor a soul. This is religious terminology. That GC’s use this phrase is proof that they are religiously oriented". Yeah, we know that there's no such thing as a gendered soul; that's the point. We are making fun of you because that's what *you* believe in. That you think the fact we're pointing out that you have a religious belief makes us religious is just..wildly illogical. I don't even have a fallacy for it because it's such a basic logical error.
"There is no debate of its existence in the scientific/medical field. It is settled science." You are mistaking (or trying to convince others to mistake) the observation of a phenomenological belief as equivalent to the truth of the content of that belief. For example, there's no question about the existence of anorexia. That doesn't mean that it's "settled science" that these people are too fat. Because it's a known scientific phenomenon that some people think they are "born into the wrong body" does not make it "settled science" that they are born into the wrong or that "gender identity" exists. Believing something doesn't make it so (however heretical that belief would be among today's critical theory-addled youth).
This idea that gender identity is a settled scientific belief is just...nuts. Point me to a single article that treats it as anything but phenomenological and I'll concede your point. However, you cannot, because no reputable scientist has ever proven that the interior experience of gender has ontological truth value. First, because that's not what scientists do. They look at the real world, and gender identity isn't a real-world phenomenon. Second, this is a philosophical question, which is: what is the relationship between internal mental states or beliefs and existential or ontological reality?
Finally, your last paragraph was fished in whole cloth out of your fevered imagination. People who are critical of gender identity do so not because of religious dogma, but *because* gender identity *is* religious dogma. We're anti-religious, insofar as it shouldn't run policy and science. You want to believe your inner gender is opposite to your physical sex, fine. Just don't expect to make policy enforcing that belief on other people. GC folk don't believe in banning science, but we do think that gender ideology is harming children by confusing them about reality, and medicalizing an ideology is plainly mad. But your logic is so scattered in the last para that it is hard to figure out precisely what you're arguing or how you could possibly believe the deeply weird things you believe, so I'll leave it there.
"the courts in the UK ruled that the gender critical ideology was a protected religious belief."
No. They ruled that it is a protected *belief*. No religiosity is required or implied.
You haven't dealt with the above commenter's point. How do you prove or falsify gender identity? There is no objective measure of it, unlike sex. How do you explain detransitioners if it is an inherent property? It rests on tenets which resemble religion - beliefs requiring a scaffolding of unquestioned faith - far more than a parsimonious assessment of biology.
Jason, that's a whole lotta words to say you wish that men who pretend to be women are really women, and vice versa. But they're just not.
“Gender identity is an objective biological phenomenon.”
No. Gender expression is biological. Gender identity is just a label a person chooses to describe their alignment or discomfort with their sex or their sexed body.
Some boys and men seem more effeminate than others; some girls seem more boyish. But without stupid sex stereotypes, the description of effeminate and masculine wouldn't even apply. Those men would be seen as part of the normal range of look and behavior for males.
Without rediculous sex stereotypes, a girl who climbs a tree would be called a strong girl, not be told she has a boys brain in a girls body. She doesn't. Her girl brain told her that tree would be fun to climb. And her strong girl body allowed her to do it. Telling her she should medicalize to “transition” to a boy is inhumane. She's not a defective girl just because she doesn't fit in your religious belief system that perpetrates archaic sex stereotypes.
Finally, “gender affirming care” is more properly termed SEX MIMICRY. It it surgically and hormonally altering a person's natural look and way of being so that they conform to sex stereotypes. It's unethical and cruel to subject children to such destructive treatments.
If a person’s “existence” requires that every other person on the planet “affirm” their beliefs about themselves, then no one “exists”.
Ruth, you need to accept that most people don’t consider that women ad girls are an “identity” or a class of people you actually belong to simply by saying that you do.
Most people are fine with males not conforming to rigid, stereotypes.
They’re simply never going to support law and social policies that mandate everyone else accept that when males say they’re women or female they are indeed women or female.
No male will ever be female.
And no male will ever be a girl or a woman.
The onus is on males to accept their gender nonconforming brothers in their spaces. Period.
It’s not about affirmation. You can believe whatever you want. If you want to believe trans people are alien reptiles, you can. But you can’t deny them civil or human rights based on your beliefs.
Women and girls are an identity. As are men and boys. It’s a sex class.
Gender critical religious activists are absolutely not okay with males (or females) not conforming to rigid stereotypes. Gender non-conforming cis people are usually falsely accused of being trans by GC’s, harassed and called pedophiles or rapists.
No male will ever be female. Transgender males (trans men) are men, not women, not female.
This has nothing to do with gender non-conforming males. It has to do with religious activists not wanting certain females to be allowed in female spaces.
They already have human rights. They can marry, if they can find someone who can tolerate their mental health problems that make them hate their sex or sexed bodies. The can drive cars. They can walk in the park.
What other rights do transgenders need?
They want special rights that allow them to oppress women by taking over the word that defines us. They (and apparently you) want to force us to call them the opposite sex, which is compelled speech. They want the right to deny us sex-segregated spaces, even though it's clear men are the most dangerous and violent of the two sexes.
Not going to happen. Women and children are at risk from men in our spaces, even if they're pretending to be the opposite sex. We're done arguing over this. We're taking back our rights.
They do not have the right to use public bathrooms, trans minors do not have the right to access some healthcare, and they can be banned from any public spaces or institutions. That is a blatant violation of human and civil rights. None of those are “special rights”. Everyone had those rights except for trans people.
Also, what? Gender criticals are literally telling women they are not allowed to define themselves and trying to ban the word woman. Didn’t you see Trump’s EO’s? They called use of the word woman “gender ideology”.
You can call people whatever you want. You can call trans people aliens from mars if you want. You simply cannot strip them of their civil and human rights based on your religious belief that they are a different sex than they actually are.
The only people getting rid of sex segregated spaces are gender criticals (remember when you forced a trans man to play in a woman’s wrestling league because you were so desperate to ban non-existent trans women and he absolutely annihilated his female opponents?).
Men are objectively on average the more dangerous and violent of the sexes. That is one of the reasons why it is so important for trans women and girls to use female single sex spaces. Black and indigenous trans women and girls in particular have the highest victimhood rates of sexual violence than any other demographic (even JK Rowling herself acknowledged this in her Terf Wars essay; white trans women meanwhile have similar rates of victimhood of sexual violence as white cis women).
Women and children, including trans women and children, are at risk of from men in their spaces.
No one pretends to be the opposite sex unless they are performers or drag artists.
We are done arguing over this. We are taking back our rights. Gender critical misogynists will lose and will not steal any more rights away from women and trans people.
😂😂😂😂 you’ve got to be a troll. No one can be that stupid.
Being called stupid by a gender critical is like being called crazy by a paranoid schizophrenic. It rings but hollow, my guy.
🥱
Missing from this article is exactly what rights are being taken away from men who identify as trans and what law gave them those rights.
And where the democratic discussion was of the loss of female-only space.
None, because there’s no such thing as “men who identify as trans”. You can’t identify as trans. It’s an immutable characteristic. And the article explicitly states that the Supreme Court ruled that trans men can not only be barred from men’s bathrooms, but women’s bathrooms as well.
Jason's argument: People who are desperate to look like the opposite sex actually ARE the opposite sex. Also, the earth is flat, I tell you. I can see all the way to the edge. It's biological!
Sally’s argument: people who I don’t like are a different sex than what I say they are. I am the supreme god of sex and I get to overrule biology. Also the earth is flat, I tell you, and anyone who says otherwise is a proponent of gender ideology! I can see all the way over the edge! JK Rowling said the earth is flat so it is true! Scientists are liars and are brainwashed by trans ideology! The earth is flat! It’s biological! The flat earth is an adult human flat disk!
No one's objecting to trans people's existence that I've noticed and I'm sure some of them are lovely people, but men however they identify don't belong in womens spaces...why is that so hard to grasp?
Of course you are. A trans person is a person who has undergone sex change. You deny that such a thing exists (while also trying to ban sex change procedures for minors, which kinda gives the game away).
Also, no one is arguing for men to be in women’s spaces. It’s WOMEN that should have access to women’s spaces. Why is that so hard to grasp?
"A trans person is a person who has undergone sex change."
Two comments up you say it's an immutable characteristic. Something requiring surgery and, presumably, exogenous hormones cannot be immutable, because surgery treats the body as mutable. You simply have no idea what you're talking about - it's just drivel.
Being trans is an immutable characteristic. You can’t decide not to be trans. You can choose not to medically or socially transition, but you will still be trans. You just will not be legally recognized as your sex in most places.
You simply have no idea what you’re talking about. Your religion is causing you to not think clearly. You’re just spouting drivel.
No one can change sex. We’re mammals, it’s physically impossible. Grow up and get your head out of your backside.
If that’s true then there is no reason for you to try and ban sex change procedures for minors, and you should have no trouble paying for sex change procedures through your tax dollars, as such treatments don’t exist! You can’t ban something that doesn’t exist, and you can’t object to your tax dollars going to something that doesn’t exist.
Also, what does being a mammal have to do with sex change? Ignoring the fact that this is demonstrably untrue, why would mammalian physiology prevent sex change uniquely and not sauropsid physiology?
Grow up and get your head of out of your backside. Your religion is false. Science is real. Cope and seethe.
Such unmitigated drivel. You need help.
Good lord @Ruth Reid, why would you assume @Lisa Simeone or anyone hasn’t met people who identify as “trans”. What is this drivel and attempt to virtue signal you write? Hit the delete button. As Ru Paul said, it’s all about the edit.
I’m a lesbian. I, like @Jamie Reed, have partnered with or been effectively married to women who identified as “transgendered” and/or later came to identify as “transmen” for years. You know, what we used to call “butch” lesbians or “tomboys” who were convinced by academics like Judith Butler and health care practitioners that sex was socially constructed and that they should amputate their healthy breasts, undergo painful surgeries and hopped themselves up on testosterone. No way back for them. We’ve lived the horror of what happened to them from losing their voices and never being able to scream or sing again and the hideous life long medical complications of surgeries and wrong sex hormones.
Known many heterosexual male autogynephilics too (who now claim “trans” status and some call themselves “lesbians”). Who knew they outnumbered us? It’s used to be funny when straight men tried to hit on us by saying “they were lesbians too” because everyone got the joke. But not anymore because now I have straight dudes showing up to my parties saying they’re like me - they’re a lesbian too and everyone goes radio silent and stares at me awaiting my response which is always, “please get the fuck out of my house” because all I can do now is drop f bombs.
Also besties for decades with the fabulous transvestites like what Tim Curry portrayed in … what was that movie called?
I’m friends with so many people who say they have a “trans” child, I have lost count.
And I meet all of the others claiming “trans” status on a daily and throughout the day. From the blue haired “queers” making my expresso or working retail to the creepy voyeuristic dudes in washrooms and change rooms. Correct. They’re “trans” too.
Maybe you’re “hard pressed to actually identify many of them as transgendered, especially the transmen” but many of us are not. I call it an innate instinct humans possess to be able to identify the opposite sex, lest we become extinct. If you think being a woman or man is all about body parts, just sayin’, you could put me within the best presenting “transman” or “transwoman” and I will identify them within minutes. Because there is something different about the way woman move and something about the softness in their eyes that always gives it away … even if it’s not the large vs small hands or feet.
I lived with a skinwalking tranny man in drag.
Nothing a tranny wants is a human right. Stop shit-talking, bro. They aren't rights.
Thank you
I don’t think anyone has ever claimed they want to ‘magically morph’ into the opposite sex.
But more importantly, the point here is that democracy is at stake. No matter your views, these laws affecting our human rights should be debated. Debated constructively and fairly, using language that is accessible to everyone.
How is democracy at stake? How do these people not already have all the rights the rest of us have? They do what they want, they dress how they want, they present themselves how they want, they go where they want.
Your reading comprehension is clearly as bad as your transphobia.
Ooooh -- "transphobia" -- the magic incantation!
Don't forget "bigot", "hate", and best of all, "TERF"!
Well, here's one proud TERF.
You're disgusting.
Aw, shucks. You don't like me. Now excuse me while I go cry into my pillow.
Standing with you for truth Lisa!
we guessed.
But they are banned from going where they want, in many cases.
They are banned from going where they want? You mean like into women's toilets where they can fling their dicks around?
Maybe they can go into the men's toilets. Just a thought.
In the UK most toilet cubicles are floor to ceiling so I’d be very concerned if we could see anyone’s private parts. I’ve never, ever seen anyone exposing themselves in a female toilet.
