The Gender Debate

[f_c_dundee]

On 14/04/2023 at 22:26, TxRover said:

1) You’re wrong, but that’s your right…(It’ll just haunt you in the future)

Oh good morning!

Turns out I forgot to reply yesterday. How rude of me.

Great evidence above, well done again.

On 14/04/2023 at 22:26, TxRover said:

2) So anything currently being done is fine until you prove otherwise…more than a few holes in that boat.

Another straw man! Well done on having no actual argument and making up something! 

You can't take every point people make and extrapolate it to "you believe that applies to everything". 

On 14/04/2023 at 22:26, TxRover said:

3) You’ve elected to side with the batshit crazy and used some of their talking points…that’s a problem for you.

Again, you disagreeing doesn't mean I'm wrong or crazy.

Just because a lot of people are saying the same thing and you don't like it/like them, it's not 'just a talking point' that you can ignore and dismiss. 

Remember the stopped clock thing? I probably agree with way more things that you believe than not. 

On 14/04/2023 at 22:26, TxRover said:

4) Do explain again how many people you know in this boat. I have a significant number of persons in my circle facing the tyranny of the Rethuglican party trying to erase them, so, yes, I take your statements personally.

Ok, so you're on about the USA where trans people don't even have the protection of the Equality Act as they do here. (Me a bit slow on the uptake in realising that Tx = TX ) 

 A)You're currently seeing reactionary law making in different states all over the place. This must suck, but it's hardly tyranny.

B) it's not equivalent to the UK or Scotland. 

C) You're allowed to have opinions on anything you like, even when you're not personally involved.   Again, you can't just dismiss it all because you don't like it.  That's not how discussion works. 

D) no one is erasing people or causing them to not exist by having opinions

On 14/04/2023 at 22:26, TxRover said:

5) Ah, the mansplaining excuse.

A mild joke, to point out what you're doing. It's becoming clear that I'm not the one a bit obsessed about this and unable to discuss or listen. It wouldn't matter if I was a woman or not, you're dismissing any question or criticism of your viewpoint. 

Anything I say is countered by saying that I'm lying, bigoted or out of touch. Or with links that don't say what you're claiming, followed by saying "well there should be more research". Which 5 minutes ago was a talking point.

[f_c_dundee]

5 hours ago, Brother Blades said:

Wow! I’m bewildered by this thread, who actually cares what anyone does in their lives? If they aren’t harming anyone, who gives an actual f**k? 
There does seem to be a “middle ground” as proposed by the transphobes, “we will not tolerate anything other than our outdated views on this” it’s all bullshit.

@TxRover put it far more eloquently than I can, views change, the world changes, things that didn’t seem “normal” to people of my parents or grandparents age are now the new normal, and the world is a far better place for it. 
The same type of people reeling against transgender people now, are the same bigots that would have been against “the gays” 40 or 50 years ago. 

So bewildered you didn't read it?

 

Your last sentence in particular is nonsense. Many lesbian and gay people *are* your 'bigots '. It's having an effect on them by trying to include people who are not same sex attracted as gay and lesbian.

 

There is no equivalence to the gay rights movement here. Trans people in the UK already have a protected characteristic of gender reassignment so they can't be discriminated against for employment/housing etc. 

 

Passing laws to allow same sex marriage affected no one else, you could quietly grumble if you didn't approve or just get over it. This is entirely different and a much more complex subject.

Sorry if you believed it's just the same again, but you've been lied to.

 

This movement is trying to change laws that do affect people. Allowing self identification in all circumstances is not a change with no consequences. 

 

I'm nowhere near a bigoted conservative, I've never voted for them and never will.  Assuming that we're all outdated people who disapprove of anything "progressive" is just lazy thinking and used to dismiss anyone who disagrees and shut down discussion. 

 

Read what I and others have written, listen to the whole discussion on other platforms. It's not as simple as you think, I guess.

 

If you define transphobia as "not believing in gender identity", you'll see it everywhere. 

Edited April 16, 2023 by f_c_dundee
Another fkin typo

[Benjamin_Nevis]

14 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

It's becoming clear that I'm not the one a bit obsessed about this

You've become the fourth most prolific poster on 15 month old thread in the space of about a fortnight. 

[sophia]

17 hours ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

Hmmm. I'm going to go with "you made an absolute c**t of it" 

Nice try though. 

For that you'd have to maintain the fallacy that I'm not aware of the prominent and colourful Lord Sumption who really came to the fore when he went with the line, pre vaccine if I recall correctly, that we should just turn away from unlucky older relatives and let them die.

It was only a two line fancy and the second line should've been a huge clue .... Some things are just not right.

