FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Women's rights?
Women's rights?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? " Nope. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? " Yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what?" If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? " You asked a question, I'm asking what rights you mean. If you can't answer that we're at an impasse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? " You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? " In South Carolina they certainly might in a major way. Many US states are rolling back women's rights. Other countries have a real struggle too. Iran for example. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? In South Carolina they certainly might in a major way. Many US states are rolling back women's rights. Other countries have a real struggle too. Iran for example. " And Afghanistan. Women in these countries have dreadful lives with very few rights | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion." On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women?" That is the question | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question " Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights." The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights." Competition is a good example, I feel there is some skirting around the fringe of this. The Miss Netherlands result made me question the validity of the vote, it felt a little like Ukraine winning the Euro vision song contest. I could be a million miles off, but it feels a deliberate vote and I wonder if I'm alone on this thinking? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category." What's the right that has been lost? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost?" The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? " No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. " It really isn't. People jump on the 'this is just trans bashing', then the other side retort and it gets into a VS. Very few 'bash the trans community'. There's plenty who think some things are nonsense but the not the same as bashing them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. It really isn't. People jump on the 'this is just trans bashing', then the other side retort and it gets into a VS. Very few 'bash the trans community'. There's plenty who think some things are nonsense but the not the same as bashing them." Is the odd trans person competing in sport a major issue for women, compared to say the potential laws in South Carolina to execute women who have an abortion? Because it would seem that one of these issues is a very hot topic among certain elements of the media, while being, what could be considered to be a niche concern, and one that should not be used to judge the entire trans community. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. It really isn't. People jump on the 'this is just trans bashing', then the other side retort and it gets into a VS. Very few 'bash the trans community'. There's plenty who think some things are nonsense but the not the same as bashing them. Is the odd trans person competing in sport a major issue for women, compared to say the potential laws in South Carolina to execute women who have an abortion? Because it would seem that one of these issues is a very hot topic among certain elements of the media, while being, what could be considered to be a niche concern, and one that should not be used to judge the entire trans community. " Capital punishment is an issue we should all be speaking about, not just with regards to the abortion bill. Just because you believe that affects women more, doesn't mean that the other doesn't have an affect. I mean it not really for me to decide what is a 'major issue for women' being a man and all that, I'm glad you feel you can speak for women though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. It really isn't. People jump on the 'this is just trans bashing', then the other side retort and it gets into a VS. Very few 'bash the trans community'. There's plenty who think some things are nonsense but the not the same as bashing them. Is the odd trans person competing in sport a major issue for women, compared to say the potential laws in South Carolina to execute women who have an abortion? Because it would seem that one of these issues is a very hot topic among certain elements of the media, while being, what could be considered to be a niche concern, and one that should not be used to judge the entire trans community. Capital punishment is an issue we should all be speaking about, not just with regards to the abortion bill. Just because you believe that affects women more, doesn't mean that the other doesn't have an affect. I mean it not really for me to decide what is a 'major issue for women' being a man and all that, I'm glad you feel you can speak for women though." I'm not speaking for women. Why did you say that? I just asked a question. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. It really isn't. People jump on the 'this is just trans bashing', then the other side retort and it gets into a VS. Very few 'bash the trans community'. There's plenty who think some things are nonsense but the not the same as bashing them. Is the odd trans person competing in sport a major issue for women, compared to say the potential laws in South Carolina to execute women who have an abortion? Because it would seem that one of these issues is a very hot topic among certain elements of the media, while being, what could be considered to be a niche concern, and one that should not be used to judge the entire trans community. Capital punishment is an issue we should all be speaking about, not just with regards to the abortion bill. Just because you believe that affects women more, doesn't mean that the other doesn't have an affect. I mean it not really for me to decide what is a 'major issue for women' being a man and all that, I'm glad you feel you can speak for women though. I'm not speaking for women. Why did you say that? I just asked a question." They way you right makes me think you don't think it's a big deal for women. I can't help how you write. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Their rights to what? If you can't recognise a loss then I guess you think no? You could explain what you mean a bit more. It would help the discussion. On another thread it came up that SKS doesn't know what a woman is, the news today Miss Netherlands winner is a biological man and there are many other stories of late. Discussions seems to be either anger at trans or support of trans, very little conversation about how this effects biological females, hence the question. How does this effect biological women? That is the question Sorry, I meant, how does this effect biological women's rights. The most obvious one is sport. Biological women are most definitely affected by allowing transwomen to compete in the same category. What's the right that has been lost? The right to be able to compete against others who are biologically the same sex as yourself. Just because you may not think it's a 'right' doesn't mean biological women aren't being disadvantaged by that. Does that need explaining? No, that was a good explanation. A high % of the time, the debate around trans people competing in sport is used as an excuse by some to just bash the trans community. It really isn't. People jump on the 'this is just trans bashing', then the other side retort and it gets into a VS. Very few 'bash the trans community'. There's plenty who think some things are nonsense but the not the same as bashing them. Is the odd trans person competing in sport a major issue for women, compared to say the potential laws in South Carolina to execute women who have an abortion? Because it would seem that one of these issues is a very hot topic among certain elements of the media, while being, what could be considered to be a niche concern, and one that should not be used to judge the entire trans community. Capital punishment is an issue we should all be speaking about, not just with regards to the abortion bill. Just because you believe that affects women more, doesn't mean that the other doesn't have an affect. I mean it not really for me to decide what is a 'major issue for women' being a man and all that, I'm glad you feel you can speak for women though. I'm not speaking for women. Why did you say that? I just asked a question. They way you right makes me think you don't think it's a big deal for women. I can't help how you write." I'll leave you to it then. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 .
As far as I'm aware I have the same rights now I've had for some time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am a woman so I feel able to give my views on this. I am happy that I live in a society where I have the rights that I do. I do see some of those rights being quietly eroded but that applies to all genders. As far as sport and trans competitors goes I understand that it's under discussion. We're in a time of change and adjustment, hopefully it will be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority. When it comes to competing in popularity contests like Miss Netherlands I couldn't really be less interested. Some would say that's because that ship sailed for me many decades ago .
As far as I'm aware I have the same rights now I've had for some time."I'm sure the competition being a Miss x will turn a lot away. The winner goes onto Miss Universe, (again that is going to make people turn off) as a spectator looking in I can't help feeling the vote was going to the person who won it from the get go. I'm not bashing the winner, I'm questioning the validity of the vote from the judges, did they feel they needed to show support or under pressure to vote for the trans entrant? This particular vote is subjective the same as I mentioned in the Euro vision for Ukraine, we all knew they were going to win regardless. Winning on merit, was Miss Netherlands won on merit? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an aside, I can’t believe miss universe is still a thing. " I can’t believe miss Netherlands and Miss UK is still a thing either, but tbh, I don’t know what credentials you need to win? Is it mainly based on physical appearance ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am a woman so I feel able to give my views on this. I am happy that I live in a society where I have the rights that I do. I do see some of those rights being quietly eroded but that applies to all genders. As far as sport and trans competitors goes I understand that it's under discussion. We're in a time of change and adjustment, hopefully it will be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority. When it comes to competing in popularity contests like Miss Netherlands I couldn't really be less interested. Some would say that's because that ship sailed for me many decades ago .
As far as I'm aware I have the same rights now I've had for some time.
I'm sure the competition being a Miss x will turn a lot away. The winner goes onto Miss Universe, (again that is going to make people turn off) as a spectator looking in I can't help feeling the vote was going to the person who won it from the get go.
I'm not bashing the winner, I'm questioning the validity of the vote from the judges, did they feel they needed to show support or under pressure to vote for the trans entrant? This particular vote is subjective the same as I mentioned in the Euro vision for Ukraine, we all knew they were going to win regardless.
Winning on merit, was Miss Netherlands won on merit?"I genuinely have no idea. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an aside, I can’t believe miss universe is still a thing. " It doesn't get a lot of press coverage, well it didn't and that is my point, was the vote legitimate and on merit. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an aside, I can’t believe miss universe is still a thing. I can’t believe miss Netherlands and Miss UK is still a thing either, but tbh, I don’t know what credentials you need to win? Is it mainly based on physical appearance ? " Selection criteria according to Google is, evening gown, swimsuit and personality interview. I'll just leave that there while contemplating my right to be judged against other women on how I look in an evening gown or swimsuit while wowing with my personality. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As an aside, I can’t believe miss universe is still a thing. I can’t believe miss Netherlands and Miss UK is still a thing either, but tbh, I don’t know what credentials you need to win? Is it mainly based on physical appearance ? Selection criteria according to Google is, evening gown, swimsuit and personality interview. I'll just leave that there while contemplating my right to be judged against other women on how I look in an evening gown or swimsuit while wowing with my personality. "  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am a woman so I feel able to give my views on this. I am happy that I live in a society where I have the rights that I do. I do see some of those rights being quietly eroded but that applies to all genders. As far as sport and trans competitors goes I understand that it's under discussion. We're in a time of change and adjustment, hopefully it will be resolved to the satisfaction of the majority. When it comes to competing in popularity contests like Miss Netherlands I couldn't really be less interested. Some would say that's because that ship sailed for me many decades ago .