However, I wonder how transmen manage in male toilets at the urinals?
I guess they don’t have any problem really because nobody seems to object to them being in toilets or changing rooms at all…
How about we build new special showers and bathrooms for trans women, non-binary men and every other man as well as any woman stupid enough to prove how woke she is by getting naked with strange men. You'll eventually figure it out. You may have some very nice transgender friends. But men haven't stopped ogling and raping women and children. And so called “trans women” are men. Get a clue.
Those of us who have met the worst of the worst men DON'T WANT MEN IN OUR SPACES. Especially when we're vulnerable such as naked in showers or in booths we can be forced back into when we unlock the door. How are you not understanding this?
I wonder why males, don’t object to trans men in their toilets.? I wonder why that could be? I wonder why females object to trans women in their toilets ? I’m trying to figure it out?
I’m trying to figure out why Isla Bryson a convicted double rapist transitioned during his trial!!? (I wonder why his ex wife found that hilarious when she found out). I’m just trying to figure it all out!!
I’m wondering if Isla Bryson is the only Isla Bryson in the whole world!!!
Surely no other man would pull such a stunt!?
Yes. And that's fine. Males being banned from female-only spaces is a perfectly good outcome.
At the most basic level, how can they take a full part in society when there is no public toilet that they can use without attracting adverse attention from someone, or in the case of trans men, possibly not being able to use one at all?
Oh, so it’s ok that women are threatened by men, just as long as men aren’t threatened by men??
Unbelievable. Unfckingbelievable.
Maybe men in men’s toilets shouldn’t attack other men just because those men are dressed in drag. How about that?
Trans men (women) are welcome in women's spaces. They are women. Men can use men's spaces. Simple. If trans identified men have a problem with male violence they can expend all the energy they've been expending onto forcing women to accept them, towards forcing men to accept them. Any argument you have against that will in fact support women's argument that we don't want men in our spaces.
Ann, here’s an idea: why don’t men use men’s toilets and women use women’s toilets? A man in a skirt and wig is still a man. Perhaps men should learn to be more tolerant of other men instead of expecting women to do it for them.
Yes! Exactly!
Many women are effectively banned from public services, sports teams, rape crisis centres & DV shelters because they *cannot* attend if the opp sex is there. Why do those women not matter to you?
Because those people are too busy virtue signalling to care about vulnerable women who are not in their social class and never will be.
As a cis woman, I strongly believe that a blanket restriction on where trans women can go will also negatively affect cis women, albeit with typically less severe consequences. That is to say, that in order to “protect” cis women from the minuscule number of trans women, a greater number of cis women will be challenged, threatened, assaulted etc due to being suspected of being trans or simply having the restriction used against them. Just the idea that a police officer might have the right to ask any woman to prove they are cis is horrifying and would undoubtedly be abused. There is no safe and workable one size fits all solution, it has to be nuanced.
First of all, I reject the terminology "cis" and "trans women." There's no such thing as "trans women" or "transwomen" -- those are men.
Second, the notion that a cop is ever going to "ask any woman to prove they are cis" is bullshit fearmongering. It doesn't happen, it hasn't happened, and it's not going to happen.
Why is it that the left (supposed left) employs the same nonsensical tactics as the MAGA horde when trying to make an argument? It's bogus when the right does it and it's bogus when the left does it.
I don't want a man swinging his dick around in my locker room or restroom. He can go into the men's locker room and restroom where he belongs.
The Supreme Court CONFIRMED the law as it has always been. Stonewall et al told people that males could ‘identify’ as women and be in women’s spaces, services and sports. They can’t and never could and the SC has confirmed that
Why did Stonewall demand "no debate" when women wanted to discuss their sex-based rights and sports and how men with tarns-identities interfered with them?
I assume this is a rhetorical question. Fair enough, perhaps they shouldn’t have done that. My gut feel is that is because they’re operating from a minority position and it’s very stressful, we’re all human, there is a temptation to ‘knuckle down’ in the face of adversity.
Not only did they insist on "no debate", any woman who spoke out to protect her sex-based rights was hounded as a bigot. This was Stonewall policy - a policy of identifying "suppressive persons" and flagging them as "fair game" by labelling them a terf.
That era is over. The debate has happened. The courts have heard it, and the terfs were vindicated. Debate is now proposed after the gender ideologists have lost.
Thanks for explaining. I feel now that you’re shutting down the debate. Can we all agree that’s it’s a very complicated issue with multiple layers / dimensions and keep trying to come to a consensus? Because there is a lot at stake that affects us all.
It is difficult to see how how a "consensus" can be reached when one side is making ontological claims that are just not true and insisting we all believe them
The only consensus that can be reached is for gender activists to recognise that not everyone believes their ideology and they have to live in a pluralistic society where other people have rights too and their own protected classes.
I see that as not going to happen as trans ideology is absolutist and immune to rationale discussion.
Sorry but expecting my 15 year old granddaughter to undress with males present is not complicated. It’s the hill I will die on. I will not accept that my granddaughters have fewer rights than I had. Why should Muslim women, Orthodox Jewish women & traumatised women be excluded from public space? Why should women & girls lose access to safe & fair sport?
No law has changed. Stonewall lied to providers to make them believe that the law had abolished all single sex spaces & services. The SC has merely reiterated the intention of Parliament when the EA was passed. When people trampled all over women’s rights for the last 15 years, did you demand a Parliamentary debate?
Your reply is risible. Fanatical, inaccurate and delusional.
Ha ha ha ha ha! Yeah, risible, Juliette. That's why I'm laughing. Because you don't know what you're talking about.
I'm sorry you think that women being harmed by men is funny. How sad for you.
I'm a woman, and I think you're talking absolute rubbish.
I don't give a shit that you think I'm talking absolute rubbish. Your ignorance on this subject speaks for itself. All the things I wrote are true. All the harms being done by these men-faux-women are true. The fact that you don't know about them is your problem.
I guess you're also in favor of psychologically distressed children being chemically and surgically altered rather than helped. And you're also in favor of transing away the gay.
Some great human rights you got going on there.
I was wondering how long until you digressed and dropped a f bomb or used a swear word. Well done 👏. Sometimes people just need to speak their truth in plain language so everyone gets it. “I don’t give a shit what you think” and just “fuck off” can carry great power.
And people, can you use your fucking google search buttons to find out who the fuck you’re calling a racist, a Nazi, a bigot and a hater in online forums and go hang your head in shame for a spell?
I’m outta here. Gotta go listen to some calming music.
Lisa cares so deeply about women's rights that she's willing to destroy democracy and insult other women until she gets them
Hyperbole much, Heather?
Codifying legal fictions around gender over sex into law is far more destructive to pluralistic, secular democracy than acknowledging that humans can’t change sex, that testosterone-induced androgynization is a powerful force that renders our species, like so many others, sexually dimorphic, and that females *also* have rights to safety, dignity, privacy, and opportunity.
Just because some women refuse to stand up for their sex-based rights doesn’t mean their consent is transferable to those who do. And as for “insulting”, it’s truly insulting to see people abuse reason & wield kindness as a weapon, in the service of female rights being subordinated to the demands of males.
Yeah, it's terrible that I don't want to defend fine upstanding creatures like these:
"Trans-Identified Male Killer Who Made 'Sissy' Erotica Sues Kentucky DOC Over Policy Terminating Distribution of Feminizing Hormones
"A trans-identified male serving 40 years for a brutal 2013 murder is suing the Kentucky Department of Corrections over a new law banning public funding for cross-sex hormones and surgeries. Matthew Smith, who now goes by the name Maddilyn Marcum, was convicted of stabbing Eric Schreiber 72 times and slitting his throat."
https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/trans-identified-male-killer-who
"Trans-Identified Male Convicted Of Murdering His Wife After She Attempted To Divorce Him Now Housed In California Women’s Prison"
https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/trans-identified-male-convicted-of
"CANADA: Trans-Identified Male Who Shared Sadistic Child Abuse Content And Called for Transitioning of Minors Will Serve Shortened Sentence In Women’s Jail"
https://genevievegluck.substack.com/p/canada-trans-identified-male-who
And so many more.
Thank you, Genevieve Gluck. @genevievegluck
And of course there's California's own Dana Rivers, the man who pretended to be a woman and was so angry that lesbians wouldn't accept him as a lesbian that he decided to murder a couple of them. And their son. He shot and stabbed a lesbian couple who had tried to be friendly to him. This same man had previously harassed lesbians who wanted to have female only events.
This is what vicious men do. They take the word we use to describe ourselves (woman), they demand everyone pretend that they have actually become women, they get it in their heads that since they are “actual women” that we should also go along with their insane belief that they are lesbians. And when lesbians politely turn them down because we are same-sex attracted, not same “gender identity” attracted, they harass us, call us bigots, tell us to suck their “girldick” and get us kicked off, you guessed it, LESBIAN dating apps. We are at risk of male violence because idiots like those posting here want to pretend that if a man thinks he's a woman, he must be less violent than other men who murder women.
Oh, guess where California put lesbian murderer Dana Rivers – yep, he's in a female prison. Good job you dopes. As I said in another comment here, I'm happy to pay for special showers and bathrooms for “trans women” to share with all of you who are too stupid to understand male violence. You'll eventually figure it out.
I have very good trans friends, who are lovely people just trying to live their lives, and wouldn't harm a fly.
You, on the other hand, are hateful piece of shit, who will at some point realise that the only people left in your life are the ones with a similar hateful worldview, because no normal, decent person will want anything to do with you.
I agree, it's despicable!
Very well said Lisa!
What a nasty, spiteful reaction to a very good piece which is not only about trans rights, but all our human rights and why we are increasingly being let down by governments increasingly sidelining parliament to make laws.
Women have far, far more to fear from men than trans people.
You seem perfectly happy to throw other people onto the bonfire of your bigotry, applauding and even inviting a your fellow bigots to “give them hell”. What is so offensive to you about people just trying to live their lives and be themselves?
What made you so angry and vicious?
Nigel Farage?
Donald Trump?
Do you hate people who don’t have white skin too?
Ah, yes, the usual knee-jerk accusations. And the usual deliberate conflation.
I'm sorry you don't acknowledge reality. I'm sorry you don't understand what's at stake here. I'm sorry you approve of the chemical and/or surgical mutilation of children who are in psychological distress. I'm sorry you don't understand Biology 101.
And I'm sorry you assume that because a woman -- actually, many millions of us -- stands up for the rights of women, therefore, she must be a Trump supporter. Irrational, illogical, distracting, ad hominem, and false assumption.
Do you accept the right for women to exclude men from their vulnerable spaces like changing rooms?
Even men who claim to be women?
All transwomen are males. Just like all other men. You presumably don’t think men should be able to walk into a female changing room where women are naked, so why should TW be able to?
If you don’t like the law that the Supreme Court have declared then campaign for a new statute to override the Equality Act. This focus on guidance is bizarre. Guidance isn’t law. The law is clear: biological sex is real and it matters.
Respectfully, if they were truly “being themselves”, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Nothing says “authentic self” more than someone who denies their biology, injects cross sex hormones, and surgically modifies their body 👍🏽
Biology is more complex than you are acknowledging.
No, it actually isn’t.
You can continue to say this to yourself, but it doesn’t make it true.
Please know that I have genuine sympathy for anyone suffering from mental distress; I am unwilling to lie to myself or others as “treatment” for that distress.
Wow. Well then we clearly have nothing to discuss. We have such a fundamental disconnect that there is no way to even begin a rational debate. You are dismissing an awful lot of people as mentally ill — people who have a huge rate of suicide when they are not accepted for who they say they are, but much less when they are living safely with acceptance.
Sometimes what is passed off as mental illness is just incompatibility with a narrow-minded culture. As an autistic person I can attest that when I am in a more flexible environment, free from certain arbitrary societal conventions, I am more productive and relaxed. I exhibit fewer negative traits that interfere with my executive functioning.
Sometimes the constraints society puts on us are just there because that’s how things have always been. The reasons either no longer apply, or we have learned more and know better — yet we are slow to let go of the traditional way of doing things.
Although being transgender is very old. Trans people have always been around. Their acceptance has varied (and does vary) by culture.
Sorry, I said we have nothing more to discuss, then I rambled on again. 🤦🏻♀️ Diarrhea of the keyboard. lol
If someone who is male is or becomes suicidal after another person acknowledges that empirical fact, then yes, that is profound mental illness.
