Transgender rights discussion

[Cheimoon]

On your second point, the point I’m making is that whether the facts are true or not, they are perfectly possible if all trans women are treated the same as biological women. The slant of the report is again not relevant.

That's a non-argument. All kinds of things might possibly happen, but as long as they don't actually and there is no evidence that there's a significant risk, there is really no reason for legislation that makes life difficult for groups of people. In the meantime, however, there is plenty of hard evidence for discrimination and violence against trans people. So who is more in need of legal protection here?

 

[Prodigal7]

It doesn't matter that you aren't intending to say "trans=bad". You are still using a rare bad-faith example to justify discrimination against a whole group.

So we should use imaginary examples to justify discrimination? Sounds reasonable.

Where am I advocating discrimination? I’m simply saying trans people should have separately given rights that are proportional. The last few pages explain my position which balances the rights of women’s psychological safety with the freedoms of trans people.

As for the second point, you can’t make laws only when something bad happens. The law has to be forward looking and take a risk based approach. So yes, imaginary scenarios have to be considered.

 

[Prodigal7]

That's a non-argument. All kinds of things might possibly happen, but as long as they don't actually and there is no evidence that there's a significant risk, there is really no reason for legislation that makes life difficult for groups of people. In the meantime, however, there is plenty of hard evidence for discrimination and violence against trans people. So who is more in need of legal protection here?

see my previous post on how the law has to address risk in a forward looking way.

Trans people already have protection under the equality act. Protection specifically for trans people that works fairly. The only way to address discrimination and violence against trans people is by teaching people respect.

 

[Wibble]

Where am I advocating discrimination? I’m simply saying trans people should have separately given rights that are proportional. The last few pages explain my position which balances the rights of women’s psychological safety with the freedoms of trans people.

Using a rare bad-faith example to "demonstrate" the "danger" of a group based on and example where the perpetrator is only pretending to be part of is inherently discriminatory. I'm sure you can see that. If not read my example of blackface vs black crime and I'm sure you will get it. That you think you are being balanced is again irrelevant as you seem to be basing that balance on "evidence" that doesn't prove what you seem to think it does.

As for the second point, you can’t make laws only when something bad happens. The law has to be forward looking and take a risk based approach. So yes, imaginary scenarios have to be considered.

What? You think we should make laws based on nothing at all other than imaginary (and often far-fetched) scenarios? Such preemptive strikes on rights and freedoms is exactly what is happening in the US right now and the effects are as chilling as they are chaotic and destructive.

 

[Prodigal7]

Using a rare bad-faith example to "demonstrate" the "danger" of a group based on and example where the perpetrator is only pretending to be part of is inherently discriminatory. I'm sure you can see that. If not read my example of blackface vs black crime and I'm sure you will get it. That you think you are being balanced is again irrelevant as you seem to be basing that balance on "evidence" that doesn't prove what you seem to think it does.

What? You think we should make laws based on nothing at all other than imaginary (and often far-fetched) scenarios? Such preemptive strikes on rights and freedoms is exactly what is happening in the US right now and the effects are as chilling as they are chaotic and destructive.

Putting criminal, heterosexual and biological men in a prison with women is a bad idea in my opinion. Perhaps I should have chosen a differrent example. Surely you can see though how that is a massively increased risk to women?

The law has always been made to anticipate future events. It’s a key facet of parliamentary law making. It’s really not far fetched that an 18 year old trans person with a cock could end up showering with a bunch of young girls if trans people were treated the same as biological women?

 

[Wibble]

Putting criminal, heterosexual and biological men in a prison with women is a bad idea in my opinion. Perhaps I should have chosen a differrent example. Surely you can see though how that is a massive increased risk to women?

Interesting grouping of "men" there. I can see that poor procedures that allow a sex predator to pretend to be a woman to get access to women require proper procedures to be developed/ But that says zero about trans women and you have failed to provide any meaningful examples of this alleged danger or harm. Even if you find one or two you don't base laws that affect all of us on incredibly rare edge cases. It seems that you have an belief/opinion about trans people and are reverse engineering "evidence" to back that. This is just (probably unconscious) bias.

The law has always been made to anticipate future events. It’s a key facet of parliamentary law making. It’s really not far fetched that an 18 year old trans person with a cock could end up showering with a bunch of young girls if trans people were treated the same as biological women?