As far as I'm aware I have the same rights now I've had for some time.
I'm sure the competition being a Miss x will turn a lot away. The winner goes onto Miss Universe, (again that is going to make people turn off) as a spectator looking in I can't help feeling the vote was going to the person who won it from the get go.
I'm not bashing the winner, I'm questioning the validity of the vote from the judges, did they feel they needed to show support or under pressure to vote for the trans entrant? This particular vote is subjective the same as I mentioned in the Euro vision for Ukraine, we all knew they were going to win regardless.
Winning on merit, was Miss Netherlands won on merit?
I genuinely have no idea. "It has been mentioned that people can't believe Miss Universe is still a thing, and to be honest I can't remember the last time I heard about it until now. If the winner gained publicity for the upcoming Miss Universe and the vote was pushed that way, what was the point of anybody else competing? I can't know that is the case and I guess nobody is going to put their hands up to vote rigging.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? " Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale " That is not true though. It has been suggested by a cancer charity to refer to trans women's vaginas. Nobody has suggested that medics refer to women born with a vagina as having a bonus hole | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale That is not true though. It has been suggested by a cancer charity to refer to trans women's vaginas. Nobody has suggested that medics refer to women born with a vagina as having a bonus hole" I’ve seen this floating about, why would a cancer charity suggest this reference, trans women who have undergone surgery surely do not run the risk of the same cancer as a biological woman who has a cervix? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale " Which rights does this sketchy at best, anecdotal 'evidence' imply that biological women have lost? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale That is not true though. It has been suggested by a cancer charity to refer to trans women's vaginas. Nobody has suggested that medics refer to women born with a vagina as having a bonus hole I’ve seen this floating about, why would a cancer charity suggest this reference, trans women who have undergone surgery surely do not run the risk of the same cancer as a biological woman who has a cervix? " how about trans men who have a cervix. Anyway, it appears once in the charity's website, under a glossary of terms that "explains some of the words we use in our information or that you might hear used by a patient.' "Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina. It is important to check which words someone would prefer to use." So it may be a word people use. And shock horror it suggests you check in with someone. Tbh, it's PC gone mad. Call it a cum depositary box and be done with it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale That is not true though. It has been suggested by a cancer charity to refer to trans women's vaginas. Nobody has suggested that medics refer to women born with a vagina as having a bonus hole I’ve seen this floating about, why would a cancer charity suggest this reference, trans women who have undergone surgery surely do not run the risk of the same cancer as a biological woman who has a cervix? how about trans men who have a cervix. Anyway, it appears once in the charity's website, under a glossary of terms that "explains some of the words we use in our information or that you might hear used by a patient.' "Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina. It is important to check which words someone would prefer to use." So it may be a word people use. And shock horror it suggests you check in with someone. Tbh, it's PC gone mad. Call it a cum depositary box and be done with it. " Got it, biological women who are now identifying as male might refer to their vagina as a bonus hole? Let me know if I have understood that. We seem to be straying into what’s right for trans again, conversations like this always do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. This is the case even before puberty and especially after puberty. No amount of hormone treatment can alter or remove that advantage which relates to musculature, skeleton, lung capacity, heart size etc. The only way forward is to either have three categories or a female only and open category." I agree with this, I really do, but I feel there was an extra step added in the miss Netherlands vote that puts the winner into miss universe. It isn’t the competition as in miss whatever, it is the vote, was it legitimate or have they voted to draw interest into a dying format? Either way I feel it isn’t right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. This is the case even before puberty and especially after puberty. No amount of hormone treatment can alter or remove that advantage which relates to musculature, skeleton, lung capacity, heart size etc. The only way forward is to either have three categories or a female only and open category." Still would not satisfy the Trans athletes as all the poor male athletes would show up in the open. Example of this is that there are circa 2000 male 100m athletes that have posted times faster than the womens world record. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale That is not true though. It has been suggested by a cancer charity to refer to trans women's vaginas. Nobody has suggested that medics refer to women born with a vagina as having a bonus hole I’ve seen this floating about, why would a cancer charity suggest this reference, trans women who have undergone surgery surely do not run the risk of the same cancer as a biological woman who has a cervix? how about trans men who have a cervix. Anyway, it appears once in the charity's website, under a glossary of terms that "explains some of the words we use in our information or that you might hear used by a patient.' "Bonus hole – An alternative word for the vagina. It is important to check which words someone would prefer to use." So it may be a word people use. And shock horror it suggests you check in with someone. Tbh, it's PC gone mad. Call it a cum depositary box and be done with it. Got it, biological women who are now identifying as male might refer to their vagina as a bonus hole? Let me know if I have understood that. We seem to be straying into what’s right for trans again, conversations like this always do." that's my guess yes. But the really key part isn't that anyone was instructed to call it anything. Indeed they suggested finding out what the patient would call it. Imagine that. Treating somehow they want to be treated. And using the words for parts of their body they would like you to use. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. This is the case even before puberty and especially after puberty. No amount of hormone treatment can alter or remove that advantage which relates to musculature, skeleton, lung capacity, heart size etc. The only way forward is to either have three categories or a female only and open category. Still would not satisfy the Trans athletes as all the poor male athletes would show up in the open. Example of this is that there are circa 2000 male 100m athletes that have posted times faster than the womens world record." This thread is straying into trans, what do biological women think of trans competition? I guess the thread is doomed unless we a have biological females competing with trans women, out in the real world. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport." I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. This is the case even before puberty and especially after puberty. No amount of hormone treatment can alter or remove that advantage which relates to musculature, skeleton, lung capacity, heart size etc. The only way forward is to either have three categories or a female only and open category. Still would not satisfy the Trans athletes as all the poor male athletes would show up in the open. Example of this is that there are circa 2000 male 100m athletes that have posted times faster than the womens world record. This thread is straying into trans, what do biological women think of trans competition? I guess the thread is doomed unless we a have biological females competing with trans women, out in the real world. " We do. Female swimmers in the States now speaking out against Thomas. Even Caitlan Jenner saying it is unfair for Trans to compete against Females. Sharon Davies probably the best female swimmer we have had being cancelled because she said its unfair and should not be happening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights." How do you come to that conclusion? If you treat everyone the same that identifies as the same showering, toilets and other personal space and rights become shared is that not a challenge to rights? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights." You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! " It does matter and rules need be put in place to better manage all competitive events going forward is my opinion. Until this happens we are going to have disadvantaged competitors and corporate money promoting sales through faux inclusion | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! It does matter and rules need be put in place to better manage all competitive events going forward is my opinion. Until this happens we are going to have disadvantaged competitors and corporate money promoting sales through faux inclusion " Your faux inclusion didn't go too well for Target and Busche in the states or Wickes in the Uk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! It does matter and rules need be put in place to better manage all competitive events going forward is my opinion. Until this happens we are going to have disadvantaged competitors and corporate money promoting sales through faux inclusion Your faux inclusion didn't go too well for Target and Busche in the states or Wickes in the Uk " It really didn’t and that has now caused more resentment and upset. I don’t put that on people I put it on those trying to make £££’s | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport." "I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights." "You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! " I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport." Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport." If you change play to compete, does it change your view? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. " The rights of women and their bodies is reality, death penalties for abortion are not something a trans female will ever need to face personally | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. The rights of women and their bodies is reality, death penalties for abortion are not something a trans female will ever need to face personally " Indeed. Your OP was "Are biological women losing their rights?". You didn't mention trans women at all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. The rights of women and their bodies is reality, death penalties for abortion are not something a trans female will ever need to face personally Indeed. Your OP was "Are biological women losing their rights?". You didn't mention trans women at all." I’ve tried to steer clear of trans but you and others have continued to conflate | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. The rights of women and their bodies is reality, death penalties for abortion are not something a trans female will ever need to face personally Indeed. Your OP was "Are biological women losing their rights?". You didn't mention trans women at all. I’ve tried to steer clear of trans but you and others have continued to conflate " I think you'll notice that I posted several times explicitly discussing where women's right are being lost. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport." Yep but I think that should change. People born male have no place in female sport categories for physiological advantage reasons. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. " I doubt many people (on this sight anyway) would deny women the right to have an abortion or body autonomy. Surely for the majority that is a given? Sport is a different issue for sure but that doesn’t men it doesn’t matter! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. I doubt many people (on this sight anyway) would deny women the right to have an abortion or body autonomy. Surely for the majority that is a given? Sport is a different issue for sure but that doesn’t men it doesn’t matter!" *site | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes! When medics are instructed to refer to a vagina as a bonus hole so as not to offend others, I think it getting beyond the pale " Nobody has been ‘instructed’ to say anything of the sort. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport." BTW if women have the right to equal pay how come professional sportswomen earn less than men? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The fact that grumpy old men suddenly care about "women's rights" should be massive red flag. They don't care about women's rights and never will. Why are right wing grifters latched onto this? Because otherwise they will be starved of attention." if they didn't care why the bans in sports in certain states? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess 18 states legislatures are wrong. The ones that were voted in by their constituents. Everyone says votes are to be adhered. Unless it goes against your beliefs. Then it's ok." You know very well that's not what I said but you do you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess 18 states legislatures are wrong. The ones that were voted in by their constituents. Everyone says votes are to be adhered. Unless it goes against your beliefs. Then it's ok. You know very well that's not what I said but you do you "It is though. You want people to trust a system. Yet the same system is not ok if it's goes against a certain group. I have no problem letting those states making their own decisions. I don't live there. It's their choices. I have 0 say in what others decide. If the ban against trans women in sports was so horrible in those 18 states wouldn't you think that those legislatures would be voted out ? They are not. It's a a agreeable decision from the majority in that state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess 18 states legislatures are wrong. The ones that were voted in by their constituents. Everyone says votes are to be adhered. Unless it goes against your beliefs. Then it's ok." Much like how Kansas lawmakers overulled the Governors veto? A governor that was voted in by the people? Like how Kansas lawmakers are trying to outlaw abortion even though the majority of voters in the state say they want abortion to be kept legal? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess 18 states legislatures are wrong. The ones that were voted in by their constituents. Everyone says votes are to be adhered. Unless it goes against your beliefs. Then it's ok. Much like how Kansas lawmakers overulled the Governors veto? A governor that was voted in by the people? Like how Kansas lawmakers are trying to outlaw abortion even though the majority of voters in the state say they want abortion to be kept legal?" Then vote the legislatures out if it matters that much right ? Not that hard to enact change. If the majority agrees. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I guess 18 states legislatures are wrong. The ones that were voted in by their constituents. Everyone says votes are to be adhered. Unless it goes against your beliefs. Then it's ok. Much like how Kansas lawmakers overulled the Governors veto? A governor that was voted in by the people? Like how Kansas lawmakers are trying to outlaw abortion even though the majority of voters in the state say they want abortion to be kept legal? Then vote the legislatures out if it matters that much right ? Not that hard to enact change. If the majority agrees." Kansas met the requirements for veto override. The other elected officials gave the votes. It's not a dictatorship. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport." "Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this." Don't panic, it was bound to happen sooner or later. "I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights." Of course, if you were on the other side of the moral debate, you'd feel that abortion is executing the unborn child, so punishment to the murderer is only right and proper. That's the problem with 'moral rights', there's always another point of view. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport." "If you change play to compete, does it change your view?" No. I genuinely don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. I believe that anyone should be allowed to compete in any kind of game / challenge / competition, locally, nationally, or internationally. But I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to do this, or that we should create a law to protect that right. For me, 'rights' are things that the majority have decided are important, and have been coded into law to prevent anyone from denying those rights to a person. A person's freedom to compete in their chosen sport, is not a 'right'. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW if women have the right to equal pay how come professional sportswomen earn less than men?" Because they don't do the same job. Manchester United's mens team play in the Premier League, which earns the club millions in TV deals and ticket sales. Their women's team don't play in that league, and don't earn anywhere near as much money for the club. That's the legal basis for paying them different salaries. The fact is that, as a general rule, men are interested in sport, and women aren't. That means that mens sport is where the money is. If women started watching more sport and spending their money on supporting women's teams, then we'd see sportswomen's salaries rising. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. Don't panic, it was bound to happen sooner or later. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. Of course, if you were on the other side of the moral debate, you'd feel that abortion is executing the unborn child, so punishment to the murderer is only right and proper. That's the problem with 'moral rights', there's always another point of view." Interesting point. Although you did say "For me, 'rights' are things that the majority have decided are important, and have been coded into law to prevent anyone from denying those rights to a person" Is the right to not be executed for having control over your own body not falling under this? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting point. Although you did say "For me, 'rights' are things that the majority have decided are important, and have been coded into law to prevent anyone from denying those rights to a person" Is the right to not be executed for having control over your own body not falling under this?" We're talking about the US here, and until recently women had the right to an abortion. That right has now been removed, so each state can choose whether or not it thinks abortion should be legal. The US doesn't have a general right to life, as they allow the death penalty. If a state's legislators decide than a foetus is a life, then abortion is murder, and they can set laws to punish murder as they see fit. Obviously the states is not a good example to use here as they have an unusual mix of extreme liberal and extreme religious views. To sum that up, in the US no one has a right not to be executed for committing a crime. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Interesting point. Although you did say "For me, 'rights' are things that the majority have decided are important, and have been coded into law to prevent anyone from denying those rights to a person" Is the right to not be executed for having control over your own body not falling under this? We're talking about the US here, and until recently women had the right to an abortion. That right has now been removed, so each state can choose whether or not it thinks abortion should be legal. The US doesn't have a general right to life, as they allow the death penalty. If a state's legislators decide than a foetus is a life, then abortion is murder, and they can set laws to punish murder as they see fit. Obviously the states is not a good example to use here as they have an unusual mix of extreme liberal and extreme religious views. To sum that up, in the US no one has a right not to be executed for committing a crime." Fair enough. That each person *should* have the right to choose what happens to their own body. I know many don't in countries like the US, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. But they should. In my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"BTW if women have the right to equal pay how come professional sportswomen earn less than men? Because they don't do the same job. Manchester United's mens team play in the Premier League, which earns the club millions in TV deals and ticket sales. Their women's team don't play in that league, and don't earn anywhere near as much money for the club. That's the legal basis for paying them different salaries. The fact is that, as a general rule, men are interested in sport, and women aren't. That means that mens sport is where the money is. If women started watching more sport and spending their money on supporting women's teams, then we'd see sportswomen's salaries rising." Totally agree regarding football although that is of course an “easy example”. Topically Wimbledon prize money is higher for men (they play best of 5 vs best of 3 so work harder for their money). How does that work for cycling (I genuinely do not know?) It doesn’t hold up when we look at athletics or swimming though! On another related point City Boy observes... "The sports topic is the only thing people debate because it's an easy topic. Trans people are being denied the right to live, the right to healthcare, the right the exist." This is very true for me. I know a fair amount about women’s sport and, as I have said, I feel strongly people born male should not compete in female categories. I know very little about Trans people’s rights (inc denied right to healthcare) and would welcome being educated on that as it sounds very concerning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth"" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone)." Plus higher bone density. Oh you deleted the post I was replying to? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? " Yes. When men can claim to be a woman and walk into their bathrooms,changing rooms, and defeat them in sports the were originally segregated for good reason. Yes. Their rights are being eroded | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes. When men can claim to be a woman and walk into their bathrooms,changing rooms, and defeat them in sports the were originally segregated for good reason. Yes. Their rights are being eroded" We are back celebrating men beating women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes. When men can claim to be a woman and walk into their bathrooms,changing rooms, and defeat them in sports the were originally segregated for good reason. Yes. Their rights are being eroded We are back celebrating men beating women. " I did post in a other thread a few months back the data on sexual assaults/assaults in prisons by trans women on women for hovis. It's was quite considerable This is absolute an infringement on their safety. We had a lady recently in America miss out on scholarship because a trans woman beat her. We had 2 female cage fighters who had the shit kicked out of them by a trans woman who didn't declare her status properly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone)." My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x" This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic." Which non trans women does this affect sorry? Hasn't semenya just won her legal case to.not have to lower her levels? There will be odd exception to the rule but we can't use the exception as the rule. Sadly in semenyas case the results of the sex test were kept closed. But there was speculation she was intersex. I am happy for those cases to compete from my own POV, however I wouldnt compare being born intersex to transitioning. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x" As with every includionary policy nowadays. Some one gets excluded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate." Whether they care about Islam or Muslims, or not, is that quote true? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate." No, it's from a recognised muslim website called 5 pillars. Calling it "bullshit" without knowing where the quote is from is nothing short of racism. Do better. Bess x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? Yes. When men can claim to be a woman and walk into their bathrooms,changing rooms, and defeat them in sports the were originally segregated for good reason. Yes. Their rights are being eroded" Which rights? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate. No, it's from a recognised muslim website called 5 pillars. Calling it "bullshit" without knowing where the quote is from is nothing short of racism. Do better. Bess x" initial thoughts on the article. 1) thought needs to be given on identification and how one tries to accommodate different groups while legislating for the bad eggs. The story was not about a trans women, but a sex offender gaming the system (imo a valid concern but one we need to separate when discussing) 2) I am not clear how a Muslim women would feel, or how it would fit with their fair, if they shared a space with a trans man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate. No, it's from a recognised muslim website called 5 pillars. Calling it "bullshit" without knowing where the quote is from is nothing short of racism. Do better. Bess x" The same website calls gay people "gross crime against Allah”. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate. No, it's from a recognised muslim website called 5 pillars. Calling it "bullshit" without knowing where the quote is from is nothing short of racism. Do better. Bess x The same website calls gay people "gross crime against Allah”. "And you completely ignore the article. Sigh. It's impossible to debate with a dedicated racist 
