The trans debate

[Max B Gold]

Well, if you want to join in the discussion, do so, and you’ll get better content…

I asked you to consider how the debate has been framed and who benefits from that. You came back with a cheap insult and didn't answer the question.

[CEB]

Well, if you want to join in the discussion, do so, and you’ll get better content…

I asked you to consider how the debate has been framed and who benefits from that. You came back with a cheap insult and didn't answer the question.

I’m less interested in “who benefits from the debate” than I am about considering the arguments made by the various factions in the debate. If you have an argument to make about the debate, I’m open to hearing it. If you want to outline how you think the debate should be framed, I’m open to hearing it. I don’t know what your opinion is about the debate, only that you replied to three people’s post with the same sentence. It’s surprising that you seem offended that you C&P response got a dismissive answer. You can either engage in good faith or not, it’s up to you.

[Max B Gold]

Well, if you want to join in the discussion, do so, and you’ll get better content…

I asked you to consider how the debate has been framed and who benefits from that. You came back with a cheap insult and didn't answer the question.

I’m less interested in “who benefits from the debate” than I am about considering the arguments made by the various factions in the debate. If you have an argument to make about the debate, I’m open to hearing it. If you want to outline how you think the debate should be framed, I’m open to hearing it. I don’t know what your opinion is about the debate, only that you replied to three people’s post with the same sentence. It’s surprising that you seem offended that you C&P response got a dismissive answer. You can either engage in good faith or not, it’s up to you.

It's not a debate. It's just another issue blown out of all proportion by the culture war warriors. Its any easy debate to take sides on because of the binary nature of there being males and females. It's the same sort of wedge used to separate black from white.

Interesting that you identify the existence of factions. From what I can see they are entrenched and are extreme in their views and are distorting the complexity of the issue to generate hate. Hate that leads to violence and death in the Trans community.

[Dunners]

The whole issue is an example of what can be done if you take identity politics to an absurdist extreme for maximum effect. I question the motives of some of those who have pushed this issue in such a blunt and sledgehammered way, and some of those who now claim to challenge this issue in the interests of women's rights (there are people with genuinely-held good intentions on both sides).

Max is right in that this has been blown out of all proportion. But it's almost as if someone just knew that the cultural left wouldn't be able to resist biting. The result has been distraction, denigration and a means to undermine the credibility of certain figures trying to navigate 'challenging' questions, such as; "what is a woman".

This whole mess looks like it has been created deliberately. So I think that Max's question of “who benefits from the debate" is important.

This is also why I believe that the left needs to focus on the economic arguments, and less on the cultural issues. But that is easier said than done, as it means making some difficult decisions.

[CEB]

Odd. It’s not a debate, but an issue. An issue about which people disagree, but not a debate.

You see, that’s exactly the sort of thing I heard from people on the left when I started saying “hang on - what?” about trans stuff: a lot of people talking about talking about it, but nobody actually willing to talk about it. Is it blown out of all proportion? Perhaps. What’s the proportionate discussion? Where can that proportionate discussion be freely had? Is bringing up trans deaths proportionate when there have been 0 murders of trans people in the UK in the last 4 years?

You mention it being similar to black and white as an issue. But the black civil rights movement sought recognition for black people as black people, and welcomed debate because they had the better arguments; there are no legitimate arguments against equal rights for black and white people; there *are* legitimate reasons why women might object to the legal erasure of the concept of sex at the behest of males who identify as women.

The current form of the trans rights movement is about male people who frame themselves as the equivalent to black people in your analogy, demanding that female people recognise their privilege at actually being female, and demanding that female people redefine womanhood according to the needs of male people who want in, with women who say “no” framed as oppressors.

Out of interest Max, you’re a heterosexual man. Can you confirm how many times you’ve welcomed a male person identifying as a woman into a space you’d presumably reserve for women, for instance your dating pool, sexual partners, carers who you’d trust to carry out intimate care on vulnerable relatives etc?

[Max B Gold]

Odd. It’s not a debate, but an issue. An issue about which people disagree, but not a debate.

You see, that’s exactly the sort of thing I heard from people on the left when I started saying “hang on - what?” about trans stuff: a lot of people talking about talking about it, but nobody actually willing to talk about it. Is it blown out of all proportion? Perhaps. What’s the proportionate discussion? Where can that proportionate discussion be freely had? Is bringing up trans deaths proportionate when there have been 0 murders of trans people in the UK in the last 4 years?

