Gender again. Sorry!

[monkers]

''I'm not so sure about this. I'm not at all sure that that is how it comes across to many women.''

First world problem of the modern age I'm afraid. People shouting at each other with absolutist views with both sides determined to win the argument rather than reach any accommodation through discussion. Eventually one side becomes worn down by the repetitive never ending argument and just says anything to annoy the opponent.

I'm in contact with a fairly large circle of trans women, none of them say they are biologically female, but the process of transition, especially hormones tend to make them feel much more female. The changes that hormone therapy bring our are very significant, but as they will tell you, and to paraphrase one friend 'not all of the damage done by testosterone poisoning can be undone'.

 

[monkers]

''But is that confirmation not just a way of improving their mental health?

I agree with a lot of what you say. What I disagree with is the attempts (often by both sides of the debate) to terrorise and silence people. That should never happen, on any topic/''

Not just for trans people, but all people, mental health conditions still carry stigma. Mental health is such a broad term.

I think it better to say that transition greatly improve mental wellbeing. It's a small distinction, but helps to remove stigma. GD is not a mental health condition, but without access to services the resulting anguish can lead to poor mental health, self harm and too often suicide.

There is so much abuse of trans people propagated in the press. It is daily. It is on social media, and yes I've seen it previously on cyclechat.

This was in the Telegraph yesterday ...

This representing trans people as all being predators preying on women and then gaining access to women's prisons.
This is dehumanising and without exaggeration is reminiscent of fascism.

Earlier this week a sample of tweets I saw were quoting from Mein Kampf. Some women were carrying placards demanding a 'final solution' for trans women.

We talked about walking in another's shoes, but imagine looking at the media each day and seeing this stuff. It's not one off, it's systematic demonisation and abuse, which has that drip, drip, drip effect. This is what is damaging the mental health of trans people, and why they are frustrated and angry.

There is not only evidence of structural racism in the UK, but overwhelming evidence of structural transphobia incited by the press.

 

[multitool]

...and a government fully invested in it.

I'll repeat a comment I made pages back. If you want a measure of how fully toxic this country has become, just remember that the Tories under Theresa May were pro Self ID.

In all of this, what gets left behind is that for trans people it's an issue of core identity. I think most of us would get pretty pissed off if our identity was denied, or challenged on a daily basis. Given the hostility and stigma these people face I don't think they are doing it on a whim.

We also have truly revolting people like Posie Parker trying to push the message that trans people are all perverted fetishist deviants and a threat, and in so effectively denying trans people the same right of expression of sexuality that we all enjoy, whilst herself using her own sexuality* as a key component of her presentation.

*theclaud referred to her as a drag act. That hadn't occured to me, but I did recognise the Marilyn Monroe cosplay.

 

[multitool]

Simple (simplistic?) solution for a male rapist who wants to serve his sentence in a women's prison; penisectomy and castration. Job's a good'un. Any questions?

No.

The simple solution is the obvious one. That violent rapists should not be anywhere near women's prisons. The lie from the 'phobes is to say that trans people are advocating that they must be. In general, violent people, whether cis or trans should not be near people they are likely to harm. This is how the prison service tries to operate. The next lie the 'phobes produce is that Self ID means that violent trans prisoners have to be housed in women's prisons by law. They don't.

The transphobes will tell you that "one rape is one rape too many", but when it comes to trans prisoners being raped it is remarkable how quickly they forget their principles. There is a study of trans women in a male prison in California and 59% of trans prisoners reported being sexually assaulted (compared to the average of 4.4%).

Here is a report from 2019 about a trans woman being raped 2000 times in a man's prison in Australia:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.in...ped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html?amp

The transphobes have nothing to say about this. Why? Because they don't give a shoot. They don't actually care about rape or sexual assaults. They are using it as a vehicle to amplifly their own bigotry.

 

[icowden]

The simple solution is the obvious one. That violent rapists should not be anywhere near women's prisons. The lie from the 'phobes is to say that trans people are advocating that they must be. In general, violent people, whether cis or trans should not be near people they are likely to harm. This is how the prison service tries to operate. The next lie the 'phobes produce is that Self ID means that violent trans prisoners have to be housed in women's prisons by law. They don't.

That in itself is interesting, although I think you are twisting arguments a little. You are right in that there are rules at the moment that a transwoman has to apply to go to a womans prison and satisfy a review board that the decision is correct.

However if the Scottish bill were passed, then surely they would have all the rights of a woman? Why should they have to be persecuted by a review board to decide if they can go to a women's prison? They are women. It says so on their GRC. Thus they should go to a women's prison.
Isn't that the ultimate end result? Isn't that what the "phobes" are saying? That if you have all the rights of a women then all protections must be stripped away?

 

[Rusty Nails]

First world problem of the modern age I'm afraid. People shouting at each other with absolutist views with both sides determined to win the argument rather than reach any accommodation through discussion. Eventually one side becomes worn down by the repetitive never ending argument and just says anything to annoy the opponent.

This ^^^ times 100 describes many of the discussions on this forum, and this one in particular.

 

[Rusty Nails]

No.

