What’s it all about? (3 Viewers)

[Otis]

We need dubed back

Remind me, was he a woman transitioning into a man, it a man transitioning into a woman?

 

---

[SBT]

No. I completely understand why I’m not allowed in women’s spaces and I’m fine with that, because I’m not a creeper.

Not sure if you mean it that way or not, but there’s a nasty insinuation here about why someone who wasn’t born a woman would want to use women’s spaces. I assume you accept there are reasons for it beyond being “a creeper”?

 

[shmmeee]

Not sure if you mean it that way or not, but there’s a nasty insinuation here about why someone who wasn’t born a woman would want to use women’s spaces. I assume you accept there are reasons for it beyond being “a creeper”?

Personally I can’t see why any man would want access to women’s spaces other than for weird reasons TBH. But no, I’m sure some men would like it because it makes them happy and validated. I just don’t think that’s a valid reason to make women less safe.

 

[Otis]

I absolutely agree with you Shmmeee (and i didn't see you make any argument against transitioning), but the reason why Sharron Davies, J K Rowling and others have got themselves into conflict with the trans community is because they said out loud that there should be safe spaces where biological men are not allowed. Female changing rooms at gyms and pools are a case in point, but that does offend trans women. There HAVE been cases where men have "identified" as a trans woman solely to gain access to females with the intention of harassing or assaulting them. Those people WILL be in the minority, but if women do not feel safe with a genetic bloke in their safe space, they should not be allowed in.

Exactly

 

[SBT]

Personally I can’t see why any man would want access to women’s spaces other than for weird reasons TBH.

This kind of inflexibility/generalisation is kind of mind-boggling to me, from someone who is generally intellectually curious about most other things on here.

 

[shmmeee]

This kind of inflexibility/generalisation is kind of mind-boggling to me, from someone who is generally intellectually curious about most other things on here.

What generalisation? What inflexibility? I’m all for be kind, but humans can’t change sex and in some circumstances sex matters. I’m really not sure why this very basic fact we’ve all understood for centuries is now seen as bigotry.

I find you the intellectually incurious one who has taken the line that humans can utter magic words and change sex without question!

 

[shmmeee]

This is like the Greens being anti-GMO and anti-nuclear. Not all positions taken by nice people are the right positions.

I’d fight for any and all equal rights any group wants, but I won’t tell lies and I won’t have kids educated with utter nonsense.

Gender dysphoria as a condition is poorly understood and that we do understand definitely doesn’t point to immediate transition being the panacea. And even if it was, solving your mental health crisis doesn’t give you the right to breach the boundaries of others.

 

[Nick]

Ok so if a fully in tact adult male wants to get changed next to my 14 year old daughter. They have put a wig on though.

The weird thing is that people defend this. It's fucking madness.

 

[SBT]

What generalisation? What inflexibility? I’m all for be kind, but humans can’t change sex and in some circumstances sex matters. I’m really not sure why this very basic fact we’ve all understood for centuries is now seen as bigotry.

I find you the intellectually incurious one who has taken the line that humans can utter magic words and change sex without question!

Don’t want to get into a discussion about sex and gender for which neither of us are properly qualified, but I think the generalisation in the statement “I can’t see why [X group of people] would do this for anything other than weird reasons” is obvious to anyone.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Don’t want to get into a discussion about sex and gender for which neither of us are properly qualified, but I think the generalisation in the statement “I can’t see why [X group of people] would do this for anything other than weird reasons” is obvious to anyone.

Well that's the underlying presumption behind sex segregated changing rooms

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[SBT]

Ok so if a fully in tact adult male wants to get changed next to my 14 year old daughter. They have put a wig on though.

The weird thing is that people defend this. It's fucking madness.

I haven’t seen anyone defend that scenario.

 

[shmmeee]

Don’t want to get into a discussion about sex and gender for which neither of us are properly qualified, but I think the generalisation in the statement “I can’t see why [X group of people] would do this for anything other than weird reasons” is obvious to anyone.

