Fair enough; how would the current law regarding 'transgender' vs 'transvestite' deal with the person I detailed in my previous post?
How about men self-identifying as men to put themselves into mens' safe places with the intention of taking advantage? Not having a go, just trying to establish where all the lines are deemed to be.
I think the law is clear that medical procedure is not required. So while I wrote earlier that covers transitioning, it's not clear enough to say when that starts or ends or even if it has to have an end point. To apply to change your gender you need to have lived as the other gender you are changing to for two years, so it’s likely to be unarguable that if someone has, he or she doesn’t have the right to be considered as the gender they have elected to live as. But hey, I don’t make the rules.
No probs. I was glad to have a reason to explain my meaning, as in isolation it clearly could be taken as an insult aimed at lesbians.
Firstly, I have not problem with the laws that exist. It is, as I have always said, the attitude and barmy ideology of the modern trans lobby that I oppose. Secondly, you are right about the above line, but not for the reasons you think. This question you pose, and the words you use to frame it, are as much a disrespectful breach of the laws you refer to as the example you try to make. You have, without a doubt, ignored the fundamental essence of the law. The law requires you to be respectful to a trans person. It requires you to refer to the person as a man, if that is their chosen gender, and not a 'trans man' as you have done. Referring to them as a trans man is a breach of the law and of privacy. You have also referred to the fact they have a cervix, which would also be a breach of the law. So the way you couched your hypothetical question in order to identify unlawful speach was in itself unlawful. However, it would be perfectly within the law for a (not the) trans man to be treated as a biological woman, because if they were not, the investigations and treatments they received would likely have lead to death from a curable disease. I have treated enough women with prostates to know this is the case. Yes, women, because, in a sociatal and respectful sense, that is what I consider them to be. It doesn't make it a medical or scientific fact though, and neither does the law. You cannot diagnose prostate cancer with a smear test. It is not a requirement of the law that the person be treated in every situation as a man. But it is, quite rightly, a requirement of laws, policies and the ethical code of practitioners, that every individual be treated with respect. The law also asserts that in cases where employees are required to be single sex, a person's birth gender should not be concealed, and may lawfully be considered by the employer. The law also asserts that where an unfair physical advantage can be observed, a person can be prohibited from entering in sports where such an advantage may be realised, or if it represents a physical danger to other players. The law doesn't do what you say it does. It does not change a person's gender (that is an argument of the trans lobby, not the law), but allows a person to be treated, under the law, as their perferred gender; it also protects their privacy, making knowing disclosure of persons trans status an offence. Which is all pretty reasonable. In fact, I don't think there is much wrong or unreasonable about the law. It is the demands of the modern marxist trans lobby I do not agree with as I have said all along. And again you say "it" is not about redefing the definition of women. That is correct for the law, and I have never tried to say anything else, but for the modern marxist trans lobby it most certainly is the case. Ask Rosie Duffield and other left wing women who believe that to be the case. You have remained quiet on that for a very long time now, for someone who dismisses their concerns so easily and determindly. Remember, SHE, not me, described the attacks on her beliefs to be coming from m*********s within the Labour party, so it would be good to hear your thoughts on the matter.
I used to go to the Kinky Galinky parties in 90s, got my picture in the Tatler at one once. The difference between transvestites, almost exclusively gay men at these parties, and trans women was absolutely stark. The drag queens were exciting, excited and absolutely gorgeous, totally full of themselves. On the whole, the trans women were bland, dressed in bog standard outfits, with glum looks on their faces. That is a very general description, and I am sure there were some trans among the Drag Queens, but the queer scene was all about outrageous excitement then. The trans scene, even at such a massive extravagant event, had such a glum feel to it, but I guess that has a lot to do with the difficulties they faced every day. I can appreciate why there is a sense of it 'breaking out' over the last few years, but I don't think the modern trans lobby is doing the majority of trans people any favours, and perhaps ought ot cease with the identitarian bile, and start joining in with the fun, rather than trying to lay guilt on those that oppose its politics, whether they are from within the community or not.
