Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 6:45 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 5:27 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 2:37 pm

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.

But haven't we got to this point because lefties went along with this lunacy mainly just because "they're a minority". Looks like you are still determined follow this path. Like ceb says, you've let the right win on this subject.

Yep.
I mean, to state what would have been obvious - before I rejoined this board, I don’t think there’s a person on here who would have thought that my opinion on the trans debate would be anything other than informed by a left wing perspective - the assumption probably would’ve been that I’d be stridently pro trans, arguing against the evil righties on here on the issue.
Instead, I came on here and articulated a critique of trans activism that was rooted in progressive arguments (as I also did on Facebook with lefty mates) and rather than thrash out the nuance of the actual conflict of rights, I was immediately characterised as having right wing views, or adopting apparently progressive views on it to “enable” hate (for reasons unspecified)
Until very recently, there was absolutely no way a left wing person could say “I have issues with trans activism” in polite company without losing friends, and often without having people attempt to have an actual negative impact on your life (I had people trying to contact employers and family members, which was nice)

Hardly anyone - including here - has actually engaged in substantive debate (ironically) about the actual rights conflict that’s been in play. At best (credit to people like RTW) there’s been good faith discussion, albeit about whether the claims made by critics of trans activism are based in reality or not, rather than actually thrashing out the actual debate.

And so, when ideology has met reality, the thoughtful position i took up when I detected bullshit years ago as some friends and acquaintances started saying mad stuff, has been vindicated, but is still somehow framed as being rooted in hatred (by a lot fewer people now, happily) when hatred plays literally no part in it whatsoever as far as I’m concerned

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 7:59 pm 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?

I suspect there is an easy solution. Transwomen should be searched only by another transwoman.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:22 am

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Sun Mar 13, 2022 7:04 pm What are the demands beyond access to female spaces? You never hear about trans people req access to mens spaces.

An important thing to understand is that the underpinning demand isn’t to allow biologically male people to access female spaces: that would be an argument that could be engaged with, where compromise could be found, and where there could be productive discussion about which spaces it is and isn’t appropriate to open to male people who identify as women.

What the demand actually *is* is that laws, policy and language should change to reflect this idea: we all, every one of us, have an innate sense of ourselves called gender identity that may or may not align with our body. What we’d think of as our sexed bodies therefore are not the basis on which we should organise society, because a person with the gender identity “woman” - which has no criteria applied to it by trans activism, no definition - *is* female, regardless of sex.
That’s why if you take the sport question for example, trans activism isn’t interested in addressing the fairness, because as far as the underpinning ideology goes, trans women belong in women’s sport because they *are* female, with *female* now meaning “person who identifies as a woman”, and so if a trans woman is stronger/faster than women, that’s simply because - “yay, this woman, who is oppressed by society based on her being trans, is EXCELLENT at sport”

There are lots of negative implications here, but one of the biggest is the suggestion that female people who know that they are female people are assumed to be less oppressed by patriarchy, by gender expectations etc, than male people who identify as female.

And that’s before you get into the sexist nonsense that is a male person’s internal idea of what a female sense of identity might consist of

My first post on this thread.

CEB wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 10:21 am

slacker wrote: ↑Mon Mar 14, 2022 9:40 am 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.

And my second.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:43 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 7:59 pm 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?

I suspect there is an easy solution. Transwomen should be searched only by another transwoman.

You have here a good opportunity to demonstrate that you can offer a progressive, rational counterpoint to what I’ve argued. Gonna give it a go mate? Or are you gonna stick with your attempt at a pithy response (one that actually, is pretty much aligned with the sort of thing that actual right wing bigots would offer as a plucked from the air solution)
So let’s hear it - what’s your actual answer to my question?

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:06 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 6:45 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 5:27 pm


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.

But haven't we got to this point because lefties went along with this lunacy mainly just because "they're a minority". Looks like you are still determined follow this path. Like ceb says, you've let the right win on this subject.

I didnt ever go along with the lunacy. I merely continually made a separate and important point about where it all ends off the back of a campaign led by zealots against the "activists".

The zealots won't be happy with their victory because amongst them are those who wish harm on a minority and they will continue the hate campaign against transgender people in general. For the avoidance of doubt I don't think CEB is a bigot who will carry on the persecution but he does bear some responsibility for inflaming the situation.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:49 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:43 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 7:59 pm 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?

I suspect there is an easy solution. Transwomen should be searched only by another transwoman.

You have here a good opportunity to demonstrate that you can offer a progressive, rational counterpoint to what I’ve argued. Gonna give it a go mate? Or are you gonna stick with your attempt at a pithy response (one that actually, is pretty much aligned with the sort of thing that actual right wing bigots would offer as a plucked from the air solution)
So let’s hear it - what’s your actual answer to my question?

Err, a right wing bigot would say its a man so a man should do the search.

“For avoidance of doubt”

What do you think caused the doubt over whether you think me a bigot mate?

