FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Transphobic Sunak
Transphobic Sunak
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Notice he used the word 'sex'. There really are only 2 'sexes'. Maybe he done that on purpose "If people can change their birth certificates... | |||
| |||
"Notice he used the word 'sex'. There really are only 2 'sexes'. Maybe he done that on purpose
If people can change their birth certificates..."Then they would still be a man ot a woman. A male who has sex reassignment surgery would be a woman and vice-versa. | |||
"Notice he used the word 'sex'. There really are only 2 'sexes'. Maybe he done that on purpose
If people can change their birth certificates...
Then they would still be a man ot a woman. A male who has sex reassignment surgery would be a woman and vice-versa. "You have a point  | |||
| |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi "Is that really transphobia? Or just a view you don’t agree with He’s even mentioned sex, not gender Everything’s a phobia these days. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
Is that really transphobia? Or just a view you don’t agree with
He’s even mentioned sex, not gender
Everything’s a phobia these days. "Trans covers gender and sex. First off a person identifies with the opposite sex (changing gender). Then over a period time may have gender reassignment and become the opposite sex. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
Is that really transphobia? Or just a view you don’t agree with
He’s even mentioned sex, not gender
Everything’s a phobia these days.
Trans covers gender and sex. First off a person identifies with the opposite sex (changing gender). Then over a period time may have gender reassignment and become the opposite sex."But is not agreeing with that instantly transphobia? Is that all it takes these days I fully agree with him and I don’t think I’m transphobic. I think trans people should have access to all the rights and healthcare they need. But I don’t think a person can change their sex. Transphobia has turned into “anything that doesn’t agree with everything a trans person wants” | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi "This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already."Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man? I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc…. Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points"And if you are gonna do that, maybe have a better come back after being challenged than “they’re probably tories” | |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points"There are people who say that as soon as a person identifies with the opposite sex, they are that sex. I don't agree. I believe they are that gender. Years and years ago on here, I had a debate/discussion with a trans woman, however she liked her cock and had no intention of gender reassignment. I struggled with her saying she was a woman (IE not just identifying as one). Women don't have cocks. | |||
"Tbf I think there are bigger issues in the world to deal with. Who does this actually cause trauma too apart from people who are trans? I don't get why this is an issue when it affects such a small minority of the population. I would prefer my (non elected) prime minister to concentrate on issues like global warming, Russia, and the fact the rich get richer (obv he won't as it benefits his family). Disgusted with the way this country is going" A lot to unpack here… you don’t elect a PM directly, i think we are now onto climate change, but it is bloody confusing. The rich getting richer is nobody’s business as long as it is legal, what are you thinking, freeze their assets when they get to a certain point of wealth? I like the last part, what would be a better direction for the country, I’m all for that | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
There are people who say that as soon as a person identifies with the opposite sex, they are that sex. I don't agree. I believe they are that gender.
Years and years ago on here, I had a debate/discussion with a trans woman, however she liked her cock and had no intention of gender reassignment. I struggled with her saying she was a woman (IE not just identifying as one). Women don't have cocks.
" | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
There are people who say that as soon as a person identifies with the opposite sex, they are that sex. I don't agree. I believe they are that gender.
Years and years ago on here, I had a debate/discussion with a trans woman, however she liked her cock and had no intention of gender reassignment. I struggled with her saying she was a woman (IE not just identifying as one). Women don't have cocks.
"You know what’s really weird? You get screamed out if the room in plenty of circles for saying women don’t have cocks. You’d be the transphobic one Which is weird when you think about the thread you started, and not even 20 replies in, your being transphobic Your not obviously, but that’s what I mean by everything is transphobic | |||
"Tbf I think there are bigger issues in the world to deal with. Who does this actually cause trauma too apart from people who are trans? I don't get why this is an issue when it affects such a small minority of the population. I would prefer my (non elected) prime minister to concentrate on issues like global warming, Russia, and the fact the rich get richer (obv he won't as it benefits his family). Disgusted with the way this country is going A lot to unpack here… you don’t elect a PM directly, i think we are now onto climate change, but it is bloody confusing. The rich getting richer is nobody’s business as long as it is legal, what are you thinking, freeze their assets when they get to a certain point of wealth? I like the last part, what would be a better direction for the country, I’m all for that " Probably bit too advanced. OK!! | |||
"Tbf I think there are bigger issues in the world to deal with. Who does this actually cause trauma too apart from people who are trans? I don't get why this is an issue when it affects such a small minority of the population. I would prefer my (non elected) prime minister to concentrate on issues like global warming, Russia, and the fact the rich get richer (obv he won't as it benefits his family). Disgusted with the way this country is going A lot to unpack here… you don’t elect a PM directly, i think we are now onto climate change, but it is bloody confusing. The rich getting richer is nobody’s business as long as it is legal, what are you thinking, freeze their assets when they get to a certain point of wealth? I like the last part, what would be a better direction for the country, I’m all for that Probably bit too advanced. OK!! " Excellent, show me the way, I’m all foe better ways | |||
"Tbf I think there are bigger issues in the world to deal with. Who does this actually cause trauma too apart from people who are trans? I don't get why this is an issue when it affects such a small minority of the population. I would prefer my (non elected) prime minister to concentrate on issues like global warming, Russia, and the fact the rich get richer (obv he won't as it benefits his family). Disgusted with the way this country is going A lot to unpack here… you don’t elect a PM directly, i think we are now onto climate change, but it is bloody confusing. The rich getting richer is nobody’s business as long as it is legal, what are you thinking, freeze their assets when they get to a certain point of wealth? I like the last part, what would be a better direction for the country, I’m all for that Probably bit too advanced. OK!! Excellent, show me the way, I’m all foe better ways " Really don't think I should waste my time.... | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
There are people who say that as soon as a person identifies with the opposite sex, they are that sex. I don't agree. I believe they are that gender.
Years and years ago on here, I had a debate/discussion with a trans woman, however she liked her cock and had no intention of gender reassignment. I struggled with her saying she was a woman (IE not just identifying as one). Women don't have cocks.
You know what’s really weird?
You get screamed out if the room in plenty of circles for saying women don’t have cocks.
You’d be the transphobic one
Which is weird when you think about the thread you started, and not even 20 replies in, your being transphobic
Your not obviously, but that’s what I mean by everything is transphobic "It wouldn't affect me if I was called transphobic, because I'm not. I'm just pedantic when it comes to language. Identify as a woman every Wednesday and as a man every Monday if you like (gender fluid) or with neither. But when it comes down to changing to male or female there is a process to go through. | |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points"I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home. | |||
"Tbf I think there are bigger issues in the world to deal with. Who does this actually cause trauma too apart from people who are trans? I don't get why this is an issue when it affects such a small minority of the population. I would prefer my (non elected) prime minister to concentrate on issues like global warming, Russia, and the fact the rich get richer (obv he won't as it benefits his family). Disgusted with the way this country is going" People love getting outraged by non-issues. It's much easier than facing actual problems. | |||
"The science bit is a bit boring. Actually, it isn't, but it's a different angle as to which bits of science determine sex. However the "so what" of this is whether it's sex, gender, or how one presents that drives laws, bathrooms etc. And whether it's sex, gender, or how one presents that affects why we feel the way we feel on this subject. Indeed the idea we split society today based on reproductive roles is interesting, especially as we are doing more and more to equalise the parental roles. " These transgender threads always seem to end in arguments over the minutiae of definitions. But ask ordinary people n the street and they know what a man and woman are. Rishi summed that up nicely. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
There are people who say that as soon as a person identifies with the opposite sex, they are that sex. I don't agree. I believe they are that gender.
Years and years ago on here, I had a debate/discussion with a trans woman, however she liked her cock and had no intention of gender reassignment. I struggled with her saying she was a woman (IE not just identifying as one). Women don't have cocks.
You know what’s really weird?
You get screamed out if the room in plenty of circles for saying women don’t have cocks.