Examples like the juvenile crime laws based on the (widely debunked) Superpredator myth n the US in the 1990's that led to life-sentence without parole for relatively minor crimes committed by juveniles and disproportionately targeted ad effected black youth? Ironically at a time that juvenile crime had already dropped dramatically? Or how about Section 28 in the UK (late 80's) which enacted law based on imaginary harm that schools even mentioning the existence of homosexuality would promote homosexuality and undermine society? Since repeated as it was patently nonsense that led to decades of discrimination and harm to LGBT+ young people? There are other examples as well. None made any sense and almost universally made things worse. Often much worse.

 

[Prodigal7]

Interesting grouping of "men" there. I can see that poor procedures that allow a sex predator to pretend to be a woman to get access to women require proper procedures to be developed/ But that says zero about trans women and you have failed to provide any meaningful examples of this alleged danger or harm. Even if you find one or two you don't base laws that affect all of us on incredibly rare edge cases. It seems that you have an belief/opinion about trans people and are reverse engineering "evidence" to back that. This is just (probably unconscious) bias.

Examples like the juvenile crime laws based on the (widely debunked) Superpredator myth n the US in the 1990's that led to life-sentence without parole for relatively minor crimes committed by juveniles and disproportionately targeted ad effected black youth? Ironically at a time that juvenile crime had already dropped dramatically? Or how about Section 28 in the UK (late 80's) which enacted law based on imaginary harm that schools even mentioning the existence of homosexuality would promote homosexuality and undermine society? Since repeated as it was patently nonsense that led to decades of discrimination and harm to LGBT+ young people? There are other examples as well. None made any sense and almost universally made things worse. Often much worse.

My opinions are based on risk factors (not bias). This is the basis on which law commission reports (which inform parliamentary legislation) are formed. No government gets it right all the time, but you can’t just design laws based only on experience.

IMO the (unanimous) decision by the country’s top judges got it spot on.

 

[Stack]

My opinions are based on risk factors (not bias). This is the basis on which law commission reports (which inform parliamentary legislation) are formed. No government gets it right all the time, but you can’t just design laws based only on experience.

IMO the (unanimous) decision by the country’s top judges got it spot on.

Your opinions appear to me to be based on imaginary scenarios and not on actual data

 

[Wibble]

My opinions are based on risk factors (not bias). This is the basis on which law commission reports (which inform parliamentary legislation) are formed. No government gets it right all the time, but you can’t just design laws based only on experience.

Risk factors that you seem to have no evidence exist.

IMO the (unanimous) decision by the country’s top judges got it spot on.

Obviously that is your opinion. But you know what they say about opinions and arseholes? We all have one but some ......

However, given your inability to justify why you think this, with actual evidence, the obvious conclusion may be simply that trans people give you the ick. If that isn't the case you aren't doing a good job of saying why as "protecting women" from a risk that doesn't seem to really exist seems to be an odd hill to die on tbh.

 

[Wibble]

Yeah, we are confusing 'accepted' truth with basic truth. And possibly in the realm of convenient truth.

Or bollocks that allows someone to be openly a bigot again.

And no - I'm not calling any particular poster anything - it is a general statement.

 

[Wibble]

And that’s essentially why the trans issue has become the issue it has. It’s not because of the mere existence of a tiny proportion of population who identify as a member of the opposite sex/gender.

It’s because of the associated impact on basic truths and long established linguistic norms, and I’d venture that many or most people have been feeling gaslighted by it.

I know. I haven't been able to say that I was having a gay day for decades now. I still lose sleep about this. Linguistic norms in general tend to keep me awake at night.

Obviously, I'm joking for "comedic" effect, but the idea that most people have a problem with all things trans related is because they feel gaslight is ludicrous at best, and disingenuous at worst (or near worst)? Anyone thinking this is deliberately or unconsciously conflating biological sex and gender - many from ignorance and inability to think critically (exactly why Trump and his ilk want to destroy public education further). And nobody, apart from a few English professors care much about linguistic norms.

 

[Prodigal7]

Risk factors that you seem to have no evidence exist.

Obviously that is your opinion. But you know what they say about opinions and arseholes? We all have one but some ......

However, given your inability to justify why you think this, with actual evidence, the obvious conclusion may be simply that trans people give you the ick. If that isn't the case you aren't doing a good job of saying why.

Point me to the studies and I’ll give you the data, whether it proves me right or wrong. I haven’t seen any studies on this, so opinions are all anyone has for now and it’s easier to ignore the risks that to acknowledge them.

Talking to women I know (from a range of backgrounds), including the GF, about this; They feel vindicated by the judgement.

 

[foolsgold]

There's no need to prove trans people are a "danger" in order to justify female only spaces or that when the law says "woman" it means "adult female". Making women "prove" they are in danger before allowing them female only spaces is a bad faith, misogynistic argument.