Men in men’s spaces is the societal norm. It provides no additional advantage to a male intent on sexual assault if they are able to dress as a man and enter men’s spaces and insist on being permitted, by law, to remain in such a space. However, it is an advantage if they can do the same with women’s spaces. The LGBTQ+ lobby are campaigning for changes in UK law, or claiming extreme interpretations of existing laws, that would technically make men in women’s safe spaces ‘the norm’. The laws exist to cater for genuine people, but they risk being used to further the political ideologies of extremists, and the sexual proclavities of a small number of men. I would say that a line cannot be drawn if one side is unwilling to accept that there is an issue, and insists that their opinion is the only acceptable solution. The fact that it is predominantly men who wish to dictate to women that people who are physically men should be permitted into their environments, is an act of misogyny that in my opinion women should be able to discuss fairly and freely. Note that the argument against me at the moment has not even conceded, as far as I can see, that women have any legitimacy in challenging the erosion of their own rights, in the face of the trans lobby on this matter.
Which does not address the issue of whether 'societal norm' should be the yardstick in this circumstance. How do you feel about the person I described in an earlier post? 'Genetically' male Lives, dresses acts as 'genetic females' do Has absolutely no sexual or romantic interest in 'female females' Has chosen not to undergo full transitional surgery Do they represent a threat to women in women's safe places? They cannot be termed 'lesbians' in any way as they have no interest in 'female females'. Should they be excluded from such 'women's safe places'? I agree that I do not fully understand the motivation of any extreme 'trans lobby'.
The person you describe deserves respect, and is very much like a description of the person I mentioned in the third post on here, who otherwise has undergone a full transition. I would be surprised if women would object to her entering their spaces, not least because, other than some physical traits, she is entirely feminine in her movement and behaviour. Wholly unthreatening. But this is a bit of a Moose enduced canard. My entire argument is that women should not be dictated to by who can enter their space. I do not wish to be the arbiter here. Nor do I wis for women to be shut up. Don't ask me, ask the women affected. I do not believe the majority of women are against trsns women, but they are entitled to seek reassurances that because of the genuine nature of some trans people, such as the person you describe, sexual predators will be given a legal argument to enter those spaces, which would be the case should the trans lobby get its way. Yep, as Moose says, a pervert can enter such spaces dressed as a woman any time they like. But trans lobbyist wish to make gender fluid, so that a person may be gender neutral one day, a man the next. and a woman when the queue for the mens is too long. All it would take to transition, would be to say it were so. The trans lobby already assert that it is a persons right to do so, and physical, legal men are walking into womens spaces looking for an argument. How long will it be until others use that argument, not for political reasons, but simply to place them among vulnerable women. But my opinion is moot. All I am supporting on this thread is the right of women, both born AND trans, to speak up with their concerns, and be able to participate in a debate, without being demonised. I am of course also expressing my disgust at the people who are attempting to stop them from being heard, and who are doing the demonising. I appear to getting demonised by someone on here for doing so. The maths is not difficult on that one.
The devil's always in the detail. How to define 'trans people of a genuine nature' is the crux of the matter with a whole raft of different definitions possible. And I still hold to my view this issue is one aspect of the much wider one of 'predation'.
I agree with you totally that the concern here is predation. My issue with the trans lobby, in part, is that their attitudes empower predator men to justify entering women's spaces. And that they dismiss genuine concerns of women, about such a risk, as transphobic. The irony is that 'genuine' trans women will be equally at risk from such predation. But the modern trans lobby have no compunction in accusing trans people, who speak out, of being transphobes.
Cyclist Emily Bridges, interviewed by ITV, describes the threats she received, including kneecapping, after the PM’s recent intervention.
