The trans debate

[StillSpike]

"you're just obsessed with what they keep in their pants"

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

I mean, the thing that rankles for me is that I really was treated as nuts for advocating for these positions:
1: children can’t make informed decisions about their “gender identity” and shouldn’t have medical interventions based on that, especially in a context where a lot of people are teaching children that being a “girl” or “boy” is a feeling.
2: humans can’t change sex and there are some places where that matters
3: people who assert a trans identity shouldn’t be harmed or excluded from society for it, they can’t however demand that everyone accepts that they’ve changed sex, cos they haven’t.

Can anyone argue against those positions?

[Dunners]

Thinking about it, the decision by the Supreme Court is a bit of a kick in the balls for some women.

[Long slender neck]

So changing your gender doesn't change your sex, is what judges are saying?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/ ... urt-ruling

Some guys here still seem to be confused which toilets to use. Anyone know?

[Proposition Joe]

"McCloud said she also shared concerns about protecting women’s spaces – “I don’t want men in the women’s loos myself, thank you”".

Seems like a hint of "it's alright for me, but not for thee" here.

[Dunners]

I read that as McCloud trying to distinguish between men who pretend to be women (bad trans), and people like McCloud who is still clinging onto the splintering ideology that trans women are women, so therefore there is no pretence (good trans).

Trans women are men. Many may sincerely believe that they are or should be women, but they're not. And while we can sometimes choose to play along with that delusion, out of politeness and a desire not to offend, there was always going to be a limit to how far that pretence could go. And that limit has now been reached.

A castrated man is still a man. A man who wants to be, or thinks he is, a woman is still a man. And anyone who has been promised otherwise, especially younger people or those with neurological and developmental disorders, have been sold a lie on a scandalous scale.

[Story of O]

Does this ruling also apply to trans men? I have only ever seen women mentioned in news reports

[Rich Tea Wellin]

I read that as McCloud trying to distinguish between men who pretend to be women (bad trans), and people like McCloud who is still clinging onto the splintering ideology that trans women are women, so therefore there is no pretence (good trans).

Trans women are men. Many may sincerely believe that they are or should be women, but they're not. And while we can sometimes choose to play along with that delusion, out of politeness and a desire not to offend, there was always going to be a limit to how far that pretence could go. And that limit has now been reached.

A castrated man is still a man. A man who wants to be, or thinks he is, a woman is still a man. And anyone who has been promised otherwise, especially younger people or those with neurological and developmental disorders, have been sold a lie on a scandalous scale.

On that last point, is that the ruling? What does this mean that a man who’s fully transitioned I.e. now owns tits and a fanny- are they now unable to use female toilets, for example?

[Dunners]

Does this ruling also apply to trans men? I have only ever seen women mentioned in news reports

I'm no legal expert (not that I'll let that small matter prevent me from wading in), but the Supreme Court was asked to rule specifically on the legal definition of a woman. Therefore, its ruling does not automatically apply to the definition of a man. However, should anyone bring a legal case to get that definition, then this ruling would provide judicial precedent as to the rationale to be applied in that case.

[Dunners]

I read that as McCloud trying to distinguish between men who pretend to be women (bad trans), and people like McCloud who is still clinging onto the splintering ideology that trans women are women, so therefore there is no pretence (good trans).

Trans women are men. Many may sincerely believe that they are or should be women, but they're not. And while we can sometimes choose to play along with that delusion, out of politeness and a desire not to offend, there was always going to be a limit to how far that pretence could go. And that limit has now been reached.

A castrated man is still a man. A man who wants to be, or thinks he is, a woman is still a man. And anyone who has been promised otherwise, especially younger people or those with neurological and developmental disorders, have been sold a lie on a scandalous scale.

On that last point, is that the ruling? What does this mean that a man who’s fully transitioned I.e. now owns tits and a fanny- are they now unable to use female toilets, for example?

That last point is my opinion, tbf. Also, when you say "fully transitioned" and "owns tits and a fanny", let's be clear what that means:
1 - He doesn't have tits. He will have implants.
2 - He doesn't have a fanny. He will be castrated and literally have a second bumhole with a flap installed to minimise (but not eliminate) the amount of faecal matter that leaks through. And it will require regular dilation to prevent it from healing up like any other open wound on the body.
3 - He can technically use a female toilet, but women who also use that space are fully entitled to feel that it is inappropriate and to object. Many may choose to accommodate him out of politeness or a sense of "progressive alignment", but that is their choice and not a right that is imposed upon them against their will.

[Max B Gold]

Anti Trans ideology, the cutting wheel of 21st century fascism. How long until they are pulled off the streets and locked up without charge?

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

In all of this debate, it’s important to remember that while there’s been legal principles at stake, there’s also practicality.

