The trans debate

[Hoover Attack]

Well yes, when something is established in law, it tends to be adopted.

But again, bathrooms are the least relevant aspect of this, and the aspect that will change least in practice - those who “pass” as the opposite sex will presumably carry on doing as they choose, and be unnoticed, and those who look male can be challenged by women who don’t want to share their spaces with male people.

Maybe try reading and understanding the arguments before posting a link with a vague notion that something bad has happened

Bathrooms are a massive part of this, IMO.

[Max B Gold]

Well yes, when something is established in law, it tends to be adopted.

But again, bathrooms are the least relevant aspect of this, and the aspect that will change least in practice - those who “pass” as the opposite sex will presumably carry on doing as they choose, and be unnoticed, and those who look male can be challenged by women who don’t want to share their spaces with male people.

Maybe try reading and understanding the arguments before posting a link with a vague notion that something bad has happened

Bathrooms are a massive part of this, IMO.

You're right. It can't be long now before every bathroom has a Genital Police Constable outside every bathroom inspecting those wanting a Jimmy Riddle. I suspect there will be even bigger queues outside the Ladies lavs. Infringing their already restricted right to pee.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Well yes, when something is established in law, it tends to be adopted.

But again, bathrooms are the least relevant aspect of this, and the aspect that will change least in practice - those who “pass” as the opposite sex will presumably carry on doing as they choose, and be unnoticed, and those who look male can be challenged by women who don’t want to share their spaces with male people.

Maybe try reading and understanding the arguments before posting a link with a vague notion that something bad has happened

Bathrooms are a massive part of this, IMO.

They’re a big part of the discourse, for sure.
But what I’m saying is that this (and changing rooms) are the aspect that’s least actually affected in practical terms by the ruling - those who actually do pass will have to use their consciences as to where they go, and those who don’t pass have always been risking being challenged by going in women’s spaces.

The more meaningful result of this ruling is about recognising the importance of biological sex when designing services, systems, etc.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

A good way to consider the impact of this ruling is the Wi Spa incident a couple of years ago in California, and how such an incident would be treated in the UK now, after the new ruling.

Refresher; a black woman complained that there was a man in the shared space changing room, exposing his penis as he got changed.
She went to the reception to complain that there was a naked man in changing room, exposing his penis to women and girls, and was berated by a straight white man at the time, and was later smeared and called a liar by progressive media - it’s from that incident that Laurie Penny suggested that any little girl who was looking at a penis in a changing room was “being rather rude”
However, eventually the guy was arrested and charged,and it emerged that he was a sex offender who had also been convicted for failing to register as such.

Now, had the ruling gone a different way, then the woman who challenged him would have had no right to do so; her discomfort would have been seen in law, as being an unreasonable response to a different kind of woman.
What the ruling actually means, is that in such a circumstance here, the woman will be entitled to recognise that a male person in a female space is dangerous, and a threat to women’s safety and dignity.

I mean, this is stating the bleeding obvious, but in places where people are going to be unclothed are necessarily single sex.

[Mistadobalina]

Not following the debate as closely as CEB, but it sounds like the ruling will be appealed to the ECHR, who provided the original impetus for getting gender recognition certificates to be the basis of a trans person to be legally recognised as the gender they identify with.

So this thread will continue to roll on for a while yet...

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Not following the debate as closely as CEB, but it sounds like the ruling will be appealed to the ECHR, who provided the original impetus for getting gender recognition certificates to be the basis of a trans person to be legally recognised as the gender they identify with.

So this thread will continue to roll on for a while yet...

I wouldn’t hold your breath on that - the grounds on which there is talk of an appeal are tenuous at best. Plus it was a gender critical group that bought the case in the first place, so I understand that any appeal would need to be by a person or group who can show they have “standing”

It’s also worth pointing out that the UK (as opposed to the US) already has a sensible, meaningful way to balance rights; among the protected characteristics under the equality act is “sex” and “gender reassignment” - gender reassignment as a protected characteristic doesn’t mean “is treated legally as if they’ve changed sex”, but means “isn’t treated detrimentally due to trans status”.