In the case in Scotland there was a requirement for a certain number of women to be appointed to public sector boards, I think it's entirely reasonable that these positions should go to females, not males who choose to call themselves something else. This doesn't stop people who identify as transexual from being appointed to public sector boards, but they shouldn't be counted towards the woman's representative quota.

 

[Wibble]

Point me to the studies and I’ll give you the data, whether it proves me right or wrong. I haven’t seen any studies on this, so opinions are all anyone has for now and it’s easier to ignore the risks that to acknowledge them.

Talking to women I know (from a range of backgrounds), including the GF, about this; They feel vindicated by the judgement.

That isn't how it works. You make an unsupported point which puts the onus on you to provide evidence for that point. The fact you think not having evidence makes an unsupported opinion fine is odd to say the least. And risks that may well be imaginary aren't risks. If you think they are then get some evidence.

The women feel vindicated? Vindicated about what exactly?

The women (or rather woman so far) I talked to about the decision said "old privileged white men making law out if ignorance or outdated social norms again I assume?" Not sure what that proves mind.

 

[Wibble]

There's no need to prove trans people are a "danger" in order to justify female only spaces or that when the law says "woman" it means "adult female". Making women "prove" they are in danger before allowing them female only spaces is a bad faith, misogynistic argument.

In the case in Scotland there was a requirement for a certain number of women to be appointed to public sector boards, I think it's entirely reasonable that these positions should go to females, not males who choose to call themselves something else. This doesn't stop people who identify as transexual from being appointed to public sector boards, but they shouldn't be counted towards the woman's representative quota.

Kinell. You really think "its a bloke in a dress innit" is a reasonable thing to say?

 

[foolsgold]

Kinell. You really think "its a bloke in a dress innit" is a reasonable thing to say?

Those are your words, not mine, I'll let you judge if you consider them reasonable.

What I will say is, no surgery , hormone injection or certificate can turn a male into a female. The biological reality is immutable. This is what the court recognised yesterday, this is an entirely reasonable mainstream view, supported by the law. The Prime Minister defined a woman as "an adult human female". I agree with him.

 

[Wibble]

Those are your words, not mine, I'll let you judge if you consider them reasonable.

You are the one stating that trans women are choosing to call themselves women. Which means you are saying being trans isn't a real thing and simply a choice no different from choosing which pair of shoes to wear today. If that isn't the impression you intended to give then you need be a great deal more careful in what you say. So yes. I think I was being entirely reasonable.

What I will say is, no surgery , hormone injection or certificate can turn a male into a female. The biological reality is immutable. This is what the court recognised yesterday, this is an entirely reasonable mainstream view, supported by the law. The Prime Minister defined a woman as "an adult human female". I agree with him.

You are conflating biological sex and gender. They are not the same thing. Since I, as a a trained biologist, don't find the 2 things confusing I don't know why so many people do (or pretend to, to confirm their bias probably).

 

[moses]

Walking the streets after dark, even in safe neighbourhoods, is far more dangerous to them and they consider the bathroom issue a straw man argument used to try avoid being seen as arguing from bigotry.

Yet all these culture warriors and their acolytes who say they care about women's safety never discuss this. They rarely mention the vast number of offences perpetrated by hetero men known to the victim.

There's no need to prove trans people are a "danger" in order to justify female only spaces or that when the law says "woman" it means "adult female". Making women "prove" they are in danger before allowing them female only spaces is a bad faith, misogynistic argument.

Dont twist things. Women are in danger that's the point, and nobody gives a toss in the main, about the overwhelming majority of cases. Look at some of the vile mitigation of abuse of women we have seen on these boards where the perpetrator could kick a ball well.

This has become a way to attack the trans community, painting them as a threat.

here you go for the first point: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/investig...risoner-at-rikers-lawsuit-says/5067904/?amp=1
Not in the uk but that’s the one I’ve found in a quick search. I believe there’s another in the UK but perhaps no longer reported online.

That wasn't a trans person.

From 2012 to 2022 in Ireland there were almost two reported rapes a day, amounting to over 6,000. So we can only imagine the amount in the UK and the US, and among all those, what you find is a story about a man raping a woman.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Yet all these culture warriors and their acolytes who say they care about women's safety never discuss this. They rarely mention the vast number of offences perpetrated by hetero men known to the victim.



Dont twist things. Women are in danger that's the point, and nobody gives a toss in the main, about the overwhelming majority of cases. Look at some of the vile mitigation of abuse of women we have seen on these boards where the perpetrator could kick a ball well.