What made me so fucking angry was when gay and lesbian children and youth (and a inordinately high number of girls who are autistic or troubled) were sterilized and medically harmed. I tend to get real vicious about these things being a homosexual. As do I as a feminist when women’s rights are taken down.
It's scary isn't it how people identifying as politically moderate who are opposed to trans people being able to live normal lives are so willing to align themselves with far right enemies of democracy. You'd think it'd give them pause for thought but apparently not.
No one's saying people who identify as trans can't live lives free of discrimination but like tbe rest of us they also need to follow the rules meaning that in some instances spaces are exclusive to one sex, and therefore in the example of women only spaces men (however they identify) are neither welcome or permitted to enter.
People who identify as trans have the same rights as everyone else...
The principal opposition which led to the For Women Scotland case was from left-wing Scottish lesbians. Why aren’t you aligned with them against far right enemies of democracy? Aren’t left-wing lesbians the sort of people who protested at Greenham Common, for example?
No, boring argument. We are not right wing. It's just that the left have sold women out, so we are politically homeless.
The Nazis considered it crucial that the trains ran on time. Therefore, if you think the trains should run on time, you should reconsider that position because the Nazis held it?
See what a stupid argument that is?
Any proposition is true or false regardless of who (or who else) holds it. Any attempt to focus on the person who has an idea rather than the idea itself is an example of the ad hominem fallacy, one of the most basic fallacies of relevance.
Strangely the Muslim women that I spoke to who were scared that they would lose their 1 hr per week women only swimming session weren’t white. If “being yourself” means removing all privacy, dignity & safety from women & girls then I will fight back. This is new. T people have always been around, they just weren’t previously demanding access to naked women & children. All the hate is coming from them.
How many of these cases of trans women who you deny are women are there actually harming ciswomen as compared to how many transgender people are harmed either from assault by people who hate or fear them for being trans or self-harm because of attitudes like this? IYou might be embarrassed to learn how much of your argument is based on false information meant to manipulate you.
Even if a large percentage of the cases you base your opinion on are true, the number of transgender people (women and men) who are being genuinely harmed, not even just denied civil rights, but physically harmed, is much higher.
Just what percent of transgender people do you think are athletes and prisoners ? And while transgender people are probably targets of domestic abuse just like any other demographic, they are also targeted by their parents. Your belief system leaves those people without protection even though they are most definitely targeted because of their gender.
You don’t have to understand the science or psychology to understand the data. The most recent data I could find on the UK government website was from 2019/20 and the hate crimes against transgender people had been increasing every year for the five years included in the report. It increased by 16% just between 2018/19 and 2019/20.
According to spuk.org.uk 48% of transgender people in the UK have attempted suicide at least once in their lives. Compare that to less than 7% of the population as a whole. (according to mind.org.uk)
Where is the actual problem? Is it possible you are being fed conflated scary stories to influence your opinions about transgender people?
Note that your intention to strip people of civil liberties is based on anecdotal evidence and from what I’ve seen, when actually investigated, often they are not what they appear to be. In one particular case the girl who claimed to have been injured or intimidated by a trans girl in football/soccer was the daughter of a anti-trans activist and no such player existed. (Last Week Tonight investigated several claims)
You may be being manipulated into supporting something based on false premises.
Most men don’t harm women. But we still ban all men from women’s single sex spaces. The evidence is that TW commit sexual assault on women at the same rate as other men. So why would we treat them differently to any other man?
Where is this evidence?
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/18973/pdf/
This is not credible evidence. It's produced by well known activists with links to hate group Sex Matters who are trying to do exactly what Timbrely describes.
That is not what that article says.
They only looked at people who had committed crimes. There is no indication of the percentage of transgender women who commit violent crimes. They looked at what percentage of trans women who had committed crimes had committed violent crimes.
That is not an assessment of the criminality of trans women as a whole. I’ve not been able to find stats on the percentage of transgender people who commit violent crimes but there is plenty of data on them being assaulted and of self-harm. If trans people are more likely to commit acts of violence than cisgender people, where is the data?
Also, according to that report the trend was that as transgender support systems have been put in place over time those violent crimes lessened. (Though there was debate as to causality)
Male rights above female are not "civil liberties." They are abusive practices by patriarchal governments.
If you want to shower with men, do it. Those of us who know better are fighting to take back women's rights.
I already posted almost a dozen reputable articles, with links to further reporting, in evidence of the harms that trans ideology is doing to society, especially to women and to vulnerable children and teens.
People can choose to look at that evidence or not. I'm not going to keep repeating it over and over again.
"I'm not going to keep repeating it over and over again"
Thank heavens for small mercies.
Define “harm”. If a religious women cannot enter an intimate space that includes the opp sex, she is harmed. If a traumatised woman cannot enter the same space without triggering her ptsd, she is harmed. If a young girl is exposed to a naked male, that is grooming. If a severely disabled woman is denied care because she wants only F intimate carers, she is harmed. If a rape survivor cannot access counselling because she cannot speak of her trauma in front of the opp sex, she is harmed. There are many, many more of these women then there are transwomen. Try telling the 10 year old girl sexually assaulted by a TW in supermarket toilets that it didn’t happen . It did not happen because the attacker was trans, it happened because they were male. F need privacy from M. 5 minutes ago, nobody ever questioned that. How the M identified is irrelevant.
Bravo! Spot on! Ian is definitely out to lunch on this and is seriously harming his credibility.
Thank you, Len.
The people you mention who sneak their way into women's spaces to do harm are not Trans, and should not be used as an example of the Transgender community. It is the fault of the system for allowing these people to mask as Transgender and infiltrate safe spaces for women. Again, those people you mentioned are *not* Transgender. Even if some are, should we let the minority define the majority? If a white man committed a crime, would all white men be considered criminals? Look deeper into what you're spouting and realise that it's born from pure hatred rather than facts. \ (•◡•) / にぱー
Can you explain how a woman in a safe-space can tell apart an angelic transwoman from an abusive man lying about being a woman?
In the case of women's restrooms/washrooms, for example, no lying is even necessary. No declaration of gender identity is required to enter a public restroom, so allowing male-bodied persons into the women's restroom allows any man, and therefore every man, to enter and use the women's room unchallenged. There is no security system, only the previously accepted social compact under which men would avoid breaching women's spaces, and women would support each other. As long as that compact is broken, as long as male-bodied persons are welcomed into women's spaces by overriding the consent of women (NO, one woman's consent does NOT substitute for another's), it's not just a woman's safety that's at risk. It's her fundamental autonomy; women's humanity is being threatened, yet again.
In that scenario, what difference does it make how a violent man presents? If he pretends to be trans or not? Nothing. Presenting female is not the problem, and doesn't facilitate it. Violence in men is the problem.
That’s right.
Which is why ALL men are prohibited from using women’s spaces; even the kind, sweet ones.
You are so close to getting it. That is why women have singlee sex spaces - to minimise the risk from abusive men. A man claiming to be a woman is not a ticket to bypass this protection.
Lol! You're so close to getting it, Andy! My point was that an abusive man doesn't even have to claim to be a woman, as long as women and men defend the "rights" of *any* man to bypass that protection. But you're fighting the good fight--keep it up! 👍
The only people who are a problem in the public bathroom are the ones committing crimes. Whether they wear a disguise to get in or are presenting as their gender identity of female but still have a penis, or used to have one, or present as male but still have ovaries, or are cisfemale, the only actual problem is if they commit a crime. Otherwise if they go in, pee, and wash their hands, no one is going notice them. I have genuinely not seen any support for this fear mongering that men are going through a whole ruse of disguising themselves as women just so they can walk into the women’s bathroom to assault a women. Predators slip in when no one is looking. They are more likely to put on a ski mask than a dress. They don’t need to disguise themselves as women.
On the other hand, demanding that a trans woman uses the men’s bathroom is a very good way to get them assaulted. They are more likely to the victim of violence than the perpetrator. If a person who presents as a woman walks into the men’s bathroom, goes pee, and washes their hands, they will be noticed. If the wrong man is in there, or notices them going in, they could be in genuine danger.
Plus, if all they are doing is going pee and washing their hands how does their gender assignment at birth affect you? How are they a bigger threat than a strong lesbian who doesn’t like the way you looked at her because you are trying to decide if she is actually a man, or a mentally ill woman, or a woman on drugs that make her unaware of pain or reality? Transgender people are not more likely to perpetrate violent crimes. I have seen no data to support such claims, only anecdotes. Those only account for a handful of cases. The statistics for the reported cases of assaults against transgendered people is significant. And how many do not report being attacked? Just as cis women do not always report sexual assaults.
The NIH has US statistics, the UK government’s website has statistics. Organizations that support the transgender community have statistics — not a handful of stories, actual data.
It is simply not true that it is only a problem if the man is committing crimes.
The very fact a man may be in a woman's space means he may be engaging in voyeurism and exhibitionism. Women do not men to be in a position where they can enact their paraphilias like this. We cannot tell who is an angelic man who only wants to shower and change with women for wholesome reasons and a man who is a fetishist and abuser.
And as I said, the people committing crimes (including exposing themselves and so forth) are a problem. It is irrelevant if they are a cis man disguised as a woman, a transgender woman, or a cis woman.
I simply do not believe this whole scary story about some epidemic of predator cis men using the notion of trans women being allowed to use the women’s bathroom as a new venue you for assaulting women. Dressing in drag is a lot of effort just to get through the door. It isn’t that difficult to enter the bathroom dressed as a man; if one intends to commit a crime then one is going in when it is not crowded. These scary stories are pretty far fetched. They ring of fear mongering.
I think the fundamental conflict in this discussion is that some of you all simply do not believe that a transgender woman is a woman so you will never give them the equal rights that women so are desperately fighting for. If you, for the sake of the discussion, imagine that they truly are women, that this is a fairytale world in which people really do get assigned the wrong gender and can only live at peace when their mind and body match… would you let them use the women’s bathroom?
And as for not believing transgender people are the gender they say they are, why is your opinion about them more valid than theirs? You are not inside them. Just because you have never felt like anything except your gender that you were assigned at birth and what your external body shows, and if it has come up, what your internal organs show, doesn’t make you an authority on the gender identity of the entirety of the human race.
I am autistic. I am cis female. I have never thought I was not. However I don’t feel strongly about my gender identity. I don’t freak out if someone misgenders me because of my name or my appearance. As Hannah Gadsby said, for that brief instant they are viewing me as part of the patriarchy. For a moment they may subconsciously assume things about me that they dismiss once they realize I am a women, if they are like so many who have so many gender biases in their deep subconscious from growing up in a society that demonstrates the bias against women constantly even while saying we’re all equal.
Even though I have never questioned my gender, I am not going to assume I know others’ minds. I’ve heard enough people explain their experiences growing up feeling misgendered (yes, anecdotal, so not data, but I talking about why *I* believe transgender people are the authority on their own gender; I am not making an argument for my position) I have heard compelling stories from people who chose very difficult paths in order to resolve their body with their mind. They gave up a lot because their lives were untenable when their gender was incongruous.
And because I have read peer reviewed science and psychology papers about sex and gender on reputable sites like NIH I know that the factors that determine a living being’s sex are complex. It isn’t XX and XY. It isn’t indoor and outdoor plumbing. The fact that the biology around this has evidence of more than two sexes, and there are people whose gender is unclear at birth and sometimes the doctor makes a choice based on what they see because everybody’s first question is “what is it?” (Why are we so obsessed with gender?) convinces me that I cannot dismiss people who do not fit into a binary set of genders based on their assignment at birth. It’s not my place to ignore all of the science that proves it is more complex. It is not my place to erase the people who do not fit into the binary system simply because it is inconvenient. They are real people. They have rights. Making up scary stories about all of their bad intents based on subset of people is illogical. There are bad people who are trans women. There are bad people who are cis women. There are bad people who are transgender men. There are bad people who are cis men. There are bad people who are agender. And any other genders that other cultures recognize but that I am not familiar enough with to include here.
As long as you don’t believe that a transgender person is the gender they say they are, we will never be able to have a meaningful debate. I believe that most transgender people are who they say they are because choosing to be trans is choosing a tough life.
Crossdressers, drag queens, and people who identify as queer in terms of gender expression are not who I’m talking about. I’m talking about people who do not live their life as the gender they were assigned at birth. I would never assume I know better than them about that.