Er, I sympathise with her emotional dilemma, but I also sympathise with the women who are affected by the reality of the situation that has been created. Alas, for all the surgery and treatment she has had and will receive, she is no more a woman than Arnold Schwarzenegger. Nothing can change her basic basic biology, not even the law that protects her right to be treated socially as the gender she chooses. No one is stopping her from competing in the sport. No one is stopping her from experiencing the struggle to perform the best she can, which she claims is her greatest passion in sport. But she does not come across as genuine, not in this video or her behaviour. She likes winning. She says it herself. Women's sport does not exist for men as a sub optimum option because of their life style choices. For every risk that an Emily Bridges may not fulfil her dream of competing in women's sport, there is an entire women's sporting discipline that must suffer under the mysoginistic concept that a man is entitled to prove they make better, stronger and more moralistic women than those who were born into the role. Take the emotional element out of her story, and there is no argument for her to compete in women's sport, but, also, no argument against her competing in the sport she loves at the highest level she can achieve, on a playing field that is far more level than the one she feels her emotions dictate she should play on. This thing is tragic, but the true tragedy is that, unalterably, a factual physical man, who genuinely feels that she should be a woman, thinks that the rest of the world should bend itself to accommodate her emotions, under the political influence of people who couldn't give a poop about her, and who will have nothing to do with her once her political usefulness has expired.. The use of her situation for political purposes is unpleasant and a sign of the impotence of such a superficial gaslighting of an argument. The disgusting knee-capping threat, as is carefully talked around in you video, came before Johnsons statement (which is considered by many, particularly women, to be long over due), along with many other unpleasant remarks that continue to be made since her decision to compete in the women's sport. Boris Johnson, or the feminist views and concerns of sportswomen, didn't spark the negative response to her potential dominance of women's cycling. Her inherent male physicality did that. It will be interesting to hear the views of this predominantly male forum on what women should accept in their sport. The argument that women are transphobes because they want to compete exclusively against other women (defined by biology, rather than the say so of a man) is an interesting one, clearly setting feminism, previously the cause celeb of the left, in the lady gammon role.
I can't be bothered to watch the video, but I assume Emily Bridges is one of the 'new women' with a beard and a c 0ck - not one of the old fashioned type with ovaries
As someone who coaches my kids' under 13 boys' team and an under 14 girls' team, my opinion is that you definitely need to keep biological males and females sport separate. Allowing that to change would destroy women's sport. Personally I'm noth bothered about what anyone wears or their sexuality unless that impacts others negatively. One thing the BBC could do with looking at just how much trans stories are over represented by them. You can't go a day without a new trans story on their website front page.
As a quick point of info, this was ITV rather than the BBC. In any case, the overrepresentation of this story in the media is a concoction of the Government and its allies at the Mail, Telegraph and Express, who feel this is a vote winner. I thought, against the torrent of dislike currently manifested against Emily, that people may want to hear her side. I may have more empathy with her because my son raced against her a few times when they were youth riders. Elite cyclists start very early in life, it’s a consuming identity of its own and I can imagine how hard it must be for her to have to choose between cycling and her identity, which is what you are essentially asking her to do. I would suggest that if we do that we cannot claim sport is inclusive. Women’s sport has never been a completely clear cut system. There have been challenges around identity and physique for as long as I remember. This is not surprising as the World Health Organisation lists dozens of different expressions of sex chromosomes with small, but significant numbers of people to some degree intersex. The most notable was Caster Semenya, whose career and mental health were ruined by those who demand females can only be one thing. Semenya, who was raised a girl, has outwardly a female body, but also some male characteristics. Where should she have raced? It may be about time to have some competitons with an open category to allow for women who want to (and there are many) to compete against transgender women and those who don’t fit a strictly M/F paradigm. Then we would have a much better idea about what to do in the future. In the meanwhile, she’s still just a kid. I understand the concerns, but I deplore the abuse she receives, the ridiculous notions that she was an inferior male who changed gender as a consolation prize, that she is akin to a predator breaking into women’s spaces.
Without wanting to reinforce gender stereotypes, those that are biologically stronger and bigger will have an advantage in sports where strength, speed height etc are a factor in winning. If they didn't, there is no competition and without competition there is no reason (as there would be no interest) for professional sport. There's a reason why shorter than average people don't tend to play basketball professionally. Does someone born a man, who grows up a man gain a physical advantage that they wouldn't have obtained if they were born a woman? If so and this physical advantage is not reversed after transition then how can it be fair on the women born as women in the sport to allow them to compete. Coversely how can it be fair on men who identify as women but are not trans being barred from competing in a woman's sport. Does the physical advantage come at maturity or adulthood? Could the decision be taken there? Logically you have to either not discriminate on sex/gender and as such risk killing off Women's sport and some men's sport like areas of gymnastics. Or you have to discriminate on birth gender. It's not fair on the trans community but anything else can't be fair on the non-transcommunity. I don't think theres a right answer to the debate that will please everyone but these are my rational thoughts based on the little I know. Please feel free to educate me if I have anything wrong. But I worry that for fear of infringing on someones rights, you kill the rights off of soemone else.
