The Gender Debate

[Trogdor]

2 hours ago, virginton said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/09/at-last-consensus-emerging-on-protecting-women-only-spaces

Sonia Sodha of The Observer has written about this issue before and IMO this column is pretty much on the money. Not least about the repeated attempts by Stonewall, Mermaids etc. to shut down any serious discussion in favour of their entirely ideological position. 

Adjusting the Equality Act to adequately cater for both women's and transgender rights will involve tact and legal clarity that cannot be provided by this rancid Tory government, but that task has to be accomplished before any significant reform should be carried out. 

Agreed, I even found myself agreeing with Adam Tomkins following a pile on, on Michael Foran (who happens to be an expert in equality law), instigated by Katy Montgomery.

She is one of the very worst ideologues. She attacks, she never engages with the point she just exclaims transphobic or TERF and attacks. She even makes up quotes that she attributes to those on the opposite side.

FWIW there is no moving forward if neither side will budge. Accepting one another's perspectives and trying to reach a sensible compromise is the only way forward. Forcing your views on others, whatever they are, is never a good look and rarely successful.

[carpetmonster]

6 minutes ago, virginton said:

Literally nothing in that article supports your 'analysis' of it in bold. 

There’s minor details, like the painting that ‘men who seek sexual pleasure from voyeurism or exposure’ would apply for GRC’s - oh, and the title - but don’t let trifles color your expert reading. 

[vikingTON]

14 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

There’s minor details, like the painting that ‘men who seek sexual pleasure from voyeurism or exposure’ would apply for GRC’s - oh, and the title - but don’t let trifles color your expert reading. 

Any reading would be 'expert' compared to that ludicrous non-sequitur. If you tried reading for the sake of comprehension, you probably wouldn't be choosing ridiculous hills to die on every day in this thread. 

If you believe in the right to self-ID then that inevitably raises the issue of nasty men (as well as nasty women) exploiting that inherent individual right to their own individual advantage. It's not going to be an overwhelming number of cases, but the risk is absolutely clear and indeed arrived in a real world scenario about 0.2 seconds after the GRA 'victory' with the Isla Bryson case, and the SG's clown running across a minefield response to that. 

The reality of a society where individual rights inherently compete with the protection of potentially vulnerable groups cannot be waved away as 'trans panic'. The question of how a society balances those competing needs is a political choice and requires continual public debate and consent within a democracy. The attempts of loudmouth activists to shut down any debate as an attack on transgender rights should be rejected and their influence within organisations removed until they return to the principles of adult debate. 

[carpetmonster]

26 minutes ago, virginton said:

Any reading would be 'expert' compared to that ludicrous non-sequitur. If you tried reading for the sake of comprehension, you probably wouldn't be choosing ridiculous hills to die on every day in this thread. 

If you believe in the right to self-ID then that inevitably raises the issue of nasty men (as well as nasty women) exploiting that inherent individual right to their own individual advantage. It's not going to be an overwhelming number of cases, but the risk is absolutely clear and indeed arrived in a real world scenario about 0.2 seconds after the GRA 'victory' with the Isla Bryson case, and the SG's clown running across a minefield response to that. 

The reality of a society where individual rights inherently compete with the protection of potentially vulnerable groups cannot be waved away as 'trans panic'. The question of how a society balances those competing needs is a political choice and requires continual public debate and consent within a democracy. The attempts of loudmouth activists to shut down any debate as an attack on transgender rights should be rejected and their influence within organisations removed until they return to the principles of adult debate. 

Currently, to even apply for a GRC, you have to be living as the gender you weren’t assigned at birth for 2 years, and you need to provide proof that you’ve done so. This includes things like changing your gender marker on your passport, your driving license and with your employer prior to applying. It includes giving them details of any hormone or surgical treatments you’ve had or plan to, with the emphasis on being that you ‘pass’. Trans people  self-IDing into spaces legally was codified into law with the EA2010 and protected prior by Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999.

It’s therefore unsurprising when trans folks react with horror at plans to look at the EA - as if they cannot self ID into their chosen gender spaces and that’s part of the requirement for the GRC process then how do they ever get recognized legally? 
 

Agreed, the Isla Bryson case was a shitshow and the SG should have followed normal procedures rather than buckling to media outrage, but when there’s so much manufactured outrage around trans people currently, it was going to dominate airspace whatever they did. The processes normally conducted to evaluate trans prisoners seem to work - in the one example of a ‘trans’ person going on to commit sexual offences while incarcerated- Karen White - they weren’t assessed by the Transgender Case Board. The SNP’s proposals didn’t include scrapping of such processes. 

 

And let’s be real here, it’s ‘nasty men’. Sodha’s piece doesn’t mention FTM folks at all, the Kansas school sports ban doesn’t take into account girls presenting as boys; there is no media coverage whatsoever about trans men, who are mostly framed as confused lesbians in the rare occasions they’re acknowledged at all. 
 