You mention it being similar to black and white as an issue. But the black civil rights movement sought recognition for black people as black people, and welcomed debate because they had the better arguments; there are no legitimate arguments against equal rights for black and white people; there *are* legitimate reasons why women might object to the legal erasure of the concept of sex at the behest of males who identify as women.

The current form of the trans rights movement is about male people who frame themselves as the equivalent to black people in your analogy, demanding that female people recognise their privilege at actually being female, and demanding that female people redefine womanhood according to the needs of male people who want in, with women who say “no” framed as oppressors.

Out of interest Max, you’re a heterosexual man. Can you confirm how many times you’ve welcomed a male person identifying as a woman into a space you’d presumably reserve for women, for instance your dating pool, sexual partners, carers who you’d trust to carry out intimate care on vulnerable relatives etc?

I don't reserve places for woman. To look at it like that is a bit sexist. I believe all people are equal and are entitled to respect and the same human rights and entry to the same spaces.

My postie is a transwoman and I sometimes pick her up in the taxi. She's very sensible and not at all like the people you characterise as representing the trans community. To continually refer to trans women as males as you have above is disrespectful and prejudiced. You don't get to define someone else's identity.

I didn't only bring up trans deaths I mentioned violence too but you ignored that important point. I'm assuming for the purposes of your argument that trans deaths outside the UK don't count.

[CEB]

As I said - you’re a heterosexual male. So there are some contexts where you have - reasonably - excluded male people from your dating pool. Do you/have you included biological male people in your dating pool on the basis that you’re attracted to the gender identity “woman” rather than being attracted to members of the female sex?

Your postie is a trans woman. I’m glad that your postie is sensible, I’m not sure I’ve advocated that trans people shouldn’t work for the Royal Mail. I haven’t characterised any individuals, I’ve told you what a rights movement is demonstrably advocating.

Being male is the one thing that every trans woman has in common, as it is a prerequisite. A trans woman is a male person who identifies as a woman. I agree it’d be disrespectful for me to say “that’s a bloke” however, I maintain that a male person doesn’t become a female person on the basis of a declaration, and if you believe that to be the case, then it’s incumbent on you to explain how that works, and why anyone else should agree with you that a male who says “I am a woman” is no longer male, and why that person’s wish to be perceived a certain way should overwrite the concept of sex in law. I don’t believe that trans women are women, because there is no definition of “women” that includes male people that isn’t sexist. If you have a compelling reason why I shouldn’t be able to maintain that male people are male, feel free to explain it.

And no, the deaths of trans sex workers in South America are not really pertinent to a discussion about the impact of self ID on women in the UK, no. In terms of violence -my objection to trans activism is informed by a feminist reading. I’m not sure there are too many violent men who are attacking trans women because they got too deep into radical feminism, tbh.

[CEB]

I must say though, “my postie is nice” is one of the more bizarre arguments I’ve heard in favour of overwriting the concept of sex with an undefinable idea of innate gender identity in law.

[CEB]

(But far from the worst argument I’ve heard, to be fair)

[CEB]

Have to pick up on this though - “I believe all people are entitled to entry to the same spaces”

So it’s not that you believe that trans women should access female spaces - it’s that you don’t think single sex spaces should exist at all? Or that there’s never a reason to segregate by sex? Is that a fair summation of what you think? If not, what have I misunderstood?

[Long slender neck]

Where there are cubicles, is there a need to separate? Seems to be tolerated for things like swimming pool changing rooms, but not toilets.

I wonder if mixed sex prisons would be a good idea?

[CEB]

I’m really not certain what I think about this hot potato topic. I guess I’m still open to being put right on a few points I was unsure of here.

And hi CEB. Nice to have you around again. We’ve really suffered from a lack of Katie Perry drawings of late…

yeah, I’ve spotted the KP thread

The reason the issue is so complex is because, as far as I can see, people with an understandable predisposition towards progressive causes have happily gone along with what seems an obvious next step in society becoming more enlightened - “it’s just like gay rights” - and have kind of assumed that there’s some substantial analysis somewhere, a rationale underpinning trans activism that justifies it. And by the time you’ve gone along with it to some extent, you’re a bit railroaded into not questioning anything else lest you be considered bigoted. I think it’s easy for those who aren’t certain what to think to kind of delegate the thinking to others and see what people we’re aligned with think. That’s what I did to start with, but the absurdities were too much; i like a good argument, but I couldn’t argue in favour of trans rights activism because as I looked for the substance, there was none at all.