Bess x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"There is also the cultural aspect to consider in all this. We pride ourselves in this country that we are tolerant and welcoming of other cultures, but these cultures do not always have the same cultural norms as us and to dismiss this out of hand is just another example of white priviledge and ignorance. Due to the site rules, I am unable to post the link from a website that explains this, but here is a quote from it:- "With Islam’s strict rules on modesty and segregation of the sexes, single-sex spaces matter to Muslim women. If Muslim women no longer have a private, female-only space, they will be forced to self-exclude from sports, public changing rooms and toilets, and even domestic violence shelters." In too many cases, trans inclusion leads to cultural exclusion. As a nation of people doing our best to be inclusive to everyone, we need to do better than ignoring the cultures and beliefs of so many who live, work and are welcome here. Bess x This is a quote from a Transphobic website. Just for everyone's information. This is just twisting words to suit their own (transphobic) agenda, so frankly it's bullshit. They don't care about Islam or Muslims, only when it suits their agenda to spread their hate. No, it's from a recognised muslim website called 5 pillars. Calling it "bullshit" without knowing where the quote is from is nothing short of racism. Do better. Bess x The same website calls gay people "gross crime against Allah”. "I dont think gay people are gross. Infact my guy friends are brilliant. But whether you like it or not. Some religions do feel strongly about it. As I said before so much inclusion often end up with another race religion sex being excluded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic." No need to say "non trans women". The word "women" is suffice and the vast majority of normal, sane people will understand that you mean actual women and not men who identify as women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic. Which non trans women does this affect sorry? Hasn't semenya just won her legal case to.not have to lower her levels? There will be odd exception to the rule but we can't use the exception as the rule. Sadly in semenyas case the results of the sex test were kept closed. But there was speculation she was intersex. I am happy for those cases to compete from my own POV, however I wouldnt compare being born intersex to transitioning." I have made the points above on how this affects cis women: Transphobes now questioning cis women in bathrooms as they suspect they are trans (they are not). Transphobes now saying you're only a 'real' woman if you can birth children (and also attacking adopting straight and gay couples). Transphobia is extremely regressive and ties gender identity to their own ideal characteristics. If someone, even cis women, don't have these characteristics then they're attacked. Transphobia affects both trans and cis women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic. Which non trans women does this affect sorry? Hasn't semenya just won her legal case to.not have to lower her levels? There will be odd exception to the rule but we can't use the exception as the rule. Sadly in semenyas case the results of the sex test were kept closed. But there was speculation she was intersex. I am happy for those cases to compete from my own POV, however I wouldnt compare being born intersex to transitioning. I have made the points above on how this affects cis women: Transphobes now questioning cis women in bathrooms as they suspect they are trans (they are not). Transphobes now saying you're only a 'real' woman if you can birth children (and also attacking adopting straight and gay couples). Transphobia is extremely regressive and ties gender identity to their own ideal characteristics. If someone, even cis women, don't have these characteristics then they're attacked. Transphobia affects both trans and cis women." I think you can trace that back then no? Had they not allowed self identifying to happen I the first place. We wouldn't be here where some legitimate women are now sadly being questioned. You seem to have undone your own point. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic. Which non trans women does this affect sorry? Hasn't semenya just won her legal case to.not have to lower her levels? There will be odd exception to the rule but we can't use the exception as the rule. Sadly in semenyas case the results of the sex test were kept closed. But there was speculation she was intersex. I am happy for those cases to compete from my own POV, however I wouldnt compare being born intersex to transitioning. I have made the points above on how this affects cis women: Transphobes now questioning cis women in bathrooms as they suspect they are trans (they are not). Transphobes now saying you're only a 'real' woman if you can birth children (and also attacking adopting straight and gay couples). Transphobia is extremely regressive and ties gender identity to their own ideal characteristics. If someone, even cis women, don't have these characteristics then they're attacked. Transphobia affects both trans and cis women. I think you can trace that back then no? Had they not allowed self identifying to happen I the first place. We wouldn't be here where some legitimate women are now sadly being questioned. You seem to have undone your own point." I can't link self identifying and calling out cis women as trans. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Are biological women losing their rights? " Oooh… deliberately vague Are we talking about the way a woman is defined, or are we talking women’s health and reproductive rights? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic. Which non trans women does this affect sorry? Hasn't semenya just won her legal case to.not have to lower her levels? There will be odd exception to the rule but we can't use the exception as the rule. Sadly in semenyas case the results of the sex test were kept closed. But there was speculation she was intersex. I am happy for those cases to compete from my own POV, however I wouldnt compare being born intersex to transitioning. I have made the points above on how this affects cis women: Transphobes now questioning cis women in bathrooms as they suspect they are trans (they are not). Transphobes now saying you're only a 'real' woman if you can birth children (and also attacking adopting straight and gay couples). Transphobia is extremely regressive and ties gender identity to their own ideal characteristics. If someone, even cis women, don't have these characteristics then they're attacked. Transphobia affects both trans and cis women. I think you can trace that back then no? Had they not allowed self identifying to happen I the first place. We wouldn't be here where some legitimate women are now sadly being questioned. You seem to have undone your own point.I can't link self identifying and calling out cis women as trans. " It should be pretty easy. Previously there was no confusion as only women were concerned with being allowed inside of women's restrooms. Now it can be men identifying as women too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"In today's news: "Caster Semenya wins appeal at European Court of Human Rights" "Double Olympic 800m champion Caster Semenya was discriminated against by rules which forced her to lower her testosterone levels in order to continue competing, the European Court of Human Rights has found." This echoes what FriskyChic is saying. Anti trans movement is affecting cis women too. It led to an athelete being forced to take drugs to lower her NATURAL testosterone levels in order to compete. The European Court of Human rights found this infringed her rights. So to sum up how CIS WOMEN are being affected by transphobia: - Being forced to alter their own hormones to compete in sport - Being questioned in the bothroom as they don't appear 'ladylike' - Women who choose to adopt or unable to birth a child are told they are less of a woman because they don't "experience the pain of birth" Regarding sport...the issue is not about hormones and specifically testosterone. It is about physiological advantages of being born male over being born female. Larger hearts. Larger lungs. Generally longer limbs. Larger hands. Different shaped pelvis (effecting balance and power levels that can pass from the core directly through the pelvis into the legs for more efficient energy transfer onto the track/road/ground. No amount of hormone treatment can reverse or change those physiological advantages. As I said above, this is evident in boys before they reach puberty (so no/little testosterone). My post was about a woman being forced to lower her testosterone levels. Not about a trans woman competing in sports. I deleted my post because I cba with the sports topic. It's been done to death and doesn't highlight how ordinary trans folk are being dehumanised. The point I was trying to make is it's affecting non trans women too but people seem to ignore that point (and other points raised in this thread) and go back to sports because it's the easy topic. Which non trans women does this affect sorry? Hasn't semenya just won her legal case to.not have to lower her levels? There will be odd exception to the rule but we can't use the exception as the rule. Sadly in semenyas case the results of the sex test were kept closed. But there was speculation she was intersex. I am happy for those cases to compete from my own POV, however I wouldnt compare being born intersex to transitioning. I have made the points above on how this affects cis women: Transphobes now questioning cis women in bathrooms as they suspect they are trans (they are not). Transphobes now saying you're only a 'real' woman if you can birth children (and also attacking adopting straight and gay couples). Transphobia is extremely regressive and ties gender identity to their own ideal characteristics. If someone, even cis women, don't have these characteristics then they're attacked. Transphobia affects both trans and cis women. I think you can trace that back then no? Had they not allowed self identifying to happen I the first place. We wouldn't be here where some legitimate women are now sadly being questioned. You seem to have undone your own point.I can't link self identifying and calling out cis women as trans. It should be pretty easy. Previously there was no confusion as only women were concerned with being allowed inside of women's restrooms. Now it can be men identifying as women too "I'm cynical that people who call out those they think are trans today, in toilets a trans women can use, wouldn't call our the same people if trans women were not allowed to use them. Equally, I suspect they would call out a trans man in the women's. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple solution to the toilet issue. Single sex toilet for women. Gender neutral toilets for everyone else who either doesn't care, wants to be an ally, or likes be all virtuous whilst simultaneously taking a pish." where do trans men go ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple solution to the toilet issue. Single sex toilet for women. Gender neutral toilets for everyone else who either doesn't care, wants to be an ally, or likes be all virtuous whilst simultaneously taking a pish." where do trans men go ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple solution to the toilet issue. Single sex toilet for women. Gender neutral toilets for everyone else who either doesn't care, wants to be an ally, or likes be all virtuous whilst simultaneously taking a pish.where do trans men go ? " In the gender neutral ones. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple solution to the toilet issue. Single sex toilet for women. Gender neutral toilets for everyone else who either doesn't care, wants to be an ally, or likes be all virtuous whilst simultaneously taking a pish.where do trans men go ? In the gender neutral ones." are they not biological women ? How are you defining women here ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded." I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. " Never really thought about it. Best Group. Best Male Solo Artist. Best Female Solo Artist. Always seemed fine to me! Question for the whole forum... We are talking about “rights” (and have covered legal vs moral) so why do trans people have a “right” to use female spaces or a “right” to enter historically female sports categories? Why do trans activists have a “right” to accuse people who ask these sort of questions or challenge decisions of being transphobic? I would say trying to close down debate is the epitome of cancel culture and discrimination! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. " Well for music specifically, theres something like a 70 / 30 (according to google) representation of Male to female artists. So when they are lumped together women are competing against a larger pool of men and while the best will win the chances for women will be broadly in line with the representation, which is discouraging. I will add a further point to my earlier post. Where men are allowed into womens spaces on equal terms. A Trans man has just won Miss netherlands. Regardless of how anyone feels about beauty pageants. I believe she was positivly voted for specifically because she was Trans and thats just not fair. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Never really thought about it. Best Group. Best Male Solo Artist. Best Female Solo Artist. Always seemed fine to me! Question for the whole forum... We are talking about “rights” (and have covered legal vs moral) so why do trans people have a “right” to use female spaces or a “right” to enter historically female sports categories? Why do trans activists have a “right” to accuse people who ask these sort of questions or challenge decisions of being transphobic? I would say trying to close down debate is the epitome of cancel culture and discrimination! " Because when you look into it, many of the prominant so called "women's rights activists" that have popped in the past few years are transphobic, homophobic, and right wing. Before anyone has a go at me I am referring to the so called "high profile" you see on twitter. That being said I only have to click on the little green arrow next to some peoples name on here to see they share other unsavoury views. Trans women have the right to use women's toilets and changing rooms because they are women. There are more cases of women attacking other women in female only spaces than trans women attacking other women in those spaces. I repeat, transgenderism isn't a new "thing", however the attack on trans people in the past few years has heen orchestrated by American evengelical groups and also funded from Russian disinformation groups. This is no conspiracy, search for this on Opendemocracy. It's also been adopted by right wing losers (see lawrence fox) and others in an attempt to stay relevant. These same groups are funding anti abortion groups in the UK. They do not care about Women's rights. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Well for music specifically, theres something like a 70 / 30 (according to google) representation of Male to female artists. So when they are lumped together women are competing against a larger pool of men and while the best will win the chances for women will be broadly in line with the representation, which is discouraging. I will add a further point to my earlier post. Where men are allowed into womens spaces on equal terms. A Trans man has just won Miss netherlands. Regardless of how anyone feels about beauty pageants. I believe she was positivly voted for specifically because she was Trans and thats just not fair." No one is allowing men into women's spaces. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Never really thought about it. Best Group. Best Male Solo Artist. Best Female Solo Artist. Always seemed fine to me! Question for the whole forum... We are talking about “rights” (and have covered legal vs moral) so why do trans people have a “right” to use female spaces or a “right” to enter historically female sports categories? Why do trans activists have a “right” to accuse people who ask these sort of questions or challenge decisions of being transphobic? I would say trying to close down debate is the epitome of cancel culture and discrimination! " I think right is being overused. We need to agree an approach. This may start with a broad principal that is finessed for certain circumstances. After all, is there any right that is sex/gender specific? Or is it more societal norms of different treatment. I disagree with anyone who shouts down others simply by saying "you're xyz". It needs a "because". That's true for accusation of transphobia, racism, misogyny etc etc etc. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces." I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Never really thought about it. Best Group. Best Male Solo Artist. Best Female Solo Artist. Always seemed fine to me! Question for the whole forum... We are talking about “rights” (and have covered legal vs moral) so why do trans people have a “right” to use female spaces or a “right” to enter historically female sports categories? Why do trans activists have a “right” to accuse people who ask these sort of questions or challenge decisions of being transphobic? I would say trying to close down debate is the epitome of cancel culture and discrimination! I think right is being overused. We need to agree an approach. This may start with a broad principal that is finessed for certain circumstances. After all, is there any right that is sex/gender specific? Or is it more societal norms of different treatment. I disagree with anyone who shouts down others simply by saying "you're xyz". It needs a "because". That's true for accusation of transphobia, racism, misogyny etc etc etc. " Great post, particularly last para. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Well for music specifically, theres something like a 70 / 30 (according to google) representation of Male to female artists. So when they are lumped together women are competing against a larger pool of men and while the best will win the chances for women will be broadly in line with the representation, which is discouraging. I will add a further point to my earlier post. Where men are allowed into womens spaces on equal terms. A Trans man has just won Miss netherlands. Regardless of how anyone feels about beauty pageants. I believe she was positivly voted for specifically because she was Trans and thats just not fair." On the topic of representation, you’re right - a broader pool of males will naturally lead to more males winning. This was (in a sporting field) the reason behind the creation of the W series for female racing drivers - of which there were many critics who said women should compete against men. No matter what, some will complain. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Never really thought about it. Best Group. Best Male Solo Artist. Best Female Solo Artist. Always seemed fine to me! Question for the whole forum... We are talking about “rights” (and have covered legal vs moral) so why do trans people have a “right” to use female spaces or a “right” to enter historically female sports categories? Why do trans activists have a “right” to accuse people who ask these sort of questions or challenge decisions of being transphobic? I would say trying to close down debate is the epitome of cancel culture and discrimination! Because when you look into it, many of the prominant so called "women's rights activists" that have popped in the past few years are transphobic, homophobic, and right wing. Before anyone has a go at me I am referring to the so called "high profile" you see on twitter. That being said I only have to click on the little green arrow next to some peoples name on here to see they share other unsavoury views. Trans women have the right to use women's toilets and changing rooms because they are women. There are more cases of women attacking other women in female only spaces than trans women attacking other women in those spaces. I repeat, transgenderism isn't a new "thing", however the attack on trans people in the past few years has heen orchestrated by American evengelical groups and also funded from Russian disinformation groups. This is no conspiracy, search for this on Opendemocracy. It's also been adopted by right wing losers (see lawrence fox) and others in an attempt to stay relevant. These same groups are funding anti abortion groups in the UK. They do not care about Women's rights." I agree with your point in right wing evangelical groups etc. Without a doubt the trans debate has been weaponised by them. Your point on “trans women are women” is where I struggle. My post is probably not going to be that eloquent so right up front I want to apologise to anyone it inadvertently offends, which is not my intent. I will undoubtedly get terminology wrong but open to learning. Right with that said... To me a trans woman is a trans woman not a woman. They only become a woman once they have had their penis and testicles removed, breast implants, and a period of hormone treatment. After that, in most cases they are likely indistinguishable from a person born female. Prior to that they are transitioning. The word “trans” comes from “transition” or “covering more than one thing”. I have absolutely no idea of the emotional challenges facing a person born male who feels female. IMO that person deserves our compassion and support. However, while this may sound harsh, it is their issue to deal with and their choice how to approach it. Thus should not be at the detriment of anyone else. Identifying as something does not make you something. Just as the debate has been hijacked by transphobes so too has the genuine struggle of those who are born in the wrong bodies been hijacked by men who are jumping on a band wagon for less than genuine reasons. It works both ways. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded." Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree with your point in right wing evangelical groups etc. Without a doubt the trans debate has been weaponised by them. Your point on “trans women are women” is where I struggle. My post is probably not going to be that eloquent so right up front I want to apologise to anyone it inadvertently offends, which is not my intent. I will undoubtedly get terminology wrong but open to learning. Right with that said... To me a trans woman is a trans woman not a woman. They only become a woman once they have had their penis and testicles removed, breast implants, and a period of hormone treatment. After that, in most cases they are likely indistinguishable from a person born female. Prior to that they are transitioning. The word “trans” comes from “transition” or “covering more than one thing”. I have absolutely no idea of the emotional challenges facing a person born male who feels female. IMO that person deserves our compassion and support. However, while this may sound harsh, it is their issue to deal with and their choice how to approach it. Thus should not be at the detriment of anyone else. Identifying as something does not make you something. Just as the debate has been hijacked by transphobes so too has the genuine struggle of those who are born in the wrong bodies been hijacked by men who are jumping on a band wagon for less than genuine reasons. It works both ways." Very few men are "hijacking" trans. However these groups and certain tabloids are creating this scenario where all trans women are "predatory" and want to attack women and children. I repeat the point I raised earlier, more cisgender women have attacked women than trans women. To enable people to transition we must give them the support they need as early as possible. "Transphobic activists" want support and care for people transitioning to be removed. They don't want people to transition. They go as far to say trans people are "mentally ill". They don't want them to live. They want trans people to simply not exist. At present it's very hard to get gender affirming care. With the point above how do you expect people to transition if these hate groups want to remove care and support? Do you propose trans women to use men's spaces, where they are at danger of being assaulted? Does this also apply to trans men where they should use women's spaces until they've had surgery? What do you propose transitioning people do? Go in hiding for years and years until they're able to get surgery? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is." Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel." And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’" Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)"" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Simple solution to the toilet issue. Single sex toilet for women. Gender neutral toilets for everyone else who either doesn't care, wants to be an ally, or likes be all virtuous whilst simultaneously taking a pish.where do trans men go ? In the gender neutral ones.are they not biological women ? How are you defining women here ?" A woman is an adult human female. Yes, they are biological women. But ultimately if they are convinced otherwise then who am I to argue. My time is too precious for that bullshit. I want to share my female spaces with biological women who know they are biological women and identify as such. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Never really thought about it. Best Group. Best Male Solo Artist. Best Female Solo Artist. Always seemed fine to me! Question for the whole forum... We are talking about “rights” (and have covered legal vs moral) so why do trans people have a “right” to use female spaces or a “right” to enter historically female sports categories? Why do trans activists have a “right” to accuse people who ask these sort of questions or challenge decisions of being transphobic? I would say trying to close down debate is the epitome of cancel culture and discrimination! Because when you look into it, many of the prominant so called "women's rights activists" that have popped in the past few years are transphobic, homophobic, and right wing. Before anyone has a go at me I am referring to the so called "high profile" you see on twitter. That being said I only have to click on the little green arrow next to some peoples name on here to see they share other unsavoury views. Trans women have the right to use women's toilets and changing rooms because they are women. There are more cases of women attacking other women in female only spaces than trans women attacking other women in those spaces. I repeat, transgenderism isn't a new "thing", however the attack on trans people in the past few years has heen orchestrated by American evengelical groups and also funded from Russian disinformation groups. This is no conspiracy, search for this on Opendemocracy. It's also been adopted by right wing losers (see lawrence fox) and others in an attempt to stay relevant. These same groups are funding anti abortion groups in the UK. They do not care about Women's rights." Transwomen are men and do not belong in women's spaces. Transwomen are, statistically, just a violent crime as a man. "...‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence." (Taken from evidence and data submitted to the UK Parliament on TW offending rates). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Back to the OP's opening question, I think the short answer is Yes. For the posters who like to ask what rights have they lost, well thats a complicated question but for simplicity I'd say they have lost the right to compete in Women only sports if men who identify as women are allowed to compete alngside them. Similarly they have lost the right to enjoy women only spaces such as changing rooms and public toilets. And finaly how about in the Arts. The Brit awards ceremony has removed the best Male and Female categories in favour of the gender neutral best over all. Done in the name of inclusivity and fairness specifically to cater for a certain artist who cant decide what he is. So overall I'd say Yes, womens rights are being eroded. I understand the need for separate sporting categories, but I’ve never understood the need for separate acting/music/arts awards. Well for music specifically, theres something like a 70 / 30 (according to google) representation of Male to female artists. So when they are lumped together women are competing against a larger pool of men and while the best will win the chances for women will be broadly in line with the representation, which is discouraging. I will add a further point to my earlier post. Where men are allowed into womens spaces on equal terms. A Trans man has just won Miss netherlands. Regardless of how anyone feels about beauty pageants. I believe she was positivly voted for specifically because she was Trans and thats just not fair." You're probably right about the Dutch person. But if we point that out we're just being jealous old hags apparently. He is an exquisitely beautiful man. But a man nonetheless. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A woman is an adult human female." So how are you defining 'female'? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A woman is an adult human female. So how are you defining 'female'?" Fuck here we go... This is where you demand a definition. I give one then we go on and on until I lose the will to fucking live. Here's a clue. A woman or a female....every single person walking the face of the earth today was born from one. Not all females can have children, but they are the only of the 2 sexes which are able to birth children. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)"" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here?" Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive." Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred'" Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion 
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred'" That's my experience too. I'm also a bigot, right wing, a nazi and pro life. On the plus side, my social calender looks quite impressive with all these new groups I now belong too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)"If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?"Did you read my disclaimer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer? "You chose to get yourself involved. Would that make me a transphobe? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' That's my experience too. I'm also a bigot, right wing, a nazi and pro life. On the plus side, my social calender looks quite impressive with all these new groups I now belong too. "You'll be a fully fledged Tory in no time | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer?
You chose to get yourself involved.
Would that make me a transphobe?"*sigh* I don’t know, because my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited. Maybe you should ask some trans folk for their input rather than me. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer?
You chose to get yourself involved.
Would that make me a transphobe?
*sigh*
I don’t know, because my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited.
Maybe you should ask some trans folk for their input rather than me."As I said, I'm asking you because you got involved in my question towards another poster. You also had an opinion on being transphobic. What I think is you know where this may go and don't wanna get into because you'll look rather silly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer?
You chose to get yourself involved.
Would that make me a transphobe?
*sigh*
I don’t know, because my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited.
Maybe you should ask some trans folk for their input rather than me.
As I said, I'm asking you because you got involved in my question towards another poster.
You also had an opinion on being transphobic.
What I think is you know where this may go and don't wanna get into because you'll look rather silly."You think wrong. You’re entitled to hold a belief that a law/rule is incorrect, whilst still accepting that law/rule - that was my entry point to the conversation. You’re demonstrating, and indeed perpetuating the toxicity of the topic, whilst doing your usual show on here. Have a great evening. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer?
You chose to get yourself involved.
Would that make me a transphobe?
*sigh*
I don’t know, because my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited.
Maybe you should ask some trans folk for their input rather than me.
As I said, I'm asking you because you got involved in my question towards another poster.
You also had an opinion on being transphobic.
What I think is you know where this may go and don't wanna get into because you'll look rather silly.
You think wrong.
You’re entitled to hold a belief that a law/rule is incorrect, whilst still accepting that law/rule - that was my entry point to the conversation.
You’re demonstrating, and indeed perpetuating the toxicity of the topic, whilst doing your usual show on here.
Have a great evening.
"How else should I think? You got yourself involved in a topic and when asked a question quickly back out of it. I'm certainly not perpetuating any toxicity. If you don't want to answer then that's no problem, I'll think what I think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer?
You chose to get yourself involved.
Would that make me a transphobe?
*sigh*
I don’t know, because my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited.
Maybe you should ask some trans folk for their input rather than me."If you have a mother, daughter or sisters then I would expect most men to have an opinion on this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" No one is allowing men into women's spaces. I would disagree with you on that. Ironically your post even attacks the very notion of what a woman is. Theres another right thats being eroded. Given I am a woman I think I have a pretty good idea of what a woman is. Are you sure? your statement suggests that you believe any man that identifies as a woman is a woman and I just dont buy that position. There is a debate to be had about at what point down the path to transitioning their legal status could be changed to a woman but its certainly not just because of how they feel. And nor should it be ‘you’re a woman when the surgeon gets round to you’ Yes, and there are legal protections. In section 9 of the gender recognition act your gender is not defined by surgery. "Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman)" There was a debate on here a couple of weeks ago re. Rwanda Scheme. It was said that 'just because something is legal, I don't have to like it' Are we allowed to employ that same logic here? Yes. Accepting something and liking it are not mutually exclusive. Are you sure? We've seen in this thread and many many others that if you say something which may be 'against trans' then you'll quickly be labelled a transphobe or 'full of hatred' Oh, you can absolutely be a transphobe and still be entitled to your transphobic opinion
(disclaimer: I am NOT calling anyone transphobic, nor am I anti-trans - This is a topic that I’ve generally learned to stay away from, because it’s possibly the most toxic subject of a generation. Brexit’s got nothing on the trans debate)
If I don't believe transwomen who haven't fully transitioned should share toilets with women, would that be transphobic?
Did you read my disclaimer?
You chose to get yourself involved.
Would that make me a transphobe?
*sigh*
I don’t know, because my knowledge on the subject is extremely limited.
Maybe you should ask some trans folk for their input rather than me.
