The conversation on Loose Women about the Supreme Court trans case is so much more sophisticated than anything I've seen from traditional politics programmes https://youtu.be/dCsJms0TnGA?si=ZkHz077XiQvitReU
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Question repeatedly asked, & unanswered-"Where did all the hatred come from?" Answer: from the trans side.
That demo last weekend trans held slogans calling for death, burning, pissing on women
How many GCs have threatened violence, called for Trans to be hanged, burned, raped or decapitated? None
From the far right. They started this about a decade ago when they lost the argument on gay marriage. The goal is to set more liberal interest groups against each other, and use the resulting increased intolerance in society to drive their agenda. Pretty successfully this time.
The far-right have been Johnny-come-latelys to the trans debate, because banging on about immigrants is their primary interest.
It's only in the past few years they've been involved, and that's 'cos they could smell blood in the water from over a decade's worth of civil war among 'progressives'.
Sorry, you’re wrong. I saw the start of this. All they have to do - when it works - is to light the blue touch paper and step back, then give it a nudge whenever it looks like it might be slowing.
No I'm not wrong. I saw the start of it on Mumsnet & I assure you that platform isn't a haven for the "far-right", no matter what we may think of some of the people on there.
The idea that trans hate started with far-right groups like Britain First/Patriotic Alternative/TurningPoint/etc is nonsense
I guess you may be right here - though I haven’t personally witnessed what you describe in any forum.
But do you think that the attitude you describe here is just the way they behave as routine?
Or do you think they might be responding - perhaps inappropriately - to some form of provocation?
In my experience many of the threats have not come directly from trans people but rather from misogynistic men who saw this as a good opportunity to attack women.
Yes I agree. The addition of their misogynist supporters adds to the toxic mix. Yesterday my OH supplied chilling evidence to a man telling us to be kind, and it was completely ignored.
Twice in this thread you suggest trans aggression is ‘excused’. I don’t excuse or condone any aggression or violence from anyone so, without looking into this case I certainly wouldn’t excuse it.
But nor would I excuse your own aggression displayed here in your repeated misgendering.
Provocation?
Well, because I haven’t attended any such events. But that doesn’t stop me being aware of the debate. But you haven’t answered my question as to whether this is primary or retaliatory activity.
Are trans people intrinsically abusive/aggressive?
Trans argue that women wanting to meet is overwhelmingly provocative & hostile to them & by implication any measures to stop them are justified, including young men punching women in the face.
"Are trans people intrinsically abusive/aggressive?" - Well it's all very male pattern violence isn't it?
Mate, please don't get your information from the Daily Mail. It only seeks to stoke hatred & intolerance. It lies and misinforms. It is the very worst of us and has been for 50 years.
The fact that the headline talks about the smashed camera but the report says nothing about a conviction for criminal damage, only assault, tells me we are getting a partial version of events in that report. The Standard report on the incident says the “victim” grabbed and kicked Wolf’s girlfriend.
Really? I saw a lot of pictures from the demo and didn't see one poster that called for any of those things. Do you have credible evidence it's true, or is just what someone else on social media told you happened?
I've been watching the 'debate' about trans v women's rights for some time now, and the evidence I've collected indicates that it's trans rights activists who hate feminists and aren't shy about showing it...
This chimes with what I’ve seen in the past - that the viciousness of the debate stems from escalating disagreements within feminism when trans women became active in the movement.
I think there’s quite a few out there who don’t realise that’s where the insult ‘terf’ came from.
So you're saying one (probably drunk oaf) "passer by" is equivalent to organised mobs of burly muscled baying trans women with foghorns physically trying to prevent women from attending dozens of meetings, drowning them out, punching women, shouting and screaming? 🙄
Also, what would it matter whether said women were burly or skinny? Having foghorns, shouting and drowning out Nazis is not a crime or any kind of assault. And there were no cases of any of said Nazis (not women; women≠Nazi) being punched.