As @welshbairn said this is the new covid 

Edited April 16, 2023 by sophia

[f_c_dundee]

51 minutes ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

You've become the fourth most prolific poster on 15 month old thread in the space of about a fortnight. 

Go me. Yay.

 

I'm not dismissing you all, calling you names or saying you're crazy, was my point.

 

I'm telling you why I disagree. Calmly. With explanations.  That probably doesn't come across how I imagine on here, because I talk a lot and tend to type the same way.  It's probably really weird in person getting this many words a minute as well.

It's not particular to this topic, I would waffle about other things I was interested in too just as much   I was a bit 'triggered' by seeing such dismissive biased posting, laughing at all the bigots who don't just get with the program, I suppose.

 

You laugh at how much time people have for this, when they have families and lives (and football) to worry about.  It is important and it's not just a topic that will be ignored anymore.  Not because it's fashionable or whatever, but because the consequences have been looked at more seriously. Now more people are listening and involved, not just the ones that were 'Radicalised by Mumsnet'™ in the last  7 or so years. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Rugster]

1 hour ago, Benjamin_Nevis said:

You've become the fourth most prolific poster on 15 month old thread in the space of about a fortnight. 

How do you find that out? I thought that feature had gone. 

[f_c_dundee]

You'll get some peace from me today, I do actually have to go to work today and do work.

[Benjamin_Nevis]

4 hours ago, Rugster said:

How do you find that out? I thought that feature had gone. 

It just appears randomly after posts in the Desktop version

[TxRover]

6 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

Oh good morning!

Turns out I forgot to reply yesterday. How rude of me.

Great evidence above, well done again.

Another straw man! Well done on having no actual argument and making up something! 

You can't take every point people make and extrapolate it to "you believe that applies to everything". 

Again, you disagreeing doesn't mean I'm wrong or crazy.

Just because a lot of people are saying the same thing and you don't like it/like them, it's not 'just a talking point' that you can ignore and dismiss. 

Remember the stopped clock thing? I probably agree with way more things that you believe than not. 

Ok, so you're on about the USA where trans people don't even have the protection of the Equality Act as they do here. (Me a bit slow on the uptake in realising that Tx = TX ) 

 A)You're currently seeing reactionary law making in different states all over the place. This must suck, but it's hardly tyranny.

B) it's not equivalent to the UK or Scotland. 

C) You're allowed to have opinions on anything you like, even when you're not personally involved.   Again, you can't just dismiss it all because you don't like it.  That's not how discussion works. 

D) no one is erasing people or causing them to not exist by having opinions

A mild joke, to point out what you're doing. It's becoming clear that I'm not the one a bit obsessed about this and unable to discuss or listen. It wouldn't matter if I was a woman or not, you're dismissing any question or criticism of your viewpoint. 

Anything I say is countered by saying that I'm lying, bigoted or out of touch. Or with links that don't say what you're claiming, followed by saying "well there should be more research". Which 5 minutes ago was a talking point.

No, I’m talking about experience in the U.S., behavior in the UK and U.S., and laws in Scotland…it’s a bit of a mishmash, but still.

You still don’t explain where the nasty trans person touched you, or whatever trigger it is. Much like those saying “I’m not racist, I have a black friend”, you doth protest too much.

[f_c_dundee]

4 hours ago, TxRover said:

No, I’m talking about experience in the U.S., behavior in the UK and U.S., and laws in Scotland…it’s a bit of a mishmash, but still.

You still don’t explain where the nasty trans person touched you, or whatever trigger it is. Much like those saying “I’m not racist, I have a black friend”, you doth protest too much.

I've explained there's no such thing. 

 

It's not about disliking trans people. We're discussing the fact that I find people's material sex to be a more important way of differentiation, than how they feel inside or want to be seen. 

 

Honestly you're trying to discredit me again, instead of answering. It's getting boring now.

 

Are you convinced that only people who know someone trans personally are allowed an opinion on this topic, is  everyone else just a bigot who is stupid and transphobic? 

 

You don't need to be triggered to take an interest in any area of politics, last time I checked?

Edited April 16, 2023 by f_c_dundee

[andyg83]

11 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

So bewildered you didn't read it?

 

Your last sentence in particular is nonsense. Many lesbian and gay people *are* your 'bigots '. It's having an effect on them by trying to include people who are not same sex attracted as gay and lesbian.

 

There is no equivalence to the gay rights movement here. Trans people in the UK already have a protected characteristic of gender reassignment so they can't be discriminated against for employment/housing etc. 

 

Passing laws to allow same sex marriage affected no one else, you could quietly grumble if you didn't approve or just get over it. This is entirely different and a much more complex subject.