You’d be the transphobic one
Which is weird when you think about the thread you started, and not even 20 replies in, your being transphobic
Your not obviously, but that’s what I mean by everything is transphobic
It wouldn't affect me if I was called transphobic, because I'm not. I'm just pedantic when it comes to language. Identify as a woman every Wednesday and as a man every Monday if you like (gender fluid) or with neither. But when it comes down to changing to male or female there is a process to go through. "THE PROCESS To get a gender recognition certificate (and then have a new birth certificate), you need to have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and lived as the opposite gender for two years. Gender reassignment is immaterial. If no diagnosis you need to have lived as the opp gender for 6 years and or (cannot remember) have reassignment surgery. | |||
| |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home. "Sorry for the deletes! I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy. | |||
"Tbf I think there are bigger issues in the world to deal with. Who does this actually cause trauma too apart from people who are trans? I don't get why this is an issue when it affects such a small minority of the population. I would prefer my (non elected) prime minister to concentrate on issues like global warming, Russia, and the fact the rich get richer (obv he won't as it benefits his family). Disgusted with the way this country is going A lot to unpack here… you don’t elect a PM directly, i think we are now onto climate change, but it is bloody confusing. The rich getting richer is nobody’s business as long as it is legal, what are you thinking, freeze their assets when they get to a certain point of wealth? I like the last part, what would be a better direction for the country, I’m all for that Probably bit too advanced. OK!! Excellent, show me the way, I’m all foe better ways Really don't think I should waste my time...." Hey, I’m not being difficult, I genuinely wanted to hear what you think would make this country better | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy."Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's? | |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy.
Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's?"
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy.
Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's?
"Why is everyone looking at me.   | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy.
Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's?
Why is everyone looking at me. "*********************************** | |||
| |||
"Demeaning trans gender Cheating poor constituencies of levelling up money 8 years Non dom for the wife Pulls up for a staged photo shoot in a Kia Rio, says live on bbc he owns a golf when actually owns four luxury cars ‘Changed’ his phone and can’t produce his what’s app messages to partygate enquiry Spends £500,000 of tax payers money on flights in March alone and then lectures us on cost of hs2 " Shall we unpack this? Demeaning trans gender, do you believe in science? Cheating people of levelling up money? Are you referring to council money or is it something I haven’t heard of, I would like to know more. Do you know he doesn’t own a golf? Changed his phone and can’t produce WhatsApp messages.. any idea on the protocols of managing the PM / Chancellors mobile phone and data held on it? I would like to know if it is the same as the rest of us or not
Ah travel expenses, interesting.. a lot of talk about this lately in the msm. What do you think about the leaders of all the other countries that travel quickly and securely? Right or wrong and how should the PM travel? No 2 on a tap and go? | |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy.
Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's?
Why is everyone looking at me. "? | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy.
Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's?
Why is everyone looking at me.
***********************************
" | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
I don't know if you meant to, but you really nailed my point home.
Sorry for the deletes!
I think you will find I didn’t. If you want to run around pretending science that describes and allows us to understand the biology of a human is wrong, but then lecture and denounce people who don’t believe the science of climate change, is crazy place to be! you lost the room buddy.
Did you get my post mixed up with someone else's?
Why is everyone looking at me.
***********************************
"Honestly no clue what's going on. You appeared to either get my post mixed up with someone else's or you just went off on one at me for no reason. | |||
"What I find interesting is the government does all kinds of sketchy shit and fuck up over and over again. But the PM makes one comment relating to trans people and everyone loses their shit." He got a big cheer at the conference. Should he be making such opinions public? Being privy only to the snapshot of the OP on the news, we don't have the context surrounding this opinion. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi ". He is only stating the blatantly obvious . Most people agree with him apart from minority groups with vested interests. | |||
| |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces." You transphobe  | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. You transphobe "Was that a joke? Can’t always tell? | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces." There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. You transphobe
Was that a joke? Can’t always tell?"Apologies, it was a joke. I think we're defintely on the same side of this debate. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority." As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex?" Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry." But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? | |||
| |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise?" As it would have felt there were more gays when gay sex was legalised (1967?) The suppression is no longer a necessity to fit in with societal norms. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise?" According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. " My kid says at school there are “furries” ie people identifying as animals FFS. To me that is just kids wanting to be different/noticed. It’s like anything that starts off with good intentions (inclusivity etc) it ends up going too far and stops being common sense/common decency. | |||
| |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. My kid says at school there are “furries” ie people identifying as animals FFS. To me that is just kids wanting to be different/noticed. It’s like anything that starts off with good intentions (inclusivity etc) it ends up going too far and stops being common sense/common decency. " Yes, "furries" do indeed exist. Shouldn't we be feeding them from a bowl placed on the floor? | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. " Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity." Minds | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity." I agree we should not suppress nor confirm. I think part of the issues with school is they encourage it. And they do encourage it (anecdotal). Children will be children, allow them the innocence, and freedom of expression whilst staying fully neutral so that when the times comes we can be there to support one way or the other. The notion that you can be whatever you want to be, is, in my opinion ridiculous. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity. I agree we should not suppress nor confirm. I think part of the issues with school is they encourage it. And they do encourage it (anecdotal). Children will be children, allow them the innocence, and freedom of expression whilst staying fully neutral so that when the times comes we can be there to support one way or the other. The notion that you can be whatever you want to be, is, in my opinion ridiculous. " I'm glad my children are no longer school age. I'd be ranting if I thought that gender identity was promoted in any overt way. Your middle paragraph states it beautifully. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity. I agree we should not suppress nor confirm. I think part of the issues with school is they encourage it. And they do encourage it (anecdotal). Children will be children, allow them the innocence, and freedom of expression whilst staying fully neutral so that when the times comes we can be there to support one way or the other. The notion that you can be whatever you want to be, is, in my opinion ridiculous. " how do they encourage it ? Of the examples I've seen or heard it falls under a) supporting rather than resisting and b) discussing the various flavours. Now b) can look more assertive because if the assumption is abc the you need to be more vocal about xyz. It's like reminding ppl there are non hetro relationships when talking about reaktionships. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. My kid says at school there are “furries” ie people identifying as animals FFS. To me that is just kids wanting to be different/noticed. It’s like anything that starts off with good intentions (inclusivity etc) it ends up going too far and stops being common sense/common decency. Yes, "furries" do indeed exist. Shouldn't we be feeding them from a bowl placed on the floor?" people who say they identify as an animal tend not to demand consistency in their views. Indeed, I would say there is an interesting discussion here for kids as to what identifying means. For me to respect your identification I need to treat you as what you identify as. So it's not the token gestures but the full hog. You want to identify as an Apache helicopter or whatever the meme is, then fine. I'm sending you to Ukraine etc. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity. I agree we should not suppress nor confirm. I think part of the issues with school is they encourage it. And they do encourage it (anecdotal). Children will be children, allow them the innocence, and freedom of expression whilst staying fully neutral so that when the times comes we can be there to support one way or the other. The notion that you can be whatever you want to be, is, in my opinion ridiculous. how do they encourage it ? Of the examples I've seen or heard it falls under a) supporting rather than resisting and b) discussing the various flavours. Now b) can look more assertive because if the assumption is abc the you need to be more vocal about xyz. It's like reminding ppl there are non hetro relationships when talking about reaktionships. " They are encouraging it by allowing them to change names, pronouns etc. As I said, allow children to be children and that includes experimenting, freedom of expression etc whilst remaining neutral.. Did you know that with the sharp rise in transitioning, there has also been a sharp rise in de-transioning? | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity. I agree we should not suppress nor confirm. I think part of the issues with school is they encourage it. And they do encourage it (anecdotal). Children will be children, allow them the innocence, and freedom of expression whilst staying fully neutral so that when the times comes we can be there to support one way or the other. The notion that you can be whatever you want to be, is, in my opinion ridiculous. how do they encourage it ? Of the examples I've seen or heard it falls under a) supporting rather than resisting and b) discussing the various flavours. Now b) can look more assertive because if the assumption is abc the you need to be more vocal about xyz. It's like reminding ppl there are non hetro relationships when talking about reaktionships. They are encouraging it by allowing them to change names, pronouns etc. As I said, allow children to be children and that includes experimenting, freedom of expression etc whilst remaining neutral.. Did you know that with the sharp rise in transitioning, there has also been a sharp rise in de-transioning?" encouraging by allowing... we will have different views here whether that is okay or not and if not supporting is supression. But thanks for clarifying. Transitioning is a big decision. I believe it needs considerable consider and discussion because (as understand it) it comes with risks, and reversal may not be 100pc possible. But I'd need to see evidence to say that schools using pronouns increases the numbers transitioning and the if there is any similar correlation with reversals. It may be allowing a child to explore at 13 say means they have a better understanding at 18 and so make better decisions. We probably agree on many of the big concerns. I have no idea tho how school feeds into them. I do have concerns that supression is damaging (based on going to school in 80s/90s) | |||