If you have a mother, daughter or sisters then I would expect most men to have an opinion on this. "I have a daughter. It’s not a topic that’s ever come up tbh. I also know someone professionally who’s trans, though not close enough to have an in-depth discussion. Like I say, I’m no expert and i’m not going to pretend I am. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A woman is an adult human female." "So how are you defining 'female'?" "Fuck here we go... This is where you demand a definition. I give one then we go on and on until I lose the will to fucking live." I don't want an argument, I'm just trying to point out that "adult human female" is a crap definition. It's really very easy to define 'female'. It only starts to get difficult if you insist on being inclusive and not offending anyone. "Here's a clue. A woman or a female....every single person walking the face of the earth today was born from one." There's at least one child born to a trans-man. Are you calling that man a female just because he bore a child? "Not all females can have children, but they are the only of the 2 sexes which are able to birth children." Well if not all women can have children, it's not a very useful means of determining whether a person is a woman or not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A woman is an adult human female. So how are you defining 'female'? Fuck here we go... This is where you demand a definition. I give one then we go on and on until I lose the will to fucking live. I don't want an argument, I'm just trying to point out that "adult human female" is a crap definition. It's really very easy to define 'female'. It only starts to get difficult if you insist on being inclusive and not offending anyone. Here's a clue. A woman or a female....every single person walking the face of the earth today was born from one. There's at least one child born to a trans-man. Are you calling that man a female just because he bore a child? Not all females can have children, but they are the only of the 2 sexes which are able to birth children. Well if not all women can have children, it's not a very useful means of determining whether a person is a woman or not." Trans men are biological women, hence their ability to have children unless they have fucked up their bodies taking testosterone. Do try to keep up. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I agree with your point in right wing evangelical groups etc. Without a doubt the trans debate has been weaponised by them. Your point on “trans women are women” is where I struggle. My post is probably not going to be that eloquent so right up front I want to apologise to anyone it inadvertently offends, which is not my intent. I will undoubtedly get terminology wrong but open to learning. Right with that said... To me a trans woman is a trans woman not a woman. They only become a woman once they have had their penis and testicles removed, breast implants, and a period of hormone treatment. After that, in most cases they are likely indistinguishable from a person born female. Prior to that they are transitioning. The word “trans” comes from “transition” or “covering more than one thing”. I have absolutely no idea of the emotional challenges facing a person born male who feels female. IMO that person deserves our compassion and support. However, while this may sound harsh, it is their issue to deal with and their choice how to approach it. Thus should not be at the detriment of anyone else. Identifying as something does not make you something. Just as the debate has been hijacked by transphobes so too has the genuine struggle of those who are born in the wrong bodies been hijacked by men who are jumping on a band wagon for less than genuine reasons. It works both ways. Very few men are "hijacking" trans. However these groups and certain tabloids are creating this scenario where all trans women are "predatory" and want to attack women and children. I repeat the point I raised earlier, more cisgender women have attacked women than trans women. To enable people to transition we must give them the support they need as early as possible. "Transphobic activists" want support and care for people transitioning to be removed. They don't want people to transition. They go as far to say trans people are "mentally ill". They don't want them to live. They want trans people to simply not exist. At present it's very hard to get gender affirming care. With the point above how do you expect people to transition if these hate groups want to remove care and support? Do you propose trans women to use men's spaces, where they are at danger of being assaulted? Does this also apply to trans men where they should use women's spaces until they've had surgery? What do you propose transitioning people do? Go in hiding for years and years until they're able to get surgery?" Your point in “cisgender women” attacking more women than transwomen - are these absolute numbers of reported incidents or have these figures been adjusted for proportionality? On your other points, I agree the “right wing” have weaponised the argument and used outliers and extreme examples to paint an inaccurate portrait of transwomen. The problem is these outliers and extreme examples DO exist. They are not a myth. And for a moment, let’s go back to the topic of sport. Without any doubt there are people born male who were not top performers in the male category (not even top few hundred) who have decided to identify as female and gone on to win in various competitions thus denying people born female from those achievements. The “transwomen” (I have inverted commas as I believe some of these to not be genuine) have exploited their physiological advantage to the detriment of biological females! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Transwomen are men and do not belong in women's spaces. Transwomen are, statistically, just a violent crime as a man. "...‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence." (Taken from evidence and data submitted to the UK Parliament on TW offending rates)." Ah, I've seen this. Funny that, the author of the study referenced in the passage above even came out to say people are misinterpreting her study. First of all, it's referencing a study that took place in Sweden 1973 - 1988, not the UK. I will note that at the time of the study, you had to be steralised to transition. (Sweden has since payed compensation to trans men and women for this). Secondly, there was a second part of the study which people seem to not mention (I wonder why!) which was done between 1989 and 2003 which showed no similarities between the rate of crime by committed by trans women and men. Thirdly, the author elaborates that the first part of the study does not specify what crime trans women were committing. Trans women in the first part of the study were more likely to be impoverished, more likely to steal food, do illegal sex work, and more likely to fall into drug addiction. These are not voilent crimes. Futhermore, UK GOVERNMENT DATA from 2016 shows there are more TRANS MEN in prisons than TRANS WOMEN. There were 52 trans men in prison, and 14 trans women in prison. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Transwomen are men and do not belong in women's spaces. Transwomen are, statistically, just a violent crime as a man. "...‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence." (Taken from evidence and data submitted to the UK Parliament on TW offending rates). Ah, I've seen this. Funny that, the author of the study referenced in the passage above even came out to say people are misinterpreting her study. First of all, it's referencing a study that took place in Sweden 1973 - 1988, not the UK. I will note that at the time of the study, you had to be steralised to transition. (Sweden has since payed compensation to trans men and women for this). Secondly, there was a second part of the study which people seem to not mention (I wonder why!) which was done between 1989 and 2003 which showed no similarities between the rate of crime by committed by trans women and men. Thirdly, the author elaborates that the first part of the study does not specify what crime trans women were committing. Trans women in the first part of the study were more likely to be impoverished, more likely to steal food, do illegal sex work, and more likely to fall into drug addiction. These are not voilent crimes. Futhermore, UK GOVERNMENT DATA from 2016 shows there are more TRANS MEN in prisons than TRANS WOMEN. There were 52 trans men in prison, and 14 trans women in prison." Imagine speaking about misinterpretation and then going on to use 2016 figures to prove some kind of distorted POV. There are circa 200 trans people in prison, of which 3/4 identify as female. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Transwomen are men and do not belong in women's spaces. Transwomen are, statistically, just a violent crime as a man. "...‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence." (Taken from evidence and data submitted to the UK Parliament on TW offending rates). Ah, I've seen this. Funny that, the author of the study referenced in the passage above even came out to say people are misinterpreting her study. First of all, it's referencing a study that took place in Sweden 1973 - 1988, not the UK. I will note that at the time of the study, you had to be steralised to transition. (Sweden has since payed compensation to trans men and women for this). Secondly, there was a second part of the study which people seem to not mention (I wonder why!) which was done between 1989 and 2003 which showed no similarities between the rate of crime by committed by trans women and men. Thirdly, the author elaborates that the first part of the study does not specify what crime trans women were committing. Trans women in the first part of the study were more likely to be impoverished, more likely to steal food, do illegal sex work, and more likely to fall into drug addiction. These are not voilent crimes. Futhermore, UK GOVERNMENT DATA from 2016 shows there are more TRANS MEN in prisons than TRANS WOMEN. There were 52 trans men in prison, and 14 trans women in prison. Imagine speaking about misinterpretation and then going on to use 2016 figures to prove some kind of distorted POV. There are circa 200 trans people in prison, of which 3/4 identify as female. " where did you get your data ? I can find the 2016 and later 2017 (125 of which 99 identified as male). Your numbers are quite a turn around in splits. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I’ve said, I don’t know enough about this debate to wade in with any confidence nor particular opinion. What I do know is that trans isn’t a new thing. The brain hasn’t changed or adapted in the past 20, 30 or hundred years. Which means trans folk have always been around. Does anyone know what percentage of trans are sex offenders? Is it higher or lower than ‘normal’ folk (forgive the terminology)? Given the vanishingly thin percentage of trans folk in the world, and then calculating what must presumably be a tiny percentage of that already small number - how many trans sex-offenders are we looking at? And if someone is hellbent on committing sexual assault, are they likely to be prevented from doing it because they’re not allowed in a toilet? But I also understand that folk will be simply uncomfortable sharing a toilet area with someone that they deem to be the opposite sex - regardless of actual risk we should consider that discomfort seriously. I don’t have any answers, you might have guessed. Just throwing stuff at the wall to get my head around it." It's not the exact data you asked for but this may help. "According to official MOJ figures, in 2019 there were 13359 people in prison convicted of sexual offences. 125 of these are recorded as female and another 76 are known to be males who identify as women. This means there are around 200 sex offenders in prison who either is a woman or self-identifies as woman. The ratio of women to transwomen in prison for sexual offences is around 3:2. In other words, there are two transwomen for every three women in prison convicted of sex offending. That’s 38% of the ‘women’ in prison for sex offending actually being transwomen." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Transwomen are men and do not belong in women's spaces. Transwomen are, statistically, just a violent crime as a man. "...‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence." (Taken from evidence and data submitted to the UK Parliament on TW offending rates). Ah, I've seen this. Funny that, the author of the study referenced in the passage above even came out to say people are misinterpreting her study. First of all, it's referencing a study that took place in Sweden 1973 - 1988, not the UK. I will note that at the time of the study, you had to be steralised to transition. (Sweden has since payed compensation to trans men and women for this). Secondly, there was a second part of the study which people seem to not mention (I wonder why!) which was done between 1989 and 2003 which showed no similarities between the rate of crime by committed by trans women and men. Thirdly, the author elaborates that the first part of the study does not specify what crime trans women were committing. Trans women in the first part of the study were more likely to be impoverished, more likely to steal food, do illegal sex work, and more likely to fall into drug addiction. These are not voilent crimes. Futhermore, UK GOVERNMENT DATA from 2016 shows there are more TRANS MEN in prisons than TRANS WOMEN. There were 52 trans men in prison, and 14 trans women in prison. Imagine speaking about misinterpretation and then going on to use 2016 figures to prove some kind of distorted POV. There are circa 200 trans people in prison, of which 3/4 identify as female. where did you get your data ? I can find the 2016 and later 2017 (125 of which 99 identified as male). Your numbers are quite a turn around in splits. " https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trans-prisoners-women-jails-government-b2200573.html | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I’ve said, I don’t know enough about this debate to wade in with any confidence nor particular opinion. What I do know is that trans isn’t a new thing. The brain hasn’t changed or adapted in the past 20, 30 or hundred years. Which means trans folk have always been around. Does anyone know what percentage of trans are sex offenders? Is it higher or lower than ‘normal’ folk (forgive the terminology)? Given the vanishingly thin percentage of trans folk in the world, and then calculating what must presumably be a tiny percentage of that already small number - how many trans sex-offenders are we looking at? And if someone is hellbent on committing sexual assault, are they likely to be prevented from doing it because they’re not allowed in a toilet? But I also understand that folk will be simply uncomfortable sharing a toilet area with someone that they deem to be the opposite sex - regardless of actual risk we should consider that discomfort seriously. I don’t have any answers, you might have guessed. Just throwing stuff at the wall to get my head around it. It's not the exact data you asked for but this may help. "According to official MOJ figures, in 2019 there were 13359 people in prison convicted of sexual offences. 125 of these are recorded as female and another 76 are known to be males who identify as women. This means there are around 200 sex offenders in prison who either is a woman or self-identifies as woman. The ratio of women to transwomen in prison for sexual offences is around 3:2. In other words, there are two transwomen for every three women in prison convicted of sex offending. That’s 38% of the ‘women’ in prison for sex offending actually being transwomen."" But does that mean they’re more likely to commit crime? (And specifically sexual assault?) - Black males are imprisoned beyond their demographic levels because of social issues, poverty, drugs etc. It’s an impossible question to answer, I know. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. " Participation in sport is recognised as a human right under the terms of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. Participation in sport is recognised as a human right under the terms of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights" But nobody is being denied the ability to participate in sports. What we have is a debate about equity in sports. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I want to say so much but my mouth will get in the way. Probably offend someone's feelings and get the ole forum ban. I try to type a civil response. I can't...Not in my nature." That's why this conversation rarely gets heard. Fear of persecution for your opinion. Yes you will likely be labelled a "phobe" of some description by one side of the conversation but it shouldn't silence your opinion. We are all adults here. Capable of conversation and debate without name calling and claiming victimhood. Aren't we? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"As I’ve said, I don’t know enough about this debate to wade in with any confidence nor particular opinion. What I do know is that trans isn’t a new thing. The brain hasn’t changed or adapted in the past 20, 30 or hundred years. Which means trans folk have always been around. Does anyone know what percentage of trans are sex offenders? Is it higher or lower than ‘normal’ folk (forgive the terminology)? Given the vanishingly thin percentage of trans folk in the world, and then calculating what must presumably be a tiny percentage of that already small number - how many trans sex-offenders are we looking at? And if someone is hellbent on committing sexual assault, are they likely to be prevented from doing it because they’re not allowed in a toilet? But I also understand that folk will be simply uncomfortable sharing a toilet area with someone that they deem to be the opposite sex - regardless of actual risk we should consider that discomfort seriously. I don’t have any answers, you might have guessed. Just throwing stuff at the wall to get my head around it. It's not the exact data you asked for but this may help. "According to official MOJ figures, in 2019 there were 13359 people in prison convicted of sexual offences. 125 of these are recorded as female and another 76 are known to be males who identify as women. This means there are around 200 sex offenders in prison who either is a woman or self-identifies as woman. The ratio of women to transwomen in prison for sexual offences is around 3:2. In other words, there are two transwomen for every three women in prison convicted of sex offending. That’s 38% of the ‘women’ in prison for sex offending actually being transwomen." But does that mean they’re more likely to commit crime? (And specifically sexual assault?) - Black males are imprisoned beyond their demographic levels because of social issues, poverty, drugs etc. It’s an impossible question to answer, I know. " I'm not a person who believes any person, whether that be race or gender, is more likely to commit crime than an other due to any issues. People choose to commit crime, end of. There is no doubt data that tells us differently but it won't make me change my mind, it's on of those hills. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Transwomen are men and do not belong in women's spaces. Transwomen are, statistically, just a violent crime as a man. "...‘male-to-females . . . retained a male pattern regarding criminality. The same was true regarding violent crime.’ MtF transitioners were over 6 times more likely to be convicted of an offence than female comparators and 18 times more likely to be convicted of a violent offence." (Taken from evidence and data submitted to the UK Parliament on TW offending rates). Ah, I've seen this. Funny that, the author of the study referenced in the passage above even came out to say people are misinterpreting her study. First of all, it's referencing a study that took place in Sweden 1973 - 1988, not the UK. I will note that at the time of the study, you had to be steralised to transition. (Sweden has since payed compensation to trans men and women for this). Secondly, there was a second part of the study which people seem to not mention (I wonder why!) which was done between 1989 and 2003 which showed no similarities between the rate of crime by committed by trans women and men. Thirdly, the author elaborates that the first part of the study does not specify what crime trans women were committing. Trans women in the first part of the study were more likely to be impoverished, more likely to steal food, do illegal sex work, and more likely to fall into drug addiction. These are not voilent crimes. Futhermore, UK GOVERNMENT DATA from 2016 shows there are more TRANS MEN in prisons than TRANS WOMEN. There were 52 trans men in prison, and 14 trans women in prison. Imagine speaking about misinterpretation and then going on to use 2016 figures to prove some kind of distorted POV. There are circa 200 trans people in prison, of which 3/4 identify as female. where did you get your data ? I can find the 2016 and later 2017 (125 of which 99 identified as male). Your numbers are quite a turn around in splits. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/trans-prisoners-women-jails-government-b2200573.html" thx. Have found the report. That's quite the turnaround in the last few years. Feels like a large amount of (self) under reporting in the past | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. Maybe this is a first. But I agree with this. I've been trying to understand what rights people are worried about. Seems not things like the right to have an abortion without being executed, but sports related rights. Participation in sport is recognised as a human right under the terms of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights But nobody is being denied the ability to participate in sports. What we have is a debate about equity in sports. " Yes we are. Many women have been denied the right to compete because their place was taken by a biological male. New Zealand Olympic lifting team. Many Many college athletes in USA have been denied the right to compete because biological.males have taken their spots. As a side note, there is no such thing as equality in sport and there definitely is no such thing as equity in sports | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I feel very strongly about protecting female only categories in sport. It is indisputable that people born male have physiological advantages over people born female when it comes to sport. I can see why people feel strongly about this, but it's an issue of fairness and equality in sport. It's nothing to do with women's rights. You need to look into the history or how women had to fight to secure female only categories. Do they not have a right to know that they are competing in a fair competition? This particularly matters with regards to sports scholarships to colleges. You’ll probably argue this is not a “right” and legally that may be the case. Morally I would say it really really matters! I would argue exactly that. For me, 'rights' are legally defined rules that apply to all qualifying persons. So women have the right to equal pay, and that's written down in a law. Moral 'rights' don't count. You can't have widely accepted moral rights if you don't have a set of widely accepted morals. I agree with you that women's sport should be protected from a slide into relevance by the inclusion of trans people. However I don't agree that women have a 'right' to women-only sport. I don't believe that anyone has a 'right' to play any sort of sport. BTW if women have the right to equal pay how come professional sportswomen earn less than men?" Because they ate not employed to do the same job and sports contracts are based mostly on % of revenue. Take for instance the big lie that the US women's national team have been touting. They earned MORE than the men on the US mens national team for football. The WNBA. The players earn a higher % of revenue of their league than the men in the NBA earn in theirs. Neither the UK or USA had a gender pay gap based on men and women getting paid unequally for having exactly the same job. That's illegal. If a company in a capitalist country can legally get away with paying women less than men for doing the same job, best believe the company who's only interest is profit margin will have a workforce that is 100% female to save as much money on salaries and increase their profit margin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