Basically, in years to come, expect society to introduce meaningful ways to make society safer for the group “trans people” but for it to be widely understood that a trans identity doesn’t = “this person has changed sex”

In other words, a reality based approach to the issue.
And this will happen because trans activism doesn’t have anything other than a metaphysical belief, a set of sexist stereotypes, and emotional manipulation to bring to the debate. Handy when winning over mid-wit progressives who don’t want to have to think too hard, less handy when trying to thrash out changes to law (or interpretation of law)

[Dunners]

Previously if a women objected to a trans women entering into a female-only space (i.e. a rape crisis centre), she was at risk of a number of consequences. These included, but were not limited to:
- Being branded a bigot for putting the welfare of women before the feelings of a tiny percentage of men
- Exposed to cancel culture (although, apparently, this didn't exist until Kneecap)
- Was told that that she did have a right to free speech, but not without consequences. These consequences often being cancel culture (which, paradoxically, didn't exist).

This all happened due to the lunacy of a small group of nutjobs, who were accommodated by the wider leftist movement as they had successfully hacked its software by getting themselves identified as "victim coded". People lost their marbles in an effort to be seen as "progressive".

So, we've ended up in the ludicrous situation where the Supreme Court (which shouldn't exist by the way - but that's a whole other debate) have had to waste their time telling us all what, deep down, we all already knew.

Does it mean that strict implementation could now impact on the dignity of a tiny percentage of the population? Yes, unfortunately it does. But we would never have been in this situation to begin with if the wider left had acted responsibly between 2010 and 2015, and told the lunatics in their midst to get a grip. However, taking responsibility isn't exactly their forte, so instead we have them bleating on about the far right (who absolutely did exploit the logic vacuum which the left created).

The good news is that the Supreme Court ruling does not prevent us from treating each other respectfully and with dignity. What it does mean is that, the next time a women feels unsafe due to a man trying to enter a female only space, she can choose to object without fear of being burned at the stake for doing so.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

That’s me and Dunners both comprehensively explaining the actual outcome of this ruling.

So I’m guessing that the next post will be either “well I haven’t read all this but I hope we can all be kind”
or “why do you care?” or “I know someone who is trans and she has cried about this, therefore nothing else matters”

[StillSpike]

So you're saying that the Supreme Court ruling doesn't mean we have to go out hunting them down and genociding them?

Now I'm confused.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

I know you’re being a bit jokey there, but there *is* real confusion, because a lot of people with what they call a “trans identity” actually are scared, and genuinely believe they’re hated.
Part of this is due to reasonable people who thought “some of this trans stuff is a bit mad, innit?” not allowing themselves to be emotionally manipulated out of reality, but part of it absolutely is - as Dunners says - because left wing progressives have created a gaping chasm (ironically) which the right has exploited, and used to pursue an agenda that really is based on hatred of gender non conformity, of same sex attraction, of difference in general.

[StillSpike]

It cannot help those people who are genuinely feeling scared and hated, when their most outspoken members and "allies" keep amplifying those fears with wild catastrophising around news such as this.

[Dunners]

No. No it can't. But that's called "activating your base". The small group of people, who are outraged that women have the legal right to object to men entering protected spaces, will now do everything they can to whip up hysteria.

[Max B Gold]

No. No it can't. But that's called "activating your base". The small group of people, who are outraged that women have the legal right to object to men entering protected spaces, will now do everything they can to whip up hysteria.

Which the right has exploited, and used to pursue an agenda that really is based on hatred of gender non conformity, of same sex attraction, of difference in general.

[Dunners]

No. No it can't. But that's called "activating your base". The small group of people, who are outraged that women have the legal right to object to men entering protected spaces, will now do everything they can to whip up hysteria.

Which the right has exploited, and used to pursue an agenda that really is based on hatred of gender non conformity, of same sex attraction, of difference in general.