Damn, I thought there was no substance. And I got cocky in thinking that there couldn’t be any substance. But it turns out Max likes his postie.

[CEB]

Where there are cubicles, is there a need to separate? Seems to be tolerated for things like swimming pool changing rooms, but not toilets.

I wonder if mixed sex prisons would be a good idea?

My take on it is that when we discuss female spaces, we aren’t just discussing physical spaces - though they’re relevant. What’s important is to think about why female spaces exist in the first place, and who gets to decide if they’re valid - eg is an all women shortlist fulfilling the purpose it was created for if Eddie Izzard can be on it? What purpose does a female category serve in sport if not in recognition of the fact that female people have differing physiology than male people, meaning that their sporting excellence should be measured against that of other female people? - Ultimately the question is about whether female people have a right to organise politically and socially on her basis of sex, and I’ve not heard a good reason as to why the answer to that should be “no”

[Max B Gold]

As I said - you’re a heterosexual male. So there are some contexts where you have - reasonably - excluded male people from your dating pool. Do you/have you included biological male people in your dating pool on the basis that you’re attracted to the gender identity “woman” rather than being attracted to members of the female sex?

Your postie is a trans woman. I’m glad that your postie is sensible, I’m not sure I’ve advocated that trans people shouldn’t work for the Royal Mail. I haven’t characterised any individuals, I’ve told you what a rights movement is demonstrably advocating.

Being male is the one thing that every trans woman has in common, as it is a prerequisite. A trans woman is a male person who identifies as a woman. I agree it’d be disrespectful for me to say “that’s a bloke” however, I maintain that a male person doesn’t become a female person on the basis of a declaration, and if you believe that to be the case, then it’s incumbent on you to explain how that works, and why anyone else should agree with you that a male who says “I am a woman” is no longer male, and why that person’s wish to be perceived a certain way should overwrite the concept of sex in law.

And no, the deaths of trans sex workers in South America are not really pertinent to a discussion about the impact of self ID on women in the UK, no.

I don't date. I've been married for 35 years. I'm attracted to females as long as they don't have a tadger.

The world has moved on. Maybe the concept of sex in law needs to catch up.

I see you're still ignoring the increasing violence against transwomen and associating their murder with the sex industry. Its one-way to debate I suppose.

[Max B Gold]

I must say though, “my postie is nice” is one of the more bizarre arguments I’ve heard in favour of overwriting the concept of sex with an undefinable idea of innate gender identity in law.

Which isn't actually what I said. Slack.

[Max Fowler]

Guess who's back?
Back again.
CEB is back
Tell a friend.

[CEB]

Oh Max. Are you not aware that the terms of the debate are LITERALLY that the trans rights movement is openly advocating for the fact that it should be self declared *identity*, not surgery, that defines whether someone is a woman or not?

No female people have penises. Lots of trans women do have penises. The trans rights movement argues that owning, and wanting to keep, a penis should be no barrier to accessing female spaces.
So, by your own words “I’m attracted to females so long as they don’t have a tadger”, you are excluding trans women from being regarded as women in the only context where their sex might be relevant to you - their role as a potential sexual partner when you were single - while thinking it disrespectful for female people to have the same criteria for excluding male people from female spaces.

I’m not ignoring increasing violence towards trans women - I’ve just told you that there have been zero murders of trans women in the uk in the last four years, and that I don’t think that a feminist perspective on debate around self ID is something that should be dismissed as something that shouldn’t be discussed on the basis that some men are violent.


I very much love that you don’t even understand the terms of the debate though, even after being a bit patronising about it.

[CEB]

Guess who's back?
Back again.
CEB is back
Tell a friend.

How’s it going Gal? How many aliases do you have on here?

[Currywurst and Chips]

As I said - you’re a heterosexual male. So there are some contexts where you have - reasonably - excluded male people from your dating pool. Do you/have you included biological male people in your dating pool on the basis that you’re attracted to the gender identity “woman” rather than being attracted to members of the female sex?

Your postie is a trans woman. I’m glad that your postie is sensible, I’m not sure I’ve advocated that trans people shouldn’t work for the Royal Mail. I haven’t characterised any individuals, I’ve told you what a rights movement is demonstrably advocating.