Sorry if you believed it's just the same again, but you've been lied to.

 

This movement is trying to change laws that do affect people. Allowing self identification in all circumstances is not a change with no consequences. 

 

I'm nowhere near a bigoted conservative, I've never voted for them and never will.  Assuming that we're all outdated people who disapprove of anything "progressive" is just lazy thinking and used to dismiss anyone who disagrees and shut down discussion. 

 

Read what I and others have written, listen to the whole discussion on other platforms. It's not as simple as you think, I guess.

 

If you define transphobia as "not believing in gender identity", you'll see it everywhere. 

You are dead right here. Trying to compare the current gender debate with Gay rights and marriage is one of the most common ways to shut people down. Its completely different.

It's also the aspect that made me start thinking deeper about the subject. This is not the next great civil rights movement as the people involved already have those basic rights. This has bigger consequences for other groups.

Edited April 16, 2023 by andyg83

[Theroadlesstravelled]

It’s great to see so many people care deeply about something that was only brought to their attention 12 months ago.

[andyg83]

47 minutes ago, Theroadlesstravelled said:

It’s great to see so many people care deeply about something that was only brought to their attention 12 months ago.

You know that's not true so why post that. 

[welshbairn]

The thing that annoys me about the gender critical arguments is that their complaints about the GRR act are a pretence, it will make minimal changes. Nearly all the complaints they make already apply to the 2004 Gender Rights Act and the 2010 Equal Rights Act, those are the legal protections they're really attacking. The Isla Bryson case being raised is particularly daft, it was under current legislation and the GRR Act if passed would give the Chief Constable the powers to deny the right of sexual offenders to apply for a gender recognition certificate. People before 1970 had the right to change their gender on their birth certificates without asking for permission from anyone, anyone can still change the gender on their passport or driving license on the same basis. The arguments also involve a refusal to accept that sex and gender are not necessarily the same thing, or more likely a feigned misunderstanding to legitimise the continual "Can a woman have a penis?" gotcha questions for politicians that delight the truly moronic. And at the same time as claiming that gender reassignment treatment and surgery is torture, so they have all angles covered. 

[f_c_dundee]

1 hour ago, andyg83 said:

You know that's not true so why post that. 

Exactly.

 

I already bored everyone's arse off with how long I've been hearing/thinking about it. 

 

That makes me weird too though so I canny win.

 

If all you've got is havers though

 

 

[f_c_dundee]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

The thing that annoys me about the gender critical arguments is that their complaints about the GRR act are a pretence, it will make minimal changes.

 

2 years> 3 months + 'reflection'

 

Medical diagnosis > sign a bit paper

 

Minimum age 18> crack on if you're 16

 

Nah just the same. 

 

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

 

Nearly all the complaints they make already apply to the 2004 Gender Rights Act and the 2010 Equal Rights Act, those are the legal protections they're really attacking.

Nearly all?

We're attacking them how?

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

 

The Isla Bryson case being raised is particularly daft, it was under current legislation and the GRR Act if passed would give the Chief Constable the powers to deny the right of sexual offenders to apply for a gender recognition certificate.

So daft haha. Male violent criminals in women's prisons is just mildly silly. 

 

Remind me again the demographics - what's the average crime for women in jail (clue: quite a lot of shoplifting, drug offences, not paying TV licences, that kinda thing) and how many are in for violent crime? Compare that to the men in jail. 

 

It's not just the legislation. As per the screenshots I posted yesterday, this was done in the background - the prison service in Scotland was literally the experiment. 

 

James Morton of the Scottish Trans Alliance explained that if they could get the SPS to accept self ID it would be easier to get it accepted in other organisations. (Paraphrasing, but you can Google it). Ideal eh, women prisoners - no one cares if they object!

 

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

 

People before 1970 had the right to change their gender on their birth certificates without asking for permission from anyone, anyone can still change the gender on their passport or driving license on the same basis.

 

That's not really a good thing though, is it, that documents can be changed so easily? 

 

The idea of 'asking permission' is interesting. Reality exists and words have meaning. It's not about limiting people for the sake of it. It's about the effect of changing the meaning of words, in law and in day to day use.

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

 

The arguments also involve a refusal to accept that sex and gender are not necessarily the same thing, or more likely a feigned misunderstanding to legitimise the continual "Can a woman have a penis?" gotcha questions for politicians that delight the truly moronic. And at the same time as claiming that gender reassignment treatment and surgery is torture, so they have all angles covered. 

Yes, they're different.  It's not a feigned misunderstanding. 

 

Sex is a material reality. Women never have a penis. 