What does it matter if the GC was drunk or not. We both know that if a drunk trans person ever dared to spit on a GC religious activist you’d be calling for all trans people to be put in concentration camps and collectively accusing them of rape.
Trans phobia is not GC ideology - GC feminists are motivated by the need to protect women's hard won rights. How do you know what motivated this man? - has he told you?
The thing is, there is clearly a difference between a trans person who is actually transitioning, who has dysphoria and is making every effort to become and act the gender they are, and someone who is claiming to be another gender for some weird exhibitionist or fetishistic reason.
Until someone has a good idea on how we can provide liberty to the former without facilitating the latter (such as supposed women flashing their dicks at actual women and then saying they "self id" as women) then this conversation will never move on.
Indeed 👍 I had protracted, but respectful discussion on here with "Gender Critical" (cis) man. I said excluding trans women from women's spaces doesn't make me safer; 100% of VAWG I experienced wasn't in such spaces (hardly unique!). His only solution was keep trans women out of women's spaces 😲
I found Harriet Harman and Ruth Davidson on Electoral Dysfunction was good. There were moments where Rigby pulled it in a slightly more silly direction but on the whole it felt sensible.
Agreed, with the one caveat that there was the frequent appeal to "common sense" which I don't think helps, when different people will clearly have different ideas about what constitutes "common sense" on this topic :(
I don't think the issues are that complicated. It now creates a precedent that women may be required to prove their womenhood and there's no way we can do that.
Bad faith actors could start to strip searches or refuse things and then claim "I thought she was trans".
Stew's mom has so much issues with being annoyed while going to the toilets, it is bad for everyone.
It was also so bad during Olympics and that poor boxing athletes where those people endangered her life accusing her to be trans whilst coming from somewhere where it's illegal
Never thought I'd find sensible discourse on this programme but I agree very refreshingly adult response to a very complex subject thanks for sharing. Fundamentally protected characteristics for the trans community remain in employment settings I am hoping the govt guidance will bring clarity soon.
How refreshing to hear a sensible conversation!!
The whole issue of the trans community and the issues they face is so much more nuanced and complex than the average person on the street - certainly on social media - seems to think.
It does seem recent EHRC guidance goes beyond what even people supporting SC ruling wanted or expected. Worth looking now at (positive) responses to SC ruling - seems many expected would be about refuges / prisons (/ panels) not policing loos; would mean places *could* exclude, but not *obliged* to.
I don't believe many people supporting the SC judgement thought trans men should be excluded from men's toilets; or women's networks that wanted to be trans-inclusive shouldn't be allowed to / would then be obliged to allow men to join.
I think people may be surprised at the extent to which, if forced into a position of "you have to either exclude trans women or admit cis men", many organisations (particularly lesbian and gay ones) will bite the bullet
Maybe (I think most wouldn't - but assuming neither of us is a member of any such networks it's rather speculative) - but I'm hoping most would push back strongly on being required to choose.
I'm hoping that people in the more GC side of my views do really check what they expected and wanted, and keep the capacity to say "no, EHRC guidance is going too far". (I hope I would the other way). It would be depressing if polarised tribal identity stopped it.
The guidance is deeply flawed. Clearly there is little if any demand for trans men to be excluded from the gents or for dating sites that wish to be trans exclusive to be prohibited.
Given that the “GC side” has openly and repeatedly called for trans people’s obliteration as they see trans people as a “huge problem in a sane world” and been notably silent in the face of violent attacks spouting their rhetoric?
I was not surprised by the response in the slightest. Was anyone?
To clarify - did I think JKR etc would be unpleasant about it? Yes. Did I think EHRC guidance would go as far as it did? No.
Do I think *everyone* sympathetic to SC ruling (this doesn't include me btw) wanted EHRC rule? No. And they are the people we need if we want to stop that becoming law.