And a wee tip - I know the rest of us are all intellectual pygmies, but if you read for comprehension of how you come across, your username probably wouldn’t be autocorrected. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by carpetmonster

[Trogdor]

There's an incredible amount of disinformation regarding amending the EA. The issue at the moment is the ambiguity that currently exists, does sex in the equality act mean legal sex or biological sex. 

[carpetmonster]

6 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

There's an incredible amount of disinformation regarding amending the EA. The issue at the moment is the ambiguity that currently exists, does sex in the equality act mean legal sex or biological sex. 

I don’t know that it should mean either TBH, and I can furnish an example as to why. The trans person I’m closest to is one of my daughter’s mates. She’s 9. Whether my kid knows the contents of her trousers, I’ve no idea; she’s presented and been accepted as a girl since she pitched up at elementary school aged 5. It isn’t an issue at their school because bathrooms are gender neutral and stalls only. However if you made it biological and those provisions weren’t there, she’d have to use the boys. If you made it legal, even tho Illinois lets you change your birth cert by means of self-ID, she can’t do that until she’s 18 so she’s in the same predicament. I get that I’m talking about a different place with different facilities but even just a simple example like a ‘bathroom ban’ would seem to make trans kids lives harder with no particularly discernible benefit for anyone else. 

[Trogdor]

25 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

I don’t know that it should mean either TBH, and I can furnish an example as to why. The trans person I’m closest to is one of my daughter’s mates. She’s 9. Whether my kid knows the contents of her trousers, I’ve no idea; she’s presented and been accepted as a girl since she pitched up at elementary school aged 5. It isn’t an issue at their school because bathrooms are gender neutral and stalls only. However if you made it biological and those provisions weren’t there, she’d have to use the boys. If you made it legal, even tho Illinois lets you change your birth cert by means of self-ID, she can’t do that until she’s 18 so she’s in the same predicament. I get that I’m talking about a different place with different facilities but even just a simple example like a ‘bathroom ban’ would seem to make trans kids lives harder with no particularly discernible benefit for anyone else. 

I think that's great and I'm a supporter of making it easier for trans people to change their gender. I think gender neutral toilets are a sensible compromise. However, at the moment there is no willingness to compromise from either side. 

As it happens, I think the GRR was the right thing but was woefully communicated by the SG and then hijacked for a culture war which helped no-one. The reverse ferret on the prison risk assessment with Bryson effectively torpedoed the act and public opinion with it.

If the EA is amended to say sex is biological sex, the Section 35 block from UK government is effectively moot and the GRR from SG would become law in my opinion.

Any trans person is protected under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment within the EA whether they have a GRC or not. It is not linked to the definition of sex. If sex is to mean legal sex which is what a lot of trans activists are arguing then a trans man (FTM) with a GRC would lose protection against discrimination when they were pregnant whereas a trans man (FTM) without a GRC would retain the protection. This is why the Section 35 from the UK Government is stronger than most actually realise or are willing to accept. 

I would encourage everyone to read the below article. 

https://thecritic.co.uk/Ministers-must-grasp-the-nettle-on-equality-law/

Edited April 9, 2023 by Trogdor

[carpetmonster]

3 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

I think that's great and I'm a supporter of making it easier for trans people to change their gender. I think gender neutral toilets are a sensible compromise. However, at the moment there is no willingness to compromise from either side. 

As it happens, I think the GRR was the right thing but was woefully communicated by the SG and then hijacked for a culture war which helped no-one. The reverse ferret on the prison risk assessment with Bryson effectively torpedoed the act and public opinion with it.

If the EA is amended to say sex is biological sex, the Section 35 block from UK government is effectively moot and the GRR from SG would become law in my opinion.

Any trans person is protected under the protected characteristic of gender reassignment within the EA whether they have a GRC or not. It is not linked to the definition of sex. If sex is to mean legal sex which is what a lot of trans activists are arguing then a trans man (FTM) with a GRC would lose protection against discrimination when they were pregnant whereas a trans man (FTM) without a GRC would retain the protection. This is why the Section 35 from the UK Government is stronger than most actually realise or are willing to accept. 

I would encourage everyone to read the below article. 

https://thecritic.co.uk/Ministers-must-grasp-the-nettle-on-equality-law/

Honestly, I haven’t seen any trans activists arguing it should be legal sex, any commentary I’ve seen from trans people is ‘leave the EA the f**k alone’. 
 

Would all gender facilities be nice? *Possibly* although I can see why some trans folks don’t like the idea. Is the government going to spend money to make that a reality in public buildings? Unlikely. 