Are there people who think they are “the wrong gender” and come to a different conclusion later? Yep. There are people who take awhile to figure out their sexual orientation too. And what their love language is. And what their hopes and dreams are. And that they have been being gaslighted by their family for their whole life and have to learn self respect and to trust their own perception of reality. People are allowed to get it wrong. And they are allowed to make the decisions about who they are.
Their gender matters most to them. That’s who it affects most. It has next to nothing to do with me. If they are a criminal then their gender has nothing to do with that. Sure, there is a gender inequality issue and men perpetrate violent crimes against women more than the other way around. Sure, women are burdened with trying to be safer because there is no difference between a nice guy’s behavior and a predator’s. We have to do things that are ridiculous and inconvenient to reduce our risks. But none of that has anything to do with transgender rights if one actually believes they are the gender they say they are.
As long as you believe trans women are just men masquerading as women, you will fear them.
Clearly under that notion transgender men are not safe using the men’s bathroom, yet that is what they do.
You all do realize that you usually don’t know when a transgender person is in the bathroom with you, right? They are not waving pink, blue, and white flags as they go about their daily business. The fact that it’s only if you know that someone is transgender, if they have been public or are out that you are going to bar them. So you’ll only do this to people you know? Or are we going to use the personal data collected by DOGE to identify them all and make sure no one slips by unnoticed?
But I am wasting my time if you don’t believe transgender people. That fundamental point is a show stopper.
Oh, and that no one is a criminal until they commit a crime.
“I can’t believe men would do this and go to all that effort!” is not a credible safeguarding position.
Such gaps in protection is exactly where predators go.
Also please remember, it is not a requirement to dress in drag to claim to be a transwoman. A very poor effort will suffice or you are a bigot.
Also note only two sexes have ever evolved. All the “complex biology” is a smokescreen to confuse the ignorant about what a sex is and allow men to claim they are really women.
And if you think that transwomen really are women you have rendered the word “woman” devoid of any coherent meaning. You still need a word for thr roughly half of adults that have developed reproductive anatomy associated with conceiving and bearing children. What word should we give to this cohort of human beings?
For the same reason you don’t want to share spaces with other men is exactly why you’re not welcome in women’s spaces.
That this continues to fly over peoples’ heads is incredible.
Can you point me to the stats of assaults on T people? I have only seen data about total HI. As misgendering or ‘giving a funny look’ are reported as HI, I’d need to see a breakdown of actual assaults. T are currently the safest demographic in terms of murders (UK).
How many people who are trans and sneak into women’s spaces and do harm would be too many? Your argument is the “one true trans” one - if a man says he’s trans and harms someone then actually he isn’t, because nobody who is would do that. It’s an obviously flawed argument. And Katie Dolatowski and the Scottish butcher are only two examples in the UK and Ireland.
What about women who assault other women? Should all women be refused from women's spaces?
What about other anti-trans activists? Nicola Murray, a prominent GC woman was convicted of sexually assaulting children. So much for the story of protecting women and children. Maybe they should be banned from women's spaces too.
I'd much rather welcome a trans woman who needs to pee into the toilets with me than GC people who constantly obsess over what is in people's trousers when they're in a locked, isolated cubicle minding their own business.
What about women who assault other women? Should all women be refused from women's spaces?
What about other anti-trans activists? Nicola Murray, a prominent GC woman was convicted of sexually assaulting children. So much for the story of protecting women and children. Maybe they should be banned from women's spaces too.
I'd much rather welcome a trans woman who needs to pee into the toilets with me than GC people who constantly obsess over what is in people's trousers when they're in a locked, isolated cubicle minding their own business.
This is hilariously bonkers, Taylor.
If your hypothetical "trans woman" (i.e., a man) needs to pee, then he can do so in the men's room with his brethren. Nobody's stopping him.
We really are living in Bizarro World.
I think you'll find the men will stop them... And with a very high risk for abuse, harassment, assault. Kind of why trans people should be able to use facilities aligned with their gender if not specifically NB. And why your issue is with men, not trans people.
It's not women's responsibility to protect men from other men.
When you say, "your issue is with men, not trans people," yes, I agree insofar as there's no such thing as a "transwoman" -- that is a man. Nobody can change his or her sex. A man is a man, no matter what he wears, how he speaks, how he presents himself, or what he claims. He is a man, not a woman.
Likewise, no woman can become a man, no matter what she wears, how she speaks, how she presents herself, or what she claims, even if she gets her breasts chopped off. She is still a woman.
The profound, destructive delusion that a person can morph into the opposite sex is a mental disorder and deserves compassionate psychological care, not "affirmation" of the delusion.
Wow. "The men will stop" transwomen from using the men's room--by threat of violent crimes against them, yet--and that's okay. But women objecting to these same transwomen using the women's room--for numerous reasons, including feeling threatened--that's unacceptable? How are you not embarrassed by your own words?
What a weird comment. Nicola Murray wasn’t assaulting people in toilets. (For that matter, nor was Stephen Ireland, the Surrey Pride cofounder convicted of raping a 12yo boy under his care.) Males are the biggest threat to females. But look, if you want to use the men’s toilets, don’t let us stop you.
The point is that theoretically they could.
"How many people who are trans and sneak into women’s spaces and do harm would be too many?"
How many women who harm others would be too many?
I know that statistically the majority of (cis/trans) female-focussed abuse is from men. Cis/trans women make up a far smaller amount, but if one abusive trans person is enough to take away every trans person's rights, then one abusive cis woman could be enough to take away our rights.
At the end of the day, trans women face the same difficulties we do, and I'm not going to segregate them out of our spaces because of the beliefs of a few.
So your demand now is for a zero-crime world? Laudable, but I don’t think it’s feasible without an authoritarian presence that nobody would welcome except fascists.
It’s not about “how many is the right number to take away rights”. The SC decision showed that *no such rights exist*. Males do not have the right to be in female single-sex spaces. Trans women are men under the law wherever the EA 2010 applies.
You are very welcome to run your spaces as you like, but if you allow trans women and females into a space where the EA 2010 applies, you cannot exclude any other males. This is what the law says, even if Ian is hiding that fact from you and all of his readers.
Gosh, what should society do about all those women who rape? Oh wait. Nope, it's still men.
I don't care about what's in someone's trousers. I care about what's in his head. If he's male, his propensity to violence is enormous compared to a female. It's primarily men who rape, and crime stats show it doesn't matter if they think they're women, they're still more likely to rape. (Pssst, most "trans women" keep their penis. Why wouldn't they? Men love their penises.)
You really think that's why they haven't/don't have surgery? Really?
85% keep their penises. You need to spend some time on m2f forums and see how they talk when they think women aren't around. Eg. all the talk about their 'euphoria boners' - the arousal and erections they get when wearing women's clothing or undressing around women.
https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/euphoria_boner
Why should women be subjected to that? We have rights too. This isn't Afghanistan.
If it were only a question of locked, isolated cubicles, it may be a different question. Some kind of arrangement would probably have been agreed by now. However, the demand for entry to spaces of communal nudity, for intimate care, for denying women any & all single spaces/services, although there are plenty of T only spaces & services means that we cannot risk trusting any assurances about privacy.
Men are generally larger and stronger than women. Male rapists have waited for women to exit toilet booths and then shoved them back into the stall. Locked doors with men hovering outside them are clearly not safe. Remember, there are no security cameras to catch a violent male inside of a mixed sex bathroom waiting for a woman or child to unlock the stall door.
The fantasy of safety in communal bathrooms with lockable stall doors creates a danger to women and children. Teenage boys aren't even safe around adult men.
We need women like those posting here with a "be kind" message to understand how dangerous some men are. They probably haven't ever been sexually assaulted. Good for them but their experiences and opinions are not useful in policy discussions. Many people actually believe that if a man says he's a woman and does something to perform woman, that makes him different from other men. I think men who are so obsessed with women's bodies that they want to be us are probably more dangerous than people realize.
The best strategy to reclaim women's right to privacy, safety and dignity is to kick all men out of our female private spaces, then build special mixed sex facilities for use by male transgenders, nonbinaries and women who want to prove their woke bona fides. They'll eventually figure it out and decide to use single-sex facilities. Or maybe they'll feel so fulfilled cleaning the urine off toilet seats that they'll stay in there calling the rest of us bigots.
It’s not born from pure hatred. It’s born from the care for vulnerable women, and children. Do women deserve same sex intimate hospital care if they want it? Or are they bigots for asking for it?
Do children deserve to be assessed thoroughly before being affirmed for blockers or medicalisation that can leave them unable to give birth, or orgasm, and a hundred other medical conditions they’ll have to navigate for the rest of their lives?
Does a woman who has been sexually assaulted have the right to a space that is female only? Does she have a right to the terror she may feel at the thought of being attacked again but this time in a space that has always been for females?
It has nothing to do with hate. That gets shoved around when people are out of cogent arguments or just haven’t been bothered to do the research.
The bottom line is this:
Females in the majority have a right to say they are uncomfortable to the point that they want female spaces to remain as female spaces.
Watching a male boxer knock the bejesus out of a female boxer was a tough spectacle. Why did those female boxers look so amateur against him? He identified as female but his chromosomes said otherwise and he has never sued those that knew and spoke the truth. Because he knows what his chromosomes are, and everyone that was honest and that saw those fights knew the truth.
It has become a farce under a withering well meaning attempt at kindness. But it isn’t kind. Far from it.
So no true trans woman? 🤦♂️
Ian’s bio says he is an extreme liberal…seems his emphasis is on extreme which leads to…..illiberism perhaps?
Bless him!
It’s “out to lunch” only because you are a gender critical religious extremist.
You absolutely are taking rights away from trans people. You are barring them from single sex facilities. You are banning healthcare for trans minors. The ability to use a public bathroom, to get healthcare, and to play sports are not “special rights”. And while women’s rights are under attack, they are not under attack from trans people, but rather from the right, including from gender critical right wing activists who have allied with extreme misogynists.
There is no self ID in the UK, so it is physically impossible for a man to say “I’m transgender” and be recognized as a woman and put into a women’s prison. As of now, the law in England and Scotland requires that a trans woman have full sex reassignment surgery before even being *considered* being placed in a women’s prison, and even then she may be refused. Sports similarly do not allow self ID, and there are no “males” in women’s sports. There are no “men” invading women’s shelters either. This is a far right phantasm.
Sex change doesn’t occur my magic. It’s done by way of modern medicine. Surgery and hormones.
Even your claims about Eddie Izzard are counterfactual. She identifies as non-binary and gender fluid. She is not a trans woman, and she has not undergone any medical sex change procedures, as far as I know.
Race is completely non-biological and socially constructed, so it is not analogous to gender/sex.
You can’t strip rights away from people just because YOU don’t believe in their identity. You cannot compel others to conform to your religious beliefs. If you want to think trans women are men, fine, but you cannot strip sex based rights away from them on account of your belief.
Jason, it is false that “trans” people are losing any rights. A man in a skirt can still go into the men’s bathroom. He always did before. Now suddenly he can’t? Bullshit. The only “healthcare for trans minors” now being done is chemical and/or surgical mutilation. And it’s still happening. That’s not care. If you cared about them, you wouldn’t want them destroying their bodies with freakish hormone treatments and chopping off healthy body parts. You wouldn’t be trying to block their puberty and thereby trans away the gay. You’d be trying to get them help for their obvious psychological distress.
And nobody’s preventing them from participating in sports in their correct sex category. William (“Lia”) Thomas is a man. The reason he started pretending he was a woman is because he couldn’t cut it in male swimming competitions, so he cheated by joining the women’s team and obviously beating everyone there. Maybe he should grow up and get help for his mental health problems instead of cheating and leering at women in the locker room.
The only reason the UK is changing its tune is, as you already know, because of the Tavistock Clinic scandal, the Cass Report, the UK Supreme Court ruling, and the grotesque Isla Bryson case, among others. So yes, males have been housed with women in women’s prisons — in the US and the UK — and have attacked and raped them. It’s still going on in the US. Fact. And men are harming women in domestic violence centers and rape crisis centers. Fact.
Don’t give me this bullshit about rightwing blah blah blah. I’ll stack my liberal bona fides up against anyone any day. I’ve stood up for civil liberties and human rights all my life, including sacrificing my career for them (Google is your friend).
As the meme so aptly puts it, “The American Left will put you in a prison cell with a rapist; the American Right will make you have his baby.”