 

Gender as we previously knew it, is a bunch of crappy stereotypes of femininity and masculinity. Which limit both men and women.

 

The concept of gender as an identity which can supercede sex, is not the same thing. 

[TxRover]

5 hours ago, f_c_dundee said:

I've explained there's no such thing. 

 

It's not about disliking trans people. We're discussing the fact that I find people's material sex to be a more important way of differentiation, than how they feel inside or want to be seen. 

 

Honestly you're trying to discredit me again, instead of answering. It's getting boring now.

 

Are you convinced that only people who know someone trans personally are allowed an opinion on this topic, is  everyone else just a bigot who is stupid and transphobic? 

 

You don't need to be triggered to take an interest in any area of politics, last time I checked?

Not trying to discredit, that’s already been done multiple times by multiple people. Just asking why you are so gosh darned certain you are on the side of the angels…when you have, by your own statement, no experience with any person suffering from the condition. It’s a person/people like you that causes people to internalize feeling and hide them away, to their detriment. You, who have no experience in this area, are willing to state that something is categorically not true/possible/real.

Maybe you should step back from your bunker and look around. You might realize that the unicorn you’ve been insisting doesn’t exist, was actually an anorexic rhino and does exist. The world isn’t as simple as you wish it to be, and I feel sorry for anyone having to deal with someone as closed minded and blinkered as you.

[welshbairn]

14 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

Nearly all?

We're attacking them how?

If you have no complaints about the current rules on gender recognition, what exactly is your issue with the reform act? For instance. how would womens' rights to women only places actually change? You might even have an acceptable amendment that would calm down all this hysteria from both sides!  

[f_c_dundee]

4 minutes ago, TxRover said:

Not trying to discredit, that’s already been done multiple times by multiple people. Just asking why you are so gosh darned certain you are on the side of the angels…when you have, by your own statement, no experience with any person suffering from the condition. It’s a person/people like you that causes people to internalize feeling and hide them away, to their detriment. You, who have no experience in this area, are willing to state that something is categorically not true/possible/real.

Maybe you should step back from your bunker and look around. You might realize that the unicorn you’ve been insisting doesn’t exist, was actually an anorexic rhino and does exist. The world isn’t as simple as you wish it to be, and I feel sorry for anyone having to deal with someone as closed minded and blinkered as you.

I'm not in a bunker, I read widely, I've looked masses of available evidence and opinion on both 'sides'. 

 

My closest experience is through friends kids and kids at my oldest's school. You can find online though, as easily as I can the experiences of all kinds of people, young and old.  Again even if my own kid felt like they were unhappy in their body, I'd not suddenly abandon everything I believe in. I'd be looking for proper support for them to deal with their feelings about themselves. 

 

I'm as certain as I can be, because as I said words have meanings. Especially in law and in policies and in legislation. 

 

If you blur what these words mean and get rid of boundaries, there are material effects. 

 

Rhino or unicorn, people can't change sex. That's not closed minded. Queer theory and philosophical ponderings are ideas, not reality. 

 

I'm sure you'll find some shit to pick at in my post and ignore 95% of what I say anyway. 

 

If something is true/possible/real in somebody's head, that's not a basis for making new laws. 

 

Like I said you can feel bad for your friends or family involved in this, but that's not a reason to pretend we should all agree that there's no effect and no one has the right to discuss it. 

 

Should we?

 

[TxRover]

20 minutes ago, f_c_dundee said:

I'm not in a bunker, I read widely, I've looked masses of available evidence and opinion on both 'sides'. 

 

My closest experience is through friends kids and kids at my oldest's school. You can find online though, as easily as I can the experiences of all kinds of people, young and old.  Again even if my own kid felt like they were unhappy in their body, I'd not suddenly abandon everything I believe in. I'd be looking for proper support for them to deal with their feelings about themselves. 

 

I'm as certain as I can be, because as I said words have meanings. Especially in law and in policies and in legislation. 

 

If you blur what these words mean and get rid of boundaries, there are material effects. 

 

Rhino or unicorn, people can't change sex. That's not closed minded. Queer theory and philosophical ponderings are ideas, not reality. 

 

I'm sure you'll find some shit to pick at in my post and ignore 95% of what I say anyway. 

 

If something is true/possible/real in somebody's head, that's not a basis for making new laws. 

 

Like I said you can feel bad for your friends or family involved in this, but that's not a reason to pretend we should all agree that there's no effect and no one has the right to discuss it. 

 

Should we?

 

You are the one with pronouncements and “facts” that you cherry pick to match your worldview. Even your comments and arguments are directly cribbed from Tory scripts. I feel sorry for your kids.