It's a shame the right keep on being gifted such opportunities then.

[Max B Gold]

No. No it can't. But that's called "activating your base". The small group of people, who are outraged that women have the legal right to object to men entering protected spaces, will now do everything they can to whip up hysteria.

Which the right has exploited, and used to pursue an agenda that really is based on hatred of gender non conformity, of same sex attraction, of difference in general.

It's a shame the right keep on being gifted such opportunities then.

Odd choice of words to say it was "gifted". Was it also gifted to you reasonable chaps to get into bed with them and fan the flames of hatred?

[Hoover Attack]

No. No it can't. But that's called "activating your base". The small group of people, who are outraged that women have the legal right to object to men entering protected spaces, will now do everything they can to whip up hysteria.

Which the right has exploited, and used to pursue an agenda that really is based on hatred of gender non conformity, of same sex attraction, of difference in general.

Keep up Max. It's the Lefties fault that the Rights Wingers are hating on these people.

[Max B Gold]

No. No it can't. But that's called "activating your base". The small group of people, who are outraged that women have the legal right to object to men entering protected spaces, will now do everything they can to whip up hysteria.

Which the right has exploited, and used to pursue an agenda that really is based on hatred of gender non conformity, of same sex attraction, of difference in general.

Keep up Max. It's the Lefties fault that the Rights Wingers are hating on these people.

Wasn't me who said it. I C&P'd it from a CEB post just above it.

After 98 pages he appears to have finally acknowledged the concern I have had all along.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

If you’d bothered to read, you’d note that one of the first things I said on this was that I expect the right to capitalise on the left’s reality denial.

It’s all here in black and white, alongside your refusal to ever acknowledge the need for a sane left wing approach based on reality.

You really don’t have anything to add at this point mate.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

More sanity breaking out

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... in-england

[Dunners]

[Hoover Attack]

‘Drag off the pitch’

https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/tran ... ARR1MVfnZw

[Dunners]

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

The way that article is written is an example of why I made a decision to not use chosen pronouns when discussing this issue.
There is nothing in that article whatsoever that acknowledges that “trans women” are *male*, and the decision to discuss those group of males as “women who are excluded because they are trans” is one of the ways that people have been misled.

As Dunners mentions above - the talk of “there’s no widespread public opinion about this, or protests from footballers”, well, up to now, protesting about a male on a woman’s team would get a young woman branded a bigot and a terf, would have far reaching social consequences. Women weren’t free to protest.

[Proposition Joe]

Feel like the article - and Fulconis' own words - also bears out some of CEB's arguments the whole way through. Apologies if I've misinterpreted, but they're right, they won't be the ones who suffer, it's 'non confirmist' women who will, who will have their identity questioned and challenged, while they themselves have apparently never had an issue passing. And this is all because a ruling such as this was necessary because of the vocal minority pushing and pushing and pushing beyond what was reasonable. A bit like the hotdog guy meme.

[CEB2ElectricBoogaloo]

Kind of, but even that argument - that gender non-conforming women will suffer - is pretty weak, IMO; there definitely are some people who are not very worldly and when they see a masculine woman think “maybe that’s a man”, but the reality is that there isn’t actually this overlap - masculine women are still recognisably female (and most people can clock them as such immediately, we’re hardwired to recognise people’s sex) , while the males who assert that they have an identity they call “woman” usually adopt a hyper feminine way of presenting - so it’s not like there’s a grey area here.

It’ll be interesting to see how this ends up working in practice though - regardless of the clarification of law, and change of rules, a LOT of grass roots women’s football jumped onto the trans rights bandwagon wholeheartedly (without any consultation of players where they were free to share opinions) and I suspect there’s little appetite to accept the ruling, and that there are still social consequences for speaking up.

I’m interested in the figure of 20 trans women being in teams across the country - I wonder whether that’s 20 with a gender recognition certificate? and curious as to whether trans status is recorded anywhere (my guess would be that a lot of women’s teams will have adopted the policy of “people are who they say they are” and so there could be more)