| |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? According to my daughter (14) and sis-in-law (teacher) there has been a massive surge in children identifying as all sorts of things, not just trans mtf or ftm, in the last couple of years. We have had trans mtf and ftm for my whole life and its never been an issue. I genuinely feel part of the problem is the notion that you can 'be whatever you want to be'. Children are good at following trends and social media has heightened this. My granddaughter identified as gay long before she had sexual notions. Her mother and I told her not to attach labels to herself and to explore (when legal). Some of the children identifying as opposite will be doing so as a trend, others will continue. As children's mins are malleable, we have to be careful neither to suppress nor confirm, but support the children to be themselves however they pan out. Talking of pan, my granddaughter went from gay, to bi, to pan-sexual, all before losing her virginity (to a boyfriend). I know sexual orientation is not the subject matter but an anecdotal example of a child claiming one thing and being able to change as she was discovering aspects of her own identity. I agree we should not suppress nor confirm. I think part of the issues with school is they encourage it. And they do encourage it (anecdotal). Children will be children, allow them the innocence, and freedom of expression whilst staying fully neutral so that when the times comes we can be there to support one way or the other. The notion that you can be whatever you want to be, is, in my opinion ridiculous. how do they encourage it ? Of the examples I've seen or heard it falls under a) supporting rather than resisting and b) discussing the various flavours. Now b) can look more assertive because if the assumption is abc the you need to be more vocal about xyz. It's like reminding ppl there are non hetro relationships when talking about reaktionships. They are encouraging it by allowing them to change names, pronouns etc. As I said, allow children to be children and that includes experimenting, freedom of expression etc whilst remaining neutral.. Did you know that with the sharp rise in transitioning, there has also been a sharp rise in de-transioning? encouraging by allowing... we will have different views here whether that is okay or not and if not supporting is supression. But thanks for clarifying. Transitioning is a big decision. I believe it needs considerable consider and discussion because (as understand it) it comes with risks, and reversal may not be 100pc possible. But I'd need to see evidence to say that schools using pronouns increases the numbers transitioning and the if there is any similar correlation with reversals. It may be allowing a child to explore at 13 say means they have a better understanding at 18 and so make better decisions. We probably agree on many of the big concerns. I have no idea tho how school feeds into them. I do have concerns that supression is damaging (based on going to school in 80s/90s) " I don't necessarily think we have differing views on the wider topic. Part of this is language. If allowing isn't necessarily encouraging, then not supporting isn't necessarily suppression. I don't think we can have our cake and eat it. | |||
"Male to female or female to male for me yep I can see you may need to do that. Human to animal = don’t be so fucking stupid. It is impossible to change species." It wasn't very long ago that we would have said it's impossible to change sex. Indeed, some people still do say that. Why do you think that changing species is so much more different? | |||
"Male to female or female to male for me yep I can see you may need to do that. Human to animal = don’t be so fucking stupid. It is impossible to change species. It wasn't very long ago that we would have said it's impossible to change sex. Indeed, some people still do say that. Why do you think that changing species is so much more different?" It is impossible to change sex. And there are still only two sexes because there are only two gametes. | |||
| |||
"Male to female or female to male for me yep I can see you may need to do that. Human to animal = don’t be so fucking stupid. It is impossible to change species. It wasn't very long ago that we would have said it's impossible to change sex. Indeed, some people still do say that. Why do you think that changing species is so much more different? It is impossible to change sex. And there are still only two sexes because there are only two gametes. " Biologically you're right. Legally you're wrong. | |||
| |||
"Male to female or female to male for me yep I can see you may need to do that. Human to animal = don’t be so fucking stupid. It is impossible to change species. It wasn't very long ago that we would have said it's impossible to change sex. Indeed, some people still do say that. Why do you think that changing species is so much more different? It is impossible to change sex. And there are still only two sexes because there are only two gametes. Biologically you're right. Legally you're wrong." If someone gains a GRC. Few do. | |||
| |||
""There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected." That was me. And unpleasant as it is to go against the trend on here and stand up for my gender critical / sex realist opinions - I will keep doing it. Identifying as a woman does not mean gaining access to single sex spaces, prison wards or women's sports. Safeguarding exists to protect women and I will stand up for that. " IMO you made some valid points. As a matter of interest, where do you stand re gender? Do you respect a person's self-identification? | |||
"Just purely out of interest how much does it cost to change gender and who pays for it?" I imagine if diagnosed with gender dysphoria, the NHS. If not, the patient. | |||
"Just purely out of interest how much does it cost to change gender and who pays for it?" Are you talking about applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate? That costs £5 plus medical evidence may cost. Gender reassignment surgery is under the NHS but the waiting lists are very long and not many surgeons able to do that. I think additional cosmetic surgery would carry a private cost. | |||
""There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected." That was me. And unpleasant as it is to go against the trend on here and stand up for my gender critical / sex realist opinions - I will keep doing it. Identifying as a woman does not mean gaining access to single sex spaces, prison wards or women's sports. Safeguarding exists to protect women and I will stand up for that. IMO you made some valid points. As a matter of interest, where do you stand re gender? Do you respect a person's self-identification?" What do you mean more precisely? Using pronouns? Yes. | |||
""There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected." That was me. And unpleasant as it is to go against the trend on here and stand up for my gender critical / sex realist opinions - I will keep doing it. Identifying as a woman does not mean gaining access to single sex spaces, prison wards or women's sports. Safeguarding exists to protect women and I will stand up for that. IMO you made some valid points. As a matter of interest, where do you stand re gender? Do you respect a person's self-identification? What do you mean more precisely? Using pronouns? Yes. " | |||
| |||
"It is very interesting to read peoples opinions on trans, and how they position them. There is a real worry of getting something wrong, with an almost apologetic sentiment regarding what is about to be said. That is how powerful a minority has become and I believe one of the reasons people are not necessarily becoming trans, but joining a powerful group, it would go some way of explaining the exponential rise in those who claim to be trans. " that may be me. However as someone who has struggled with being comfortable with my sexuality from a young age, I have experienced first hand some of the effects of not having open conversations at a young age can be. Some comments have echos of my experience. A bit "I don't mind what people want to do, but don't ram it down my throat" when all they are really asking is for the same privalages as others. Tbh It's not a fear of offending, but a worry of causing emotional damage. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
This will energise the supporter base. As you can see in this thread already.
Can a man become an actual woman, can a woman become an actual man?
I’m not at all bothered if someone is trans, what I’m bothered about is being forced to say a man became a woman, woman became a man, man can have a baby, etc etc….
Do your thing but don’t try and change science with emotional and aggressive attacks full of tenuous points
There are people who say that as soon as a person identifies with the opposite sex, they are that sex. I don't agree. I believe they are that gender.
Years and years ago on here, I had a debate/discussion with a trans woman, however she liked her cock and had no intention of gender reassignment. I struggled with her saying she was a woman (IE not just identifying as one). Women don't have cocks.
You know what’s really weird?
You get screamed out if the room in plenty of circles for saying women don’t have cocks.
You’d be the transphobic one
Which is weird when you think about the thread you started, and not even 20 replies in, your being transphobic
Your not obviously, but that’s what I mean by everything is transphobic
It wouldn't affect me if I was called transphobic, because I'm not. I'm just pedantic when it comes to language. Identify as a woman every Wednesday and as a man every Monday if you like (gender fluid) or with neither. But when it comes down to changing to male or female there is a process to go through.