Some key points.

1: there’s no such thing as “fully transitioned”, even from a trans activists POV: from a trans activist POV, the realisation that you are trans is “fully transitioned”; everything else is an intervention to *affirm* that identity

2: in practice, a rare male person with a trans identity who “passes” as female will probably not be challenged too often when casually using female spaces like toilets or single cubicle changing rooms. Such a person should ideally consider the right of women to have such spaces free of men, but in practice I don’t think it’s feasible to stop this. What is established is that male people who are clocked in women’s spaces can be challenged, and that the broader sense of “women’s spaces” - shortlists, refuges, sports teams - are for female people.


3: re: trans men. Often treated as a gotcha, but in practice navigating the issues of how women who identify as men should engage with single sex spaces is fairly straightforward when you consider what those spaces are for; safety and protection of female people *as a group*

So in practice, considering that actually, testosterone intervention actually has an incredibly dramatic effect on female physiology, female people who “pass” as male should recognise that while they have the right to use female spaces (what with being female) they may well be challenged if they do so.
They are unlikely to be challenged in male spaces, not least because the issue at stake is not male safety when female people are in their spaces. An asymmetrical approach to this issue is probably justified, but medium to long term, there’s a need for third spaces.
Regarding broader single sex spaces; trans men, being female, are entitled to access female spaces such as rape crisis centres, female shortlists etc. Women’s sports - unfortunately the hormonal interventions for medical transition make that incompatible with the integrity of women’s sport, and they don’t have the right to compete in the male category as they’re not male. A mixed sex sporting category for people with trans identities is probably necessary.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Does this ruling also apply to trans men? I have only ever seen women mentioned in news reports

I'm no legal expert (not that I'll let that small matter prevent me from wading in), but the Supreme Court was asked to rule specifically on the legal definition of a woman. Therefore, its ruling does not automatically apply to the definition of a man. However, should anyone bring a legal case to get that definition, then this ruling would provide judicial precedent as to the rationale to be applied in that case.

I don’t think that’s quite true - without looking into the exact wording, the ruling is on whether the equality act 2010’s reference to “sex” describes actual biological sex, or biological sex plus the legal fiction of a gender recognition certificate. So it does apply to both sexes. The reason for the focus on the group “trans women” is because male people’s encroachment on female spaces has more tangible consequences than vice versa

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Maxyyy’s post, which he’ll no doubt row back on as a big hilarious wind up at some point, kind of epitomises what has happened; the catastrophising, the smears, and the accusations of hate have always made for a high barrier for entry into the “debate” - you need to be sure of yourself to not be a bit cowed by the strength of feeling.

But as people articulated their objections to the extremes of trans activism, trans activists - much like Maxy here, Brendan - didn’t really have any answers to the substantive points raised by people taking issue. People like Max’yyy characterised the debate as progressive left versus the evil right, in the process making the evil right look rational, while people like Brendan opted out of good faith discussion when they realised they didn’t have as solid a case as they thought.

So the debate went on without them, and it meant that an bumhole like Badenoch gets to claim it as a victory for the right, and has meant that in the US, where the conservative right was the only faction taking issue with trans activism but doing so from the perspective of actually wanting to harm gay people and people who asser a trans identity, when really it could and should have been an open and free discussion amongst progressives of how to navigate a palpable and obvious conflict of rights.

And those like Maxxyyy are still just shouting “bigot” from the sidelines

[StillSpike]

Regarding broader single sex spaces; trans men, being female, are entitled to access female spaces such as rape crisis centres, female shortlists etc. Women’s sports - unfortunately the hormonal interventions for medical transition make that incompatible with the integrity of women’s sport, and they don’t have the right to compete in the male category as they’re not male. A mixed sex sporting category for people with trans identities is probably necessary.

In many sports - e.g. Golf - the "male category" is, in fact, an open category and so anyone can play if they're good enough men, trans men and even women. I don't think there's a need for a third category, you need a protected category for women, and an Open one for everyone else - including women whose hormone levels exclude them from the women's category.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Regarding broader single sex spaces; trans men, being female, are entitled to access female spaces such as rape crisis centres, female shortlists etc. Women’s sports - unfortunately the hormonal interventions for medical transition make that incompatible with the integrity of women’s sport, and they don’t have the right to compete in the male category as they’re not male. A mixed sex sporting category for people with trans identities is probably necessary.

In many sports - e.g. Golf - the "male category" is, in fact, an open category and so anyone can play if they're good enough men, trans men and even women. I don't think there's a need for a third category, you need a protected category for women, and an Open one for everyone else - including women whose hormone levels exclude them from the women's category.

Agree in principle, and agree that it’s not “needed” though in practice, if we accept that some adult women with a trans identity will both want hormonal intervention and to participate in sport, then there will be a need for a specific category.