As for Eddie Izzard, he is a man. He can wear all the skirts and wigs and earrings he wants. He’s a man. He is not a she. But of course you pretend he is a woman yet somehow your head explodes if somebody claims he or she can change their race or ethnicity. Rank hypocrisy.
Liberty allows you to pretend whatever you like about yourself, but not to compel others to do so as well.
It is not false. That’s why your ilk were celebrating the SC ruling. Men in skirts were always using the men’s bathrooms. What you did was attempt to ban trans women from women’s bathrooms. Said women always used women’s bathrooms and will continue to.
Healthcare isn’t “chemical or surgical mutilation”. Your opposition to healthcare is religious extremism.
For Christ’s sake Jason, google who you’re speaking to before you throw any more salvos at her. You’re making us Canadians look really fucking ignorant, eh?
The only religious extremism here is that exhibited by the trans cult. It is religious dogma. I don’t believe in the tenets of your religion. You wanna believe in them? Fine. Have at it. You can’t force anyone else to.
As for your continued obfuscation about “trans women”, there’s no such thing. They are men. There’s no such thing as “trans women” or “transwomen”. They are men.
I have no religion. I am not gender critical. There is no such thing as “the trans cult”. Just like there is no such thing as “the Jewish cult” or “the Black cult” or “the woman cult”. These are characteristics, not ideologies. The gender critical religion meanwhile is an ideology.
You do not have to believe in anything. The courts in the UK ruled that being gender critical is a protected religious belief. You are entitled to believe what ever you want. If you want to believe that trans women are men, or that they’re aliens from Mars, or that the earth is flat, or that the earth is 6000 years old, you can believe it. But you cannot strip rights away from people based on your religious beliefs, and you cannot force anyone else to subscribe to your faith.
You are right that there is no such thing as “transwomen”. There are only trans women, which are women that are trans. Women that are trans are women, just as women that are Black are women, or women that are blonde are women, or women that are tall are women.
Quote: " But you cannot strip rights away from people based on your religious beliefs, and you cannot force anyone else to subscribe to your faith."
Yet that is exactly what the trans cult is trying to do: force the rest of us to believe in their ideology. Well, we don't.
(By the way, cults exist in every religion and every ideology on the face of the earth.)
Quote: "You are right that there is no such thing as 'transwomen'. There are only trans women, which are women that are trans."
Meaning that they are MEN.
You aren’t thinking clearly, Jason. Biology (and as it happens the Supreme Court too) says that we remain the same sex. Trans people - trans women in particular - aren’t banned from all single sex spaces. They’re banned from female single sex spaces because they’re male.
On sports it’s the same: they’re welcome to compete in the male category, because they’re male. Using linguistic quirks like “their label includes women!” doesn’t survive a cheek swab and test for the SRY gene (which is why one develops as male). Biology is the divider.
Also, a cheek swab also can’t determine someone’s sex. Hence why they have not been in use for decades. Sex is a collection of characteristics and there is no single test that can test all sex characteristics at once.
Trans women are female.
Wrong again, Jason (comme d'habitude). Cheek swabs are still in use. Because they work.
You really do just pull things out of your ass, don't you, and expect that people will believe you,
And no, "trans women" aren't women. They're aren't female. They're men.
I assure you I am thinking very clearly. “Biology” doesn’t say anything. It’s a field of study. You mean biologists, people who study biology. And they have said that the SC ruling was biologically and scientifically illiterate. Every medical and scientific institution in the UK condemned it. Only religious groups praised it.
Trans people, trans women in particular, can be banned from single sex spaces. The SC ruled that trans people can be banned from both male and female facilities. Trans women are female, not male, and have always had the right to use female spaces. Same thing with sports. Trans women can’t compete with men (not only because they can be banned, but also because it can be extremely dangerous for female people to compete in some sports against males) and they can be banned from women’s sports as well. That is a blatant violation of human and civil right.
"biologists, people who study biology. And they have said that the SC ruling was biologically and scientifically illiterate."
Citation required, cabbage brain.
Your moronic wailings about sport also noted, and added to the pile of "stupid things that stupid people say". I conclude that Canada rots the brain.
Ah here come the ad hominems. That’s always a good sign that you have lost the debate.
Here is but one example of a group of experts rejecting the SC court decision as nonsense.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/trans-gender-supreme-court-ruling-bma-doctors-b2741304.html
If my “moronic ramblings” you mean statements of fact, I understand why a person like you would ignore them.
And if by “rotting the brain” you mean we have rejected the far right war on science by gender critical religious extremists, you’d be correct. Canada bucked a general global trend of support for trans rights decreasing (especially in the US and UK). Instead, support for trans rights increased, and one of the central aspects of that increase was support for scientific and medical institutions which have been threatened by Trump and other gender critical activists.
The ad hominem is merited because you indulge in gish gallops. You don’t engage with the point and spout endless nonsense. I’ll have nothing more to do with you.
Good lord, tell me Jason is not Canadian! True dat, we take the cake on complete entrenchment in the junk science of Gender Ideology by our ruling 🇨🇦 government into law and civil society. Perhaps only surpassed by our friends in Australia 🇦🇺. But have faith because we’re both common countries so we look to the UK 🇬🇧 to save us. Airstrip One goes down we’re really in a mess.
I am Canadian. There’s no such thing as “gender ideology” and I am very proud to live in a country like Canada where the gender critical religion is considered a fringe and evil pseudoscientific political ideology. Australia too has been steadfast in rejecting gender critical ideology as a pernicious export of MAGAland and TERF island. In fact, in 2025 both countries bucked the global trend and support for trans rights increased in both places, especially in Australia.
Us women and girls lose precisely nothing by allowing trans people to live with respect and dignity.
They can live however they want. Nobody's saying they can't.
Why do so many of you insist on misrepresenting what I'm saying?
I don't care what myths trans people believe about themselves or anyone else. A man can't become a woman. Women deserve safety, dignity, and privacy in safe single-sex spaces. Period.
Would you allow my teenage daughter the right to have female only changing rooms and showers in school and sports clubs as the EA does? Or should males who claim to be "women" be allowed in with her?
The over 2000 female athletes who have lost medals, records, prize money and sports scholarships to mediocre male athletes allowed to enter female sports because they ‘identify’ as women would disagree with you Mary
Your stats are highly questionable. There is a source of such data that was revealed to be false. I cannot remember the source but it continues to be referenced even though it was fabricated information. I’m sorry I can’t remember enough information to lead you to the fact checking but just a heads up, the sports argument has been debunked.
No, Timbrely, it is not false. The Women's Sports Policy Working Group, which includes athletes Martina Navratilova, Nancy Hogshead, Mariah Burton Nelson, Donna de Varona, among others, has been tracking this. There have been thousands of girls and women who have lost honors and opportunities because men and boys are competing on female teams.
https://womenssportspolicy.substack.com
The people you mention who sneak their way into women's spaces to do harm are not Trans, and should not be used as an example of the Transgender community. It is the fault of the system for allowing these people to mask as Transgender and infiltrate safe spaces for women. Again, those people you mentioned are *not* Transgender. Even if some are, should we let the minority define the majority? If a white man committed a crime, would all white men be considered criminals? Look deeper into what you're spouting and realise that it's born from pure hatred rather than facts. \ (•◡•) / にぱー
So no true trans woman? 🤦♂️
The only conclusion to reach is that there is no such thing as "trans.
And men have to be told no from the beginning because they're insane.
End of.
I agree. I love Ian’s essays and this is the first time I have ever disagreed with him. We should love trans kids and keep them safe but we shouldn’t tell them they are something they are not. It’s not right, not for them and not for us.
Ann, exactly. As I wrote almost 20 years ago, I'm not in favor of discriminating against them in any way. They deserve -- and already have -- the same rights as anyone else. But they can't be allowed to trample on other people's rights, which they have been doing with abandon, and with the blessing of government policies:
"Alarm Bells on Transgender Ideology Ignored
Ask Not for Whom the Bell Tolls, It Tolls for Thee (pace, John Donne)"
https://lisasimeone.substack.com/p/alarm-bells-on-transgender-ideology
This thread has gotten too confusing for me to reply to all of the replies. I’ll make more comment and then you all can have the last word. You’re not going to change your opinion no matter what I say anyway. And while I understand where some of you are coming from, I don’t know the answer to accommodate both of our concerns. I do know that I’m not okay with choosing to strip one group of their rights and safety for the other group’s. We need a better solution than what is being is offered.
For those of you who simply do not believe that trans women are women, I can’t even begin to discuss this with you. You will never understand. You are picking and choosing which science to look at. You are ignoring anything inconvenient. Perhaps you think people with XXY chromosomes simply don’t count, or that people with indeterminant genitalia are a mistake, or that people with testes and ovaries are not worth being covered by civil rights. And perhaps you don’t believe that those people are evidence that there are more subtle ways a person can be non-binary or misgendered at birth. They assign the gender immediately upon birth. Rarely do they reconsider. There are so many ways it could be more complicated than just two absolutely separate options. But I am speaking to the void about that.
It is telling that people are only up in arms about trans women. The fear of men — the deep-seated misogynistic belief that the controlling power of men will be there no matter what … that it is inevitable. This fear that no matter what a person believes they are, they are still a man with that inside them.
On a side note, [as a gross generalization that may not actually apply to anyone in this thread, so don’t take this personally; I am using a broad brush speaking only about the people who I am describing. I am not saying what you, the reader, believe.] it is also unsurprising that a group of whom many are also anti-women’s-reproductive-healthcare under the guise of anti-abortion (that decision is a medical one, not a legal one) are not quite as loud about providing for healthcare, and supplemental programs for food and education for the children once they are born. There are disconnects, for some people, when compassion is inconvenient. Again, not necessarily the people in this group, but being unable or unwilling to look at situations from the perspective of others yet pushing legislation that affects them is not a great idea.
I dug through UK crime statistics and found 144 violent crimes by trans people for 2024. In 2021 the prison population was .33% transgender. (That includes non-violent offenders.) Note the decimal point. 295 out almost 88K.
I commented somewhere else on this thread that over 45% of transgender people have attempted suicide at least once in their life. (I forget the actual number. Maybe 47? 48?) They are driven to this because their family, their friends, their church, don’t believe them. They are shunned and shamed. They are taught from early on that they are broken. Many are trapped in untenable situations being abused emotionally, sexually, and/or physically. Is it any wonder some of the abused become abusers? (There was a report shared by one of you that showed a decline in crimes by transgender people… it’s very possible it was due to more acceptance by a community, more support, medically, psychologically, socially)
Again, as for whether a transgender person is the gender they identify as — their gender matters very little to me. I was raised to believe my gender (I am cis female and have never questioned that) is not a barrier to anything I might want to do. I was raised to not be intimidated by men socially. Sure, I acknowledge the threat of the higher instance of violent crime by men against women. I take precautions accordingly.
(I recommend looking into the device called Birdie+ as a non-violent self-defense option. It provides 24/7 link to a representative who can send emergency services at the press of a button, but also offers a discrete was to leave awkward situations if someone is making you uncomfortable but not enough to warrant calling for help. Also it can send your location to your emergency contacts without you touching your phone. It’s only $50/year. I don’t work for them. I just think it’s important to be safe and not escalate a situation)
Anyway, I do not have the concept of something being a “man’s” job even though I do sometimes need somebody stronger… I will accept that help from whoever is stronger than me. I have never felt like a damsel in distress in my life.
If someone is committing a crime, their gender still doesn’t matter. They are a criminal. That is what matters. I blame it on a disconnect in their brain… a lack of empathy or a lack of self control, something. Something that they have or are missing. They break the Social Contract and that is down to them as an individual. They are not acting on behalf of a group. They do not represent anyone except other people who have committed the same crime, and then only when comparing criminals.
*************************
The thing I’ve gathered from all of these conversations in this thread is that we are at odds because we need a different solution than the two being offered here.
We need to protect people from criminals, and we need to protect people’s civil liberties. I don’t know what the solution is, but I will never agree to taking away a group’s rights who have committed no crimes just because some people are lumping them in with people who have. We don’t do that. Judging transgender people based on one’s personal beliefs is not okay. I promise you that the descriptions some of you have given do not represent the entire community. Not every transgender person is noticeable. Not every one is extraordinary. Not every one is seeking attention.