Being male is the one thing that every trans woman has in common, as it is a prerequisite. A trans woman is a male person who identifies as a woman. I agree it’d be disrespectful for me to say “that’s a bloke” however, I maintain that a male person doesn’t become a female person on the basis of a declaration, and if you believe that to be the case, then it’s incumbent on you to explain how that works, and why anyone else should agree with you that a male who says “I am a woman” is no longer male, and why that person’s wish to be perceived a certain way should overwrite the concept of sex in law. I don’t believe that trans women are women, because there is no definition of “women” that includes male people that isn’t sexist. If you have a compelling reason why I shouldn’t be able to maintain that male people are male, feel free to explain it.

And no, the deaths of trans sex workers in South America are not really pertinent to a discussion about the impact of self ID on women in the UK, no. In terms of violence -my objection to trans activism is informed by a feminist reading. I’m not sure there are too many violent men who are attacking trans women because they got too deep into radical feminism, tbh.

Do you consider post-op trans women to be female?

[CEB]

No, because they aren’t. Humans can’t change sex, they can modify bodies to more closely resemble the opposite sex, and can take hormones to impact how the body works and functions, but they don’t literally change someone’s sex. Doesn’t mean I’d call a post-op trans woman a bloke, and I’d respect that person as a trans person. But I do consider post-op trans women to have taken substantial, meaningful measures to alleviate the condition “gender dysphoria”, and that part of the reason to call out the extreme nonsense advocated for by trans rights activism is to thrash out how society can be safer and more inclusive for people have have physically transitioned.

[Dunners]

I very much love that you don’t even understand the terms of the debate though, even after being a bit patronising about it.

Oh mate, you ain't seen nuffin' yet. Go check him out on the Russia / Ukraine Watch thread. I certainly have had to put him right on a few points he was unsure of.

[CEB]

I’m saving that thread for a treat.

[Max B Gold]

Oh Max. Are you not aware that the terms of the debate are LITERALLY that the trans rights movement is openly advocating for the fact that it should be self declared *identity*, not surgery, that defines whether someone is a woman or not?

No female people have penises. Lots of trans women do have penises. The trans rights movement argues that owning, and wanting to keep, a penis should be no barrier to accessing female spaces.
So, by your own words “I’m attracted to females so long as they don’t have a tadger”, you are excluding trans women from being regarded as women in the only context where their sex might be relevant to you - their role as a potential sexual partner when you were single - while thinking it disrespectful for female people to have the same criteria for excluding male people from female spaces.

I’m not ignoring increasing violence towards trans women - I’ve just told you that there have been zero murders of trans women in the uk in the last four years, and that I don’t think that a feminist perspective on debate around self ID is something that should be dismissed as something that shouldn’t be discussed on the basis that some men are violent.


I very much love that you don’t even understand the terms of the debate though, even after being a bit patronising about it.

Like I said it's not really a debate. But I see you have managed to analyse my Partridgesque comment to death. Its like I said, if the ones who have kept their willy want to be recognised as women it's no skin off my nose batter in.

[CEB]

Oh Max. Are you not aware that the terms of the debate are LITERALLY that the trans rights movement is openly advocating for the fact that it should be self declared *identity*, not surgery, that defines whether someone is a woman or not?

No female people have penises. Lots of trans women do have penises. The trans rights movement argues that owning, and wanting to keep, a penis should be no barrier to accessing female spaces.
So, by your own words “I’m attracted to females so long as they don’t have a tadger”, you are excluding trans women from being regarded as women in the only context where their sex might be relevant to you - their role as a potential sexual partner when you were single - while thinking it disrespectful for female people to have the same criteria for excluding male people from female spaces.

I’m not ignoring increasing violence towards trans women - I’ve just told you that there have been zero murders of trans women in the uk in the last four years, and that I don’t think that a feminist perspective on debate around self ID is something that should be dismissed as something that shouldn’t be discussed on the basis that some men are violent.


I very much love that you don’t even understand the terms of the debate though, even after being a bit patronising about it.

Like I said it's not really a debate. But I see you have managed to analyse my Partridgesque comment to death. Its like I said, if the ones who have kept their willy want to be recognised as women it's no skin off my nose batter in.

As I said in my first reply to you, I’m only interested in good faith discussion. If your last word on the matter is “it’s no skin off my (male) nose how other male people wish to identify - it doesn’t bother me”, then I’m certainly happy to leave it there. Personally speaking, I reached my conclusions on this issue by listening to and reading the actual arguments. Maybe give it a go sometime - you never know, you might then be able to discuss the issue without looking like a monumental wally

[CEB]

For anyone who isn’t blinded by fancying their postie after a few early morning buckfasts, here’s a really good thread on the subject