Maybe you aren’t properly qualified. I’m happy to have a debate on any of the following: the neuroscience of gender dysphoria, lived experience of gender dysphoria, the evidence base for treatments of GD, the feminist argument against gender ideology, the evidence for sex segregation in sports, sex definitions and determination, intersex conditions. Most of it isn’t particularly hard stuff.

I don’t know any men who would want to go into a women’s space where they’re not wanted for legitimate reasons, no. You obviously feel a man being sad about being a man is a legitimate reason to put women in danger. I think this is a fundamentally naive or even straight up sexist position to take. It’s the mother of “not all men are like that”.

 

[SBT]

Well that's the underlying presumption behind sex segregated changing rooms

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Is it? I think it’s a bit more nuanced than that. But if you see sex segregated changing rooms solely as being the thin line between civility and all-out widespread sexual assault, then it makes sense that you would have more zealous views about them.

 

[SBT]

I don’t know any men who would want to go into a women’s space where they’re not wanted for legitimate reasons, no. You obviously feel a man being sad about being a man is a legitimate reason to put women in danger. I think this is a fundamentally naive or even straight up sexist position to take. It’s the mother of “not all men are like that”

I think you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t know any trans people who you believe are worth empathising with.

If you want to paint the trans community - many of whom are at various stages of transition, hormone therapy, surgical procedures etc - as a monolithic group who should be treated with suspicion by default, then that’s your prerogative. There are undoubtedly trans people out there who wish to enter women’s spaces to do them harm. Just as there are gay people who wish to work with kids to abuse them, immigrants who wish to move to another country to commit terror attacks, or football fans who wish to attend games to take drugs and beat up strangers.

Demonise them and lock them out if you like - it will certainly keep everyone safe.

 

[shmmeee]

I think you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t know any trans people who you believe are worth empathising with.

If you want to paint the trans community - many of whom are at various stages of transition, hormone therapy, surgical procedures etc - as a monolithic group who should be treated with suspicion by default, then that’s your prerogative. There are undoubtedly trans people out there who wish to enter women’s spaces to do them harm. Just as there are gay people who wish to work with kids to abuse them, immigrants who wish to move to another country to commit terror attacks, or football fans who wish to attend games to take drugs and beat up strangers.

Demonise them and lock them out if you like - it will certainly keep everyone safe.

I know and have met plenty of trans people believe it or not, and not all are a homogenous group either.

The point you’re desperate to miss in the need to clutch some pearls is that humans can’t change sex. No one is saying trans people are predators, in fact in a classic piece of misogyny no one give two fucks about trans men on either side of this debate. They’re saying men are predators. Because we fucking are. We commit almost all sexual and violent crimes and all kinds of us do it from politicians to bin men to priests to rock stars. Women have no way of telling which of us are safe so none of us are. Similarly there’s a category difference in sports and other physical matchups that means women are at an inherent disadvantage without segregation.

None of this is about trans people. It’s about trans women specifically.

If there was a way to reliably diagnose GD and spot who is “real trans” as they thought when the GRA was brought in and you’re only making a small exception for about 5k seriously unwell people who need to transition then you can have a compromise. But once you’ve got every TikTok and Tumblr teen who doesn’t like conforming to stereotypes of masculinity and femininity (who does???) saying they’re trans and surgery and GD isn’t needed then you’re effectively calling for a removal of all sex based protections for women. And you can get in the bin.

Make male spaces safe for transwomen, and effeminate men, and men who think they look good in a dress, and gay men, and autistic men, and all the other gender non-conforming men out there.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

I think you’ve made it quite clear that you don’t know any trans people who you believe are worth empathising with.

If you want to paint the trans community - many of whom are at various stages of transition, hormone therapy, surgical procedures etc - as a monolithic group who should be treated with suspicion by default, then that’s your prerogative. There are undoubtedly trans people out there who wish to enter women’s spaces to do them harm. Just as there are gay people who wish to work with kids to abuse them, immigrants who wish to move to another country to commit terror attacks, or football fans who wish to attend games to take drugs and beat up strangers.

Demonise them and lock them out if you like - it will certainly keep everyone safe.

But at the same time there is another group whose interests need to be considered - biological women.