THE PROCESS
To get a gender recognition certificate (and then have a new birth certificate), you need to have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria and lived as the opposite gender for two years. Gender reassignment is immaterial. If no diagnosis you need to have lived as the opp gender for 6 years and or (cannot remember) have reassignment surgery."There really isn't a route for getting gender recognition certificates without a gender dyshoria diagnosis for most. The rules on that route have the following requirements: - you currently live in England, Wales or Scotland - you were in a marriage or a civil partnership on 10 December 2014 and living in England or Wales, or on 15 December 2014 and living in Scotland - you had been living in your affirmed gender for at least 6 years before those dates, and you have evidence of that - you have had gender affirmation surgery So it is not just living in gender for 6 years and having undergone gender reassignment surgery, you had to have been living in gender since 2008 and to have been either married or in a civil partnership in 2014 (which seems rather discriminatory against single people). For most trans people the living for two years in gender is a bit irrelevant at the moment as most seem to be socially transitioning about the time they join the waiting lists for the NHS gender clinics. These all have ridiculously long waiting times. Mine is taking in first appointments for people who joined the list in 2018 but post covid the referal rate rocketted so has about 14000 on their list and managed 55 first appointments last month. My back of a fag packet calculation suggests at the current rate the waiting list is about 20 years long. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise?" Please don't assume that because the media ficuses on male to female transition that there are not equivalent numbers transitioning the other way. All research evidence suggests that in fact the number at pretty even. | |||
| |||
"Just purely out of interest how much does it cost to change gender and who pays for it? Are you talking about applying for a Gender Recognition Certificate? That costs £5 plus medical evidence may cost. Gender reassignment surgery is under the NHS but the waiting lists are very long and not many surgeons able to do that. I think additional cosmetic surgery would carry a private cost. " I am sorry I haven't done the research into the private costs for female to male transition. The costs for male to female I know a bit more about. Private hormone treatment typically costs £700 per annum for the required blood tests (but with some treatments can be considerably more). The private perscription cost for estrogen and a simple testosterone blocker is about £500 per annum this in my case will probably increase to about £1500 per annum as it looks like I need one of the more expensive testosterone blockers. On top of this there are the mandated clinic costs typically about £500- £1000 per annum which covers administration and councelling sessions. Transition surgery costs vary a lot depending on the results you want the cheapest is an orcidectomy (removal of the testes) and vulvaplasty. This produces the external look but without the complex surgery of producing a neovagina. I haven't got the cost for this to hand. Cost for options with a neovagina seem to be upto £40k at the moment depending on the choosen route to obtain this. A lot of MTF patients also feel the need for facial surgery which is typically around £7k privately. I know people whos electrolysis has run to over £10k and still ongoing. Typically only very limited electrolysis and no facial surgery is covered by the NHS pathway. | |||
"It is very interesting to read peoples opinions on trans, and how they position them. There is a real worry of getting something wrong, with an almost apologetic sentiment regarding what is about to be said. That is how powerful a minority has become and I believe one of the reasons people are not necessarily becoming trans, but joining a powerful group, it would go some way of explaining the exponential rise in those who claim to be trans. " When I started my social transition one of the things I was very clear to state was that I would try and be calm and accepting when people make honest mistakes but that if people were willfully misnaming or misgendering me that I may not be very tolerant. I think I have manage to stick to this pretty well so far, which isn't to say I haven't gone home and raged in private (only once that I can remember) or curl inti a ball and cry (a few more times). | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. As I said/implied I am out of my depth on this topic and always at risk of offending someone which is really not my intent. But here goes (slightly tangential)... There are without doubt some people in the world who are born into the wrong body. I don’t understand the science but it is clear some people born male should have been females and vice versa. I cannot imagine the challenges they face and the journey some of them have to take. I think they are very brave people. However, I think there are also people who have a less valid claim. Some just want to be different. Some want attention. Some are following a trend. Some have less savoury ulterior motives. I believe this undermines and dilutes the struggle of those who are genuine. While society and science moves on and more people may feel they can “come out” to me it feels like there has been an exponential growth in this area (is the right term gender dysmorphia? Please can someone educate me on this). I wonder if scientifically there really are THAT many more people now who should be the opposite sex? Gender dysphoria. Scientifically more? I would assume not. I think there's less reason to struggle to stay the sex/gender as on birth certificate. That's not to undermine any personal struggle/journey, but to say one doesn't have to do it in isolation or have to conform (in the UK) to said birth certificate entry. But it *feels* like there are suddenly lots of people claiming they want to be the opposite sex (and as an aside, this is dominated by those born male wanting to be female whereas those female wanting to be male seem to be just getting on with it) in comparison to before. Is that because volumes have been suppressed by society, legal process, and medical science, and that volume has always been there, or is it actually on the rise? Please don't assume that because the media ficuses on male to female transition that there are not equivalent numbers transitioning the other way. All research evidence suggests that in fact the number at pretty even." Understood and helpful to know. I think my personal views are skewed somewhat by my involvement in sports and seeing the detrimental impact of people born male entering women’s categories. The physiological advantages they have gives them an unfair advantage that I do not find acceptable. | |||
| |||
"Probably because it affects a lot more people than your realise. As well as other parenting conflicts. My friend is a teacher and must address a person in his class as their preferred pronouns( and a different name) But revert to the child's usual name to the parents at aprent teacher. It also has an effect on the age of consent of when children should be allowed puberty blockers etc and prescribing this. Again without a parent knowing. It opens up a whole world of issues that are unseen. The problem is when just blanket allowing things. Progression over the years will change the original meaning If you look at the Progression of abortion laws( not saying right or wrong here) In the uk. Originally it was for only when the infant life and parent life in danger. Then it became about breathing 19-22 weeks. And had to be certified by 2 drs. Then 28 week. With the several grounds e.g risk to life Then it became mental health The mental health risk has obviously had large part. I think abortions jumped 200% in the 5 or so years it became legal? The problem is once a law is created. There is not much stopping it creeping toward soemthing it wasn't intended for. So this is why every law should be thoroughly scrutinised in parliament with pros and cons thought out. Now whether people like it pr not there is a large de transition group who felt they were groomed to transition and now regrwst it a decade later. I posted on here about the statistics for hovis for transgender assaults on female prisoners. I personally don't think a biologocial male like Eddie izzard at the labour conference should be able to go into the ladies lav. Some trans activists do. But you cant simply demand it bot be discussed. Because once you open those spaces up. You open up a WHOLE WORLD of litigation and legal issues. We have seen absolutely DUMBFOUNDING amendments such as when they wanted to ban all food stuffs not meeting uk standards.. but thay would have broken about 10 international treaties thenuk signed. Allowing the 50 poorest countries to send their goods here. Parliament is there and the Lords at times to properly scrutinise and not simply give in. " While I agree there are issues like the one you mentioned. We do need a common sense debate on the subject. Not always giving the polar extremes of each view the most airtime. Which is unfortunately what the media seem to do. News channels think their job is to be entertainment channels. I disagree about the level of people it effects. The stories are promoted for effect and used has a political football by the different parties. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available?" They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. "All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence." Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. And you bet that if they're doing to to me, they'll be doing it to you the moment that there is a populist turn against whatever minority group you happen to intersect with in some way. So which is it then? The current tory government (note I said government, not every tory) are lying cunts that promote hatred just to pick up a few votes. Or the current tory government are truthful cunts that promote hatred and actually want to kill anybody that doesn't fit their idea of being "good proper people"." . Maybe back in the real world most people have no interest in what sex you choose to identify as . We live in a free society and you are entitled to promote any views that you wish. What you are not entitled to do in a free society is attempt to force your views on others. If you were ill I am certain that the hospital staff would be more than capable of deciding which ward you should be in. Any rational person would only be concerned about the medical treatment than they obtain, not what sex they identify as. Rishi Sunak has simply states what the majority of people recognise. ( probably 99 % of the population) You would receive exactly the sane treatment as any other member of society and should be very greatfull for it . | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. And you bet that if they're doing to to me, they'll be doing it to you the moment that there is a populist turn against whatever minority group you happen to intersect with in some way. So which is it then? The current tory government (note I said government, not every tory) are lying cunts that promote hatred just to pick up a few votes. Or the current tory government are truthful cunts that promote hatred and actually want to kill anybody that doesn't fit their idea of being "good proper people".. Maybe back in the real world most people have no interest in what sex you choose to identify as . " Except Sunak. He is concerned about it. " We live in a free society and you are entitled to promote any views that you wish. " Excellent. " What you are not entitled to do in a free society is attempt to force your views on others. " What about someone who's view is that view should be forced on others? " If you were ill I am certain that the hospital staff would be more than capable of deciding which ward you should be in. " Excellent, so no need for the Tories to make this into an issue. " Any rational person would only be concerned about the medical treatment than they obtain, not what sex they identify as. " I agree. Sunak wasn't being rational. " Rishi Sunak has simply states what the majority of people recognise. ( probably 99 % of the population) You would receive exactly the sane treatment as any other member of society and should be very greatfull for it ." Hopefully this is true. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled?" Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. | |||