I can see that this story is something that the likes of the Mail, Express etc. would love as an opportunity to stick the knife in, but I wouldn't touch any of those rags with a barge pole. There's no need for abuse or to get personal. In some sports / cases the answer will just have to be no, whether some people see it as an unfair decision or not. In my case, no way could any of my son's team play in my daughters if they identified as a female - the physicality and aggression between the male / female game is totally different. Potentially you would need a panel for professional sports to assess each case and some of those you mention may turn out to be viable cases, but that doesn't hep amatuer or kids levels resolve things.
I think the issue of injury is likely a red herring. There are plenty of 6ft plus women footballers weighing 12 st or more. Wendie Renard who plays for France is 6ft 2 and weighs 70kg. If she wanted to snap some featherweight winger’s leg in two she could. That’s why there are rules to prevent it. At school there are vanishingly few children transitioning and in the unlikely event that rugby remains their primary focus the school can deal with that. Hopefully better than when the school near us had the air ambulance in to transport a lad with a spinal injury caused by playing among his own gender. There are always risks. In some sports it won’t matter and in others players compete in age/weight categories that reduce risk. I’m certainly not saying that anything goes and women’s sport must give way, but I’m sticking to sport being inclusive and there being a way to accommodate difference by, for example, establishing other competitions. That way we’ll know better the risks and the benefits.
If there's an advantage, it's unfair to allow trans athletes to compete. The question to satisfy is therefore whether or not there is an advantage. Given the physical advantages gained from going through puberty as a male it would be surprising to me if that translates to no performance advantage, but that's something that can and should be satisfied with data, not gut feelings.
Saw something the other day in America where a Teacher made a 4 year old boy wear a dress......no consent or consultation with the parents first, just imposing their woke ways on the norms! Shocking. I am all for people being what they want to be, but for f**k sake, can't we just let Children be children!? Kids being raised without genders?!? Stop the world, I want to get off!
It was probably ‘free gun for the girls’ day. Your story sounds a little unbelievable. So in order to believe it a source would be helpful. Then I could disbelieve that. But you do underline why the thread is about transphobia.
No, phobia means 'fear', I don't fear trans people, they don't have any bearing on me or my family or my way of living, but I have a big problem with the world being so woke and not being able to have freedom of speech! Your dig at me above being a prime example..... Do your own homework.
Data in cycling suggests no advantage, maybe because cyclists can be big or small and equally successful because it’s all about power to weight. But there are always advantages. I come back to the earlier question of where should Caster Semenya have competed?
I didn’t say the fear was a physical one you had. Your fear is that a bizarre world is being created where people can’t express their gender or boys are made to wear frocks. Not happening and I’d be the first to protest it.
The discrete word "transphobia" doesn't imply nor require fear, though. Words don't always follow etymological norms.
Zero context on this at all. It's hardly a reliable source and doesn't lay out any facts at all. Chances are that the two year old just put a dress in a game of fancy dress, and there's nothing more to it than that. Dude recording it was in the wrong for forcing a confrontation during an active class though.
What data is this? Your answer above is almost word for word what Bridges said in her interview but would be interested to know if you are just repeating that or have seen a proper study yourself. There are numerous studies that show general athletic advantages of power and explosiveness persist even after transition. A couple of years ago in the Masters category (over 35 I think) a trans cyclist obliterated a women's world record. Are we really to believe that there was no in built advantage and the world's best female cyclist at that age just happened to be one that was trans?
Lol. What is a reliable source these days!? You don't get more 'reliable' than a confrontation recorded on camera with no denial from the accused, just a desire from her to 'pass the buck' to someone else. Good chat.