Now while undoubtedly 99% of people would not treat such a thing as an excuse to do something devious, whether it be voyeuristic or more physical, it's that 1% that is the reason we have these sorts of rules in place. It's why we have murder laws. It's why we have separate changing facilities for the sexes at all. Otherwise you'd say "99% of men will use the facilities as intended so why have them separated?"

Does the impact on the mental health of the biological women not matter? Are we just going to say to them that their feeling uncomfortable and, in some cases, fear of attack, doesn't matter? Because isn't that the entire argument for letting trans-women into female changing rooms is about - them feeling uncomfortable or fearful? So why does one matter and not the other?

 

[SBT]

If there was a way to reliably diagnose GD and spot who is “real trans” as they thought when the GRA was brought in and you’re only making a small exception for about 5k seriously unwell people who need to transition then you can have a compromise. But once you’ve got every TikTok and Tumblr teen who doesn’t like conforming yo stereotypes of masculinity and femininity (who does???) saying they’re trans and surgery and GD isn’t needed then you’re effectively calling for a removal of all sex based protections for women. And you can get in the bin.

Make male spaces safe for transwomen, and effeminate men, and men who think they look good in a dress, and gay men, and autistic men, and all the other gender non-conforming men out there.

I struggle to see how I’m “effectively calling for a removal of all sex based protections for women”. My whole point is that there are extremely delicate, extremely specific cases that deserve our attention beyond a blanket assumption that trans women are always up to no good. You clearly disagree.

I think safe male spaces for trans women are a brilliant idea, but personally I have to doubt your sincerity to them when your default position is that the discussion only exists because trans women are looking for easier ways to facilitate assault.

 

[SBT]

Does the impact on the mental health of the biological women not matter? Are we just going to say to them that their feeling uncomfortable and, in some cases, fear of attack, doesn't matter?

Of course it matters! Why wouldn’t it?

Something about this debate seems to make people assume that everyone is arguing in bad faith, but for the avoidance of doubt, it definitely matters!

 

[rob9872]

We're not all going to agree on this, so are we united against those just stop oil c*nuts? (Lights blue touch paper and retreats to a safe distance )

 

[shmmeee]

The problem here is it all sounds great on a high level, “be nice” kind of view. But when you get down to the nitty gritty you need to define a trans person.

The GRA was written in 2004 under the assumption that five thousand or so men with serious GD who have been thoroughly assessed and sex reassignment surgery was recommended to have special dispensation. Mostly so that they could marry as Labour weren’t brave enough to bring in proper gay marriage. You’ll note hereditary titles and the like do not respect a gender recognition certificate. There was always a line where the law went “OK we know what sex you really are”.

Then the activists got hold and started eroding that line. What is transition anyway? Exactly what does “intend to transition” mean? Doesn’t gender really mean something slightly different that’s half Simone de Beauvoir run through Tumblr a few times and half Harry Potter meets Pokémon neo genders, and not just a polite word for sex?

So where’s your line now? Castration is a pretty good sign of commitment and also reassurance for women that they aren’t in danger. There’s no sensible place to put a line that says some men are really women because it’s not a sensible proposition. What does a woman need to look or act like? Why can’t a woman have a beard and a penis? Why does a woman have to wear women’s clothes?

So you’re left with basically an honour system. If someone says “I’m a woman” you have to believe them. And even if you hold fast on a GRC requirement online GPS make it easy and activists are trying to remove any remaining medical barriers anyway.

So yes, you are promoting the defacto removal of all sex segregation, and you’re doing it because if you’re honest with yourself there’s no person you could legitimately say no to their gender identity declaration without it invalidating everyone else’s by proxy.

 

[Ian1779]

We're not all going to agree on this, so are we united against those just stop oil c*nuts? (Lights blue touch paper and retreats to a safe distance )

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

We're not all going to agree on this, so are we united against those just stop oil c*nuts? (Lights blue touch paper and retreats to a safe distance )

I saw Piers Morgan make a rare good point that those individuals don’t seem to take their protesting to Saudi Arabia/Russia/China but prefer to keep them in the UK.

The problem here is it all sounds great on a high level, “be nice” kind of view. But when you get down to the nitty gritty you need to define a trans person.