The simple solution is the obvious one. That violent rapists should not be anywhere near women's prisons. The lie from the 'phobes is to say that trans people are advocating that they must be. In general, violent people, whether cis or trans should not be near people they are likely to harm. This is how the prison service tries to operate. The next lie the 'phobes produce is that Self ID means that violent trans prisoners have to be housed in women's prisons by law. They don't.

The transphobes will tell you that "one rape is one rape too many", but when it comes to trans prisoners being raped it is remarkable how quickly they forget their principles. There is a study of trans women in a male prison in California and 59% of trans prisoners reported being sexually assaulted (compared to the average of 4.4%).

Here is a report from 2019 about a trans woman being raped 2000 times in a man's prison in Australia:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html?amp

The transphobes have nothing to say about this. Why? Because they don't give a shoot. They don't actually care about rape or sexual assaults. They are using it as a vehicle to amplifly their own bigotry.

Then it's a good thing that we haven't seen any transphobes in this thread.

 

[Bromptonaut]

That in itself is interesting, although I think you are twisting arguments a little. You are right in that there are rules at the moment that a transwoman has to apply to go to a womans prison and satisfy a review board that the decision is correct.

However if the Scottish bill were passed, then surely they would have all the rights of a woman? Why should they have to be persecuted by a review board to decide if they can go to a women's prison? They are women. It says so on their GRC. Thus they should go to a women's prison.
Isn't that the ultimate end result? Isn't that what the "phobes" are saying? That if you have all the rights of a women then all protections must be stripped away?

I don't think the bolded bit is necessarily correct.

People with a GRC now cannot insist on a women's prison. The Bill makes no difference to that; all it does is simplify the process for getting a GRC.

There is though a fly in the ointment. At the same time as arguing the Bill made no difference to the Equalities Act's exceptions, which allowed the Prison service to send Transwomen to the male estate, another bit of Scottish Government was arguing that it could appoint Transwomen with a GRC to 'women only' places on public bodies. That was upheld by the Outer House of the Court of Session where a Womens' Rights group sought a review of those appointments.

I suspect the decision of the Outer House will be appealed by the group that brought the action in the first place.

 

[jowwy]

Can't argue with that.

What a prick….you dont want me on your fourm, then when i make a mistake, you quickly pick it up, comment on it and draw me back in….cause your a thick farking idiot.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Dsd's (intersex conditions) have nothing to do with being transgender. They don't even test for them in gender clinics. Their only relevance to the discussion is in sports where certain dsd conditions can give an athlete male advantage (because they are genetically male), same as the advantage transwomen have. And it's notable that dsd athletes are almost always from developing countries where limited health care and home births mean their conditions went unnoticed, sometimes until puberty.

The 'same number as red hair' comes from a book by bioligist Anne Fausto Sterling. She has since backtracked. She also said sex was a spectrum and there were 5 sexes. She now says 5 sexes was a 'tongue in cheek' comment and I think she now prefers 'continuum' to spectrum.

We all know that there are variations in sexual development - it doesn't mean that we are not a 2 sex species though. If 99.8% of humans are born male or female it seems pretty clear there are only 2 sexes in our species, with the 0.02% being those born with genetic variants. It's not a spectrum when 99.8% of the data falls into only 2 categories.

Women have a right to their own stuff. Just like black people or gay people do. They have a right to organise away from males, however they identify. They have a right to single sex spaces and services for their privacy, dignity, and yes, their safety.

Transwomen are excluded from these spaces and services because they are male, not because they are transgender.

I have never seen UK feminists protest a trans rights meeting. Yet women meeting in the UK to discuss their rights are routinely harassed and threatened. It might be different in the US as the right wing are more vociferous but in the UK I have never seen women clad in black with masks demonstrating outside someone's place of work, or trying to prevent lawful public meetings, or film showings.

Plenty of accommodations are offered by women. Most women would be happy with third unisex spaces for toilets and changing rooms. There are lots of services that are exclusively for transgender people. Why can't women have ones that are exclusively for them? With unisex refuges, hospital wards etc for those who don't mind sharing with male bodied people.

You need to ask why the third space option is unacceptable to transactivists.

Here is a report from 2019 about a trans woman being raped 2000 times in a man's prison in Australia:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/transgender-woman-raped-2-000-times-male-prison-a6989366.html?amp

The transphobes have nothing to say about this. Why? Because they don't give a shoot. They don't actually care about rape or sexual assaults. They are using it as a vehicle to amplifly their own bigotry.

Why is it women's job to look after men in male prisons? Why aren't you advocating to make male prisons safer?

You discovered 5 minutes ago that male violence is a problem and now you are asking why women aren't doing something about it? It's one reason why we need our separate spaces, isn't it?

Feminists advocate for women.
The solution to male violence in prison is not to move vulnerable males into women's prisons. Women are not human shields for men that other men don't like.

 

[newfhouse]

Welcome back to the new normal.

 

[multitool]

Then it's a good thing that we haven't seen any transphobes in this thread.

That is a matter of opinion.

Apparently we have seen people "Shilling for rapists" though.

 

[monkers]

My Part 2

When is it reasonable to use the terms 'transphobe' or 'bigot'.

