Independent Leyton Orient Forum

20 out of 2.3 million registered players would be an incredibly small percentage.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 10:33 am 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.

Um, have you seen the photo in the article? I'm not sure I fully believe them.

Proposition Joe wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 10:57 am 20 out of 2.3 million registered players would be an incredibly small percentage.

Probably like 1% or something.

We need someone who is good at maths to work it out for us.

One thing I would say that characterises this debate is that the main “debate” has been whether there is a debate - everything I’ve said about what trans activism demanded was originally treated as self evidently nonsensical. Eg, for a big part of this thread, the thrusts of either side were:
People supporting trans rights: “trans people just want to be treated with humanity”
Me: what they actually want, is for the terms “man” and “woman” to refer to identities rather than sex, and for that to be enshrined in law.


That, in a nutshell, is the trans debate. And it was fudged over a LOT by people parroting “but sex and gender are different” as if it were the gender critical side conflating the concepts, and then it was denied.

But the response to this Supreme Court ruling makes it absolutely plain - the idea that “sex” in law means “metaphysical sense of self mapped onto sex but distinct from it. Also undefinable” and not “sex” was *THE* central claim of trans activism.
See also: “nobody is saying people can change sex!!!” - well, if they weren’t, they were saying that a person who hasn’t changed sex should be treated in all circumstances as if they had (the sleight of hand being “sex is complicated, and can’t be policed. We’re talking about gender, and that’s much more straightforward - people are who they say they are!”)


The whole thing was always a nonsense.

It’s good that the law hasn’t adopted this nonsense, but it would have been nonsense whatever the Supreme Court had said (see Australia where a lesbian dating app has been shut down because it doesn’t allow males, the court ruling there was effectively that some males are females)

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 10:54 am 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)

Disagree - of course there are masculine women who appear male.

Women's football is bit of an odd one in comparison to other women's sport in this country.

You misunderstand - what I’m saying is that while there are a few women who are masculine enough to seem male, they are not mistaken for *trans women* because male people who believe themselves to women adopt feminine stereotypes and try to appear feminine.

Issues around confusion of someone’s sex in that context is separate, as the misunderstanding isn’t “I think I’ve clocked a trans person” but is “I think this is a man” -awkward, unpleasant for the woman experiencing it, but different in a couple of important ways:
1: it’s a genuine mistake in the moment that’s easily corrected
2: it’s not a systemic problem as women who look masculine are still female, and recorded as such.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:22 am You misunderstand - what I’m saying is that while there are a few women who are masculine enough to seem male, they are not mistaken for *trans women* because male people who believe themselves to women adopt feminine stereotypes and try to appear feminine.

Issues around confusion of someone’s sex in that context is separate, as the misunderstanding isn’t “I think I’ve clocked a trans person” but is “I think this is a man” -awkward, unpleasant for the woman experiencing it, but different in a couple of important ways:
1: it’s a genuine mistake in the moment that’s easily corrected
2: it’s not a systemic problem as women who look masculine are still female, and recorded as such.

If a masculine woman is getting called out as they go into the bogs, how is that easily corrected? Pulling their braces down and whipping their flange out?

Saying “I’m a woman”

As I say, as a species we are *very, very* good at perceiving sex.

I would argue that by re-establishing the principle that spaces segregated by sex are done so on the basis of sex rather than gender identity, it would make this less of a problem.
I’m not sure I fully buy this “some women who happen to be masculine can’t be identified as female without anything intrusive”; I’ve seen plenty of masculine women, some where there really are masculine physical characteristics, but where the fact of being female is still obvious when you look for more than a second

Can someone clarify what the objection is to trans people in private spaces such as toilets and changing rooms?

Are you serious?

Yes, I've thought of a potential hole in this. Please proceed in as few words as possible.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:40 am Yes, I've thought of a potential hole in this. Please proceed in as few words as possible.

Much needed intervention to get to page 100 and comes at a time when CEB is struggling to deal with the fall out from the legal ruling.

the objection isn’t to “private spaces” - the objection is to communal areas that are segregated by sex.

The key question is “why is this space segregated by sex?” - and if a space reserved for woman can legitimately ask you and I to stay out, it can legitimately ask all male people to stay out.

Interested in the hole you think you have noticed in this argument (but again, I’d maintain that “toilets and changing rooms” will be the least impacted by this aside from it being how much less likely that the actual cross dressing fetishists can hide behind a stated identity)

No, I mean whats the reason to keep the trans women out of these spaces?

I’m assuming trolling at this point

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:33 am Saying “I’m a woman”

That's what they would say too.

Long slender neck wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:40 am Yes, I've thought of a potential hole in this.

Hoover Attack wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:51 am

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:33 am Saying “I’m a woman”

That's what they would say too.

Right, but overall, (engaging sincerely, against my better judgement) the only people talking about “toilet police” are trans activists fear mongering about what will happen.

What will actually happen is that there will be occasional awkwardness that people navigate - just as there was before trans activism.
The potential for incorrectly believing someone is in the wrong space for their sex is an inherent property of single sex spaces, but doesn’t constitute a reason to abolish them, or to render them meaningless by having no criteria for entry

New rule - whoever gets to post first on the 100th page of this thread wins the whole thing.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:50 am I’m assuming trolling at this point

Its a simple question.

But one which you know my answer to, and my rationale.

CEB2ElectricBoogaloo wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 11:47 am the objection isn’t to “private spaces” - the objection is to communal areas that are segregated by sex.

The key question is “why is this space segregated by sex?” - and if a space reserved for woman can legitimately ask you and I to stay out, it can legitimately ask all male people to stay out.

Interested in the hole you think you have noticed in this argument (but again, I’d maintain that “toilets and changing rooms” will be the least impacted by this aside from it being how much less likely that the actual cross dressing fetishists can hide behind a stated identity)

Punching down again I see. This time confusing crossdressing fetishists with transwomen.

I believe this point was covered further up the thread when you accepted there were people who suffer from the condition known as body dismorphia.

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 12:01 pm New rule - whoever gets to post first on the 100th page of this thread wins the whole thing.

That’s the real quiz

Dunners wrote: ↑Fri May 02, 2025 12:01 pm New rule - whoever gets to post first on the 100th page of this thread wins the whole thing.

Seems fair to me.