[f_c_dundee]

On 03/04/2023 at 20:34, Iain said:

This is hugely ironic given it's the gender critical mob who are denying the actual science that says gender dysphoria exists.

Sigh. I may regret wading in, but that's a massive straw man.

Gender dysphoria quite obviously exists.

Being able to change sex doesn't.

Men with certain self directed fetishes do exist. And women quite rightly don't want to share *anywhere* with them. I can never unsee some if the things I've scrolled past which were filmed in women's toilets. That aspect of it can't be ignored, as no one should have to accept being used in public for someone else's gratification.

Yes it's always happened that people would go in, but it's been made massively easier and reduced both the social stigma for men entering women's facilities and the confidence of women to complain about their presence. It can't just be hand waved away.

If people are unhappy with men's spaces/sports/hospital wards/refuges, they can't just have women's. They can campaign for their own things, like women already had to. 

No one at all is against supporting dysphoric people having a hard time, but it canny just be a case of 'budge up women' and/or make everything unisex.  (PS no debate or discussion allowed about this.)

Don't even get me started on my main worry - the harm that's been done to children and young people, who have had some really poor care and irreversible medical treatment, with no evidence to back it up as being helpful. 

No proper discussion was wanted and preferably no questions to be asked about the proposed changes to law. The SG paid interest groups massive amounts of money to lobby them to change this and tried to ignore and dismiss any dissenters. So here we are, with this mess and no one is happy.

<Backs slowly out of thread>

[parsforlife]

3 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

 

<Backs slowly out of thread>

Make that quickly and take your BS with you

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, carpetmonster said:

Currently, to even apply for a GRC, you have to be living as the gender you weren’t assigned at birth for 2 years, and you need to provide proof that you’ve done so. This includes things like changing your gender marker on your passport, your driving license and with your employer prior to applying. It includes giving them details of any hormone or surgical treatments you’ve had or plan to, with the emphasis on being that you ‘pass’. Trans people  self-IDing into spaces legally was codified into law with the EA2010 and protected prior by Sex Discrimination Regulations 1999.

It’s therefore unsurprising when trans folks react with horror at plans to look at the EA - as if they cannot self ID into their chosen gender spaces and that’s part of the requirement for the GRC process then how do they ever get recognized legally? 

That the existing process for gender transition is not ideally suited is not an argument for setting up an 'easier' system based on self-ID, that produces as many and arguably much more serious flaws. There is a key trade-off between individual rights and the recognition/protection of distinct groups in society. That is a political decision that the public and its elected leaders have to navigate alongside the law.

The completely understandable, strong feelings of transgender individuals on that issue do not justify the institutional actions of organisations like Stonewall to try and shut down debate, on the spurious grounds of 'inclusivity' or 'transphobia'. 

Quote

And let’s be real here, it’s ‘nasty men’. Sodha’s piece doesn’t mention FTM folks at all, the Kansas school sports ban doesn’t take into account girls presenting as boys; there is no media coverage whatsoever about trans men, who are mostly framed as confused lesbians in the rare occasions they’re acknowledged at all. 

There's an obvious reason why an argument about safeguarding women does not address both forms of transition equally - it's not relevant to that particular debate.

But both sides are culpable of that bias. After all it was Nicola Sturgeon - champion of self-ID - who did exactly the same thing in defending the Isla Bryson case by identifying 'men' as the fundamental cause of sexual violence to women. 

Quote

And a wee tip - I know the rest of us are all intellectual pygmies, but if you read for comprehension of how you come across, your username probably wouldn’t be autocorrected. 

I really don't care about how people read the tone of posts on this site.

I'm sure that the site owner's tantrum will age very well with the forum's support for the LBTQA+ community though. 

Edited April 9, 2023 by vikingTON

[f_c_dundee]

6 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Make that quickly and take your BS with you

Feel free to tell me what bit is BS. 

The reason it's become so polarised is the way it was to be done without debate. So the "GC mob" have had to get louder as well.

[Trogdor]

18 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

Honestly, I haven’t seen any trans activists arguing it should be legal sex, any commentary I’ve seen from trans people is ‘leave the EA the f**k alone’. 
 

Would all gender facilities be nice? *Possibly* although I can see . Is the government going to spend money to make that a reality in public buildings? Unlikely. 

The problem with leaving the EA alone are the anomalies that exist in pregnancy, maternity, single sex services/spaces etc. Anomalies in the law are not a good thing as I mentioned an easy one is the example of a FTM trans person with a GRC who gets pregnant, as the EA is currently written they are not legally entitled to maternity leave. If its biological sex, they are protected. Now, I expect all reasonable employers wouldn't dream of doing that but all employers aren't reasonable.

In principle, ambiguity in the law should be minimised as much as possible. I don't understand the argument against amending sex in the EA to biological sex. I have seen no compelling argument against it other than trans activists screaming about erasing trans people and removing their rights. Which isn't the case.