For the record, you did (and continue) to go along with lunacy by failing to acknowledge that there is not a “lunatic fringe” of trans activism; every issue I’ve raised here has been an issue with the mainstream of trans activism, and you have never acknowledged it.

You don’t get to pretend that you’re a voice of reason on this when literally all you have done on this entire thread is mock, shut down, backtrack, pretend to have been joking, double down, and always pointing elsewhere for reasons that even having the discussion is somehow fuelling hatred.
You’ve been an embarrassment on this thread mate. I’m glad you planted your flag in opposition to me, because you would have been useless if you’d agreed with me

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:02 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:49 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:43 pm

I suspect there is an easy solution. Transwomen should be searched only by another transwoman.

You have here a good opportunity to demonstrate that you can offer a progressive, rational counterpoint to what I’ve argued. Gonna give it a go mate? Or are you gonna stick with your attempt at a pithy response (one that actually, is pretty much aligned with the sort of thing that actual right wing bigots would offer as a plucked from the air solution)
So let’s hear it - what’s your actual answer to my question?

Err, a right wing bigot would say its a man so a man should do the search.

What would be incorrect about that argument?

The doubt arose very early on in this thread when you would not acknowledge or have much empathy or concern for acts of violence against transwomen.

You also, quite pointedly, failed to use the forms of address the trans community request which shows a real lack of respect and contempt for a fellow human being who is looking for acceptance.

I planted my flag of opposition as a cross between OFF and Partridge to wind you up because I was a bit fed up with your strident tone and bullying. The rest is history.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:05 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:02 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 8:49 pm

You have here a good opportunity to demonstrate that you can offer a progressive, rational counterpoint to what I’ve argued. Gonna give it a go mate? Or are you gonna stick with your attempt at a pithy response (one that actually, is pretty much aligned with the sort of thing that actual right wing bigots would offer as a plucked from the air solution)
So let’s hear it - what’s your actual answer to my question?

Err, a right wing bigot would say its a man so a man should do the search.

What would be incorrect about that argument?

Because its a transwoman who would be distressed to be searched by a man.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:18 pm The doubt arose very early on in this thread when you would not acknowledge or have much empathy or concern for acts of violence against transwomen.

You also, quite pointedly, failed to use the forms of address the trans community request which shows a real lack of respect and contempt for a fellow human being who is looking for acceptance.

I planted my flag of opposition as a cross between OFF and Partridge to wind you up because I was a bit fed up with your strident tone and bullying. The rest is history.

You’ve just said you don’t consider me a bigot.
But I haven’t “failed” to use the forms of address the trans community demand; I’ve articulated that I actively refuse to do so.

Your claim that I have shown no empathy for violence towards men who claim to be women is false.

And you’re still failing to answer any questions yourself.


As I said, you’re a genuine embarrassment on this thread mate. You’ve shown zero integrity throughout, and your clear ongoing comfort with slipping between enthusiastic opposition to gender critical arguments and then backtracking and distancing yourself from “extremes” just illustrates that you never bothered to understand any of it.

You’re done here. The literal only thing I regret on this thread is ever acting as if your take was worth engaging with

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:19 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:05 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:02 pm

Err, a right wing bigot would say its a man so a man should do the search.

What would be incorrect about that argument?

Because its a transwoman who would be distressed to be searched by a man.

Compelling point

Anything that puts an end to these ridiculous personal pronoun conventions is good by me

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:24 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:18 pm The doubt arose very early on in this thread when you would not acknowledge or have much empathy or concern for acts of violence against transwomen.

You also, quite pointedly, failed to use the forms of address the trans community request which shows a real lack of respect and contempt for a fellow human being who is looking for acceptance.

I planted my flag of opposition as a cross between OFF and Partridge to wind you up because I was a bit fed up with your strident tone and bullying. The rest is history.

You’ve just said you don’t consider me a bigot.
But I haven’t “failed” to use the forms of address the trans community demand; I’ve articulated that I actively refuse to do so.

Your claim that I have shown no empathy for violence towards men who claim to be women is false.

And you’re still failing to answer any questions yourself.


As I said, you’re a genuine embarrassment on this thread mate. You’ve shown zero integrity throughout, and your clear ongoing comfort with slipping between enthusiastic opposition to gender critical arguments and then backtracking and distancing yourself from “extremes” just illustrates that you never bothered to understand any of it.

You’re done here. The literal only thing I regret on this thread is ever acting as if your take was worth engaging with

So are you admitting you are a bigot and I got that wrong too?

The lack of empathy claim is not false. Its on the thread further up.

Yes, I agree I haven't bothered to understand any of your posts. I barely read them.

Is embarrassment now your go to word. I suppose that's an improvement from the abuse you have thrown about on here at others.

I’m saying that I stand by what I’ve said, I’ve never shied away from it, so your erratic flip flopping between calling me a bigot and then backtracking is just as meaningless as all the other nonsense you’ve posted on this thread.