A phobia is a condition in some cases (and sometimes not) that can be ameliorated with a medical intervention. To quote wiki ...

''A phobia is an anxiety disorder defined by a persistent and excessive fear of an object or situation.''

Phobias broadly fall into two camps, specific and social anxiety disorders. Most people harbour some form of phobia to a greater or lesser degree, fear of snakes or spider, heights, dentists, flying etc

Most people are happy to identify their phobia. Until that is their phobia is concerned with other people, at this stage there is reticence to show one's fear.

I offer the familiar example 'I'm not a racist but ....'. What follows is inevitable, an attempt to use language that disguises the racism, followed by an accusation of racism, and anger from both sides. So strong is the feeling in the individual that instead of seeking the means to overcome it, they do the opposite, burrow in and seek every possible means to justify it. In fact it becomes their chief occupation to campaign against that group. To them myths become facts, scientists become misrepresented, campaigns are vigorously raised, often with funding from far right groups, often from the USA, often with links to Tufton Street in London.

Now somewhat controversially I will say straight out that we saw this in the build up to the referendum, and we still see it today. We see a Home Secretary who is not just busy fulfilling a brief but dreaming of the day she sees the first plane load of asylum seekers shipped off to Rwanda without a care for the observance of legally agreed and signed international treaties relating to human rights.

Transphobia is not the exactly the same as racism I'll agree, however there are strong parallels. So when is a person showing transphobia? Firstly there will be denial from the person. Secondly, there are keen to show that they are a decent person with reasonable views. Thirdly, there are the repeated patterns from rehearsed argument. Fourthly, there is the appeal to follow the evidence. Fifthly there is the extensive use of myth, outliers, tropes, mantras, gish gallop, and even outright lies. This is all wrapped up with a veneer, sometimes subtle, sometimes not, of demonisation of the trans community. Identify these features - you're dealing with a person who actually needs help. Their fear is real to them and it is intense. The word 'transphobe' is a real trigger to them as they are convinced they are not.

Bigotry. To quote Wiki again ...

''A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities that are different from their own. Mostly, the person's opinions are based on prejudice.''

''The word bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to negative prejudices, even when those prejudices are proven to be false.''

'Bigot' is another of those words, which at first had a specific meaning and context, but over time is being flipped. It becomes flipped because the person on the receiving believes they are the real victim with the failure to admit to their own bigotry. In this sense it is like 'TERF' which began as a simple acronym, but began to be perceived as a pejorative.

In the so-called 'trans debate' there are no innocent sides, whereas each side will strongly claim that they are the real victim.

Please remember my earlier statement, trans people are less involved in the argument and more the subject of the argument between two sides of cis gender people - just has been the case in this thread.

The courts have been called upon to sort out the mess left by parliament and government. If only, and I implore this, both sides begin to realise that the failures are political.

In the present political climate, trans people can not win. We have a government under a weak PM who has appointed people to cabinet with strongly transphobic and 'anti-woke' views which are high on their agenda.

And this is critical, behind every case and every claim there is political failure. Once this is fully realised, there is the opportunity for both sides to form some alliance.

Raab as Deputy PM wishes to abolish the UK Human Rights Act.

Braverman as HS likewise.

There has been a now long-held Tory ambition. I'm not making this up - you can find this in previous Tory manifestos.

The ambition is to :
abolish the UK Human Rights Act
abolish the UK Human Rights Commission and independent Commissioner
remove the separation of legislature and judiciary
remove the ability of the ordinary citizen to seek effective remedy from abuses of the state
withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights.

We are witnessing less government transparency and accountability along with increasing levels of corruption.

This process is already underway with restrictions being introduced into recent legislation to impede existing human rights.

Freedom of speech is being modified by stealth to mean the opposite as intended in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom of speech is intended to give ordinary citizens the rights to speak truth to power, but this is reinterpreted instead to allow us to be free to attack each other.

The government have taken the opportunity to attempt to control the media to their favour. There is a new bill to restrict what citizens may say on social media. Their concern for the wellbeing of citizens is obviously bogus.

With all this in mind, people should be careful what they wish for, and recognise that the antagonism towards marginalised groups is driven by a political party determined to 'take back control' (for themselves and the chumocracy).

 

[monkers]

View attachment 2952
Welcome back to the new normal.

Hiya, thank you, so good to see you here too.

 

[AuroraSaab]

It is not bigoted, nor transphobic, to believe that women have specific needs and that they have a right to single sex spaces and services. This right understandably excludes men, regardless of how they identify.

It's not transphobic or bigoted to say that a woman or girl in need of intimate care should be able to request a same sex carer, not just one who identifies as a woman. So should a man.

It's not transphobic or bigoted for lesbians to exclude males, however they identify, from their groups. Gay males should also be able to exclude women.

It's not transphobic or bigoted for women to expect to be on a single sex ward in hospital if that's what they wish, and where it is feasible. Same for men.

These are all single sex exemptions to the Equality Act that Stonewall and transactivists seek to overturn. It's an attack on women's hard won rights and trying to paint UK women's defence of these rights as fascist, bigoted, and transphobic is desperate stuff.