The issue with gender neutral spaces is interesting, particularly your response that "some trans folks don’t like the idea" I'd guess its because they don't want to share with men either. That happens to be the issue women have as well. Predatory men are the real issue here. 

There are no easy answers but the level of vitriol and abuse on both sides is utterly abhorrent. Until it stops, there will be no progress.

Edited April 9, 2023 by Trogdor

[Bully Wee Villa]

15 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Gender dysphoria quite obviously exists.

Being able to change sex doesn't.

Yes, it does.

[f_c_dundee]

Being able to have a document that says you're another sex, is not changing sex in any meaningful way whatsoever. 

 

Hence the above mentioned ambiguity due to the fiction of "legal sex".  

 

 

[carpetmonster]

Just now, Trogdor said:

 

The issue with gender neutral spaces is interesting, particularly your response that "some trans folks don’t like the idea" I'd guess it’s because they don't want to share with men either. That happens to be the issue women have as well. Predatory men are the real issue here. 

 

No, more because it invalidates them and others them. I have an F2M friend whose country won’t let him change his documents until he’s had a phalloplasty (privately and at huge cost) and he hates having to use the gender neutral facilities. 

[Trogdor]

1 minute ago, carpetmonster said:

No, more because it invalidates them and others them. I have an F2M friend whose country won’t let him change his documents until he’s had a phalloplasty (privately and at huge cost) and he hates having to use the gender neutral facilities. 

Sounds horrible for your friend.

I think you misunderstood my proposal. Only have gender neutral facilities. Not male, female, gender neutral, just have gender neutral toilets (no urinals at all!). It makes it a moot point. Modifications will need made but that's what I would do tbh. Rather than introduce a fourth toilet. 

[f_c_dundee]

6 minutes ago, carpetmonster said:

No, more because it invalidates them and others them. I have an F2M friend whose country won’t let him change his documents until he’s had a phalloplasty (privately and at huge cost) and he hates having to use the gender neutral facilities. 

But what about the men in there, do they not get the choice?

 

It's ok to not want to feel othered or invalidated, but it's also ok for others to have their own feelings about it.

[f_c_dundee]

2 minutes ago, Trogdor said:

Sounds horrible for your friend.

I think you misunderstood my proposal. Only have gender neutral facilities. Not male, female, gender neutral, just have gender neutral toilets (no urinals at all!). It makes it a moot point. Modifications will need made but that's what I would do tbh. Rather than introduce a fourth toilet. 

Some women (I'd wager a majority) wouldn't be happy with 100% unisex facilities though. They want to keep the option of single sex provision. 

[carpetmonster]

14 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Feel free to tell me what bit is BS. 

The reason it's become so polarised is the way it was to be done without debate. So the "GC mob" have had to get louder as well.

Aight. 

 

Men with certain self directed fetishes do exist. And women quite rightly don't want to share *anywhere* with them. I can never unsee some if the things I've scrolled past which were filmed in women's toilets.  That aspect of it can't be ignored, as no one should have to accept being used in public for someone else's gratification.

 

I feel like you really want to say 'autogynephilia' here but know that doing so would instantly mark you out as Graham Linehan and are skirting round it with personal anecdote that nobody can either prove or disprove. 

Yes it's always happened that people would go in, but it's been made massively easier and reduced both the social stigma for men entering women's facilities and the confidence of women to complain about their presence. It can't just be hand waved away.

If people are unhappy with men's spaces/sports/hospital wards/refuges, they can't just have women's. They can campaign for their own things, like women already had to. 

Nobody is putting up the capital for services for such a tiny minority of the populace that they'll spend most of the time completely inactive. In the event they did, said facilities would immediately become the targets of violence by lunatics - see Boston Children's Hospital. 

No one at all is against supporting dysphoric people having a hard time, but it canny just be a case of 'budge up women' and/or make everything unisex.   (PS no debate or discussion allowed about this.)

Don't even get me started on my main worry - the harm that's been done to children and young people, who have had some really poor care and irreversible medical treatment, with no evidence to back it up as being helpful. 

The regret rate for gender affirming care runs about 2% - about a tenth of that of knee replacement surgery. I'm on the way out the door but I have posted links to the stats here earlier - page 14 or 15 IIRC. 

No proper discussion was wanted and preferably no questions to be asked about the proposed changes to law. The SG paid interest groups massive amounts of money to lobby them to change this and tried to ignore and dismiss any dissenters. So here we are, with this mess and no one is happy. 

Now we've moved from a gishgallop of fearmongering and fantasy to just tin-foil hat stuff. The GC lobby were invited to voice their concerns, and the SG decided none of them held much water. Over the course of 6 years.