Genuinely yes. Even those taking the court case said the judgement wasn't about policing loos (and thought it fearmongering to say it was); Gawain Towler (Reform) on AQ said that trans men should be allowed to use men's loos; friends who welcomed the 1/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002b77r
Its not the worst discussion (that is a low bar) and it hardly counts as a good one. The only decent point made was "where did all this hatred come from" and we know it was engineered. That host in yellow with the scottish accent is pretty clearly on the side of the transphobes
Kaye Adams (the Scottish woman in yellow) is notoriously anti SNP, so she's always going to be against anything supported by the pro-trans Scottish SNP government.
Better than politicians, but these days that's a low bar.
Can programmes- or the SC for that matter- hear from transgender people themselves? Isn't this equivalent to ignoring non-white people when considering laws about racism, and how it affects real lives, rights & equality, hence DEI policies?🏳️⚧️
Not really, whilst begrudging recognising that women have rights, they still centre the needs and feelings of men who identify as women. This article in the observer does a better job.
It also fails to address the cruelty of GC spokespeople who demand that transitioning must be prevented, even if it is very beneficial to the individual.
It was a discussion on women’s rights in law so don’t see why transitioning would be mentioned.
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say transition should be prevented, tho giving drugs, hormones and surgery to minors has been found to be unethical (eg Cass Review.)
Well Helen Joyce has, firstly that it must be reduced (despite any happiness it creates) and then she doubles down that all legal and social benefits of transitioning must be stopped. It is a cruel dogma.
There’s genuine questions around the ethics of medical transition, especially for minors. In the US it’s definitely become a problem, with cross sex hormones prescribed without proper scrutiny, causing lifelong harms.
It maybe beneficial for some but studies have shown no reduction in suicide.
Well, I could immediately quote studies that do show a reduction in suicide. But that’s is slightly separate to the original point - which is the call to ban transitioning as much as possible, regardless to any benefits for individuals. You sound more supportive to that POV than previously.
Did you notice that they said they were scared of being cancelled? And they didn’t actually give their own views.
Those pushing for self ID gender to replace sex in law have done an excellent job of convincing many, including women, that advocating for their legitimate needs is bigoted.
So any woman who doesn't agree with your views on this issue is only saying what she's saying because she's fwightened? And you reckon you're a feminist? Clear off.
But within 5+ minutes of watching it already Kate Adams has misinformed the audience twice: Isla Bryson was not simply put with women in prison, but in isolation in the prison while her future was decided, and Nicola Sturgeon did not say all women opposing gender ID were transphobic.
Kaye Adams is notoriously anti SNP, so it's no wonder she's spreading more lies about the SNP-run Scottish justice system, and Nicola Sturgeon in particular.
Its OK, well balanced but just one transexual person (and I use that term deliberately to make a biological point) could have explained it in better detail.
It wasn’t bad. They still used a lot of transphobic language, and their glazing of a hate group is scary, & there were a lot of empty platitudes about “ending toxicity”, but it was definitely a more respectful conversation than I’d have imagined. Although these days that’s not saying much
Why not just listen to and then cross-examine a leading gender critic and a leading trans activist. Many commentators seem happy to focus on peripheral issues but run scared of addressing the core philosophies. Give us a chance to decide for ourselves.
We should have a discussion with experts. Ask endocrinologists how safe hormone blockers are, phychologists how we can be sure kids genuinely want to transition, criminologists how common men pretending to be trans to attack women is. Too much of this discussion is ideological not evidence based
Hi Rowland. I was responding to your comment about 'taking things forward'. The responses to your thread include people misrepresenting arguments on both sides. I'm suggesting that hearing leading experts from the two sides justify their actual positions might be a 1st step in taking things forward.
Yes, I've thought for a while that no one *really* cares about the bathrooms - that's just a proxy for the real debate about the definition of what it means to be a woman.
The trouble is bathrooms are quite a key and daily issue. Where as the the 'real debate' whatever that is is probably something you can go several weeks at a time without thinking about.