The GRA was written in 2004 under the assumption that five thousand or so men with serious GD who have been thoroughly assessed and sex reassignment surgery was recommended to have special dispensation. Mostly so that they could marry as Labour weren’t brave enough to bring in proper gay marriage. You’ll note hereditary titles and the like do not respect a gender recognition certificate. There was always a line where the law went “OK we know what sex you really are”.

Then the activists got hold and started eroding that line. What is transition anyway? Exactly what does “intend to transition” mean? Doesn’t gender really mean something slightly different that’s half Simone de Beauvoir run through Tumblr a few times and half Harry Potter meets Pokémon neo genders, and not just a polite word for sex?

So where’s your line now? Castration is a pretty good sign of commitment and also reassurance for women that they aren’t in danger. There’s no sensible place to put a line that says some men are really women because it’s not a sensible proposition. What does a woman need to look or act like? Why can’t a woman have a beard and a penis? Why does a woman have to wear women’s clothes?

So you’re left with basically an honour system. If someone says “I’m a woman” you have to believe them. And even if you hold fast on a GRC requirement online GPS make it easy and activists are trying to remove any remaining medical barriers anyway.

So yes, you are promoting the defacto removal of all sex segregation, and you’re doing it because if you’re honest with yourself there’s no person you could legitimately say no to their gender identity declaration without it invalidating everyone else’s by proxy.

Out of interest what is your view on those born intersex, ie those who aren’t XX or XY chromosomes? I don’t actually know how we begin to assign one of two genders to those people if that is our preferred route.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

The problem here is it all sounds great on a high level, “be nice” kind of view. But when you get down to the nitty gritty you need to define a trans person.

The GRA was written in 2004 under the assumption that five thousand or so men with serious GD who have been thoroughly assessed and sex reassignment surgery was recommended to have special dispensation. Mostly so that they could marry as Labour weren’t brave enough to bring in proper gay marriage. You’ll note hereditary titles and the like do not respect a gender recognition certificate. There was always a line where the law went “OK we know what sex you really are”.

Then the activists got hold and started eroding that line. What is transition anyway? Exactly what does “intend to transition” mean? Doesn’t gender really mean something slightly different that’s half Simone de Beauvoir run through Tumblr a few times and half Harry Potter meets Pokémon neo genders, and not just a polite word for sex?

So where’s your line now? Castration is a pretty good sign of commitment and also reassurance for women that they aren’t in danger. There’s no sensible place to put a line that says some men are really women because it’s not a sensible proposition. What does a woman need to look or act like? Why can’t a woman have a beard and a penis? Why does a woman have to wear women’s clothes?

So you’re left with basically an honour system. If someone says “I’m a woman” you have to believe them. And even if you hold fast on a GRC requirement online GPS make it easy and activists are trying to remove any remaining medical barriers anyway.

So yes, you are promoting the defacto removal of all sex segregation, and you’re doing it because if you’re honest with yourself there’s no person you could legitimately say no to their gender identity declaration without it invalidating everyone else’s by proxy.

For me, biological sex is the set of genitalia you were born with as a children depending on your chromosomes.

Gender is just a construct formed around societal norms of what each biological sex is expected to do.

So in order to solve this the only way is to accept that gender does not actually exist and thus allow people to be free to express their true selves.

Which then leaves these issues to be based on biological sex. There will of course be those who feel they are in the wrong body and wish to transition, and there sex will change when they've had the surgery to remove the genitialia they were born with.

I know that would still leave people feeling uncomfortable with regards to changing rooms/toilets etc. but I've long said it will just need to be separate cubicles for everyone.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Of course it matters! Why wouldn’t it?

Something about this debate seems to make people assume that everyone is arguing in bad faith, but for the avoidance of doubt, it definitely matters!

Well it just seems that people seem to be willing to ignore the effect on half of society for those of a tiny minority.

That may sound harsh, and ultimately it would be fantastic if a solution could be found whereby everyone feels safe and happy, but until then I think the effect on such a large amount of society has to take precedence over what is a small number of people.

 

[wingy]

Well it just seems that people seem to be willing to ignore the effect on half of society for those of a tiny minority.