So I don’t know how we let transgender people live as their gender (yes, I mean the gender they identify as. It’s not up to you. It’s not up to me.) *and* keep criminals from exploiting the system. In an ideal world people keep their genitals to themselves unless it’s consensual. There is no knowing if more people would become violent criminals if transgender people were allowed to go where they identify. Perhaps it would just be that some criminals would change their methods. But regardless, there must be a third option because taking away rights is not okay.
Obviously some of you don’t believe their rights are being taken away but I feel you are ignoring facts. I don’t think you are truly putting yourself in their shoes. You are oversimplifying it. I’m not going to bother listing all of the ways their rights are being violated though. You aren’t listening.
I concede that, while I believe you are inflating the risk, it is a complicated issue to define legal gender for when it does matter to someone else. I don’t want to look at a penis either. But I don’t want to shower with anyone, so I would be lobbying for private showers. (But protections to prevent assaults, so not *too* private)
So I am not outright saying you are wrong. I’m saying your solution goes too far and needs to take the collateral damage into consideration. As does what you think my solution is. We don’t have a viable solution yet.
*************************
For those of you who complain that my comments are too long, you were never obligated to read any of them. Why would you bother commenting. It will not compel me to write less. I am a stream of conscious commenter.
There won’t be a quiz.
I know Ian means to be kind, but telling people with gender distress that they cannot live an ordinary life, that their rights and very existence are under threat, is not helpful to them.
There are young people in my town, unhappy about their gender, who have terrified themselves into hiding at home, convinced that life is unliveable for them outside. Yet I see trans people on the street, in the shops, and I know they are in workplaces, book groups, at gigs etc. I can only guess where they go to the toilet. Probably they have carried on as before and everyone let's it slide.
The idea that For Women Scotland/the EHRC guidance will make life literally unliveable for trans people is parallel to the discredited idea that young people are uniquely likely to take their own lives if they do not have medical interventions like puberty blockers. It was never true, it's now acknowledged to be untrue (even by Chase Strangio, the trans advocate in the recent Skermetti case in the US Supreme Court.) But the false idea has done a lot of harm in it's brief inglorious life.
Ian is concerned that gender non-conforming people should be able to live an ordinary life in society. I agree.
In which case it's a bad idea to tell people suffering from being human (in all it's fine variety) that they have a quasi-medical condition beyond their control, which will last forever and which means that the whole world is against them.
I don't say Ian fully articulates that unhelpful view in this substack - but it is the essential meaning and message of the 'pro-trans/gender-affirming' stance that he aligns himself with.
Maybe we should stop trying to strip rights away from trans people and threaten them with jail if they use a public bathroom and strip them of their right to medical care if you don’t want them to be terrified. Every trans person I know is terrified. Many trans people when denied healthcare do commit suicide. It’s true, no matter how staunchly you wish to deny it (Stangio also never stated what you are accusing him of saying. Your ideas are doing alot of harm in their brief, inglorious lives. Leave trans people be.
Leave women, homosexuals and children “be” and you have a deal.
Take your own advice. Also, we are called gay people, not “homosexuals”
I am a homosexual and I refer to myself as a lesbian because I’m female. In case you missed the memo, we’re the L word in the acronym.
You can call yourself whatever you want but I tend to look up words in a dictionary (preferably Oxford) because words and how they are used to communicate matter to me. I call any gay man who doesn’t give a damn about the loss of women’s rights a misogynist.
Then you are a lesbian, not a “homosexual”. This isn’t the 1950s where being gay is a clinical condition. There is no H in the LGBTI+ acronym.
There is a sad irony in an anti-feminist and homophobe calling a gay person “a misogynist” while allying themselves with the *most* violent and misogynistic men in the world in a crusade against women you religiously disapprove of.
I give a damn about women’s rights. You don’t. You have Trump and Andrew Tate on your side. I have feminists on mine.
What kind of asinine comment is this and do you not possess a dictionary?
Homosexual: “sexually or romantically attracted to people of one's own sex.” Lesbian: “denoting women who are sexually or romantically attracted exclusively to other women”. LG are the “H” or homos in the acronym. We did that historically to differentiate between males and female homosexuals. How old are you and why are you clueless to your “gay” history?
And there we have it folks - a gay man calling a lesbian “anti-feminist” and a “homophobe” and making leaping assumptions about people’s political affiliations.
I am so done with flippant, stupid gay men being coddled and striking back at women. Stand down. Because feminists are not with you.
I’ll say it, sister, because no one else likely will. Please send the memo to your gay brothers - we see one more of your sorry asses competing against us in sports because you can’t cut it competing against men; one more gay man steal our prizes and awards; one more gay man win a women’s beauty pageant; one more gay man flip his pretty hair back and declare “ain’t I a real woman” on the cover of Time Magazine; one more gay man wag his junk around a female locker room with complete and utter disrespect to women; one more gay man show up at the Olympics with their balls hanging out of their sparkly shorties dancing with children and I won’t be the only one telling you to zip it.
You do not care one bit about women or women's rights. You are a misogynist who couldn't care less if women are harmed. You actively promote harm to women - and to gay people.
The "LGBTI+" acronym is a load of anti-gay garbage imposed on gay people to erase us while simultaneously exploiting sympathy for us to promote the homophobic, misogynistic trans ideology.
That's good to know! I thought we were called "queers" today, especially by the people who try to force us to believe the homophobic falsehood that transwomen are men. They are also trying to erase the word gay, if you hadn't noticed. I personally am a lesbian but I'm happy with gay and homosexual to describe myself as well. Homosexual, i.e. exclusively same-sex attracted person, is actually a very useful word because it's clearcut and less easy for certain devious people to try to obfuscate with it. Both I and Chase Strangio are female homosexuals, for example.
Translation: You want to sexually harass trans adults and torture trans children.
Fuck off, pervert.
That’s a report and a second block.
Don't worry, your kind will surely be after the homosexuals next.
What homosexuals? Gender ideology and trans activists and their supporters have already obliterated our identities and taken away our rights to gather with our own kind @Spam Spam.
Keep reading the comments. According to @Jason Sarasti (a gay man) am “a lesbian” and “not a homosexual” and he reminds me this isn’t the 1950s (well before I was born btw) where homosexuals were considered a clinical condition.
And I note, my government 🇨🇦 has also declared the term “homosexual” to be obsolete and suggests people stop using it. If that isn’t erasure, not sure what is. But of course they also seem rather confused and unable to define clearly “what is a woman” so there’s that.
How would you feel if the world insisted on treating you as something you know you're not? Have a bit of humanity.
A person who claims to be something they are not — such as a man claiming to be, even “knowing they are” a woman — isn’t the same as actually being that thing.
Is it inhumane for you to deny that I know myself to be the true King of both England and Canada?
If not, how is your implicit claim that it is inhumane to ground law and public policy in material reality any different?
There’s no such thing as “a man claiming to be a woman”.
Being king is an occupation. Being a woman or a man is a physical characteristic.
You are literally claiming that we should ground law and public policy against material reality and in favour of religious extremism.
Also, as a Canadian myself, I am disgusted that a gender critical extremist would have my country’s flag in their bio. The gender critical cult is NOT welcome in Canada. Keep that shit in Trumpland and on Terf Island where it belongs
Yeah. Fewer & fewer parts of the world are safe for women. Canada made it quite clear that we are second class citizen’s subject to male diktat years ago.
Fewer and fewer parts of the world are safe for women in no small part due to the rise of the gender critical misogynist movement.
Canada has its issues, but I am so proud that we have stood up for the rights of women and trans people and resisted the fascist creep of gender criticals from MAGA-land and Terf Island.
Your comment oozes misogyny coupled with ageism. Just oozes. You probably sleep in a “punch a terf” tee shirt 😆
Oh fuck off, Jason. Being a king or queen is not an occupation - it’s a birthright. Just like I was born female (as has always been defined by biology) and, therefore, I inherited certain birthrights called “women’s rights”.
As a Canadian myself, I am disgusted that our government’s justice department obliterated women’s rights and LGB rights without so much as public referendum. Go ahead: look it up. Need the direct link, I am happy to provide it. The term “homosexual” has been put out of use; “lesbians” can be males; and anyone who says differently and expresses their views publicly can be charged with a hate crime. Need me to cite bills passed by our parliament, just ask.
What a poor excuse of a democracy we’ve become. Of all of the Western nations, we don’t yet have one case before our Supreme Court to decide one of the most fundamental questions - “what is a woman”? It’s as if we flushed the Oxford dictionary down the memory hole, along with England’s monarch and High Court (who used to be our High Court and has decided to clarify this point in law). As if it needed to be clarified to village idiots that sex is, by definition, based on biology and it matters.
Stop with the religious extremist argument and far right Maga insults. It’s such a standard, stupid, misinformed retort by trans activists and their handmaidens. I’m an atheist and have previously held office with the NDP. You don’t get to lob Nazi, fascist, hater bombs at every Canadian who dissents with your beliefs. So UnCanadian. If you want that, move to Iran where there is only one viewpoint allowed to be publicly stated; where women have lost all rights and where they deal with homosexuals (like me) exactly the same way as what trans activists and their supporters do (say homosexuality does not exist, tell homos they’re the opposite sex and send them off to be sterilized and have their body parts amputated so they can attempt to “pass” as the opposite sex. It’s now a $1 billion+ industry in Iran which they’re taken to promoting as a tourism draw. So don’t worry if we ban publicly funded operations to mutilate and sterilize people who believe they’re the opposite sex and stop doling out of wrong sex hormones and puberty blockers … Iran is standing by to fill the gap.
Darn right 🇨🇦 has issues.
So beautifully put. Thank you.
"The term “homosexual” has been put out of use; “lesbians” can be males; and anyone who says differently and expresses their views publicly can be charged with a hate crime".... THIS. Absolute, fucking insanity.
It is. This is what happens when we lie to children and youth and tell them they can change their sex to feel more comfortable in their bodies and when we elect politicians who pass ill thought out laws and do not hold them accountable for taking away hard won civil rights.
Because I suspect Jason is female and given that most “gender confused” kids grow up to be same sex attracted and get over their “dysphoria”, I wonder if Jason might be a lesbian like me. So I’ll ask Jason: what sex were you “assigned” at birth and are you a homosexual? Hopefully I won’t hear back “I’m intersex” (because so many youth are confusing disorders in sexual development (DSDs) with their being a third sex or with “intersex” being a new sexual orientation). I was shocked to hear this from a young group of people who I recognized as LGB and spoke to at a protest - they were gobstruck when I told them I’m a homosexual and asked them are any of you homosexuals too and it’s okay if you don’t want to say? “Intersex” they ALL answered. When I said that’s not a sexual orientation - there are three to choose from and, again, it’s okay if you haven’t figured it out yet or want to tell me to fuck off. One spit at me and they moved away. How parents with kids who think they’re the opposite sex navigate this is insanity and behaviour is beyond me.
Someone needs to be held accountable for fucking up the little ones. While there is so much blame to be shared, I’ll start with the person who drew the infamous “gingerbread person” where elementary school children were presented with a pictograph and got to pick and choose their body parts, were lied to and told humans could change sex and were praised by teachers for inventing their own pronouns (which we were then coerced into accepting and affirming the fantasy world of children’s ever so creative minds). It’s the basis of SOGI education here in 🇨🇦 - the Gingerbread person. While I am aware who funded this junk science in our country, I’m looking for a name - who drew the gingerbread person? Because they’re my second hard crit as an artist. Having taken great delight in being asked to share my thoughts on the hideous “trans progress” flag which should be taken down if for no other reason than it’s bad art and it offends my eyes, I can’t wait to weigh in on the Gingerbread person.
I completely agree.
Stop trying to whitewash genocide, you sick freak.
Aw, shucks, you’re too kind.
No, mate, kind is something I very much am not. And I'll be delighted to demonstrate just how unkind I can be to genocidal bigots like yourself, just as soon as we meet in person. Rather looking forward to it, actually.
I agree that trans people should be able to live a life that is not hindered by incompetent laws or people’s abject behaviour. And I know from experience that it happens. But the problem is primarily a social issue; living in Amsterdam in the 1970’s it never appeared to be a major problem to either the trans people or the environment they lived in. Maybe that environment, known for its weird sense of humour at the time, helped.
Well that's delusional of you.
This is a ridiculous article. Trans people have lost nothing while actual women and girls are losing everything - to delusional men.