The Trans community will remain protected under employment law under protected characteristics legislation, what remains to be seen is the government guidance on this ruling and it's impact on public spaces will be impacted . Currently there is ambiguity over gender pay gap and where the ruling
Impacts this, in my view in my professional capacity as employment law specialist I do not believe it should be as Gender definition is not the same as biological sex and should therefore be excluded but we have more questions than answers at present and the current furore is not helping.
Here's a question (to anyone/everyone): what is the bare minimum belief held by someone for them to be moved across the line to the 'gender critical' side? Who 'just about' crosses the line? Is it the belief that biological sex and gender are different things? Or is there something 'less' than that?
I mean, the fallback is that no woman given a prison sentence should have to share her incarceration with a rapist. But we really shouldn’t have to rely on the fallback.
Well it’s not “less” and they would not maybe describe themselves as “gender critical” but clearly one belief is that men will disguise themselves as women (possibly using surgery) to gain access to women’s spaces and then assault women x
As opposed to what they've always done, just taking what they want without bothering to dress as the opposite gender to do so. Or joining the police, for that matter.
There's an excellent you tube video by forrest valkai that's explains this using biological truths to show that defining both sex and gender in binary terms is ridiculous. Trans rights should never have been used to divide us.
I think it’s no coincidence that such beliefs about sex/gender not being binary has grown over time whilst the idea pushed out by society about what it is to be a man or woman has narrowed.
The awareness that biological sex and gender identity are different things is a pretty core differentiator. The transactivist imposition of the TWAW mantra via #NoDebate and social censorship has done more damage to the trans movement than any gender critic.
Good question. For example, does "some children that say they are trans are in a confusing adolescent phase and need to be protected from themselves" qualify as "over the line"?
The first part of that sentence is fine, I don't think any trans person would say all gender questioning teens will/should become trans ... but "need to be protected from themselves" has sinister overtones. That may not be what is intended by it, but it does come across as transphobic.
“some children that say they are trans are in a confusing adolescent phase and whilst puberty blocking medication and counselling may help, we would never expect an irreversible decision to be made until adulthood”
Just had this conversation with my elderly auntie and uncle. The tipping point is the age at which children are taking irreversible decisions whilst not having been through puberty for me, and for my GB News watching aunt and uncle who oddly are very cool about the trans community
General rules for a category of people. These are individuals and need to be dealt with on a case by case basis and just automatically banning puberty blockers for pre-pubescent children may not be the solution. I have a friend who needs a hip replacement and the surgeon won’t do it until he’s 60!
It’s difficult, isn’t it because if it’s true that this woman knew from the age of four that she was in the wrong body how can you ask someone to wait until they’ve gone through puberty to be sure? The rate of suicide and the trans community is the highest of any minority. I think it’s hard to make.
I don't think it's a belief I think it's an emphasis. I consider people gender critical if they are more focused on women's safety from trans people than normal cis men. Only 3% of the population fits any definition of trans, they are not the biggest threat to women by any analysis.
That’s an interesting approach. I don’t know enough about biology to have a firm view on gender. But I don’t think any of the Supreme Court judges do, either. I listen to/read trans people, and trust that they understand their own identity./
/And the idea that trans people are a bigger threat to women than cis men are beggars belief, frankly. That’s the thing that makes all the GC rhetoric simply nonsense.
I’ll have a go at answering this, though I admit to no great knowledge, but some experience of how people are affected. The point at which people start thinking it’s ok to create laws or rules that harm a group of people based on the behaviour (real or imagined) of certain individuals in the group.
Wouldn't anyone who supports ringfencing resources for any group, or allowing them to organise exclusively of those who don't share their protected characteristic, fall foul of this? Or do you mean only in relation to women?