Embarrassment is definitely the most appropriate word for how you’ve conducted yourself here.

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:19 pm

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:05 pm

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Thu Apr 17, 2025 9:02 pm

Err, a right wing bigot would say its a man so a man should do the search.

What would be incorrect about that argument?

Because its a transwoman who would be distressed to be searched by a man.

And to counter that would require you to mandate that women, regardless of their distress, should be compelled to search men who believe/think/desire to be a woman just to protect their feelings.

A society has to function on rules, and rules require definitions. We can all go along with the delusion of a minority out of kindness, but there will always be a limit to that.

It's not about feelings. It's about preserving someone's dignity.

It's not about compulsion either. If there are no woman willing to undertake the search then a transwoman could do it. Provided of course that societies rules, generally formulated and handed down by the ruling class, allows transwomen to join the police.

There's nothing wrong with showing empathy and kindness to another human being. That's the problem with this cold narrow legal definition approach.

Are you being a doctor or lawyer today?

“then a transwoman could do it”

I know that this is so highly unlikely so as to be faintly ridiculous that I’m even suggesting it, but in the extremely improbable event that there isn’t a “trans woman” officer on shift at the time, what is your suggestion?

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:56 am It's not about feelings. It's about preserving someone's dignity.

It's not about compulsion either. If there are no woman willing to undertake the search then a transwoman could do it. Provided of course that societies rules, generally formulated and handed down by the ruling class, allows transwomen to join the police.

There's nothing wrong with showing empathy and kindness to another human being. That's the problem with this cold narrow legal definition approach.

Are you being a doctor or lawyer today?

And if there's no transwomen conveniently on hand? Plus, even this approach is a tacit acknowledgement that they're not 'real' women, and will be construed as cruel.

I'm not arguing against empathy and kindness. But public policy cannot run on that alone and, eventually, hard legal definitions become necessary.

And tonight, Matthew, I'm just yer standard, rent-a-gob know-it-all.

Important to remember that kindness isn’t actually the only thing in play here.

Male people as a group (of which trans women are part) are statistically far more likely to be sex offenders than women. (In fact, the subset of male people who identify as women, commit sexual offences at a rate that’s higher than that of male people as a whole) and on that basis alone, women officers should not be expected or asked to perform intimate searches on males. Their identity is irrelevant. There is no indignity in a male person being searched by a male person. And as Dunners has said, and as I’ve said before, the issue is that by going along with a fantasy, progressive society has normalised the idea that everyone has to play along with a delusion.
The people who maintained that that was unreasonable have won.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:09 am

Max B Gold wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 8:56 am It's not about feelings. It's about preserving someone's dignity.

It's not about compulsion either. If there are no woman willing to undertake the search then a transwoman could do it. Provided of course that societies rules, generally formulated and handed down by the ruling class, allows transwomen to join the police.

There's nothing wrong with showing empathy and kindness to another human being. That's the problem with this cold narrow legal definition approach.

Are you being a doctor or lawyer today?

And if there's no transwomen conveniently on hand? Plus, even this approach is a tacit acknowledgement that they're not 'real' women, and will be construed as cruel.

I'm not arguing against empathy and kindness. But public policy cannot run on that alone and, eventually, hard legal definitions become necessary.

And tonight, Matthew, I'm just yer standard, rent-a-gob know-it-all.

And now we run up against another problem with definitions. From the minimal research I have done on this matter I note that along with those who are insisting that they are women there is a group who are content to be known as transwomen. Which as you say is a tacit acknowledgement that they are not "real" women.

To ensure that there are suitable searchers on hand the organisations concerned could set up a 24 Hour search service much like the 24 Hour car breakdown service offered by the AA.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 18, 2025 9:24 am Important to remember that kindness isn’t actually the only thing in play here.

Male people as a group (of which trans women are part) are statistically far more likely to be sex offenders than women. (In fact, the subset of male people who identify as women, commit sexual offences at a rate that’s higher than that of male people as a whole) and on that basis alone, women officers should not be expected or asked to perform intimate searches on males. Their identity is irrelevant. There is no indignity in a male person being searched by a male person. And as Dunners has said, and as I’ve said before, the issue is that by going along with a fantasy, progressive society has normalised the idea that everyone has to play along with a delusion.
The people who maintained that that was unreasonable have won.

You got a link to these stats?

Sure:

These stats are taken directly from the most recent census.

Mar Vickers and Wings over Scotland have published comparisons of the census data with figures on men and women in prison for sex offences. In March 2021, there were 11,660 men and 103 women, plus 92 “trans women”, in prison in England and Wales for sex offences.

11,660 men out of a population of 29.5 million = 1 in 2,530 men serving time for sex offences.
103 women out of 30.4 million = 1 in 295,000 women serving time for sex offences.
92 transwomen out of 48,000 = 1 in 522 transwomen serving time for sex offences.
That suggests that men who identify as “trans women” are five times more likely than other men, and 566 times more likely than women, to commit sexual offences.