I lose nothing by trans people being able to live with dignity. I certainly do lose something if a desire to avoid scrutiny leads the government to bypass democratic processes to pass new laws
Living with dignity is a separate issue. You cannot legislate "dignity". Current laws to protect women are being re-written to take protections for women out so men, men who pretend to be women, can be in our spaces. Biological men do not belong in our spaces. Biological men are not women. Biological men do not belong in women's prisons. Biological men do not belong in women's sports. Biological men do not belong in women's bathrooms, shelters for abused women, spaces established for lesbian women......Women lose our identity as women when men make claims that they somehow "feel" like us. Being a woman is not a "feeling". Being a woman is not about looking or acting a particular way. The entire notion that one is in the wrong body is a mental/intellectual/emotional construct and not a biological reality. Unlike anorexia (skeletal people feel fat and believe they look fat) or other mental/emotional/intellectual constructs, wearing women's clothing and pretending to be a woman is not physically dangerous or harmful so it does not really need to be addressed. Trans people do not pose a threat to themselves or society and can live as they wish. Like all humans, they will find their community of friends. How they choose to identify is not, however, a biological reality any more than identifying as a dog or cat is actually a "real" thing. Writing women out by writing men in to our spaces is not a violation of men's rights or protections but it absolutely is a violation of women's rights and protections. Trans rights are basic human rights. They should not be discriminated against or subjected to hate, but we can't redefine reality or rewrite laws that eliminate the rights of women because men want to be us. They can't. That's not mean or unfair...it's a fact they need to reconcile as part of their decision.
No new laws have been passed but an existing law which protects single sex spaces especially for women and girls has been clarified. What’s so difficult for everyone to understand?
Lucky you. Many women aren't so fortunate though and value the things the trans movement has taken from us.
Men cannot become women and women cannot become men, Jason. Trans women have xy chromosomes. They are male. Trans men have xx chromosomes. This isn’t a religious argument but is a matter of fact. It’s not an act of heresy to point out the truth. Trans women are men. Trans men are women.
I’m curious as to how I’m “losing everything” - I’m not aware of my rights being violated or diminished whereas if the EHCR gets what seems to be its way, trans people will see a substantial diminution in their ability to play a full part in society.
As for your “delusional men” barb the only delusional men I’m aware of are the chaps who put themselves forward as the protectors of women’s rights and safe spaces with one side of their mouths, and with the other gleefully disparage professional sportswomen like our footballers.
We have to consider why such men with trans identities may feel restricted in society. One reason not talked about is that by pretending to be something they are not, they are causing huge social issues that prevent them living their deception to the full. Women are not to blame for some men feeling rejected by society.
This is a GREAT observation!
Newsflash, trans men exist too
Yes, and the same thing applies. Women cannot become men.
Are you a “trans man”? Yep, we them too.
The biological identity of women will cease to exist if biological males are defined as women. They are not and can never be women. Trans people will not have a diminished role in society because they can't be women. I'm using the term "delusional" as a medical term and not as a barb: Individuals with delusional disorder may experience difficulties in social interactions and exhibit behaviors consistent with their delusional beliefs, but their overall functioning is generally not markedly impaired. Trans men who believe they can or have become women are delusional, as proven by their biological sex, which is immutable. No amount of hormones, surgeries, make-up or bibbity-bobbity-boo can change this reality.
There is no such term as “biological male”. This is religious terminology. Male is a biological term definitionally. And the only people classifying males as female are gender criticals like yourself
Trans women are women. They are female. They can never be male.
“Trans people” are not synonymous with wonen. There are trans men and non-binary people who are not women.
The gender critical religion which you subscribe to is delusional, and I’m not using that term as a barb, but in a medical sense. It is a false belief that rejects objective evidence that which disproves its validity.
Gender critical “religion”? That actually made me laugh out loud.
Trans women are male, defined by the xy chromosome. If it’s not clear enough at birth perhaps we should cheek swab babies. You can’t change from a man to a woman or vice versa. It’s simply not possible.
Yes, it’s a pseudoscientific cult belief, closely associated with flat-eartherism and young earth creationism.
Trans women are female. Ironically, you are committing heresy in the GC religion, as the Gender critical dogma defines femaleness as a supernatural intention for an organism to go down a developmental pathway towards large gamete production. XY chromosomes cannot define femaleness, because there are cis women with XY chromosomes that have gotten pregnant and given birth and have produced ova. On the contrary as well, there are cis men with XX chromosomes, which would make them female according to you.
Chromosomes are not tested at birth, and there are no cheek swabs that can determine sex.
Trans people don’t change from a man into a woman, they change from male to female or female to male. Trans women are always women, never men, but they are assigned male at birth and so have to undergo medical sex change to give themselves a female phenotype
So if the biological sex of trans women (and presumably men) is immutable, how can the biological sex of women cease to exist due to defining biological males as women?
You have destroyed your own argument.
The issue at play is the legal recognition of biological sex as a protected characteristic. That is what the Supreme Court restored.
Removing women's rights to female-only spaces does not make biological sex cease to exist, true. But it does mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist, or at least that it's unmentionablyn private.
Recognising trans people as trans rather than pretending they have changed sex doesn't erase them either.
Trans peoples and everyone else's equality rights are pretty much governed by the statutory instrument that is the EHRC guidance which was signed off by the previous government years ago.
All the SC did was cofirm that exclusion of trans people is permitted, NOT mandated, under the EA 2010 (mandatory exclusion is an EHRC aspiration). But any exclusion must still be a justifiable and proportionate means to exclude, in other words fair. That's always been the case.
This is why so many gencrits/Nazis/germs are frantically lying about the risks posed by trans women to try and shift opinion so that mandatory exclusion appears proportionate and legitimate.
It's what fascist extremists do. Shift the Overton so that eliminating a minority they hate appears legitimate and sensible.
The nature of how stat instruments are signed off was what the peice was about. When they can be used to support such activities so easily we are all in trouble.
Not at all. You’re just confused about the definition of gender and biological sex, which are not the same thing. Women, as a biological sec and as a protected category will not exist. Men will be men and men will be women.
The issue at play is the legal recognition of biological sex as a protected characteristic. That is what the Supreme Court restored.
Removing women's rights to female-only spaces does not make biological sex cease to exist, true. But it does mean we have to pretend it doesn't exist, or at least that it's unmentionablyn private.
Recognising trans people as trans rather than pretending they have changed sex doesn't erase them either.
Trans peoples and everyone else's equality rights are pretty much governed by the statutory instrument that is the EHRC guidance which was signed off by the previous government years ago.
All the SC did was cofirm that exclusion of trans people is permitted, NOT mandated, under the EA 2010 (mandatory exclusion is an EHRC aspiration). But any exclusion must still be a justifiable and proportionate means to exclude, in other words fair. That's always been the case.
This is why so many gencrits/Nazis/germs are frantically lying about the risks posed by trans women to try and shift opinion so that mandatory exclusion appears proportionate and legitimate.
It's what fascist extremists do. Shift the Overton so that eliminating a minority they hate appears legitimate and sensible.
The nature of how stat instruments are signed off was what the peice was about. When they can be used to support such activities so easily we are all in trouble.
Ann, you may live an incredibly privileged life, one in which you don't face the prospect of needing intimate care for medical reasons and preferring it to be rendered by a woman; one in which you aren't detained in prison and find yourself housed in close quarters with a male convicted of sex crimes; one in which your daughter doesn't find herself oogled by a man in a women's shelter when she seeks refuge there; one in which your six year old granddaughter isn't exposed to an adult man's genitals in a public accomodation or gymnastics club locker room. If so, count your blessings, because other women and girls are very aware of our losses. "Trans people" are simply men and women, still protected to play sports, work, seek housing, and use public bathrooms aligned with their sex. If the problem is that men can't deal with their brothers wearing make-up or heels, it's men who need to evolve.
Yes, all of those are major problems faced by most women today? Not. No the biggest problem is that of violence by cis men. Who if these changes go through will be free to enter women’s spaces pretending to be trans men doing all the things you have mentioned but much, much worse.
Meanwhile many trans people who have been going about their lives without impinging on anyone (when was the last time you noticed a trans woman in a ladies’ loo? I never have) will have to alter their lives considerably. Why? To appease a very small number of bigots.
Trans people aren’t infringed upon at all by correctly defining their biological sex. They lose nothing and the argument that they do is nonsense. They simply have to live within the boundaries of reality. This issue has absolutely nothing to do with biological males and physical violence against women or children.
Your persistent mention of male violence against women makes the argument to keep men out of women’s spaces stronger since there is no such thing as a trans woman who is a woman. They are men. Not all violence is physical.
Of course they are. You are being wilfully blind to the problem. By being forced to use the bathroom of their sex assigned to them at birth they lose their right ti privacy and trans women in particular are put at risk of assault.
Not to mention that cis women who do not fit the traditional image of femininity are put at risk of assault by any passing vigilante.
Basically apart from cis men we all lose. What a surprise.
Sex assigned at birth is their biological sex. The gender they choose later is not the same thing. Biological males are men. Biological females are women. There is no confusion when they are born. Humans are not birds, which do not have obvious sex traits. It’s pretty darn obvious whether a human baby is male or female. You are attempting to reinforce a mental/emotional/intellectual construct decided by an individual as if it is biological fact. It is not biological fact. Their dna is male. Their sex organs are male. Their hormones are male. Everything about them is male. If they decide they want to look like a female they can decide to look like a female, but that does not make them female any more than Robin Williams became gender fluid and became Mrs. Doubtfire by day and a man by night.
There is only the belief that one is in the wrong body, just as an anorexic believes they are fat despite having a skeletal frame. A belief or desire to be something else does not magically make that happen.
Men pretending to be women to gain access to them in prison, in bathrooms, in elementary school locker rooms, in sports…. puts women and children at risk for assault, retraumatizes victims of sexual assault, and causes discomfort little girls, athletes, prisoners and women should not have to tolerate.
The decision to be trans comes with consequences. Those consequences belong to the decision maker alone.
Why does the risk of men who "identify as women" being put at risk bother you more than actual women being put at risk? As a gnc woman, I wonder why you're worried about us being hassled now when nobody seems to have cared previously, except to engage in victim blame. Seems a disengenuous argument. We're happy to take our chances ---- and to have the women's room remain a place we can duck into without the fear that were going to find another man there.
We can agree, Ann! Yes, male violence against women, and the threat of male violence against women is arguably women's greatest challenge. So, when a male who has raped women claims to be a woman himself, and is placed in a women's prison, he has more access to potential female victims, as the documented cases of rape in women's prisons by male prisoners documents. Giving males access to women's locker rooms, bathrooms, hospital rooms, and shelters expand their hunting grounds and reduces women's safety and freedom. Protecting women's single sex spaces for women and girls reduces our vulnerability to male predation. Truth is: males who identify as women earnestly actually respect women's spaces in and do their damnedest not to terrorize women, so protecting women's single sex spaces does them no harm.
All TW are males, just like other men
So which males are TW, and should have privileges other men do not have, and which are plain men. How do we tell a TW apart from other men?
We already know that there is no difference; they are all men. Always have been. Always will be. If they choose to define their maleness/manhood differently than traditional "norms" for men, that's their prerogative and their right. However, this does not make them women no matter how they express themselves. They are biological males.
Sorry - what am I missing? You do realise the Supreme Court has already declared the law without any need for these machinations? Women’s rights to safety and dignity are restored and I say about bloody time.
The Equality Act is the consequence of parliamentary debate about how to protect vulnerable groups and ensure equality in society. All the Supreme Court has done is to show what parliament intended and to state clearly the law. They were clear that no rights have been taken away from any group and showed how all groups could be given appropriate protections. You are quite simply wrong to say rights are being taken away without a parliamentary vote.
In all your analysis, there is not a single acknowledgement that the Equality Act protects women as a sex class - females. And that women have rights under that act. This is what parliament intended. And the Equality Act 2010 gives women those rights to their own spaces and groups. We cannot move forward unless commenters like yourself stop seeing this whole issue through the lenses of men who wish to co-opt women's rights for themselves.
Except that's not that obvious, Melanie Field, one of the people who wrote the act stated that it was intended to include trans women as women.
If that is true it will be in Hansard - and it is not. So we can discount that claim a decade and a half after the event.
What Melanie Field "intended" is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled on what the law actually *says*, and which interpretation of it doesn't create impossible contradictions.
What about women Ian, you know, the other half of society? Your article completely ignores the fact that for years trans activists and their flying monkeys have misrepresented and lied about the equality act, to the very real detriment of women. The Supreme Court clarified what the law has always been, why you arent going after the people/organisations who have misrepresented the law is beyond me, is it beyond you?