| |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available?" "They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor." "All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence." "Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled?" "Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country." I'm not sure why you've brought Patel and Braverman up, they've not said anything about changing gender recently. But the comparison with the Nazis makes your thinking clear. This isn't about trans issues, you just want an excuse to bash the Tories. | |||
"Notice he used the word 'sex'. There really are only 2 'sexes'. Maybe he done that on purpose
If people can change their birth certificates..."Still can’t change your chromosomes ?? | |||
"Is this the latest “thing” to distract us from the real issues. I dunno, like the major change to our laws of free speech that come into force at the end of this month?!!!" | |||
"Considering how few people this issue effects people in real life, its amazing how many people, by the debates on social media, think is one of most important issues the PM should be talking about. Just like meat taxes, 15 min cities and 7 rubbish bins. Most of the trans community are not the militants demanding prioritising their rights over women. Its only a very vocal minority that the media like to amplify and project that they are a majority voice for the community. " Re important PM speeches, who claimed a rating of importance? Sunak made a statement, we're discussing it. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. And you bet that if they're doing to to me, they'll be doing it to you the moment that there is a populist turn against whatever minority group you happen to intersect with in some way. So which is it then? The current tory government (note I said government, not every tory) are lying cunts that promote hatred just to pick up a few votes. Or the current tory government are truthful cunts that promote hatred and actually want to kill anybody that doesn't fit their idea of being "good proper people"." There are mixed areas in hospitals such as pre-op. It maybe that trans people will be outliers which means not placed in a ward according to type, eg you could be a medical patient on a surgical ward. Also there are single rooms. However these are normally used for barrier nursing (infection or immunosuppressed) or palliative (end of life) patients. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country." More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth." Yes, the immediate income from the job to Sunak, is nothing compared to the worth of his wife. However it is incredibly useful for the owner of the multi-national mega-billion company Infosys to have the British PM married to his daughter. It's really strange how already there have been a whole bunch of government policies where Infosys and other companies linked to his wife's family are making big bucks! Almost as if there might just be some conflict of interest in having the PM effectively owned by a multi-billionaire family of foreign nationals... As I said, it's clear that decisions are not being made in the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that the Infosys dynasty (not a UK company, not bringing money into the UK, not paying taxes here) have started doing very nicely thank you since Sunak got the job. It goes beyond "pushing a bit of money the family way" when UK foreign and domestic policy is manifestly influenced by the PMs foreign family who have zero loyalty to this country. Still I suppose we've had one PM who was clearly a puppet of Putin, followed by one who wears a day-collar and clearly just spouts whatever lines she was fed by her owner, so having a PM now who is owned by an Indian billionaire family is no big difference. I just wonder what happened to that sovereignty though? | |||
 | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth. Yes, the immediate income from the job to Sunak, is nothing compared to the worth of his wife. However it is incredibly useful for the owner of the multi-national mega-billion company Infosys to have the British PM married to his daughter. It's really strange how already there have been a whole bunch of government policies where Infosys and other companies linked to his wife's family are making big bucks! Almost as if there might just be some conflict of interest in having the PM effectively owned by a multi-billionaire family of foreign nationals... As I said, it's clear that decisions are not being made in the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that the Infosys dynasty (not a UK company, not bringing money into the UK, not paying taxes here) have started doing very nicely thank you since Sunak got the job. It goes beyond "pushing a bit of money the family way" when UK foreign and domestic policy is manifestly influenced by the PMs foreign family who have zero loyalty to this country. Still I suppose we've had one PM who was clearly a puppet of Putin, followed by one who wears a day-collar and clearly just spouts whatever lines she was fed by her owner, so having a PM now who is owned by an Indian billionaire family is no big difference. I just wonder what happened to that sovereignty though?" . You appear to have ignored the fact that there is a purchase order system within the civil service. You cannot simply award a contract to family friends. Contracts especially major ones will be subject to extensive processes and procedures and a number of senior civil servants will be required to sign them off. They were an approved contractor a long time before he came PM. With regard to any Corporation Tax charges the company would be subject to exactly the same rules as any other company. Like any other company if they believe any rules are incorrectly applied they have the right of appeal. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth. Yes, the immediate income from the job to Sunak, is nothing compared to the worth of his wife. However it is incredibly useful for the owner of the multi-national mega-billion company Infosys to have the British PM married to his daughter. It's really strange how already there have been a whole bunch of government policies where Infosys and other companies linked to his wife's family are making big bucks! Almost as if there might just be some conflict of interest in having the PM effectively owned by a multi-billionaire family of foreign nationals... As I said, it's clear that decisions are not being made in the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that the Infosys dynasty (not a UK company, not bringing money into the UK, not paying taxes here) have started doing very nicely thank you since Sunak got the job. It goes beyond "pushing a bit of money the family way" when UK foreign and domestic policy is manifestly influenced by the PMs foreign family who have zero loyalty to this country. Still I suppose we've had one PM who was clearly a puppet of Putin, followed by one who wears a day-collar and clearly just spouts whatever lines she was fed by her owner, so having a PM now who is owned by an Indian billionaire family is no big difference. I just wonder what happened to that sovereignty though?" . The pms wife owns 0.9 % of the company ( less than 1 % ) . It is difficult to see how such a small stake would give her any influence on the company. Her share is worth a lot but she is totally insignificant compared to other shareholders. | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth. Yes, the immediate income from the job to Sunak, is nothing compared to the worth of his wife. However it is incredibly useful for the owner of the multi-national mega-billion company Infosys to have the British PM married to his daughter. It's really strange how already there have been a whole bunch of government policies where Infosys and other companies linked to his wife's family are making big bucks! Almost as if there might just be some conflict of interest in having the PM effectively owned by a multi-billionaire family of foreign nationals... As I said, it's clear that decisions are not being made in the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that the Infosys dynasty (not a UK company, not bringing money into the UK, not paying taxes here) have started doing very nicely thank you since Sunak got the job. It goes beyond "pushing a bit of money the family way" when UK foreign and domestic policy is manifestly influenced by the PMs foreign family who have zero loyalty to this country. Still I suppose we've had one PM who was clearly a puppet of Putin, followed by one who wears a day-collar and clearly just spouts whatever lines she was fed by her owner, so having a PM now who is owned by an Indian billionaire family is no big difference. I just wonder what happened to that sovereignty though?. You appear to have ignored the fact that there is a purchase order system within the civil service. You cannot simply award a contract to family friends. Contracts especially major ones will be subject to extensive processes and procedures and a number of senior civil servants will be required to sign them off. They were an approved contractor a long time before he came PM. With regard to any Corporation Tax charges the company would be subject to exactly the same rules as any other company. Like any other company if they believe any rules are incorrectly applied they have the right of appeal. " I am not aware of Infosys particularly increasing the number/scale of direct UK Govt contracts since Sunak became PM. As Pat says, there are checks and balances in place (though any rational person with even a bit of knowledge of how Govt procurement actually works behind the scenes will know it is still possible to manipulate outcomes). No the real opportunities for Infosys are in the winning of contracts that ostensibly have nothing directly to do with, or deliver to, the UK Govt, but are instead enabled by Govt policy changes (or the promise of). So while Infosys may have been a front runner for the Shell contract worth £1.5bn, it certainly would not have hurt having the Shell CEO advising Sunak and the UK Govt announcing new oil & gas licences for the North Sea. There is also some murky areas to look into regarding British businesses being “asked” by Sunak to withdraw from Russia and a suspicion that those vacated contracts have been picked up by Infosys (who as an Indian company were not required to stop trading in Russia by their Govt). | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth. Yes, the immediate income from the job to Sunak, is nothing compared to the worth of his wife. However it is incredibly useful for the owner of the multi-national mega-billion company Infosys to have the British PM married to his daughter. It's really strange how already there have been a whole bunch of government policies where Infosys and other companies linked to his wife's family are making big bucks! Almost as if there might just be some conflict of interest in having the PM effectively owned by a multi-billionaire family of foreign nationals... As I said, it's clear that decisions are not being made in the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that the Infosys dynasty (not a UK company, not bringing money into the UK, not paying taxes here) have started doing very nicely thank you since Sunak got the job. It goes beyond "pushing a bit of money the family way" when UK foreign and domestic policy is manifestly influenced by the PMs foreign