Because while it’s easy to just say “oh yeah, trans men on hormones can go in the men’s category”, a hormonal intervention is still an ‘advantage’, *whether or not that advantage makes a difference to qualification/placings” - aside from anything else, they’d have an advantage in open categories against women who hadn’t had hormonal interventions…

It all seems complex until you start to unpack it, but there’s obvious fair answers throughout

[Max B Gold]

And those like Maxxyyy are still just shouting “bigot” from the sidelines

I'm not wrong though. There's a distinct lack of humanity regarding the impact on transwomen and a lack of respect for their "rights". Not to mention the motives involved of those punching down on a vulnerable minority.

[Long slender neck]

I read that as McCloud trying to distinguish between men who pretend to be women (bad trans), and people like McCloud who is still clinging onto the splintering ideology that trans women are women, so therefore there is no pretence (good trans).

Trans women are men. Many may sincerely believe that they are or should be women, but they're not. And while we can sometimes choose to play along with that delusion, out of politeness and a desire not to offend, there was always going to be a limit to how far that pretence could go. And that limit has now been reached.

A castrated man is still a man. A man who wants to be, or thinks he is, a woman is still a man. And anyone who has been promised otherwise, especially younger people or those with neurological and developmental disorders, have been sold a lie on a scandalous scale.

On that last point, is that the ruling? What does this mean that a man who’s fully transitioned I.e. now owns tits and a fanny- are they now unable to use female toilets, for example?

That last point is my opinion, tbf. Also, when you say "fully transitioned" and "owns tits and a fanny", let's be clear what that means:
1 - He doesn't have tits. He will have implants.
2 - He doesn't have a fanny. He will be castrated and literally have a second bumhole with a flap installed to minimise (but not eliminate) the amount of faecal matter that leaks through. And it will require regular dilation to prevent it from healing up like any other open wound on the body.
3 - He can technically use a female toilet, but women who also use that space are fully entitled to feel that it is inappropriate and to object. Many may choose to accommodate him out of politeness or a sense of "progressive alignment", but that is their choice and not a right that is imposed upon them against their will.

Christ, wish i hadnt read point 2.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

And those like Maxxyyy are still just shouting “bigot” from the sidelines

I'm not wrong though. There's a distinct lack of humanity regarding the impact on transwomen and a lack of respect for their "rights". Not to mention the motives involved of those punching down on a vulnerable minority.

Just a noise mate.
You’ve never actually countered a point - as you’ve made clear, you’ve instead addressed my points here by trying to wind me up - and that lack of substantial counter argument was representative of trans activism’s failure to make a compelling case.

And that’s why you’re still going on about vague insinuations of “motives”, and a half arsed reference to “rights”, even though you haven’t ever articulated how you believe the conflict of rights between men who want to be seen as women, and women who want single sex spaces should be resolved.

You sat the debate out aside from making it personal. You should probably take a seat x

[Max B Gold]

And those like Maxxyyy are still just shouting “bigot” from the sidelines

I'm not wrong though. There's a distinct lack of humanity regarding the impact on transwomen and a lack of respect for their "rights". Not to mention the motives involved of those punching down on a vulnerable minority.

Just a noise mate.
You’ve never actually countered a point - as you’ve made clear, you’ve instead addressed my points here by trying to wind me up - and that lack of substantial counter argument was representative of trans activism’s failure to make a compelling case.

And that’s why you’re still going on about vague insinuations of “motives”, and a half arsed reference to “rights”, even though you haven’t ever articulated how you believe the conflict of rights between men who want to be seen as women, and women who want single sex spaces should be resolved.

You sat the debate out aside from making it personal. You should probably take a seat x

I have countered many of your points and I've never claimed to support the wider fringes of trans activism. I'm not actually addressing your points because it just wastes internet space on an issue leapt upon by the right to fuel a culture war and identify an "others group" to be villified and hated.

My concern all along has been the lynch mob mentality being generated by the anti trans brigade. But you don't seem to be bothered by that. It's a wider point I know than the ones you make about narrow legal issues adjudicated on by the highest members of the establishment.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Feel free to quote where you substantively countered a point I made on this thread mate

[The Mindsweep]

Thoughts?

[Max B Gold]

Thoughts?

Fits well with the lynch mob mentality and the blatant refusal to recognise and accept that there is a small community whose rights also need protecting.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Thoughts?

I’m happy to give my thoughts on it - I’m interested in what your initial thoughts are on it though (rest assured, I have a full answer)

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

In fact, Mindsweep and MBGold, I’ll give you a question:

On what basis can you make a compelling claim that some male people should be able to specify that if they’re taken into custody, intimate body searches should be carried out by a member of the opposite sex?