This has become a way to attack the trans community, painting them as a threat.

That wasn't a trans person.

From 2012 to 2022 in Ireland there were almost two reported rapes a day, amounting to over 6,000. So we can only imagine the amount in the UK and the US, and among all those, what you find is a story about a man raping a woman.

I’m not sure that reminding us of the grave threat heterosexual biological males pose to women is a convincing argument that the threat posed by lesbian trans women in shared spaces is being overstated?

 

[moses]

I’m not sure that talking up the grave threat heterosexual biological males pose to women is a convincing argument that the threat posed by lesbian trans women in shared spaces is being overstated?

My point is about the bandwidth it takes up within the conversations about womens safety, and who is banging the drum and how selective the drum banging is. Which distorts the topic and the facts and skews the perception.

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Kinell. You really think "its a bloke in a dress innit" is a reasonable thing to say?

Isn’t that what it is?

 

[moses]

Isn’t that what it is?

Do you honestly think all this discussion is about cross dressing?

 

[LawCharltonBest]

Do you honestly think all this discussion is about cross dressing?

I’m on the outskirts of the discussion. But if the court ruled that, then isn’t that officially the case? Therefore I was wondering why poster A was disregarding poster B

 

[Drainy]

I’m on the outskirts of the discussion. But if the court ruled that, then isn’t that officially the case? Therefore I was wondering why poster A was disregarding poster B

No. The court ruling is limited to 'for the purposes of the Equalities Act, when parliament uses the word woman they are referring to biological females'

They also said that trans status is a protected characteristic, and there shouldn't be triumphalism about the verdict. Cue a bunch of arseholes on the steps of the Supreme Court popping the champers and going around calling trans women men.

 

[Wibble]

This has become a way to attack the trans community, painting them as a threat.

It is funny how the only people that I have ever hear wanting to protect women's safety in changerooms, are all men.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

My point is about the bandwidth it takes up within the conversations about womens safety, and who is banging the drum and how selective the drum banging is. Which distorts the topic and the facts and skews the perception.

Ah. Ok. Well that’s absolutely fair. Although the bang drumming about safe spaces does seem to be mainly coming from women and it feels a bit off to have loads of men telling them they’re being irrational.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

It is funny how the only people that I have ever hear wanting to protect women's safety in changerooms, are all men.

You must have very selective hearing. Look at this case, specifically, and who was behind it.

 

[moses]

Ah. Ok. Well that’s absolutely fair. Although the bang drumming about safe spaces does seem to be mainly coming from women and it feels a bit off to have loads of men telling them they’re being irrational.

Not in this thread.

On any issue, I always defer to those who are affected. I don't really have a voice, just an opinion. I am no expert on this issue but I do see unfair demonisation and disingenuous stances quite clearly within it.

 

[Wibble]

You must have very selective hearing. Look at this case, specifically, and who was behind it.

Which case? And no I really don't have selective hearing. I do however like some actual evidence for such generalized assertions and not just rare and usually bad faith examples of imagined danger or harm.

 

[Wibble]

Not in this thread.

On any issue, I always defer to those who are affected. I don't really have a voice, just an opinion. I am no expert on this issue but I do see demonisation and disingenuous stances quite clearly within it.

On this basis I'm systematically asking any and all women I know about this issue and so far none of them worry about their safety in a change room if trans women are allowed in. They do however universally fear for their safety when walking alone after dark or in a car park or whatever. And it isn't trans-women they are afraid of. And if they see a trans woman approaching at night they don't cross the road to avoid them. Funnily enough.

I wish the men who want to protect women by being anti-trans would put as much effort into protecting women in all other situations, ranging from stopping their mate being a creep, to standing up against (or not committing) domestic violence. Which is actually real and at epidemic levels.

 

[moses]

On this basis I'm systematically asking any and all women I know about this issue and so far none of them worry about their safety in a change room if trans women are allowed in. They do however universally fear for their safety when walking alone after dark or in a car park or whatever. And it isn't trans-women the are afraid of. And if they see a trans woman approaching at night they don't cross the road to avoid them. Funnily enough.

And trans women are 4 times more likely to be victims of assault in the US, so the narrative they might be predators needs to be backed up before it's an acceptable argument in my opinion.

 

[HTG]

Some years back, it was the gays who were dangerous. Dangerous for children, dangerous for society. If men sleep with men, who else would they sleep with? Kids? Animals?
Now it’s trans people who are dangerously hiding in all women’s toilets, ready to jump and rape.

The minority changed. To a smaller, less supported one. The rest is the same script as before. And as before, many proudly fall for this shit.