That may sound harsh, and ultimately it would be fantastic if a solution could be found whereby everyone feels safe and happy, but until then I think the effect on such a large amount of society has to take precedence over what is a small number of people.

Do they in Sweden for example,?

 

[clint van damme]

I think a point that's been missed here is it isn't necessary trans women who are the danger to women, its predatory men taking advantage of a scenario where transwomen are allowed in to women only spaces.

I remember a while ago there was a debate on here about crossing the road when you're walking at night if a lone woman is coming the other way just to give her a bit of space and to try and reassure her you're no threat.

Most agreed that they do this even though they're no danger. This is the very opposite of this, this is the equivalent of staying on the same side of the road, blocking her path and squaring up to her.

 

[Ian1779]

Ok so if a fully in tact adult male wants to get changed next to my 14 year old daughter. They have put a wig on though.

The weird thing is that people defend this. It's fucking madness.

The issue is also the place that this could happen - be it a gym or a swimming pool. They aren’t putting in sufficient processes to safeguard people.

No one is defending it because this would put someone in a position of vulnerability. Allowing someone to identify as they choose does not give them the unilateral access to safe spaces such as changing areas, nor should it ever.

 

[Nick]

The issue is also the place that this could happen - be it a gym or a swimming pool. They aren’t putting in sufficient processes to safeguard people.

No one is defending it because this would put someone in a position of vulnerability. Allowing someone to identify as they choose does not give them the unilateral access to safe spaces such as changing areas, nor should it ever.

The thing is, places are in an awkward situation.

If they don't roll with the agenda then they risk being "cancelled" or the abuse.

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

Well it just seems that people seem to be willing to ignore the effect on half of society for those of a tiny minority.

That may sound harsh, and ultimately it would be fantastic if a solution could be found whereby everyone feels safe and happy, but until then I think the effect on such a large amount of society has to take precedence over what is a small number of people.

.. hence the reason why many employers and operators of publicly-accessible facilities have invested hugely in the provision of gender-neutral toilets and changing facilities. We maybe sniggered and tutted at their introduction, but it is the only solution that safeguards EVERY person's privacy and person safety.

Not wishing to bang on about our friends' child (but it is the sample of one on which i can comment with some direct knowledge) - she, being a trans woman (but XY male) plays for their college women's football team. I was saying to Mrs OSB just the other day, where does she change and shower for HER privacy and respect and that of the biological women on the team? I understand that women's showers are largely single occupancy now, but the changing rooms sure ain't.

 

[Nick]

The whole sport thing baffles me as well. A whole new can of worms.

Look forward to heavyweight boxing with a trans woman against a woman from birth.

 

[ccfctommy]

The whole sport thing baffles me as well. A whole new can of worms.

Look forward to heavyweight boxing with a trans woman against a woman from birth.

It's a massive grey area though. Can you stop trans people from participating on sport?

 

[OffenhamSkyBlue]

It's a massive grey area though. Can you stop trans people from participating on sport?

As an increasing number of governing bodies are demonstrating (the latest being rowing), yes you can, where being a male who has gone through puberty provides a clear and significant advantage over a biological woman, no matter how many female hormones he has taken to transition.
And i am glad they are.

 

[Otis]

As an increasing number of governing bodies are demonstrating (the latest being rowing), yes you can, where being a male who has gone through puberty provides a clear and significant advantage over a biological woman, no matter how many female hormones he has taken to transition.
And i am glad they are.

Yup. As I said before, it just needs common sense applying.

Women have to have safe spaces. Anyone saying they are now a woman (or whatever), should not get access to female/male safe spaces etc.

 

[Nick]

It's a massive grey area though. Can you stop trans people from participating on sport?

It's really not a grey area. People play on the fact that it's seen as grey area and people are scared of the back lash.

Just have a category for trans people. I'm sure some wouldn't be as keen if they didn't have a massive advantage over their competitors.

 

[Nick]

Yup. As I said before, it just needs common sense applying.

Women have to have safe spaces. Anyone saying they are now a woman (or whatever), should not get access to female/male safe spaces etc.

I think anybody saying they want access to the womens safe space is a wrong un to be honest.