Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

You can't have it both ways. Either every man who says he is a woman is a woman, at whatever point or time he says it. Or none of them are.

Only those trans women with a GRC are legally women, otherwise people who were assigned male at birth remain legally male. Vicky Verka for trans men.

 

[monkers]

I disagree. It became an issue when transactivists starting pushing for men to be in women's spaces and services, changing language, and when people became aware of stuff like the Tavistock. All aided and abetted by Stonewall who needed a new cause and source of income after gay marriage was legalised. Added to this was the insistence that the transgender umbrella be extended to cover those who did not have dysphoria but enjoyed dressing as a stereotypical woman.

And course this is all wrong too. Trans women had the legal right to use women's loos and changing rooms from 1999. At that time Stonewall were representing LGB only. They only added the 'T' much later on - it had nothing to do with Stonewall, and there was very little trans activism at that time.

 

[monkers]

Now people should see why I say this poster is gish-galloping, It is the act of making many false claims without evidence, leaving it for others to have to reluctantly work hard to debunk all the lies.

It's ongoing, despite the lies being debunked, they are repeated ad nauseum catching some unsuspecting folk along the way, which is the exact intention.

 

[Ian H]

I'm pretty sure that you went through this;-


This suggests that as Amy is a transwoman, a GRC is not relevant to her arrest and detention, and that to call her a "man in a dress" is bigoted and wrong. As a transwoman she is entitled to agree to whatever pronouns she wishes and whatever name she wishes.

That's the nonsense underlining this. The notion that transwomen should be treated in a certain way has to be consistent, not just used when it is convenient.

He identified himself to the police as Andrew Miller. So it seems perfectly proper for the BBC and others to refer to him thus. What he meant or understood by 'transitioning', we don't know.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Perhaps you could write with less verbosity and then you wouldn't find it such hard work.

Only those trans women with a GRC are legally women, otherwise people who were assigned male at birth remain legally male. Vicky Verka for trans men.

We aren't talking about the features of a GRC though. We are talking about whether saying 'I'm a woman' means you are a woman. You, and others, have very much suggested that it does. It is very much an insistence of transactivism that it does because 'You are who you say you are'. It's never been '...but that only applies if you have a GRC'.

Andrew Miller has clearly been regarding himself as a woman for a number of years. By any metric that transactivists would insist on, Andrew Miller is a transwoman.

It's a bit disingenuous of you to now try to draw a distinction between trans people with a GRC and those without, especially when you say a GRC simply confirms your innate gender.

There's little difference between Grayson Perry and Eddie/Suzy Izzard. Neither takes hormones or has had surgery as far as I know. One says 'I'm a male transvestite' and nobody would dream of calling him a woman because he says he's a man. The other says 'I'm a woman' and is regarded as trans, everybody is expected to call him a woman, allow him to use women's spaces, use female pronouns, simply because Eddie/Suzy says they are a woman - no GRC required.

This just seems like gymnastics again, this time to avoid having Andrew Miller put in the column marked transwomen offenders. 'He's not really trans.....'

He identified himself to the police as Andrew Miller. So it seems perfectly proper for the BBC and others to refer to him thus. What he meant or understood by 'transitioning', we don't know.

This is the point though. Nobody knows what 'transitioning' to male or female means. It means whatever you want it to mean. Which is a not a sound basis to use for laws that affect others.

 

[monkers]

Perhaps you could write with less verbosity and then you wouldn't find it such hard work.

Perhaps you could stop writing gish-gallop?

 

[monkers]

We are talking about whether saying 'I'm a woman' means you are a woman.

Legal fact - trans women with a GRC are legally women. The end. Hope this helps.

 

[monkers]

We are talking about whether saying 'I'm a woman' means you are a woman. You, and others, have very much suggested that it does.

You are wrong again. This is not what I say at all. How many times do I need to say? Only a GRC serves to change the legal sex of a person.

 

[monkers]

It's a bit disingenuous of you to now try to draw a distinction between trans people with a GRC and those without, especially when you say a GRC simply confirms your innate gender.

I've always drawn the distinction. A GRC does not simply confirm your innate gender identity, it changes the legal sex of the person, it's the document that gives legal authority to an amended birth certificate and the right to an appropriate death certificate at the time of death.

You really should have known this stuff before the thread even started let alone now.

 

[monkers]

This just seems like gymnastics again, this time to avoid having Andrew Miller put in the column marked transwomen offenders. 'He's not really trans.....'

Andrew Miller is legally male. If he is in fact formally in transition then under the EqA he has two protected characteristics, one of sex where he is legally male, and one of gender reassignment.

 

[classic33]

There is no evidence available from the UK in recent times. The Tavistock are so crap they don't follow up on their kids to see how they get on. You know this. We do know that lots of those referred are same sex attracted - just like the kids in all the studies I linked.

Are Canadian and US kids totally different ftom British kids? Is academic research that is 10 or 15 years old suddenly irrelevant?
You are desperately straw grasping and looking for excuses to deny that most kids desist from a transgender identity after adolescence.


Any fact you don't like is designated a lie.

Unfortunately there are a lot of facts you aren't going to like, from sex being binary to gay kids not being trans. You don't like the general public hearing about it either, which is why you have such a thing about Kathleen Stock and J K Rowling.


So in order for society to apply the same rules of safeguarding, privacy etc. to transwomen with a GRC we are required to prove that transwomen with a GRC specifically have the same offending rates as other men? We can't just assume that transwomen with a GRC are essentially the same as non GRC transwomen or indeed other men?

[B[If I could prove conclusively that men born in July offend at lower rates than men born in other months, would that mean we can abandon the conventions of safeguarding, privacy etc. in regard to those men? [/B]Of course not.

This is just special pleading that there are a group of individuals who should be exempt from the regulations we apply to similar individuals.

Do that for women as well?
Are there no women in prisons these days?

Given that women are more likely to be shoplifters than men, why is February the biggest/worst month for shops, due to shoplifters?
The majority of whom are women.

If they were doing for themselves/ their families(The most repeated/used excuse/answer) wouldn't the the last quarter of the calendar year be worse. Why isn't December, with all the burdens and expectations for that month, not the worst month?

 

[classic33]

You have no refutation of that research data - all done by professionals, all peer reviewed and published - other than to extract one tiny point (that part of the diagnosis procedure in some cases was to ask kids who they were attracted to) and claim that thus destroys all credibility.

Overall that research shows that 80% of boys will desist from their transgender identity after adolescence. And yes, asking them who they fantasise about/were attracted to is important because it turns out lots of them were just gay.

You have to ask why transactivists are so invested in the idea of the 'trans child'. Perhaps it's because if they can prove children are trans from being young then it validates it as innate. It must be real if toddlers are trans, mustn't it? But if the majority of 'trans' children desist after adolescence, them it's not innate. It's a passing phase or a response to other wider issues like being gay or autistic - both massively overrepresented in those referred to gender clinics.

The 80% figure you're quoting includes girls. It's not 80% either, 63% being a truer figure it would appear.
https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/44...l-research-on-desistance-in-transgender-youth

It's also ten years old,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23702447/

 

[Milzy]

 

[multitool]

Yeah, and?

 

[fozy tornip]

View attachment 3911

Yeah, so suck on that Macduff.