If you believe that biological sex exists and gender identity exists separately (as I do) what does that make you? Is it seen as an extreme position? I’ve lost my bearings.
biological sex is on a very broad spectrum with 1-2 % humans neither male nor female. And it’s well established science that gendered brain dev can also split from other physical dev in the foetus- so even biological sex can be multi layered https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7139786/
I think that's a strawman. GC people like to *claim* that they're being brave for affirming biological sex exists, but I've never met a trans person who denies that. There is some dispute over whether trans-affirming surgery "changes your sex", but no one denies sex is real.
Every single person who has ever said that TWAW has denied the fundamental reality of sex: or, alternatively, knows that it exists, but doesn’t think women count enough to be granted an existence/status that can’t also be claimed by men if they feel like claiming it.
In fact, arguably the only reason transgender makes any sense is in the context that sex is real. That's what being transgender *means*!
That's why, for example, "trans-racial" isn't a real thing. Because race isn't real in the same way that sex is.
Isn't the phrase "trans women are women?" a conflation of sex and gender? Unless, I guess, one views the world through a gender prism such that when we say "women", we mean those who are *or* identify as women.
Yes that's my impression but I'm trying to understand whether my impression is right. Does it come down to the belief that sex and gender are different?
My experience is that it's orthodox if stated but heretical if adhered to coherently. You might be able to get away with it coherently if you append "but there are literally no circumstances in which sex matters or should be mentioned".
Well that’s the whole premise of GRA and including trans as a protected characteristic. Until really very recently it was mainstream and pretty uncontroversial (I thought)
It's such a good question. I'm not sure there is a line, and the same person can be on different points of the spectrum for different topics (e.g. sports). But if pushed I would say it's less about what you believe about the nature of sex and gender, more about how you weigh importance.
For me the telltale phrase is "trans-identifying man" or "trans-identifying male". The refusal to believe trans people are honest in their identity but are either deluded or have some kind of other, more sinister motive.
I don't think there's really any one thing, though. It's a cluster of self-reinforcing beliefs and attitudes, which tips over into an unhealthy obsession.
I'm not sure. I think that's when you can tell it's gone past "legitimate concerns" into plain transphobia. I wouldn't call someone GC if they're fine with using a trans person's pronouns but a bit worried about fairness of women's sports or sex-segregated prisons
Curious to know why. The one absolute necessity for being a transwoman is that you need to have been born a man (or transman/woman). Doesn't negate identity IMO. Sometimes it brings some clarity. I personally am fine with using any pref pronouns as am polite (obv wld expect politeness in return).
Surely believing sex and gender to be different is a requirement for trans identity to be a thing? Which it clearly is? That’s not a GC belief, surely?
Also I used to be quite heavily GC sympathetic and open, but lost my patience as increasingly discovering valid GC arguments are usually used as something to hide behind for unreconstructed Transphobes, who particularly HATE trans-women.
So is there a place for both woman/man (gender) and male/female (biological)? Put another way, can society draw a legal/policy distinction between the two, in order to – in certain circumstances – treat the biological person differently to their gendered self?
Yes..if we do away with the concept (of biologically sexed spaces)
specifically in application to essential services such as toilets.. if some private rape crisis center wanted to exclude me on the grounds of my biological male birth...I wouldn't have a problem with that.
The only relevant question is who exactly is a threat to whom, and can the law address that? The answer is that a minority of biological men are a threat to women and the law isn't very good in this space at all
Another question is whether women, and men, should be allowed to have single sex spaces at all. Many women want single sex hospital wards not because they expect to be attacked but because they're in bed in their nighties, and feel vulnerable, and want to preserve their privacy and dignity.
In fact resources, spaces, services & data are routinely assigned based on other protected characteristics - youth groups, Paralympic sports, trans-only rape victim support, scholarships for ethnic minorities, disabled parking spaces all uncontroversial examples.
I do need to add, though, that the men who do hurt women will inevitably hurt everyone else (see current US admin, the women warned us) and that anyone who defines themselves against this is one of the good ones, regardless of politics, identity or anything else
I find the manifestation of niceness, trans women are women, (when it is clear if this were true, there would be the need for a debate) particularly unhelpful.