family who have zero loyalty to this country. Still I suppose we've had one PM who was clearly a puppet of Putin, followed by one who wears a day-collar and clearly just spouts whatever lines she was fed by her owner, so having a PM now who is owned by an Indian billionaire family is no big difference. I just wonder what happened to that sovereignty though?. You appear to have ignored the fact that there is a purchase order system within the civil service. You cannot simply award a contract to family friends. Contracts especially major ones will be subject to extensive processes and procedures and a number of senior civil servants will be required to sign them off. They were an approved contractor a long time before he came PM. With regard to any Corporation Tax charges the company would be subject to exactly the same rules as any other company. Like any other company if they believe any rules are incorrectly applied they have the right of appeal. I am not aware of Infosys particularly increasing the number/scale of direct UK Govt contracts since Sunak became PM. As Pat says, there are checks and balances in place (though any rational person with even a bit of knowledge of how Govt procurement actually works behind the scenes will know it is still possible to manipulate outcomes). No the real opportunities for Infosys are in the winning of contracts that ostensibly have nothing directly to do with, or deliver to, the UK Govt, but are instead enabled by Govt policy changes (or the promise of). So while Infosys may have been a front runner for the Shell contract worth £1.5bn, it certainly would not have hurt having the Shell CEO advising Sunak and the UK Govt announcing new oil & gas licences for the North Sea. There is also some murky areas to look into regarding British businesses being “asked” by Sunak to withdraw from Russia and a suspicion that those vacated contracts have been picked up by Infosys (who as an Indian company were not required to stop trading in Russia by their Govt)." . It looks like the source of your information is inaccurate. The figure which you have quoted is in in dollars so converts to £1.2 billion. The contact to which you refer was actually awarded to BP. ( not Shell. ) Two entirely different companies. A more meaningfull picture would be the profit margin on the contract and over what period. Without a detailed breakdown of the costs it is difficult to make an assessment of it . Infosy have contacts with companies in many different countries. Having one in the UK is no different to having one in any other country | |||
"Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country." ************************************* I'm sorry but I have to give my own opinion on this post, which to me, is disgraceful. The poster didn't even qualify this 'contribution' as being their own opinion(s) This, I offer as being my conviction and that is..., Thoughtless attitudes and pure unadulterated hatred like yours allowed the nazis to 'flourish', nothing else. Eva. (Quite happy being the way I was made) | |||
"Sunak has stated that no trans person will be allowed in a single sex hospital ward. So what do I do if I need hospital and there is no mixed ward available? They'll put you in a private room. Or possibly they'll follow NHS tradition for crowded times and leave you in a corridor. All these announcements affecting trans people are either (a) Nothing but dog whistles to capture support from the rabid right wing. or (b) Actual fascist policies that are a precursor to actively erasing me and people like me from existence. Is that really how you see it? Any dissent from politicians is either whipping up hatred against you, or trying to have you killed? Is there no possibility that they might be well-intentioned but just misled? Or they will just refuse to treat me. These are the identical steps that led towards the Holocaust in Germany, substituting a more modern target for the hatred. Good people within the NHS might try to ignore the hatred behind these regulations, but we all know that even good people are capable of quite horrific actions if they are "just following the rules". Are you seriously suggesting that people like Braverman and Priti Patel are well intentioned? It is obvious to even the blindest that they are motivated totally by spite. They cultivate hatred because they have found it a very successful way of improving their personal position in life. Sunak personally may not care one way or another, but he finds it very convenient to go along with the more extreme as long as he gets to keep the job that is of great financial benefit to his family. What none of the current government clearly give a flying fuck about is the good of the people of this country. More likely to be power hungry than in financial need. He earns pennies compared to what his wife is worth. Yes, the immediate income from the job to Sunak, is nothing compared to the worth of his wife. However it is incredibly useful for the owner of the multi-national mega-billion company Infosys to have the British PM married to his daughter. It's really strange how already there have been a whole bunch of government policies where Infosys and other companies linked to his wife's family are making big bucks! Almost as if there might just be some conflict of interest in having the PM effectively owned by a multi-billionaire family of foreign nationals... As I said, it's clear that decisions are not being made in the best interests of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that the Infosys dynasty (not a UK company, not bringing money into the UK, not paying taxes here) have started doing very nicely thank you since Sunak got the job. It goes beyond "pushing a bit of money the family way" when UK foreign and domestic policy is manifestly influenced by the PMs foreign family who have zero loyalty to this country. Still I suppose we've had one PM who was clearly a puppet of Putin, followed by one who wears a day-collar and clearly just spouts whatever lines she was fed by her owner, so having a PM now who is owned by an Indian billionaire family is no big difference. I just wonder what happened to that sovereignty though?. You appear to have ignored the fact that there is a purchase order system within the civil service. You cannot simply award a contract to family friends. Contracts especially major ones will be subject to extensive processes and procedures and a number of senior civil servants will be required to sign them off. They were an approved contractor a long time before he came PM. With regard to any Corporation Tax charges the company would be subject to exactly the same rules as any other company. Like any other company if they believe any rules are incorrectly applied they have the right of appeal. I am not aware of Infosys particularly increasing the number/scale of direct UK Govt contracts since Sunak became PM. As Pat says, there are checks and balances in place (though any rational person with even a bit of knowledge of how Govt procurement actually works behind the scenes will know it is still possible to manipulate outcomes). No the real opportunities for Infosys are in the winning of contracts that ostensibly have nothing directly to do with, or deliver to, the UK Govt, but are instead enabled by Govt policy changes (or the promise of). So while Infosys may have been a front runner for the Shell contract worth £1.5bn, it certainly would not have hurt having the Shell CEO advising Sunak and the UK Govt announcing new oil & gas licences for the North Sea. There is also some murky areas to look into regarding British businesses being “asked” by Sunak to withdraw from Russia and a suspicion that those vacated contracts have been picked up by Infosys (who as an Indian company were not required to stop trading in Russia by their Govt).. It looks like the source of your information is inaccurate. The figure which you have quoted is in in dollars so converts to £1.2 billion. The contact to which you refer was actually awarded to BP. ( not Shell. ) Two entirely different companies. A more meaningfull picture would be the profit margin on the contract and over what period. Without a detailed breakdown of the costs it is difficult to make an assessment of it . Infosy have contacts with companies in many different countries. Having one in the UK is no different to having one in any other country " Thanks for the correction Pat, yes it was in $ not £ and it seems that specific deal was BP. However, they have also won contracts with Shell but it looks like they were being conflated. “Both BP and Shell recently signed deals with the IT company founded by Sunak’s father-in-law, Infosys. Shell’s deal, which would help the company use AI, was signed when Sunak was Chancellor. BP’s deal – reportedly worth $1.5 billion – happened in May this year, shortly before Sunak announced the granting of new oil and gas licences.“ | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. " So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. " detransition in this context is living as the gender they were thought to be at birth. There is a concern there we need to be mindful of. Just shy of 5pc of people who have transitioned are now living back in their old gender. We need to understand of this is regret, or other reasons. Indeed only 5pc of those we detransitioned said it was because they realised transition was not for them. That's 0.4pc of all transitions. But ignoring that 95pc of transitions are now living in their new gender. Even if you ignored the above and said the other 5pc are all sub-optimal, then there's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to manage the concern. We need to care about the 95pc as much as the 5pc. And if we then look at the 5pc it appears we should look wider than just transition checks and balances. Almost 60pc avoided using public restrooms and almost a third limited what they are and drank to avoid using restrooms. Almost 10pc have had an infection as a result of avoiding restrooms. Those hit hard for me. We forget the *privalage* we have. | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. detransition in this context is living as the gender they were thought to be at birth. There is a concern there we need to be mindful of. Just shy of 5pc of people who have transitioned are now living back in their old gender. We need to understand of this is regret, or other reasons. Indeed only 5pc of those we detransitioned said it was because they realised transition was not for them. That's 0.4pc of all transitions. But ignoring that 95pc of transitions are now living in their new gender. Even if you ignored the above and said the other 5pc are all sub-optimal, then there's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to manage the concern. We need to care about the 95pc as much as the 5pc. And if we then look at the 5pc it appears we should look wider than just transition checks and balances. Almost 60pc avoided using public restrooms and almost a third limited what they are and drank to avoid using restrooms. Almost 10pc have had an infection as a result of avoiding restrooms. Those hit hard for me. We forget the *privalage* we have. " So whay is transitioned in this sense. Is it people who jave had the full re assignment surgery or people who took puberty blockers. But thenr egreettted taking them? I haven't read the reports. It would be good to get come clarity of this. To me it's 10% not the 64% kfnthe 10 %. Because for me. If you even for 1 second think back and question your transition then you reallynwerentnin the right mind to transition. | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. detransition in this context is living as the gender they were thought to be at birth. There is a concern there we need to be mindful of. Just shy of 5pc of people who have transitioned are now living back in their old gender. We need to understand of this is regret, or other reasons. Indeed only 5pc of those we detransitioned said it was because they realised transition was not for them. That's 0.4pc of all transitions. But ignoring that 95pc of transitions are now living in their new gender. Even if you ignored the above and said the other 5pc are all sub-optimal, then there's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to manage the concern. We need to care about the 95pc as much as the 5pc. And if we then look at the 5pc it appears we should look wider than just transition checks and balances. Almost 60pc avoided using public restrooms and almost a third limited what they are and drank to avoid using restrooms. Almost 10pc have had an infection as a result of avoiding restrooms. Those hit hard for me. We forget the *privalage* we have. So whay is transitioned in this sense. Is it people who jave had the full re assignment surgery or people who took puberty blockers. But thenr egreettted taking them? I haven't read the reports. It would be good to get come clarity of this. To me it's 10% not the 64% kfnthe 10 %. Because for me. If you even for 1 second think back and question your transition then you reallynwerentnin the right mind to transition." 