There we go. A straw man argument.
"the challenge has a high likelihood of being successful, particularly on the basis of Articles Eight and Eleven of the European Convention of Human Rights"
I think you've been reading too many of the Not-So-Good-At-Law Project's updates. I will bet you £50, to go to the charity of your choice, that any challenge will be unsuccessful. (You're invited to reciprocate, on the basis that you're confident of what you wrote. FTR my charity of choice would be Shelter.)
My reasoning: the EtCHR will not intervene on the interpretation of existing law (as opposed to a case which shows a lacuna in the law), nor on a case determined unanimously by the highest court in the land, nor on a case which is about conflicting rights (A8: private life, A11 freedom of assembly). The ECHR's reasoning about a women's walking group is that because - as the Supreme Court ruled - a trans woman is a man (something where many people seem to have their own mental lacuna) therefore you can't say "only women and trans women, not men", because that's equivalent to saying "only women and men, not men".
Not quite. The consequence of "a trans woman is a man" is that "some men are trans women", so the two statements aren't equivalent. You can say "only women and trans women, but not those men who are not trans women", and that makes complete logical sense, and is probably what most people would mean by the shorter formulation.
Whether that would be lawful in any given case is, of course, a different matter.
If the women’s walking group allows trans women, it is by definition mixed sex. To deny entry to any other man is therefore discrimination (I can’t remember if it’s direct or indirect) and liable to challenge and being struck down. So it is not legal.
Thank you.
In your opinion, would (say) a walking group with membership restricted to trans women, and in particular excluding men who were not trans women, be lawful?
You mean, consisting *solely* of, or restricted to, trans women? The problem is that under the EA you can’t ask to see a GRC (very few people have them anyway), and so you’d have to wonder what the basis for inclusion/exclusion is exactly since in that situation being “trans” just a verbal or written claim which can’t be falsified.
I really don’t know about the lawfulness: the problem is more practical in that it would have to be restricted to “those holding a GRC”, or else absolutely any man could belong. And I don’t know how you’d enforce that exclusion. It might be unlawful or lawful - my understanding of the law isn’t broad enough on that.
The Supreme Court decision did not change any rights. It confirmed the rights that trans people and women already had. Just because Stonewall et al ran a campaign of disinformation about the law doesn’t mean the law changed. And the SC decision has confirmed that. Single sex services guarantee women basic rights like safe, fair sport, single sex changing spaces, a female for intimate care if she wants it.
Males with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment are protected from harassment and discrimination but this doesn’t include taking women’s rights to single sex spaces, services and sports
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/7
What’s your point?
This is the actual specific law on gender recognition. The equality act 2010 is a much wider piece of legislation. People need to read this, because it is in direct contradiction to the judgement on the 2010 act.
This is what Ian refers to in the article. It’s the legal position.
You need to read 9.3. This qualifies 9.1 that the right to be recognised as the sex you are not in law is subject to the provisions of other laws.
That is why the EA overrules the GRA. The EA says women are protected as a sex class, not a certificated class.
No, the ERA ruling does not override the GRA except in very specific defined circumstances where there is a single sex space meeting certain criteria. For example, it would not apply where there is privacy and dignity in a mixed sex space eg where there is one private toilet cubicle in a small workplace.
Sex has always been a protected characteristic under the. 2010 act and transgender is another protected characteristic.
This ruling is a complete mess and a trap for Labour especially if they don’t allow further scrutiny in parliament. Which is the point of the article. Which people should read properly.
Yes: the EA overrules the GRA *wherever the EA applies*. That is the meaning of S9.3 of the GRA. You're referring to a specific corner of the Workplace Regulations 1992, which specify that you don't need single-sex spaces *if* there are single-use spaces that only one person can use at any time, ie don't have any multiple occupancy.
The GLP thought this was a massive gotcha, when in fact it's just part of the WRs - which are subject to the EA. Which goes to show that there's a lot of poor comprehension out there.
The SC ruling specified that in the EqA the PC of sex, wherever it is written, means biological sex. A female single sex space means what it says on the tin - biological females only. If a male holds a GRC saying he is legally female it makes no difference. The ruling is very clear to all but those who didn’t like it
Transgender is not a protected characteristic. Gender reassignment is
“Transgender” is nto a protected characteristic. The SC ruling has made clear the protected characteristic of “sex” means just that and that a GRC does not trump that protection.
I can see that. What, specifically, is your point? The GRA describes how someone can get a GRA. The SC ruling said that in the EqA the term ‘sex’ meant biological sex and did not include sex as modified by a GRC
This is the point Ian is making in the essay. The ruling does not clarify and the guidance is not clear- essentially there are now no toilet facilities for trans people by your interpretation, which excludes them from society and asks them to out themselves in many different situations. This is discriminatory in itself and imposes a completely new and unique restriction.
The issue he has raised is not particularly about trans rights BUT the removal of freedoms and actively causing discrimination without appropriate parliamentary scrutiny.
For those splitting hairs over trans people “without a gr certificate” to get one you need to live in your acquired gender for two years. This is now actually impossible.
Anyway it’s also impossible to be clearer here, everyone celebrating the constraint on trans people’s lives needs to stop and think about what they are enabling government to control. Women in particular, because this ruling also enables further social policing of our bodies and appearance, but allowing the disturbing narrative of all trans people as being sexually criminal is coming down the line as an argument against many other groups.
“there are now no toilet facilities for trans people”
Trans-identified people can use the toilet for their sex.
“which excludes them from society and asks them to out themselves”
As if we can't clock a dude trying to look or act like a woman. If men weren't pretending to be female, there'd be no issue of being “outed” as you call it.
You sound like you think being transgender is like being gay. It's not. Gays and lesbians are a natural, normal part of human behavior. Transgender /nonbinary are simply labels a person chooses to describe how uncomfortable they are with their sex or their sexed body.
“This is discriminatory in itself”
Wrong again. Male transgenders who perform what they believe a woman should look or act like are not being discriminated against simply because we recognize that they are male. And vice versa for female transgenders who mimic men.
“this ruling also enables further social policing of our bodies and appearance”
Nonsense. The ruling is clear that sex is real and sex matters, especially for safeguarding of women and children from dangerous, violent men.
No one is saying ALL transgenders are sexual criminals. Just as not ALL men are rapists. But since some are, many in fact, we need to keep ALL men out of female spaces, even if they perform woman.
Ian, you seem to think that being transgender means having innate trans characteristics. That's incorrect. Gender nonconformity is innate because effeminate men and masculine women exist in nature and in society. But without the stupid sex stereotypes that you and trans ideologues believe in, a “masculine woman” would simply be a strong and brave women. That wouldn't distinguish her from other women because the fact that she's female and strong would MEAN that women are strong. Just as when a girl climbs a tree, it's not because she has a boy's brain in a girls body. It's because girls climb trees. The same goes for little boys who like dolls. What's wrong with creative play acting, EVEN if you're a boy? Nothing. The erroneous thinking is your belief that not fitting into a stereotype makes that boy a girl. That's not just stupidity, it's cruel to children to tell them they're defective for the sex that they got at conception.
If people like you didn't promote idiotic sex/gender stereotypes, teachers wouldn't be able to screw up those kids confusing them and by making them feel bad about who they are.
“... trans rights... the story of trans people's ability to exist in public space”
Trans people can exist in space. We just don't want male transgenders in female spaces. Men can sashay their dresses into the men's bath and changing rooms. Why? Because they are MEN in dresses. And guess what – male transgenders have the same or higher propensity to violence against women and children, including rape and other sex crimes.
“For instance, the ruling found that a trans woman was a man for the purposes of the Equality Act.”
So called “trans women” are men by definition. The freaking definition of transgender is based on a person's choice of a gender identity label that doesn't match their actual sex. And yes, it's a choice. A boyish proto lesbian could potentially grow up to be a lesbian. Unless that girl is made to feel so bad about herself that she chooses a transgender on nonbinary “identity.” That's simply a label someone chooses to describe their discomfort with their sex or sexed body.
“there are all sorts of mysteries about the consequences of the judgement”
Wrong again. If a male goes into a female bath or changing room, he can be challenged and removed. Because he's male, regardless of what he does to “perform woman.” If someone wants a female caregiver on a medical ward, the organization cannot assign a male who is “performing” woman. Have you not noticed that unconscious women have been raped and even impregnated by staff the hospitals called women but were actually men? Now the law is clear. No men means NO MEN.
“Trans people should be excluded from all single sex spaces.”
Wow, you just don't get it. A male transgender is not excluded from all single sex spaces, only from the FEMALE single sex spaces. He's welcome to use the MALE single sex space. Because he's MALE.
Aw shucks, those hulking, misogynistic men who have been making their female colleagues uncomfortable by forcing their way into female bathrooms at work now have to “out themselves.” LOL, women can clock a gender pretender at a hundred meters. We have a part of our brain that makes us wary of men we are not close to (husbands, lovers, sons, brothers, cousins and the like).
“A women's walking group, for instance, could not choose to be trans inclusive.”
Of course they can. Just make it a mixed sex group. Duh. This idea that so called “trans women” are a subset of women is really obtuse. They are a subset of men. They're men who call themselves or really, really wish they were women.
“ every trip to the toilet denies your identity”
Their “identity” is a figment of their imagination. They can still pretend by wearing their woman face into the men's bathrooms.
Jeez, I'm only a third of the way through your article and every few sentences you write such inane statements that I think I'll have to write an article to rebut them all.
Men's rights don't trump women's. “Trans women” are men. Unless you believe humans can change sex, almost everything you say is absurd.
Your utter disregard for females to have female only spaces in some circumstances, reveals your deep misogyny.
Give your head a wobble.
"OPEN LETTER TO LEGACY ORGANIZATIONS THAT LOST THEIR WAY
"Regarding: Your abandonment of the women and girls you purport to work on behalf of; your support of programs that increase the risk of violence against women and girls; your misrepresentation of medical and biological science; your ignoring of the crimes committed against women in prison by men, your support of efforts to secure extraordinary privileges for predatory individuals by obliterating the rights of every woman and girl you claim to speak for; your degradation of women and girls by supporting policies that admit men to the sex class of women and girls; your complete undermining of female athletes; and your silencing of women and girls who dissent.
"Petitioners request: That you cease the following behavior, apologize to your natural constituencies, and make restitution for damages to the rights of others and the reputation of your purported communities, or resign your claims to speak:"
https://womensliberationfront.org/news/dri2g55rphjssg287tkd1vm3qzeqxa
This is nonsense. You can't seriously be expecting the government to change the EHRC guidance so it doesn't follow the law.
Worse still, you seem to have a massive blind spot for women's rights. Not everything is about "trans" you know. Or, maybe you don't.
Sexual mimicry is a difficult act to pull off because once sex is accurately perceived by others, the act collapses - willing suspense of disbelief and all that.
George Burns didn’t become God by playing him, Arnold Schwarzenegger didn’t become a robot by playing one, but both are powerful delusions that some people have - God and Robots.
We all have the right to ignore actors in roles, and so to ignore the gods and robots among us.
We also have the right to ignore men who sexually mimic women, as generally we do with people with delusional beliefs they are a god, or robots.
If you believe people can become gods, robots, or women from acting or delusion, that’s your failure of reason. It’s a state of mind which usually goes away after childhood, Christopher Robin.
The world builds laws based on reason and reality (but sometimes irrational faith) and we tend to agree in law that women don’t want men, particularly men who are pretending to be women, around them when they are vulnerable.
If that makes you sad, or terrified of government not affirming actors, perhaps some self-reflection is due. Life doesn’t revolve around delusional men, and laws aren’t made to maintain the act of sexual mimicry, the same that laws aren’t made to sustain robot and god people act or delusion.
That’s not how the world works.
Crushing I know.
Have you given any thought to how women can exist in public life without safeguarding and safe spaces for bodily privacy?
The FWS ruling clarified how the law since 2010
should always have been applied
no parliamentary or legislative action affects that
Lobby groups lied
its that simple
"The Supreme Court case fundamentally changed the recognition of trans rights in the UK."
This is false. The Supreme Court judgment stated what the law has always been and continues to be.
What has changed is the deception that was perpetrated that the law was otherwise.
Read this legal analysis by Ben Cooper KC to enhance your understanding:
https://oldsquare.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/FWS-Why-the-SC-decision-does-not-breach-trans-rights.pdf