If trans women really were women there wouldn't be anything to argue about. Fact is they aren't, hence the ongoing discord. The Supreme Court has simply confirmed the obvious truth. A lot of people have heavily invested in an elaborate lie. There's a lot of painful reverse ferreting to be done.
You use the word 'women' in its traditional sense to mean natal/biological female sex. It strikes me that the whole point of the trans lobby is to redefine the word 'woman' as meaning 'a woman gender'. Hence 'transwomen are women', even those without medical changes. I think...
The Supreme Court decided nothing of the sort. It expressly refused to in paragraph 2 of the judgement.
Denying that trans people exist goes against international medical expert opinion. (Which also in various statements repeatedly rejects the findings of the Cass Review and process).
If transphobes didn't have such an unhealthy obsession with the genitalia and lived experiences of people who have no impact on their lives, we wouldn't be in this mess.
There is a misunderstanding. Women are (quite understandably) afraid of male bodies. Male bodies can overpower almost all women. It's why my wife calls me when she walks home from the pub and I don't her. How people identify is irrelevant if someone is much bigger than you.
It’s all more complex than presented. There are no simple medical tests that separate people neatly into two groups, whether you use genetics, hormones or body parts. And of course in practice, the main way people will do it is appearance. In an ideal world we shouldn’t be trying to separate people.
I honestly can’t believe that I’m living in a time where I have to worry that not only the fate of our public education system but our democratic society and country are in the hands of the Supreme Court!! 🤯😳🤬😰🫣
Yes, I thought so to (transwoman here).
The 2 week consultation as proposed by the EHRC is not enough and their current proposals strip existing rights that are working because of a few bad people as referred in the clip you shared.
They always use the example of a rapist who is transitioning but what do prisons do with other women who rape women or men who rape men? We're all acting like same sex rape doesn't exist. Prisons must have procedures for dealing with these prisoners
In England the definition of rape is with a p*nis. So, it is important to know whether someone is biologically male when putting in a prison with women - the vast majority of whom will be traumatised & have had experienced endemic violence from men.
Making this an argument about semantics is disingenuous. All sexual assault is traumatising. I wouldn't want to be locked up with someone convicted of sexual assault whether they had a penis or not
Unfortunately, the law, as written, does not allow for it to be anything more than sexual assault, which I believe will carry a lower sentence. Basically it's another law that needs reviewing.
I disagree - there’s been too many headlines of women being found guilty of rape. When they are biologically male. I agree that all sexual assault is traumatic, it’s just that the majority of it is caused by men.
Media reporting distorted many facts about the case.
IB "started" transitioning after arrest and was never part of the general female prison as segregated pending assessment.
The case is a good example of media stoked fear which turns general female population against Trans
Yet still the media don’t mention that Joyce, shown on the left celebrating, has repeatedly called for the de facto social elimination of trans people. Instead we’re told it’s about women’s safety.
Unlike people who appear on those ‘traditional politics programmes’ these women clearly have knowledge on the subject as well as personal experiences of knowing people within the trans community and thus can speak with empathy. The public is nowhere near as hostile to trans as the media.
Comments
That demo last weekend trans held slogans calling for death, burning, pissing on women
How many GCs have threatened violence, called for Trans to be hanged, burned, raped or decapitated? None
It's only in the past few years they've been involved, and that's 'cos they could smell blood in the water from over a decade's worth of civil war among 'progressives'.
The far-right only pay attention to feminism when something is big enough for them to use as a stick to their own ends.
The idea that trans hate started with far-right groups like Britain First/Patriotic Alternative/TurningPoint/etc is nonsense
But do you think that the attitude you describe here is just the way they behave as routine?
Or do you think they might be responding - perhaps inappropriately - to some form of provocation?
I don't understand it.
The fact is countless women's events, have been attacked, surrounded, endless banging on windows, attendees barracked & the vilest threats issued
How can you not know this?