8pc then. Rounding small numbers isnt really on. There's a question of "right mind". I'm not sure what you mean by that as it could be read to be a leading statement. Did they fully understand the challenges of transitioning. I'm guessing not. I'd imagine that's hard to fully empathise with until you have done it. (Also 60pc of detransitioners reverted again. Thats a concern too as it's the same jorunery. We should be equally concernwd detransitioning is taken too lightly.) But if the issue is the challenge of how others make their lives, then maybe we should imo focussñ on that. Not that they didn't realise quite how hard it would be. 92pc had enough info to be in "the right state of mind". Again, let's not loose sight of them. There wasnt a definition of transition. One could say they had never transitioned. Anchoring would set the bar high for a definition as that question came immediately after a lot of medical questions. One may hypothesise an individual is consistent in their views of what transition and detransitioning means. | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. detransition in this context is living as the gender they were thought to be at birth. There is a concern there we need to be mindful of. Just shy of 5pc of people who have transitioned are now living back in their old gender. We need to understand of this is regret, or other reasons. Indeed only 5pc of those we detransitioned said it was because they realised transition was not for them. That's 0.4pc of all transitions. But ignoring that 95pc of transitions are now living in their new gender. Even if you ignored the above and said the other 5pc are all sub-optimal, then there's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to manage the concern. We need to care about the 95pc as much as the 5pc. And if we then look at the 5pc it appears we should look wider than just transition checks and balances. Almost 60pc avoided using public restrooms and almost a third limited what they are and drank to avoid using restrooms. Almost 10pc have had an infection as a result of avoiding restrooms. Those hit hard for me. We forget the *privalage* we have. So whay is transitioned in this sense. Is it people who jave had the full re assignment surgery or people who took puberty blockers. But thenr egreettted taking them? I haven't read the reports. It would be good to get come clarity of this. To me it's 10% not the 64% kfnthe 10 %. Because for me. If you even for 1 second think back and question your transition then you reallynwerentnin the right mind to transition.8pc then. Rounding small numbers isnt really on. There's a question of "right mind". I'm not sure what you mean by that as it could be read to be a leading statement. Did they fully understand the challenges of transitioning. I'm guessing not. I'd imagine that's hard to fully empathise with until you have done it. (Also 60pc of detransitioners reverted again. Thats a concern too as it's the same jorunery. We should be equally concernwd detransitioning is taken too lightly.) But if the issue is the challenge of how others make their lives, then maybe we should imo focussñ on that. Not that they didn't realise quite how hard it would be. 92pc had enough info to be in "the right state of mind". Again, let's not loose sight of them. There wasnt a definition of transition. One could say they had never transitioned. Anchoring would set the bar high for a definition as that question came immediately after a lot of medical questions. One may hypothesise an individual is consistent in their views of what transition and detransitioning means. " I've not read the studies above. But I know on r/detrans many who talk about detransitioning were merely on puberty blockers etc. But I'd have to take time out to fully read the reports above and see what comes under de transition for these polls. | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. detransition in this context is living as the gender they were thought to be at birth. There is a concern there we need to be mindful of. Just shy of 5pc of people who have transitioned are now living back in their old gender. We need to understand of this is regret, or other reasons. Indeed only 5pc of those we detransitioned said it was because they realised transition was not for them. That's 0.4pc of all transitions. But ignoring that 95pc of transitions are now living in their new gender. Even if you ignored the above and said the other 5pc are all sub-optimal, then there's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to manage the concern. We need to care about the 95pc as much as the 5pc. And if we then look at the 5pc it appears we should look wider than just transition checks and balances. Almost 60pc avoided using public restrooms and almost a third limited what they are and drank to avoid using restrooms. Almost 10pc have had an infection as a result of avoiding restrooms. Those hit hard for me. We forget the *privalage* we have. So whay is transitioned in this sense. Is it people who jave had the full re assignment surgery or people who took puberty blockers. But thenr egreettted taking them? I haven't read the reports. It would be good to get come clarity of this. To me it's 10% not the 64% kfnthe 10 %. Because for me. If you even for 1 second think back and question your transition then you reallynwerentnin the right mind to transition.8pc then. Rounding small numbers isnt really on. There's a question of "right mind". I'm not sure what you mean by that as it could be read to be a leading statement. Did they fully understand the challenges of transitioning. I'm guessing not. I'd imagine that's hard to fully empathise with until you have done it. (Also 60pc of detransitioners reverted again. Thats a concern too as it's the same jorunery. We should be equally concernwd detransitioning is taken too lightly.) But if the issue is the challenge of how others make their lives, then maybe we should imo focussñ on that. Not that they didn't realise quite how hard it would be. 92pc had enough info to be in "the right state of mind". Again, let's not loose sight of them. There wasnt a definition of transition. One could say they had never transitioned. Anchoring would set the bar high for a definition as that question came immediately after a lot of medical questions. One may hypothesise an individual is consistent in their views of what transition and detransitioning means. I've not read the studies above. But I know on r/detrans many who talk about detransitioning were merely on puberty blockers etc. But I'd have to take time out to fully read the reports above and see what comes under de transition for these polls." I've miss positioned. Detransitioning was defined as going back to living as your sex assigned at birth. I'm not deep this subject. I have a strange passion that all sides of the story should be shown with numbers and a desire to empathises with all parties. I hope this stops me always taking the side of the majority (or minority) or worse, flip flopping in how I use stats. I probably fail tbh, but that's my aim. However I don't have time or inclination to go looking at specialist subreddits. The checks and balances you must go thru ensure your not echo chambering would exhaust me. The great thing about fab is it's not self selective... we get all types here ! | |||
"Ok since de-transitioning rates has been raised. Some studies give high rates of detransitioning but often with some interesting methodology involved. Typically based around selecting who is included and who is considered as detransitioning. The worst case included anyone who expressed any level of gender questioning as having started transition and all the people they could no longer track down as having detransitioned. Other studies come up with much lower rates, which clearly are still not zero and therefore need improvement are rather less concerning. For transparancy I have referenced the sources. In the UK a survey of 3398 attendees of a gender identity clinic found that just sixteen – about 0.47% – experienced transition-related regret. Of these, even fewer went on to actually detransition and become detransitioners. Source: 3rd biennal EPATH Conference Inside Matters. On Law, Ethics and Religion, "Detransition rates in a national UK Gender Identity Clinic", Skye Davies, Stephen McIntyre, Craig Rypma In the US, a survey of nearly 28,000 people found that 8% of respondents reported some kind of detransition. Of this 8%, 62% per cent only did so temporarily due to societal, financial, or family pressures. Source: The report of the 2015 transgender survey. So then we agree de transitioning questions if this that actually transition is quite high. Given that these people before assessment are meant to go through absolutely rigorous checks on mental health etc. The fsct that 10% even think post op it was a right choice let alone regret to me is far far far too high and shows neglect on the mental checking of these patients. I assume when you say transition its removal of body parts. Not just inhibitors etc. detransition in this context is living as the gender they were thought to be at birth. There is a concern there we need to be mindful of. Just shy of 5pc of people who have transitioned are now living back in their old gender. We need to understand of this is regret, or other reasons. Indeed only 5pc of those we detransitioned said it was because they realised transition was not for them. That's 0.4pc of all transitions. But ignoring that 95pc of transitions are now living in their new gender. Even if you ignored the above and said the other 5pc are all sub-optimal, then there's a risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to manage the concern. We need to care about the 95pc as much as the 5pc. And if we then look at the 5pc it appears we should look wider than just transition checks and balances. Almost 60pc avoided using public restrooms and almost a third limited what they are and drank to avoid using restrooms. Almost 10pc have had an infection as a result of avoiding restrooms. Those hit hard for me. We forget the *privalage* we have. So whay is transitioned in this sense. Is it people who jave had the full re assignment surgery or people who took puberty blockers. But thenr egreettted taking them? I haven't read the reports. It would be good to get come clarity of this. To me it's 10% not the 64% kfnthe 10 %. Because for me. If you even for 1 second think back and question your transition then you reallynwerentnin the right mind to transition.8pc then. Rounding small numbers isnt really on. There's a question of "right mind". I'm not sure what you mean by that as it could be read to be a leading statement. Did they fully understand the challenges of transitioning. I'm guessing not. I'd imagine that's hard to fully empathise with until you have done it. (Also 60pc of detransitioners reverted again. Thats a concern too as it's the same jorunery. We should be equally concernwd detransitioning is taken too lightly.) But if the issue is the challenge of how others make their lives, then maybe we should imo focussñ on that. Not that they didn't realise quite how hard it would be. 92pc had enough info to be in "the right state of mind". Again, let's not loose sight of them. There wasnt a definition of transition. One could say they had never transitioned. Anchoring would set the bar high for a definition as that question came immediately after a lot of medical questions. One may hypothesise an individual is consistent in their views of what transition and detransitioning means. I've not read the studies above. But I know on r/detrans many who talk about detransitioning were merely on puberty blockers etc. But I'd have to take time out to fully read the reports above and see what comes under de transition for these polls.I've miss positioned. Detransitioning was defined as going back to living as your sex assigned at birth. I'm not deep this subject. I have a strange passion that all sides of the story should be shown with numbers and a desire to empathises with all parties. I hope this stops me always taking the side of the majority (or minority) or worse, flip flopping in how I use stats. I probably fail tbh, but that's my aim. However I don't have time or inclination to go looking at specialist subreddits. The checks and balances you must go thru ensure your not echo chambering would exhaust me. The great thing about fab is it's not self selective... we get all types here ! " That's a fair stance to take. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority." No one ever thinks about the trans woman in this situation who is also not keen on others seeing her ‘penis’ either! | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. No one ever thinks about the trans woman in this situation who is also not keen on others seeing her ‘penis’ either!" But if f she's able, she'll try to be discreet. As for staff, they always try to maintain dignity. | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. No one ever thinks about the trans woman in this situation who is also not keen on others seeing her ‘penis’ either! But if f she's able, she'll try to be discreet. As for staff, they always try to maintain dignity." Exactly my point! There’s no way I wouldn’t go into a cubicle when getting changed for swimming for example. | |||
"It is very interesting to read peoples opinions on trans, and how they position them. There is a real worry of getting something wrong, with an almost apologetic sentiment regarding what is about to be said. That is how powerful a minority has become and I believe one of the reasons people are not necessarily becoming trans, but joining a powerful group, it would go some way of explaining the exponential rise in those who claim to be trans. that may be me. However as someone who has struggled with being comfortable with my sexuality from a young age, I have experienced first hand some of the effects of not having open conversations at a young age can be. Some comments have echos of my experience. A bit "I don't mind what people want to do, but don't ram it down my throat" when all they are really asking is for the same privalages as others. Tbh It's not a fear of offending, but a worry of causing emotional damage. " I would have said it is visible much wider than this thread tbh and assumed the driver was cancel culture rather than worry of causing damage. This thread has quite good discussion, but often with subjects that are emotional, if you get something wrong (even if its just use of language but the sentiment is correct) or are taken out of context, the backlash can be extreme. Its very easy for both to happen in a purely written medium. Throw the wide world of the internet into the mix and the risks get higher. I guess on fab people at least have some level of anonymity from their day to day life to hide behind which allows for a more honest (and therefore productive) discussion | |||
"It is very interesting to read peoples opinions on trans, and how they position them. There is a real worry of getting something wrong, with an almost apologetic sentiment regarding what is about to be said. That is how powerful a minority has become and I believe one of the reasons people are not necessarily becoming trans, but joining a powerful group, it would go some way of explaining the exponential rise in those who claim to be trans. that may be me. However as someone who has struggled with being comfortable with my sexuality from a young age, I have experienced first hand some of the effects of not having open conversations at a young age can be. Some comments have echos of my experience. A bit "I don't mind what people want to do, but don't ram it down my throat" when all they are really asking is for the same privalages as others. Tbh It's not a fear of offending, but a worry of causing emotional damage. I would have said it is visible much wider than this thread tbh and assumed the driver was cancel culture rather than worry of causing damage. This thread has quite good discussion, but often with subjects that are emotional, if you get something wrong (even if its just use of language but the sentiment is correct) or are taken out of context, the backlash can be extreme. Its very easy for both to happen in a purely written medium. Throw the wide world of the internet into the mix and the risks get higher. I guess on fab people at least have some level of anonymity from their day to day life to hide behind which allows for a more honest (and therefore productive) discussion " if agree, and that this applies all round. People may take offence easier because of a lack of qualifiers, tone, and body language. Some people may feel something is a backlash for similar reasons. Anonymity can help people share raw uncensored experiences... or show their true beliefs. And it allows trolls. And forums are terrible medium for allowing others to ask questions and understand others views. Or even clarify. I know I've had a few aha moments when I've got the missing piece. | |||
" To me it's 10% not the 64% kfnthe 10 %. Because for me. If you even for 1 second think back and question your transition then you reallynwerentnin the right mind to transition." Is this not a bit of lies, damned lies and statistics where you can make it a positive or a negative depending in how you collect & present the data for your narrative. To think of a comparative that would play down that number, think about how many people might identify as bicurious or even fully gay while experimenting with their sexuality and discovering themselves that later settle into a hetro sexual relationship. Would you think of that as failure? Or just accept that it takes time to get to know what is right for you? The flip side of that is experimenting with your sexuality doesn’t grant legal access to spaces you were not previously entitled to. I guess there are lots of ways that you can draw parallels to sexuality then tear them apart in the next breath. For example one poster mentioned they told their daughter not to be in a rush to label themselves while they were experimenting with their sexuality. The same advice could apply to gender except we already label people through names and pronouns so rather than not creating a label prematurely its potentially having to live with an existing one for too long | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. No one ever thinks about the trans woman in this situation who is also not keen on others seeing her ‘penis’ either! But if f she's able, she'll try to be discreet. As for staff, they always try to maintain dignity. Exactly my point! There’s no way I wouldn’t go into a cubicle when getting changed for swimming for example." And if she's not able to be discreet... If she has fronto-temporal lobe dementia and as such her social filters are gone and she starts exposing herself, maybe even being intimate with herself... | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. No one ever thinks about the trans woman in this situation who is also not keen on others seeing her ‘penis’ either! But if f she's able, she'll try to be discreet. As for staff, they always try to maintain dignity. Exactly my point! There’s no way I wouldn’t go into a cubicle when getting changed for swimming for example. And if she's not able to be discreet... If she has fronto-temporal lobe dementia and as such her social filters are gone and she starts exposing herself, maybe even being intimate with herself..." Then she’s probably going in a separate room/facility! | |||
"This is such a minefield but I think I agree with Sunak. I support anyone having the right to identify however they want on the condition that this does not in any way negatively impact on others. Women should have a right (or at least an expectation) that they have safe/private spaces and, for example, in sport their own categories to compete in. People born male should not be able to infringe on that. There may be an argument for someone post-op (may get my terminology wrong but no offence is intended) who has effectively become as biologically female as is possible, to be able to use female spaces (changing rooms and such) but before that no, in my opinion. However, even post-op those people born male have physiological advantages that should prevent them from competing in female sports categories. So a person with a penis may want to identify as female and that should be respected, but biologically they are not a female and so that means there should still be some restrictions on access to female spaces. There was a raging debate in the lounge about transwomen not being allowed on a female ward. There was a lot of shouting down one person who was for it, and she argued the vulnerable nature of those women already there. Also, cultural aspects being affected. I think, dependent upon ward type (such as elderly) , a woman seeing a penis in a female bay, could be detrimental to recovery. Sensitivity has to be a priority. No one ever thinks about the trans woman in this situation who is also not keen on others seeing her ‘penis’ either! But if f she's able, she'll try to be discreet. As for staff, they always try to maintain dignity. Exactly my point! There’s no way I wouldn’t go into a cubicle when getting changed for swimming for example. And if she's not able to be discreet... If she has fronto-temporal lobe dementia and as such her social filters are gone and she starts exposing herself, maybe even being intimate with herself... Then she’s probably going in a separate room/facility!" Ideally but other criteria as previously mentioned, takes precedence. | |||
| |||
"Who care what that Tory gobshite thinks other than jk Rowling " Maybe biologists? | |||
| |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense."" The only thing he's right about to be honest. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi "Just the usual dog whistle to the daily mail readers. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
Just the usual dog whistle to the daily mail readers. "The 4th Viscount's rag? Nah, opinions you might disagree with doesn't make a person a fucking idiot. Certainly not idiot enough to follow that sycophantic tabloid. Hard to tell where the monarchy and high establishment ends and the DailyFail begins, due to its head being so far up their arses. | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." The only thing he's right about to be honest." So annoying alien comes to earth with a question. He asks, what is an apple. Are you going to say an apple is an apple? | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." Oh dear, oh Rishi
Just the usual dog whistle to the daily mail readers. "? | |||
""w shouldn't be bullied into believing a person can be any sex they want to be. A man is a man, a woman is a woman. That's just common sense." The only thing he's right about to be honest. So annoying alien comes to earth with a question. He asks, what is an apple. Are you going to say an apple is an apple?" Amelie I would say it is a fruit with a skin and seeds and is sweet tasting a but like an orange but not an orange which, while a fruit, is different to an apple. | |||