 

[Drainy]

Which case? And no I really don't have selective hearing. I do however like some actual evidence for such generalized assertions and not just rare and usually bad faith examples of imagined danger or harm.

Listening to the radio yesterday there were a lot of unhinged calls from women and a female presenter all delighted about the judgment.

The case itself was brought by women (as it must in order to have standing)

 

[Wibble]

Listening to the radio yesterday there were a lot of unhinged calls from women and a female presenter all delighted about the judgment.

The case itself was brought by women (as it must in order to have standing)

Of course there are some women against this. There are women who vote for Trump FFS. Even Rowling is unhinged about this issue. But I'm talking about there seemingly being no reliable evidence that that safety in change rooms is an issue that needs to be worried about and that most women have far far more immediate and important safety concerns. Men however ......

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Not in this thread.

On any issue, I always defer to those who are affected. I don't really have a voice, just an opinion. I am no expert on this issue but I do see unfair demonisation and disingenuous stances quite clearly within it.

Or on this website. But that's what you'd expect in an overwhelmingly male space like redcafe.

With some exceptions. @jojojo has previously posted some very thoughtful takes on the nuances around trans rights and their potential impact on biological women (re safe spaces and sports) which made a lot more sense to me than the strident black and white takes from most of the blokes posting in this thread.

 

[moses]

Or on this website. But that's what you'd expect in an overwhelmingly male space like redcafe. With some exceptions. @jojojo has previously posted some very thoughtful takes on the nuances around trans rights and their potential impact on biological women (re safe spaces and sports) which make a lot more sense than the strident black and white takes from many of the blokes posting in this thread.

I'm not sure saying ease up on the demonisation of trans people is a strident take?

I have discussed arguments for and against unisex toilets.

The only think I'm saying with any force, is selective interest in women's safety galls me and is very harmful in the long term. In my opinion, using it as a stick to attack immigrants or other minorities while ignoring the overwhelming safety issues women face daily is extremely damaging.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

I'm not sure saying ease up on the demonisation of trans people is a strident take?

I have discussed arguments for and against unisex toilets.

The only think I'm saying with any force, is selective interest in women's safety galls me and is very harmful in the long term. In my opinion, using it as a stick to attack immigrants or other minorities while ignoring the overwhelming safety issues women face daily is extremely damaging.

I’m not accusing you of a strident take. But they do exist in this thread. And I agree with you that being selectively concerned about the safety of women in this scenario only is massively disingenuous. But that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore or downplay whatever concerns they might have.

 

[moses]

I’m not accusing you of a strident take. But they do exist in this thread. And I agree with you that being selectively concerned about the safety of women in this scenario only is massively disingenuous. But that shouldn’t be a reason to ignore or downplay whatever concerns they might have.

Definitely not.

 

[Prodigal7]

That isn't how it works. You make an unsupported point which puts the onus on you to provide evidence for that point. The fact you think not having evidence makes an unsupported opinion fine is odd to say the least. And risks that may well be imaginary aren't risks. If you think they are then get some evidence.

The women feel vindicated? Vindicated about what exactly?

The women (or rather woman so far) I talked to about the decision said "old privileged white men making law out if ignorance or outdated social norms again I assume?" Not sure what that proves mind.

That is how it has to work when there’s no empirical data. You can’t only make opinions on things when there’s data or this forum would be pretty dead….

The forced introduction of trans women/(many of which are biological straight men) into single sex spaces inevitably poses an increased risk (opportunity risk) to women’s physical safety. The question is how much risk. Maybe it’s negligible maybe it’s not, only studies will show that, but they aren’t available yet. Probably because women don’t yet have to worry about it.

Also, going back to my points on the previous pages again. It’s not trivial or unwarranted for women to feel significantly uncomfortable or scared if a biological man/trans women (that is/was a hertrosexual man) is simply staring at them whilst they’re changing for example. Surely no one can deny that will occur. Why does a women’s psychological safety get trumped by the psychological safety of another, who’s conscious decision it was to change gender? The women I speak to feel vindicated about their opinions on this and protected from these types of situations. Sports is another example, it’s obviously not confined to changing room incidents…

Most people commenting on the judgement don’t even know that gender reassignment is already protected separately under the equality act. They probably also haven’t read more than a headline about the reasoning for the judgement, which is over 90 pages long.

 

[)_(]

Most women will never have to deal with trans women in their bathrooms, changing rooms, sports or whatever considering the small percentage of trans people so it's a complete non issue if you're a normal person. Not so much when you're a raging lunatic ala J.K Rowling.