This is one example of a trans activist calling for "death to terfs" and of course he escaped punishment.
But nor would I excuse your own aggression displayed here in your repeated misgendering.
Provocation?
Are trans people intrinsically abusive/aggressive?
"Are trans people intrinsically abusive/aggressive?" - Well it's all very male pattern violence isn't it?
I wouldn’t suggest this activity was entirely unprovoked. Or necessarily ’male patterned’
Would you?
I think there’s quite a few out there who don’t realise that’s where the insult ‘terf’ came from.
Also, just this weekend there were GCs *actually* spitting on and assaulting trans protesters.
TONNES of GC religious activists call for trans people to be raped and killed. The entire point of the GC ideology is to get trans ppl gone
Oh, yes that's bad.
Do you have any details about this?
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/clywp9y70l8o
This is like saying a guy vandalizing a synagogue with swastikas wasn’t motivated by antisemitism.
It only scratches the surface of the issues without mentioning the harms to cis women about policing women's bodies and let alone trans men.
And it places the issue as women Vs trans, while many cis women aren't feeling represented by those groups.
Bad faith actors could start to strip searches or refuse things and then claim "I thought she was trans".
It was also so bad during Olympics and that poor boxing athletes where those people endangered her life accusing her to be trans whilst coming from somewhere where it's illegal
The whole issue of the trans community and the issues they face is so much more nuanced and complex than the average person on the street - certainly on social media - seems to think.
I was not surprised by the response in the slightest. Was anyone?
Do I think *everyone* sympathetic to SC ruling (this doesn't include me btw) wanted EHRC rule? No. And they are the people we need if we want to stop that becoming law.
Can programmes- or the SC for that matter- hear from transgender people themselves? Isn't this equivalent to ignoring non-white people when considering laws about racism, and how it affects real lives, rights & equality, hence DEI policies?🏳️⚧️
https://observer.co.uk/news/opinion-and-ideas/article/kenan-malik-column-trans-rights-supreme-court
I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone say transition should be prevented, tho giving drugs, hormones and surgery to minors has been found to be unethical (eg Cass Review.)
It maybe beneficial for some but studies have shown no reduction in suicide.
Those pushing for self ID gender to replace sex in law have done an excellent job of convincing many, including women, that advocating for their legitimate needs is bigoted.
Dave would have hated gay people if he’d been born in a different decade.
https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3lnv672n2js2q
Does that work?
The transpeople among my friends and family are dealing with the very real consequences of their sex.
The very online poseurs will attack anyone who acknowledges the reality or consequences of sex as bigoted.
One of these groups deserves compassion, the other a nasty rash.
Eg the Canadian trans woman who went to court to force beauty therapists to shave her bollocks.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv
Stop conflating genetic errors* with trans issues. They are orthogonal.
That DSD individuals have errors in their genes does not equate to moral fault.
Eg https://www.reddit.com/r/biology/comments/6d48oe/its_not_correct_that_there_is_such_a_thing_as/?rdt=54878
That's why, for example, "trans-racial" isn't a real thing. Because race isn't real in the same way that sex is.
The problem is the stupid court confusing the terms Woman/Man
with
Male/Female
the former which pertains to Gender
the latter which pertains to Bone Analysis/DNA & (usually,not always) chromosome
Golly!
specifically in application to essential services such as toilets.. if some private rape crisis center wanted to exclude me on the grounds of my biological male birth...I wouldn't have a problem with that.
Denying that trans people exist goes against international medical expert opinion. (Which also in various statements repeatedly rejects the findings of the Cass Review and process).
The 2 week consultation as proposed by the EHRC is not enough and their current proposals strip existing rights that are working because of a few bad people as referred in the clip you shared.
IB "started" transitioning after arrest and was never part of the general female prison as segregated pending assessment.
The case is a good example of media stoked fear which turns general female population against Trans